Yeah, and did you see how mimsy those borogroves were?
By the way, I think you meant to say, "I'd like to see the mome rath that could outgrabe ME" since, according to my analysis (and that of many of the advanced minds of English 11H) "mome raths" constitute the noun and "outgrabe" is the verb. Granted, it's poetry, so I'm not sure grammar matters (blaspheme!! a grammar nazi just said that?), but anyways, you've inspired me to re-analyze the poem. At work.
First, I'd like to say that I appreciate you taking the time to address this issue, as it has been taking over more and more of/. discussions.
What I find disappointing, however, is that during your entire rant, you fail to address why, if BeatlesBeatles' submissions were actually so great, why were they not picked up by other editors? Why is it that it is just ScuttleMonkey accepting?
Although the true conspiracy theorists would just attribute a different ed posting a BeatlesBeatles to that same ed being 'in' on the conspiracy -- you have to admit that we are of a rather skeptical and scientific mind. By this I mean we see patterns such as these and feel compelled to think that there is something 'fishy' going on.
Yours is a difficult position. Though I think story moderation may be one area for you to explore. That might even take care of the dupes, too!!
Apart from BeatlesBeatles and ScuttleMonkey -- keep up the good work.
Pat Schoonveld (the poor guy responsible for making ads work on Slashdot and other OSTG sites).
Now I know who to be pissed at when a/. flash-based ad causes Firefox to munch CPU. Granted, it wasn't Pat that made the ad, but at least I can now point my finger!!
(Yeah, yeah, I know -- FlashBlock, AdBlock and all that jazz)
I was SO tempted to mod this "Redundant" but I didn't want to:
a) needlessly harm your karma (since you get no bonus for +funny but get a penalty for -redundant) b) make your post invisible since it is hilarious c) waste mod points pointing it out, since my mod can't get meta-modded 'funny'.
Soren, it's Mike. Send me an email since I think you are not at BYU anymore and I don't have a new email for you. Man I've been hoping you would post to/. so I could get in touch with you!
The truth is, if they cut the price in half, they would likely sell more than double what they are now.
They would probably make less money. Doesn't make sense? It does when you consider the per-unit cost. It is related to why one is better off holding stock in a company that mines/produces a commodity rather than holding contracts for the sale of said commodity during a run up in the price.
Let's say the per-unit cost is $40 and they sell for $100. If they sold 1000 copies, that's $60000 profit. If they drop the price to $50 and sell double (i.e. 2000), they only make $20000 profit. They'd have to sell six times the original amount to recoup the same profit.
On the other hand, as the amount produced increases, the per-unit cost goes down, but at a decreasing rate (especially so with DVDs since they are cheap to press).
Anyhow, I agree that $100 per season is pretty outrageous, but I did want to point out that they are probably following a profit-maximization model. And the point of a business is to produce a profit. So there you go.
First: The stock market has been around a lot longer than a century. The first publicly traded company was the Dutch East India Company, which offered public securities for trade on the Amsterdam Stock Exchange [1].
Second: The stock market may be flawed, but it is just about the closest one can get to a pure efficient market in the academic sense.
Third: Yes, the entire idea of owning equity in a company is that you are betting that future earnings growth will result in cash being made available to you (dividend, buyback, etc.).
Fourth: Not all laws are changing in favor of big corporations. Sarbanes-Oxley is one notable example [2]. Also, assuming you are an American (pretty safe assumption, I think, given your idea of the history of the stock market), have you not been watching, reading or listening to any news recently? Democrats and Republicans alike have been clamoring for windfall profits taxes on Big Oil for the past three weeks. That's decidedly anti-big corp.
Google already owns a television channel - Google Current TV - formerly known as Current TV. It is aimed at 18-34s and I've found it rather interesting. It is kind of a mash of news.google.com and every thirty minutes they report on the currently most-Googled stories. I don't get it on my cable box now, but I believe DirecTV carries it. Google bought it a few months back.
