Some companies sell and advertise their stock, that is their product.
Dead giveaway is big money golf tourney advertising. For products that nobody buys based on advertising. For example: 'Is that a Nortel network?' Nobody ever bought networking gear based on an add during the Masters. They were selling/advertising/pumping Nortel stock. Happens all the time.
When you see that, long, way out of the money puts. Buckets of them, they're cheap. Sure 'long odds gambling', but good bets, so do enough of it and it's _not_ gambling. Sure beats the state lottery with it's 50% house odds.
It's happened. From memory. 1970s. 100,000W radio transmitter was installed next to EEs house. He heard the broadcasts on all equipment with a speaker.
He complained to uncle charlie. Nobody would do anything. So he built two 99 foot antenna towers on the corners of his property, setup some loops of wire and went to work selling power back to the utility.
He was reducing the radio stations reach by a significant %. They sued. He won. Ultimately they paid him what he asked for the property. Hope he used ghost pepper lube.
'For all we know'...no. We know the key technologies involved.
We _were_ spending money on PVs in the 70s. Throwing masses of money at a problem doesn't improve the number of qualified researchers. Look at what all the funding for AIDs did, it slowed cancer research. You cannot schedule breakthroughs. Going industrial when you should stay in the lab is a sure path to bankruptcy.
All costs are opportunity costs. What research would you have had them not do in order to chase PVs?
Sure, R&D was funded. There was always a market for photovoltaics in places power cords were uneconomical. Like spacecraft and later emergency phones on the side of rural freeways.
Doesn't change the fact that spending money on uneconomical power (e.g. putting PVs on your roof in 1980) is a waste of resources. Good thing almost nobody did. Yeah smart people.
It depends on the market. In small markets there can be _one_ driver. How many Uber rides in a row would you need to take with the same person before you worked a side deal?
Local cab cos can continue to open far longer than Uber can stay capitalized. Most places don't have medallion systems. Even after Uber made their value drop, the total value of NYC medallions is a good fraction of Uber's market cap. That's one city.
Monopolizing unregulated car hailing is just impossible. Watch for the eventual survivor to ask for regulation.
What does 'want' have to do with anything? Expect is the appropriate standard.
It is a fact that Marx's thin analysis of capitalism claims that all capitalism inevitably leads to monopoly. It's idiotic, but look around, plenty of dogmatic commie lens using idiots on/.
Every uber and lyft driver with the sense to hand out his cell number (for better rates) is already a competitor. As are the local cab companies, gypsy cabs and car shares.
As soon as they try to profit from their position, they are _done_. You install a new app, which all the drivers also use.
Network effects only work when there is one natural winner.
What we're seeing here is pursuit of dumb investor money. You should recognize it. They don't care about anything long term. All they want is the suckers money.
Money is always power, duh. Even in amounts you could spend.
The worse problem is power can be easily turned into money. Clintons are a perfect example. Neither ever held an honest job. Multi millionaires.
Buying your competitors is a losing game without significant barriers to entry. It never ends and you can never profit. As soon as you try, the market is flooded with competitors.
You believe they think a monopoly is even possible on ride hailing?
It's marxist dogma that all business people want and expect to get an eventual monopoly. It's one of the dumbest things in Marx (and that's saying something). About the only thing dumber is the expectation that government will just disappear once given enough power.
Slashdot Mirror
An insurance company of good reputation? Where? Who? When? WTF?
Have you just not done your homework and mistaken an advertising budget for good reputation?
Some companies sell and advertise their stock, that is their product.
Dead giveaway is big money golf tourney advertising. For products that nobody buys based on advertising. For example: 'Is that a Nortel network?' Nobody ever bought networking gear based on an add during the Masters. They were selling/advertising/pumping Nortel stock. Happens all the time.
When you see that, long, way out of the money puts. Buckets of them, they're cheap. Sure 'long odds gambling', but good bets, so do enough of it and it's _not_ gambling. Sure beats the state lottery with it's 50% house odds.
In the US, you have the legal right to receive RF. But it might be dangerous and uneconomical.
Radar detector laws are usually based on windshield obstruction.
It's happened. From memory. 1970s. 100,000W radio transmitter was installed next to EEs house. He heard the broadcasts on all equipment with a speaker.
He complained to uncle charlie. Nobody would do anything. So he built two 99 foot antenna towers on the corners of his property, setup some loops of wire and went to work selling power back to the utility.
