If you can make 1,000,000 gallons of gas a day, and demand is 1,000,000 of gas at $1.25 each, then you will have sales of $1,250,000.
Now, if demand increases, but you can still only make 1,000,000 of gas a day, you have to adjust your price such that the demand is at 1,000,000 gallons a day again. Today, that price is around $2.85, and the company now has sales of $2,850,000.
If you pay attention, you will notice that even so sales more than doubled, they didn't have to spend or invest any more money to do so.
The reason why this works is because of the lack of investment in new capacity development. The only reason why this is the case is because of the lack of competition. Everyone in the industry knows they make more money by not investing (in order to increase price), than by investing billions to increase capacity at lower prices.
So if you want to have lower oil prices, get writ/weaken OPEC first. Then break up some of the oil industry by seperating crude extraction from refining (break up the vertical monopolies), and then let the free market do its job.
Free speach does not grant a license to lie. It is interesting, however, that in this case, the side that gets to determine if it is free speach or not, also has to determine if it is a lie. This is a classic example where the lack of seperation of powers leads to a conflict of interest.
That's the point: They don't torture "THEIR" people, but any one else is fair game... Obsiously, torturing others makes this country much more superior than those who torture their own...
Since so many have asked, I thought I should point out the obvious:
So far, RFID resonds with a number, then you then crossreference with some sort of database to see what that ID represents. This apreach has obious advantages, but was also dictated by the limited amount of data transmition capabilities of current RFID chips, without sacrificing distance.
This device described by HP would have the data on the RFID ship itself. This has the advantage that the reading device does not need to be connected to a remote system (via internet,...) to get to the infromation corresponding to that chip. Apparantly, this comes at the cost of decreased range, which some might actualy find attractive.
While RFID is great for supply chain optimization applications, we have not seen RFID in the private market. Part of the reason was the complexity of interoperability between many systems. Now that its a 2 point process (chip + reader, instead of chip + reader + reference system + comunnication system for RFID), I predict this technology to be very attractive to consumers.
Imagine being able to put voice recordings with each picture that you pring, and then being able to listen to those recordings via your iPod while looking at the pictures with your grand children. Things become really interesting when the communication starts to take place between two objects, instead of an object and a human. For instance, now the milk can tell the fridge "I'm expiring on 7/16/2006" as to before, it had to say "I'm milk xxxx" and the fridge had to look up in some database when that xxx expires. Staying in the kitchen, items you buy could come with recipes that automatically set your oven to the right settings. The posibilities are endless when you are capable of providing information EASILY.
Where there is less competition there is less change and where there is less change, there are less knowledge-workers making the new designs.
And where a market exists that can be served me new products, new companies will emerge.
On the other hand, I think what we are seeing is the majuring of the new telecommunications market, which in turn drives the consolidation in its industry. When you can't differentiate yourself on technology or service as much as in the past, its only natural for companies to differentiate on price. This is why "old" things don't cost as much as "new" things, and I appreciate that almost as much as having "new" things around.
Cheeese...
The $10,000 is the price of the unit. $2500 is the price of the utility bill. You don't save 100% of your electricity, only 15%. So that makes:
$2500/month*15%savings*12months*3years = $13500. If you consider time value of money, (0r financing charges) that's close to $10,000 today.
Unless its 15% of savings after the inefficencies are taken into consideration. Let's say power costs 72% at night, and the unit looses 15% of the stored power:
Before: 100 units at $1.00 each = $100.00 After: 118 units at $0.72 each = $ 84.96
The device, called GridPoint Protect, is the size of a small file cabinet and connects to the circuitbreaker panel. (The company also offers a lower-capacity version designed for homes, which costs $10,000.) A built-in computer powered by a Pentium chip will make intelligent purchase decisions, buying when prices are low, then storing the electricity for later use. That will make it possible to run your company during the workday with cheaper electricity that you purchased at 3 A.M.
Corsell, 28, estimates that his device will shave a business's electric bill by about 15%. Assuming monthly charges of $2,500, the system would pay for itself in less than four years.
