Yeah, I can really see where you are coming from when I spoke about Marxism and how "economics is the study of interlinkages, it is based on scarcity and choice and little more; economists believe there is an implicit or explicit relationship between everything. From this all economic theory is derived: communism to buying a second hand car to the US exchange rate".
Damn, all I'm going on about is capitalism and the stock market isn't it?
An economic framework is just as happy in capitalism than in communism to whatever else set of constraints put on agents (the world is more than 90% capitalist, so if economists are going to study the world there will be some capitalist assumptions, however most economic modelling is independent of political ideal). If you think there is a better idea then get off your ass and start working it through, get a implementation going and get the voting public to elect you. Capitalism is a political ideal, as I say, economics just a framewrok for looking at how it works. Instead of complainig, write a paper, get critical comment and do something. But it's easier to post on/. and bitch at others isn't it?
1. was the sad case of Daminola Taylor, a 10 year old schoolboy, murdered. It was expcted a gang of only slightly older kids killed him, but this suspected group 'got off' because their mobile phones were traced to a distance too far away from the murder scene to be credible. The ganag was mainly Afro-Carribean (Daminola Taylor was Nigerian, the racial aspect centered around Afro-Carribean vs. African violence, a serious friction point in London's black community).
2. The infamous racist killing in SOuth London was that of Stephen Lawrence (late teens IIRC) whose alleged attackers (racist white gang) 'got off' on technical details.
Both were killings and in both cases the attacters were not convicted.
Yes there is the theoretical value to the consumer (consumer surplus + price) which revenue does not fully account for. Then there is the supply side value (cost of production representing value to the manufacturer).
Revenue is equal to value in a situation not of "a system at equilibrium, given adequate marketing, no piracy, and a fair economic system" but a system where the consumer pays the maximum possible (they are unwilling to pay any more hence don't think it is worth any more than they want to pay) and the supplier makes no profit (the company covers its cost, but absorbs no more 'value'). This being because value, despite being a noun, is only meaningful when attached to an appropriate noun ( a noun that reduces the ambiguity of what value is).
When you say "copyrighted works aren't necessarily property" I see where you are coming from. I see copyright as an imposition over property, but property, in itself, is ownerless... it just exists.
The repatriation of income via use of 'property' (ideas, as you say) is a legal imposition, which along with patent law, was intended to encourage innovation (the incentive to create something new is rewarded by this legally imposed reward).
China is undoubtedly experiencing rapid growth, mainly due to the employment of the population in more valuable jobs (China having a huge population which are now doing something more useful than duplicating work as they did before). The Chinese government/courts seem to have taken an approach to 'ideas' which disregard the legal imposition of the West (witness the Toyota IP court case earlier in the week) which will be good in the short term, and hopefully in the long term too (it is my opinion 'IP rights' constrain more than incentivise).
I agree with you about economics, I see it as largely self-absorbed in systematic and unreal assumptions (in academia the great minds patting themselves on the back for their insightful ideas them moving on to something else before realising their abstract model in the real world, or in business using economics (it can explain anything after all) to justify their business idea).
I don't know of Richard Dawkins, I will look him up, thanks.
IIRC, something was done 1-2 years ago demonstrating a buffer overflow when the header of a text message was augmented.... rather than the message itself, but I think it only affected a single model of phone and froze them... IIRC.
Sorry no links, just remember it! Tried Google but nothing other than noise (for my purpose anyway). Would welcome anyone posting a link they may have had bookmarked so I can refresh my memory.
Even excluding the law these properties are material, just replicated at much lower cost (plus the cost of time - if it takes time to copy/download etc that is time you or your computer could spend doing something else - opportunity cost), they are a good replicated at very low marginal cost. Like printing a book, the cost of the screen is high but making prints from it are low.
I disagree that classical (or the variations that purport themselves as neo-classical or Keynesian or neo-Keynesian or post-Keynesian or modern-classical) economics has difficulty during change (economics is economics, the spin it has calling it classical etc is due wholly to the assumptions plugged into the theory). Economics is having no difficulty describing what is happening in China at the moment.... economics has no problem describing change, China is simply experiencing rapid growth, economics does not oppose rapid growth (IN WHAT WAY DOES ECONOMICS OPPOSE RAPID GROWTH???, after all a simple growth model states output=(Labour^a)*(Capital^b)*(Technology^c)*(ente rprise^d) where a+b+c+d=1). Nor does economics assign property rights, it simply analyses them.
Economics is a framework for understanding interaction (in capitalism, communism and whatever you call "an economy and system not undergoing rapid evolutionary change". It is about looking at a situation, saying why it is happening (or had happened) and, under certain assumptions, predicting the future. Anything is explainable under economics, an event must have a cause no matter how small or seemingly insignificant. Liken it to chaos theory or an ultimately deterministic view of the universe (stochastic elements exist in economic models for the point of simplification). Economics describes everything.