I also do the "Ask For Identification" thing on my signature strip. Wendy's doesn't require signatures for any purchases at all.
I get about 10% of cashiers asking me for ID, but that number is slowly growing. I have actually had some less bright cashiers turn the card over, look at the "Ask For Identification" signature, and hand the thing right back to me, without a word. Maybe they can't read?
And yes, enough rambling anecdotes for me, too. But I was lonely so I felt like posting.
I was just thinking about this while downloading an obscure (but still copyrighted) album with bittorrent:
The RIAA is suing for copyright infringement, correct? But don't the artists hold the copyright? Perhaps a legitimate defense would include dismissing the suit on the grounds that the RIAA has not been infringed upon. On the other hand, from what I've read, it is very possible (probable) that the RIAA does, in fact, hold the copyright.
IANAL, but am thinking about trying to become one. The problem I face is: you've got to become one to fight them. It's a catch-22.
Firefox allows site-by-site popup blocking/allowing, would it be too much of a stretch to have the same feature for Javascript?
From my experience, all the new 'pop-unders' that are experienced with Firefox are triggered by Javascript. Of course there are multiple sites that depend on Javascript for core functionality (Gmail, others). So it'd be nice to do a site-by-site feature so that it is easy to put, for example, webshots on the blacklist.
Asa, are you out there and browsing at at least a +2 level?
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, and did you see how mimsy those borogroves were?
By the way, I think you meant to say, "I'd like to see the mome rath that could outgrabe ME" since, according to my analysis (and that of many of the advanced minds of English 11H) "mome raths" constitute the noun and "outgrabe" is the verb. Granted, it's poetry, so I'm not sure grammar matters (blaspheme!! a grammar nazi just said that?), but anyways, you've inspired me to re-analyze the poem. At work.
You don't get karma bonuses for +Funny mods.
Luke PiWalker is the new * * Beatles-Beatles.
Or maybe Luke PiWalker is the old * * Beatles-Beatles in disguise?
He's a miracle!!
First, I'd like to say that I appreciate you taking the time to address this issue, as it has been taking over more and more of /. discussions.
What I find disappointing, however, is that during your entire rant, you fail to address why, if BeatlesBeatles' submissions were actually so great, why were they not picked up by other editors? Why is it that it is just ScuttleMonkey accepting?
Although the true conspiracy theorists would just attribute a different ed posting a BeatlesBeatles to that same ed being 'in' on the conspiracy -- you have to admit that we are of a rather skeptical and scientific mind. By this I mean we see patterns such as these and feel compelled to think that there is something 'fishy' going on.
Yours is a difficult position. Though I think story moderation may be one area for you to explore. That might even take care of the dupes, too!!
Apart from BeatlesBeatles and ScuttleMonkey -- keep up the good work.
Actually, you don't get Karma for +Funny mods. So not a blatant Karma whore. Dumbass looking for self-esteem by +5 ./ mods, yes, Karma whore, no.
If you give up, you will never effect change.
Yeah, no kidding. The very first thing I thought (apparently out loud, too) was, "NOOOO!!!"
Pat Schoonveld (the poor guy responsible for making ads work on Slashdot and other OSTG sites).
/. flash-based ad causes Firefox to munch CPU. Granted, it wasn't Pat that made the ad, but at least I can now point my finger!!
Now I know who to be pissed at when a
(Yeah, yeah, I know -- FlashBlock, AdBlock and all that jazz)
I was SO tempted to mod this "Redundant" but I didn't want to:
a) needlessly harm your karma (since you get no bonus for +funny but get a penalty for -redundant)
b) make your post invisible since it is hilarious
c) waste mod points pointing it out, since my mod can't get meta-modded 'funny'.
Small rocks!!