Tell me, how many people pay $2500 of electricity a month for their HOME?
The summary is wrong! The $10,000 unit is targeted at small businesses with an electricity bill of $2500 a month. Also, would this count as a UPS and surge protector as well? Then this might work well for a small data center, maybe?
Well, for one, this lasts you most of your workday. 2nd, once your laptop uses smaller conventional batteries and frees up more space for fuel cell technology, you should see it approach 18 hours or so, which is literally a day worth, if you sleep the other 6 hours.
Not to mention that if one pack is done, you can go exchange it for a full one at the local kiosk, vending machine, or post office.
I think you make a good point, for 2 reasons: 1) The major Telco's are trying to get a cut of Googles value chain. This step would proactively prevent that from happening. 2) While google doesn't have a "last mile" distribution system like the phone, cable, or electricity providers, I wouldn't be surprised if they started their own wirless ISP service as an alternative to a physical connection.
I don't know where you get that from, but I think this may be it:
German English Universal
Millionen Million 1,000,000
Milliarden Billion 1,000,000,000
Billionen Trillion 1,000,000,000,000
Billiarden Quadrillion 1,000,000,000,000,000
Trillionen Sextillion 1,000,000,000,000,000,000
and so on
see this page for more info.
Give me a break here. The media is by far the worst problem in the US. They do such a lousy job at scrutinzing the government and corporations when compared to Europe, that it hurts. Literally, I spent hours a day reading news, and even so I live in the US, I have to go to Europe to get the news that count.
I agree with your point, but in the end, it is still corrupion. Decissions are made in the favor of the wealthy few, instead of the interest of society as a whole. And as long as wealth isn't equaly distributed across society, this is likely to continue, whether you are in the US or India. Whether you have an "accpetable" way to buy your influence, or if it has to be done under the counter, doesn't really matter.
As far as exposing it, and giving people visibility to it, is something that makes it a bit more difficult to do it without loosing face, but as long as you are smart enough, doesn't really prevent you from achiving your goal.
My point in short: The US can claim to have less corruption than most other contries, because they redefined the term. By "legalizing" corruption by incorporating a "controlled outlet" there is not as much need for "illegal" corruption.
So if you use the same defintion of corruption and compre US to India, then you will most definately arrive at the conclusions that you have made. If you compare $ spent on influencing government decisions (or to be more fair, % of GDP), then I'm almost certain that the US by far outranks most other countries in the world.
Again, its all a matter of perspective, and its always possible to define the terms in such way that they fit you best. Corruption is a good example of that. And as you said, "outright corruption." Let me ask, what about the non so outright corrution? To me, that still counts, even so its in a different form than we are used to from the past.
I think I may go along with an argument that would claim that this "legalized" corruption is better than the "illegal" version. I'm not sure if I'm willing to go along with that quite yet, and think I want to withold judgement on that idea for a while longer.
I do realize I grew up in the western hemosphere, and am accustomed to a world without corruption. Or so it seems. I agree that the individual government worker in the US is, on the average, is less likely to be corrupt than in India.
At the same time, if you look beyond the individual worker, and the select few that make and shape policy, it is very possible to argue that the US is more corrupt than India. If you look at the influences of 3rd parties on government decissions in the US, it becomes quickly apparant how the government may not be corrupt in its foundations, but in its design outright.
In the end, ask this question: Is this new policy/law in the interest of the people, or is it in the interest of a particular party? If the latter, you would have to ask if that party had any influence over the decision, but this is so common place today, you may, as sad as it is, skip this step in most cases, as it is usually a given.
To make the whole story short: The west has not found a way to stop corruption, but a way to integrate it into its government. It is now "acceptable" and lowers the need to have the "illegal" form of corruption, hence creating the appearance of a non-corrupt government.
To get back to your point, it is valid, but only looks at part of the problem. If you look at the whole picture, you will see what I've outlined above, and realize how the west isn't that much better than everyone else, as it likes to beliefe.
And to end: Why is it that it happens more often every day, that the truth has to sound so critical? Are we going down the wrong road?