My comments were not attacks, they were simply observations that you misunderstand, probably poisoned by years those that attempt to back up their conjecture by saying "economics says it is like that".
Seriously, if you put 2 economists in a room how many opinions do your get? More than 2 and less than infinity, though they are probably trying to push that upper limit, and they both know they're right at least once!
Please do not talk about what you do not understand... you clearly do not understand that:
1. What people call 'intellectual property' breaks canned or conventional economic theory Economic theory is very happy with property rights... property in the abstract including IP, your house, the local park or the outback.
2. China, in particular, is hardly the playground of Western Economic Theory. This is the same 'Western Economic theory' that came up wth Marxism (err, Marx was the economist in question) which led to consumism etc... and that China in its communist heyday, the USSR etc employed orthodox economic theory just as the FED or EU does today.
FYI, economics is the study of interlinkages, it is based on scarcity and choice and little more; economists believe there is an implicit or explicit relationship between everything. From this all economic theory is derived: communism to buying a second hand car to the US exchange rate.
Please have some idea of what you just spouted and understand the canned mirage of understanding you impose on yourself is not actully understanding but misunderatanding.
"It's easy to do the math. The only way out if you want cheaper games is to accept simpler games."
It also seems easy to do the math on the wrong equation. The price of something is only what someone will pay for it give/take deadweight loss. It could take $100bn to produce, but if the revenue is only $1mn then the value to the consumer is a total $1mn. On the other hand someone made tetris and made a lot of money from it because it cost so little to produce but the revenues were so high.
Manufacturers put money into development because they think the increased 'quality' will allow them to take an increased amount of revenue, not that increased development costs inherantly mean higher prices... the revenue is projected before the game is developed so the developers can work out how _Little_ to spend to get maximum profit.
Prices and revenues are determined consumer side up until the deadweight loss is overcome.
Re:yeah..they all need more double adapters
on
Need... More... Power...
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Many dorm rooms can draw only a small amount of power, no matter how many plugs you add. A TV, PC, Seperate Amp, desk light, fridge (popular beer coolant device in college) and have them all on and BOOM! You've blown the fuse for your room which most likely takes out the entire corridor/stairblock. I've experience many power outages from someone overloading the stairblock, seen cables banded between rooms via windows (aerial cables, ethernet to a single connection shared between 20 etc).
Dorm rooms were wired with only low requirements in mind. These days of consumer electronics overload capacity. RTFA etc etc etc.
Slashdot Mirror
Sounds like the usual jobsworth jerk blaming the users and not taking responsibility for their job.
Off Topic
How do you like THIS, fucktard?
Yeah, I can really see where you are coming from when I spoke about Marxism and how "economics is the study of interlinkages, it is based on scarcity and choice and little more; economists believe there is an implicit or explicit relationship between everything. From this all economic theory is derived: communism to buying a second hand car to the US exchange rate".
/. and bitch at others isn't it?
Damn, all I'm going on about is capitalism and the stock market isn't it?
An economic framework is just as happy in capitalism than in communism to whatever else set of constraints put on agents (the world is more than 90% capitalist, so if economists are going to study the world there will be some capitalist assumptions, however most economic modelling is independent of political ideal). If you think there is a better idea then get off your ass and start working it through, get a implementation going and get the voting public to elect you. Capitalism is a political ideal, as I say, economics just a framewrok for looking at how it works. Instead of complainig, write a paper, get critical comment and do something. But it's easier to post on
You are mixing 2 cases here:
1. was the sad case of Daminola Taylor, a 10 year old schoolboy, murdered. It was expcted a gang of only slightly older kids killed him, but this suspected group 'got off' because their mobile phones were traced to a distance too far away from the murder scene to be credible. The ganag was mainly Afro-Carribean (Daminola Taylor was Nigerian, the racial aspect centered around Afro-Carribean vs. African violence, a serious friction point in London's black community).
2. The infamous racist killing in SOuth London was that of Stephen Lawrence (late teens IIRC) whose alleged attackers (racist white gang) 'got off' on technical details.
Both were killings and in both cases the attacters were not convicted.
The theory of value is a whole can of worms.
Yes there is the theoretical value to the consumer (consumer surplus + price) which revenue does not fully account for. Then there is the supply side value (cost of production representing value to the manufacturer).
Revenue is equal to value in a situation not of "a system at equilibrium, given adequate marketing, no piracy, and a fair economic system" but a system where the consumer pays the maximum possible (they are unwilling to pay any more hence don't think it is worth any more than they want to pay) and the supplier makes no profit (the company covers its cost, but absorbs no more 'value'). This being because value, despite being a noun, is only meaningful when attached to an appropriate noun ( a noun that reduces the ambiguity of what value is).
When you say "copyrighted works aren't necessarily property" I see where you are coming from. I see copyright as an imposition over property, but property, in itself, is ownerless... it just exists.
The repatriation of income via use of 'property' (ideas, as you say) is a legal imposition, which along with patent law, was intended to encourage innovation (the incentive to create something new is rewarded by this legally imposed reward).