Soren, it's Mike. Send me an email since I think you are not at BYU anymore and I don't have a new email for you. Man I've been hoping you would post to /. so I could get in touch with you!
jenksster gmail com
The truth is, if they cut the price in half, they would likely sell more than double what they are now.
They would probably make less money. Doesn't make sense? It does when you consider the per-unit cost. It is related to why one is better off holding stock in a company that mines/produces a commodity rather than holding contracts for the sale of said commodity during a run up in the price.
Let's say the per-unit cost is $40 and they sell for $100. If they sold 1000 copies, that's $60000 profit. If they drop the price to $50 and sell double (i.e. 2000), they only make $20000 profit. They'd have to sell six times the original amount to recoup the same profit.
On the other hand, as the amount produced increases, the per-unit cost goes down, but at a decreasing rate (especially so with DVDs since they are cheap to press).
Anyhow, I agree that $100 per season is pretty outrageous, but I did want to point out that they are probably following a profit-maximization model. And the point of a business is to produce a profit. So there you go.
First: The stock market has been around a lot longer than a century. The first publicly traded company was the Dutch East India Company, which offered public securities for trade on the Amsterdam Stock Exchange [1].
Second: The stock market may be flawed, but it is just about the closest one can get to a pure efficient market in the academic sense.
Third: Yes, the entire idea of owning equity in a company is that you are betting that future earnings growth will result in cash being made available to you (dividend, buyback, etc.).
Fourth: Not all laws are changing in favor of big corporations. Sarbanes-Oxley is one notable example [2]. Also, assuming you are an American (pretty safe assumption, I think, given your idea of the history of the stock market), have you not been watching, reading or listening to any news recently? Democrats and Republicans alike have been clamoring for windfall profits taxes on Big Oil for the past three weeks. That's decidedly anti-big corp.
Fifth: No that does not make sense.
[1] Stock Exchange
[2] Sarbanes-Oxley
Google already owns a television channel - Google Current TV - formerly known as Current TV. It is aimed at 18-34s and I've found it rather interesting. It is kind of a mash of news.google.com and every thirty minutes they report on the currently most-Googled stories. I don't get it on my cable box now, but I believe DirecTV carries it. Google bought it a few months back.
But what if it was pasteur bedtime?
Exactly solve the Schrodinger equation for Helium. Now _that's_ a riddle!!
I also do the "Ask For Identification" thing on my signature strip. Wendy's doesn't require signatures for any purchases at all.
I get about 10% of cashiers asking me for ID, but that number is slowly growing. I have actually had some less bright cashiers turn the card over, look at the "Ask For Identification" signature, and hand the thing right back to me, without a word. Maybe they can't read?
And yes, enough rambling anecdotes for me, too. But I was lonely so I felt like posting.
Granted that the odds of any DA choosing to go after media companies for this is... poor.
You never know what New York Attorney General Elliot Spitzer's next target will be . . .
I was just thinking about this while downloading an obscure (but still copyrighted) album with bittorrent:
The RIAA is suing for copyright infringement, correct? But don't the artists hold the copyright? Perhaps a legitimate defense would include dismissing the suit on the grounds that the RIAA has not been infringed upon. On the other hand, from what I've read, it is very possible (probable) that the RIAA does, in fact, hold the copyright.
IANAL, but am thinking about trying to become one. The problem I face is: you've got to become one to fight them. It's a catch-22.
Firefox allows site-by-site popup blocking/allowing, would it be too much of a stretch to have the same feature for Javascript?
From my experience, all the new 'pop-unders' that are experienced with Firefox are triggered by Javascript. Of course there are multiple sites that depend on Javascript for core functionality (Gmail, others). So it'd be nice to do a site-by-site feature so that it is easy to put, for example, webshots on the blacklist.
Asa, are you out there and browsing at at least a +2 level?
This is /. and the guy said Linux, ergo . . . relevant.
Ah yes, but what did George Orwell do?
I think you must have missed the tags . . .
You should of known better than to reply to that! /this could go on for hours.