Slashdot Mirror
If you can make 1,000,000 gallons of gas a day, and demand is 1,000,000 of gas at $1.25 each, then you will have sales of $1,250,000.
Now, if demand increases, but you can still only make 1,000,000 of gas a day, you have to adjust your price such that the demand is at 1,000,000 gallons a day again. Today, that price is around $2.85, and the company now has sales of $2,850,000.
If you pay attention, you will notice that even so sales more than doubled, they didn't have to spend or invest any more money to do so.
The reason why this works is because of the lack of investment in new capacity development. The only reason why this is the case is because of the lack of competition. Everyone in the industry knows they make more money by not investing (in order to increase price), than by investing billions to increase capacity at lower prices.
So if you want to have lower oil prices, get writ/weaken OPEC first. Then break up some of the oil industry by seperating crude extraction from refining (break up the vertical monopolies), and then let the free market do its job.
Free speach does not grant a license to lie. It is interesting, however, that in this case, the side that gets to determine if it is free speach or not, also has to determine if it is a lie. This is a classic example where the lack of seperation of powers leads to a conflict of interest.
You can send a complaint to mailto:fccinfo@fcc.gov
I've seen it in Albany, NY during a college football game on a Saturday afternoon.
That's the point: They don't torture "THEIR" people, but any one else is fair game...
Obsiously, torturing others makes this country much more superior than those who torture their own...
Since so many have asked, I thought I should point out the obvious:
...) to get to the infromation corresponding to that chip. Apparantly, this comes at the cost of decreased range, which some might actualy find attractive.
So far, RFID resonds with a number, then you then crossreference with some sort of database to see what that ID represents. This apreach has obious advantages, but was also dictated by the limited amount of data transmition capabilities of current RFID chips, without sacrificing distance.
This device described by HP would have the data on the RFID ship itself. This has the advantage that the reading device does not need to be connected to a remote system (via internet,
While RFID is great for supply chain optimization applications, we have not seen RFID in the private market. Part of the reason was the complexity of interoperability between many systems. Now that its a 2 point process (chip + reader, instead of chip + reader + reference system + comunnication system for RFID), I predict this technology to be very attractive to consumers.
Imagine being able to put voice recordings with each picture that you pring, and then being able to listen to those recordings via your iPod while looking at the pictures with your grand children.
Things become really interesting when the communication starts to take place between two objects, instead of an object and a human. For instance, now the milk can tell the fridge "I'm expiring on 7/16/2006" as to before, it had to say "I'm milk xxxx" and the fridge had to look up in some database when that xxx expires. Staying in the kitchen, items you buy could come with recipes that automatically set your oven to the right settings. The posibilities are endless when you are capable of providing information EASILY.
You mean things like Linux and VOIP will never be invented?
And where a market exists that can be served me new products, new companies will emerge.
On the other hand, I think what we are seeing is the majuring of the new telecommunications market, which in turn drives the consolidation in its industry. When you can't differentiate yourself on technology or service as much as in the past, its only natural for companies to differentiate on price. This is why "old" things don't cost as much as "new" things, and I appreciate that almost as much as having "new" things around.
Cheeese... The $10,000 is the price of the unit. $2500 is the price of the utility bill. You don't save 100% of your electricity, only 15%. So that makes: $2500/month*15%savings*12months*3years = $13500. If you consider time value of money, (0r financing charges) that's close to $10,000 today.
Unless its 15% of savings after the inefficencies are taken into consideration. Let's say power costs 72% at night, and the unit looses 15% of the stored power:
Before: 100 units at $1.00 each = $100.00
After: 118 units at $0.72 each = $ 84.96
That's about 15%.
The summary is wrong! The $10,000 unit is targeted at small businesses with an electricity bill of $2500 a month. Also, would this count as a UPS and surge protector as well? Then this might work well for a small data center, maybe?
Well, for one, this lasts you most of your workday. 2nd, once your laptop uses smaller conventional batteries and frees up more space for fuel cell technology, you should see it approach 18 hours or so, which is literally a day worth, if you sleep the other 6 hours. Not to mention that if one pack is done, you can go exchange it for a full one at the local kiosk, vending machine, or post office.
