dont bullshit and evade the question. they are all selling their products from defined price ranges, and none of them is putting up a price war.
CHRIST, you're stupid.
Look. You say all the show companies are not competing on price? Your premise is that they're selling for non-optimal prices? That would mean they're leaving money on the table. So, FIX IT. Start a shoe company. Show them how cheaply they can sell their shoes. If you're correct that shoe companies could sell their sneakers for significantly less than what they sell them for now, you'll corner the market. You'll drive everyone out of business in less than a year. You'll be fabulously wealthy.
You know what'll actually happen? You'll end up working at Wal-Mart for the rest of your life to pay your debtors, and you'll have your entire lifetime to contemplate the fact that if it were so obvious that everyone was doing it wrong, someone would have already come in and mopped the floor with them. You can go home and read the paper, where it'll talk about how many investors there are in the world looking for a market niche to exploit. You can read about all the people graduating from business school each year, and how hard each of them is going to work to compete in some market somewhere, and you can reflect calmly on how much smarter they are than you.
Do you know why we have money? Have you ever thought about its actual purpose?
Nobody is interested in helping you at the expense of those more wealthy than you. Why would they? The wealthy have more money than you. That's the POINT of money. Chasing money is not social parasitism, it's what makes the world go 'round. You want people to help you? Work your way up so you have more money and can pay them to help you.
If they're HOLDING them, their business model is obviously being poorly implemented. The point is, you're claiming there's no way, even in theory, that scalpers help anyone, which is patently untrue.
Life isn't fair. In life, the people with more money get more of the things they want - that way, the people with the goods maximize their profit, and consumers work hard to get more money, and therefore contribute more to the world. That's much better than the "fairness" bullshit we feed the kids to keep the stupid ones behind.
It's not really a point of view thing. This is how capitalism works. The price rises to the point where demand and supply are equal. That's how scarce goods are distributed. Want more scarce goods? Get more money. You can argue all you want about whether or not it should work that way, but history seems to say it works and the alternatives don't.
Simple. They allowed people who can afford more to pay more for tickets, shutting out the people who were unwilling to pay the higher price. Those people willing to pay more would have otherwise been unable to demonstrate their higher commitment to seeing the game, and would have been shut out for arbitrary reasons instead.
I simply have enough self-confidence that I don't require alcohol to cut loose and have a good time without worrying about what other people think about me.
It's up to you -- if you want to piss your cash away, I'm not going to even try and stop you.
THAT is what's prissy and self-righteous. Can you _really_ not see it?
That's the interesting thing about Web 2.0. Most computer-knowledgeable people would say the _Web_ is designed to make all data public, but the _Internet_ not necessarily so. But, Web 2.0 is (by one definition) using the Web as a platform, like the Internet was before Web 2.0. So who's to say the newcomers are wrong in using the Web like old people formerly used only the Internet? I think it's time to drop the idea that everything on the Web is public (banking already having been mentioned as a good example).
I tend to keep lots of slashdot threads open at once, for several days, going back repeatedly to keep reading the interesting ones. So I do sometimes respond to threads days after they're forgotten.
The problem is that there's _always_ a justification for taking away what someone else considers a basic right. Always. Pretending that what you consider a basic right is, or can be, an objective fact, is unhelpful to discourse because your opponents will say the same thing.
I'm sick of watching two groups of politicians and their supporters claim that their opponents are evil and want to suppress my rights, as though they're not doing the same thing.
So by "basic human rights" you mean "the particular basic human rights I'm harping on", as opposed to "the basic human rights my opponents harp on". Roger.
These days I'm too bitter to care about trying to enlighten people I consider ignorant. If I was able to find the good information I have, they should have done the same, instead of jerking off or whatever they were doing. There's too much ignorance in the world for me to fix it, which makes it hard to care about individual cases. Best I can get myself to do is point it out, and with any luck they'll decide to seek out more information.
Slashdot Mirror
Paid for trolling? No ma'am, I just do it for the sheer joy of being right.
CHRIST, you're stupid.
Look. You say all the show companies are not competing on price? Your premise is that they're selling for non-optimal prices? That would mean they're leaving money on the table. So, FIX IT. Start a shoe company. Show them how cheaply they can sell their shoes. If you're correct that shoe companies could sell their sneakers for significantly less than what they sell them for now, you'll corner the market. You'll drive everyone out of business in less than a year. You'll be fabulously wealthy.