China is undoubtedly experiencing rapid growth, mainly due to the employment of the population in more valuable jobs (China having a huge population which are now doing something more useful than duplicating work as they did before). The Chinese government/courts seem to have taken an approach to 'ideas' which disregard the legal imposition of the West (witness the Toyota IP court case earlier in the week) which will be good in the short term, and hopefully in the long term too (it is my opinion 'IP rights' constrain more than incentivise).
I agree with you about economics, I see it as largely self-absorbed in systematic and unreal assumptions (in academia the great minds patting themselves on the back for their insightful ideas them moving on to something else before realising their abstract model in the real world, or in business using economics (it can explain anything after all) to justify their business idea).
I don't know of Richard Dawkins, I will look him up, thanks.
IIRC, something was done 1-2 years ago demonstrating a buffer overflow when the header of a text message was augmented.... rather than the message itself, but I think it only affected a single model of phone and froze them... IIRC.
Sorry no links, just remember it! Tried Google but nothing other than noise (for my purpose anyway). Would welcome anyone posting a link they may have had bookmarked so I can refresh my memory.
Hi,
e rprise^d) where a+b+c+d=1). Nor does economics assign property rights, it simply analyses them.
Even excluding the law these properties are material, just replicated at much lower cost (plus the cost of time - if it takes time to copy/download etc that is time you or your computer could spend doing something else - opportunity cost), they are a good replicated at very low marginal cost. Like printing a book, the cost of the screen is high but making prints from it are low.
I disagree that classical (or the variations that purport themselves as neo-classical or Keynesian or neo-Keynesian or post-Keynesian or modern-classical) economics has difficulty during change (economics is economics, the spin it has calling it classical etc is due wholly to the assumptions plugged into the theory). Economics is having no difficulty describing what is happening in China at the moment.... economics has no problem describing change, China is simply experiencing rapid growth, economics does not oppose rapid growth (IN WHAT WAY DOES ECONOMICS OPPOSE RAPID GROWTH???, after all a simple growth model states output=(Labour^a)*(Capital^b)*(Technology^c)*(ent
Economics is a framework for understanding interaction (in capitalism, communism and whatever you call "an economy and system not undergoing rapid evolutionary change". It is about looking at a situation, saying why it is happening (or had happened) and, under certain assumptions, predicting the future. Anything is explainable under economics, an event must have a cause no matter how small or seemingly insignificant. Liken it to chaos theory or an ultimately deterministic view of the universe (stochastic elements exist in economic models for the point of simplification). Economics describes everything.
My comments were not attacks, they were simply observations that you misunderstand, probably poisoned by years those that attempt to back up their conjecture by saying "economics says it is like that".
Seriously, if you put 2 economists in a room how many opinions do your get? More than 2 and less than infinity, though they are probably trying to push that upper limit, and they both know they're right at least once!
Please do not talk about what you do not understand... you clearly do not understand that:
1. What people call 'intellectual property' breaks canned or conventional economic theory
Economic theory is very happy with property rights... property in the abstract including IP, your house, the local park or the outback.
2. China, in particular, is hardly the playground of Western Economic Theory.
This is the same 'Western Economic theory' that came up wth Marxism (err, Marx was the economist in question) which led to consumism etc... and that China in its communist heyday, the USSR etc employed orthodox economic theory just as the FED or EU does today.
FYI, economics is the study of interlinkages, it is based on scarcity and choice and little more; economists believe there is an implicit or explicit relationship between everything. From this all economic theory is derived: communism to buying a second hand car to the US exchange rate.
Please have some idea of what you just spouted and understand the canned mirage of understanding you impose on yourself is not actully understanding but misunderatanding.
"It's easy to do the math. The only way out if you want cheaper games is to accept simpler games."
It also seems easy to do the math on the wrong equation. The price of something is only what someone will pay for it give/take deadweight loss. It could take $100bn to produce, but if the revenue is only $1mn then the value to the consumer is a total $1mn. On the other hand someone made tetris and made a lot of money from it because it cost so little to produce but the revenues were so high.
Manufacturers put money into development because they think the increased 'quality' will allow them to take an increased amount of revenue, not that increased development costs inherantly mean higher prices... the revenue is projected before the game is developed so the developers can work out how _Little_ to spend to get maximum profit.
Prices and revenues are determined consumer side up until the deadweight loss is overcome.
Many dorm rooms can draw only a small amount of power, no matter how many plugs you add. A TV, PC, Seperate Amp, desk light, fridge (popular beer coolant device in college) and have them all on and BOOM! You've blown the fuse for your room which most likely takes out the entire corridor/stairblock. I've experience many power outages from someone overloading the stairblock, seen cables banded between rooms via windows (aerial cables, ethernet to a single connection shared between 20 etc).
Dorm rooms were wired with only low requirements in mind. These days of consumer electronics overload capacity. RTFA etc etc etc.