So if you send 500,000 E-mails to 1,200,000 poor soules living in AOhell, would that mean that each one got 0.0417 E-mails from these 2 people?
Sorry budy, backslashdot.com is somewhere else. This is /. (slashdot)!
I think you make a good point, for 2 reasons:
1) The major Telco's are trying to get a cut of Googles value chain. This step would proactively prevent that from happening.
2) While google doesn't have a "last mile" distribution system like the phone, cable, or electricity providers, I wouldn't be surprised if they started their own wirless ISP service as an alternative to a physical connection.
Just my 2 cents.
Uh, are you sure Taco isn't in this movie?
International Federation of the Pornographic Industries?
Now that would be an interesting institution to do research on filesharing!
I don't know where you get that from, but I think this may be it:
German English Universal
Millionen Million 1,000,000
Milliarden Billion 1,000,000,000
Billionen Trillion 1,000,000,000,000
Billiarden Quadrillion 1,000,000,000,000,000
Trillionen Sextillion 1,000,000,000,000,000,000
and so on
see this page for more info.
Give me a break here. The media is by far the worst problem in the US. They do such a lousy job at scrutinzing the government and corporations when compared to Europe, that it hurts. Literally, I spent hours a day reading news, and even so I live in the US, I have to go to Europe to get the news that count.
I agree with your point, but in the end, it is still corrupion. Decissions are made in the favor of the wealthy few, instead of the interest of society as a whole. And as long as wealth isn't equaly distributed across society, this is likely to continue, whether you are in the US or India. Whether you have an "accpetable" way to buy your influence, or if it has to be done under the counter, doesn't really matter.
As far as exposing it, and giving people visibility to it, is something that makes it a bit more difficult to do it without loosing face, but as long as you are smart enough, doesn't really prevent you from achiving your goal.
My point in short: The US can claim to have less corruption than most other contries, because they redefined the term. By "legalizing" corruption by incorporating a "controlled outlet" there is not as much need for "illegal" corruption.
So if you use the same defintion of corruption and compre US to India, then you will most definately arrive at the conclusions that you have made. If you compare $ spent on influencing government decisions (or to be more fair, % of GDP), then I'm almost certain that the US by far outranks most other countries in the world.
Again, its all a matter of perspective, and its always possible to define the terms in such way that they fit you best. Corruption is a good example of that. And as you said, "outright corruption." Let me ask, what about the non so outright corrution? To me, that still counts, even so its in a different form than we are used to from the past.
I think I may go along with an argument that would claim that this "legalized" corruption is better than the "illegal" version. I'm not sure if I'm willing to go along with that quite yet, and think I want to withold judgement on that idea for a while longer.
I do realize I grew up in the western hemosphere, and am accustomed to a world without corruption. Or so it seems. I agree that the individual government worker in the US is, on the average, is less likely to be corrupt than in India.
At the same time, if you look beyond the individual worker, and the select few that make and shape policy, it is very possible to argue that the US is more corrupt than India. If you look at the influences of 3rd parties on government decissions in the US, it becomes quickly apparant how the government may not be corrupt in its foundations, but in its design outright.
In the end, ask this question: Is this new policy/law in the interest of the people, or is it in the interest of a particular party? If the latter, you would have to ask if that party had any influence over the decision, but this is so common place today, you may, as sad as it is, skip this step in most cases, as it is usually a given.
To make the whole story short: The west has not found a way to stop corruption, but a way to integrate it into its government. It is now "acceptable" and lowers the need to have the "illegal" form of corruption, hence creating the appearance of a non-corrupt government.
To get back to your point, it is valid, but only looks at part of the problem. If you look at the whole picture, you will see what I've outlined above, and realize how the west isn't that much better than everyone else, as it likes to beliefe.
And to end: Why is it that it happens more often every day, that the truth has to sound so critical? Are we going down the wrong road?
To your point of corruption & bureaucracy, it doesn't seem to have stopped the US, so why should this stop India?