You know what'll actually happen? You'll end up working at Wal-Mart for the rest of your life to pay your debtors, and you'll have your entire lifetime to contemplate the fact that if it were so obvious that everyone was doing it wrong, someone would have already come in and mopped the floor with them. You can go home and read the paper, where it'll talk about how many investors there are in the world looking for a market niche to exploit. You can read about all the people graduating from business school each year, and how hard each of them is going to work to compete in some market somewhere, and you can reflect calmly on how much smarter they are than you.
He's not just some guy, he's Ian Bogost. He's much holier than you. Have you read Racing the Beam?
Are you in high school?
Grow up.
Absolutely. Have you ever had sex with a condom? I'd rather skip it most of the time.
Steven Johnson: Everything Bad is Good for You
It explains this phenomenon perfectly.
Jesus Christ. You are the weakest person I've heard of in months. Grow a spine.
Do you know why we have money? Have you ever thought about its actual purpose?
Nobody is interested in helping you at the expense of those more wealthy than you. Why would they? The wealthy have more money than you. That's the POINT of money. Chasing money is not social parasitism, it's what makes the world go 'round. You want people to help you? Work your way up so you have more money and can pay them to help you.
If they're HOLDING them, their business model is obviously being poorly implemented. The point is, you're claiming there's no way, even in theory, that scalpers help anyone, which is patently untrue.
The scarcity comes from limited seats in the venue and a lot of people wanting to see the game. That's not artificial.
Life isn't fair. In life, the people with more money get more of the things they want - that way, the people with the goods maximize their profit, and consumers work hard to get more money, and therefore contribute more to the world. That's much better than the "fairness" bullshit we feed the kids to keep the stupid ones behind.
It's not really a point of view thing. This is how capitalism works. The price rises to the point where demand and supply are equal. That's how scarce goods are distributed. Want more scarce goods? Get more money. You can argue all you want about whether or not it should work that way, but history seems to say it works and the alternatives don't.
Simple. They allowed people who can afford more to pay more for tickets, shutting out the people who were unwilling to pay the higher price. Those people willing to pay more would have otherwise been unable to demonstrate their higher commitment to seeing the game, and would have been shut out for arbitrary reasons instead.
That should be http://www.johnkerryisadouchebagbutimvotingforhimanyway.com/ .
Why in the blue fuck were you using condoms on your honeymoon? That is so far beyond wrong I don't know where to start.
That's not what zero-day means.
Any chance you have a preliminary write-up, or even raw data I could read? Sounds exquisitely interesting. ResidntGeek@gmail.com if you can.
THAT is what's prissy and self-righteous. Can you _really_ not see it?
That's the interesting thing about Web 2.0. Most computer-knowledgeable people would say the _Web_ is designed to make all data public, but the _Internet_ not necessarily so. But, Web 2.0 is (by one definition) using the Web as a platform, like the Internet was before Web 2.0. So who's to say the newcomers are wrong in using the Web like old people formerly used only the Internet? I think it's time to drop the idea that everything on the Web is public (banking already having been mentioned as a good example).
I tend to keep lots of slashdot threads open at once, for several days, going back repeatedly to keep reading the interesting ones. So I do sometimes respond to threads days after they're forgotten.
The problem is that there's _always_ a justification for taking away what someone else considers a basic right. Always. Pretending that what you consider a basic right is, or can be, an objective fact, is unhelpful to discourse because your opponents will say the same thing.
I'm sick of watching two groups of politicians and their supporters claim that their opponents are evil and want to suppress my rights, as though they're not doing the same thing.
So by "basic human rights" you mean "the particular basic human rights I'm harping on", as opposed to "the basic human rights my opponents harp on". Roger.
These days I'm too bitter to care about trying to enlighten people I consider ignorant. If I was able to find the good information I have, they should have done the same, instead of jerking off or whatever they were doing. There's too much ignorance in the world for me to fix it, which makes it hard to care about individual cases. Best I can get myself to do is point it out, and with any luck they'll decide to seek out more information.
What the hell are you talking about? Does it ever bother you, being ignorant? Don't you ever wonder what it's like to not be ignorant?
Pete Townshend sings that line.
You're not a good audio engineer.