He was reducing the radio stations reach by a significant %. They sued. He won. Ultimately they paid him what he asked for the property. Hope he used ghost pepper lube.
Karl said outright that about 10% would have to be 'reeducated or eliminated'. The murder is right there, from the start.
The only reason Marx didn't personally kill anyone is he was drunk and powerless.
Communication overhead scales on the order of N^2. Not a good plan.
Not that you are implying that 'throwing money at a problem' is a good plan.
You are just assuming the answer you want.
'For all we know'...no. We know the key technologies involved.
We _were_ spending money on PVs in the 70s. Throwing masses of money at a problem doesn't improve the number of qualified researchers. Look at what all the funding for AIDs did, it slowed cancer research. You cannot schedule breakthroughs. Going industrial when you should stay in the lab is a sure path to bankruptcy.
All costs are opportunity costs. What research would you have had them not do in order to chase PVs?
Sure, R&D was funded. There was always a market for photovoltaics in places power cords were uneconomical. Like spacecraft and later emergency phones on the side of rural freeways.
Doesn't change the fact that spending money on uneconomical power (e.g. putting PVs on your roof in 1980) is a waste of resources. Good thing almost nobody did. Yeah smart people.
Volcanos you halfwit.
This is expected. They saw the isotopes in the runoff, now they know where another one is.
I remember too. Their deadlines have come and gone. We were supposed to be totally fucked by now.
Be skeptical. Also note: We made the right decision _not_ spending all our money on photovoltaics in the 1970s. They cost way too much back then.
Every cost is an opportunity cost.
Thank decades of investment in battery tech, driven by laptop and phone companies, for making electric cars possible.
It's GWAR, smoking on their crack bolder.
They faked their deaths.
It depends on the market. In small markets there can be _one_ driver. How many Uber rides in a row would you need to take with the same person before you worked a side deal?
Local cab cos can continue to open far longer than Uber can stay capitalized. Most places don't have medallion systems. Even after Uber made their value drop, the total value of NYC medallions is a good fraction of Uber's market cap. That's one city.
Monopolizing unregulated car hailing is just impossible. Watch for the eventual survivor to ask for regulation.
It's clearly flawed data, but for decades searches were called off based on the survival estimates the Nazis generated.
The world has learned more since. e.g. They're not dead until they are 'warm and dead'.
It's revisionism to say the data wasn't used.
A buttload.
Plutonium can be near 100%. Uranium can't.
It's more expensive to refine to that purity.
Reasons for not using navy style reactors are economic and political. Technically, it's possible.
There are actual idiots making the arguments.
It's more cherry picking morons to represent your opposition. Neither side is doing that by accident or stupidity.
What does 'want' have to do with anything? Expect is the appropriate standard.
It is a fact that Marx's thin analysis of capitalism claims that all capitalism inevitably leads to monopoly. It's idiotic, but look around, plenty of dogmatic commie lens using idiots on /.
Every uber and lyft driver with the sense to hand out his cell number (for better rates) is already a competitor. As are the local cab companies, gypsy cabs and car shares.
Uber has _16,000_ employees. To write and maintain a couple of apps and some infrastructure.
Never underestimate large company inefficiency. They are almost as bad as governments.
As soon as they try to profit from their position, they are _done_. You install a new app, which all the drivers also use.
Network effects only work when there is one natural winner.
What we're seeing here is pursuit of dumb investor money. You should recognize it. They don't care about anything long term. All they want is the suckers money.
Jobs was of Lebanese descent. The odds of him finding a tissue match in China is low.
IIRC he got a lobe of a living person's liver, which extended his life.
Better analogy would be Nazi cold exposure science.
Money is always power, duh. Even in amounts you could spend.
The worse problem is power can be easily turned into money. Clintons are a perfect example. Neither ever held an honest job. Multi millionaires.
Buying your competitors is a losing game without significant barriers to entry. It never ends and you can never profit. As soon as you try, the market is flooded with competitors.
Still nonsense. That's just double nonsense based on technical vapor and inane marxism.
What are the barriers to entry?
You believe they think a monopoly is even possible on ride hailing?
It's marxist dogma that all business people want and expect to get an eventual monopoly. It's one of the dumbest things in Marx (and that's saying something). About the only thing dumber is the expectation that government will just disappear once given enough power.