So what happens in a sniped auction is that the seller sells at a lower price, and a bunch of typical, non-sniping buyers are pissed off because the item actually sold at a lower price than they were willing to pay. There is nothing unfair about that, but the situation is generally unsatisfactory to everyone but the single sniper who wins the auction. Just as newbie bidders need a while to figure out how regular auctions work, non-sniping bidders need to go through exactly the same process you did and become snipers. As buyers, we would all be better off if everybody sniped. It would make ebay the equivalent of a silent auction and as you noted - price inflation is drastically reduced.
If sellers make more money due to a quirk of the bidding system, do they really "deserve" that money in the first place?
We are not talking about 'max bid' entries where two interested folks tell EBay what their max price is and it automatically gives it to the higher of the two at a price just above the loosers price. That is more or less OK by everybody's measure. No, it is absolutely NOT ok to any buyer who thinks about it. All the people complaining about how sniping is not like regular auctions should understand that this automatic bid escalation is also not how regular auctions work. Automatic bid escalation tweaks people's emotional response and thus causes price inflation.
Sniping is the equivalent of a silent auction and thus is the antidote to automatic bid escalation. It is "set it and forget it" -- it takes the emotional response out of the equation.
It's a good thing this argument is still going on since they both discovered/invented calculus pretty much independently If only Newton had patented his ideas, then there would be no question!!!
Not all mpeg2 encoders are created equal, nor is it as simple as saying that encoder A is always "better" than encoder B. So comparing an HD re-encode with a retail disc doesn't necessarily say anything about the retail disc.
Which HD version? The bootleg MPEG2 with DTS, or one of the BLU-RAY releases? That also might an indictment of your 50" tv's quality rather than anything in particular about the movie.
While we, of course, got the disc replaced, to finish the movie we flipped it over to the DVD side. A huge drop in quality was quite apparent. Ditto for a straight up DVD version of the movie. I don't know about that title specifically, but there is a lot of suspicion that the studios have been releasing deliberately crappy DVD versions recently. Some people are convinced that the recent Harry Potter sequels and the recent Pirates of the Caribbean sequels look significantly worse on DVD than the first movies in each franchise do - despite having the benefit of new and improved mastering systems.
The conspiracy theory is that the studios have been doing that specifically to boost the perceived improvement of the HD releases of the sequels and figuring that the people who are DVD-only will never notice the difference because comparing different movies is subjective anyway.
So why exactly is it a desirable feature for a firewire node to be able to access another node's memory unsolicited? Well, for one thing, it should make cracking any of these "untrusted computing" DRM schemes pretty trivial.
So modify the policy so that if the password is compromised, Just how do you intend to find out that it was compromised?
Honestly, I figured that this would be obvious, however I underestimated the pedantic nature of some people to pounce on the tiniest flaw in a post (most likely the mis-use of the word "permanent".) Are you high?
Now a user can request a password that never changes, so long as it meets *MY* requirements... Seems like you have just shifted the problem. Their passwords may no longer be feasible to guess/crack, but if they are compromised in some other way - like snooping - you've guaranteed that they will stay permanently compromised.
The profound cost to society for actually pursuing grievances? Are you for real? Are you in the habit of regularly quoting out of context? Do you think that doing so somehow magically makes your argument valid?
"Even if that advocacy never results in 'won' cases, it increases the friction, the energy cost, of doing business in a people-adverse way." You are the one who has clearly decided that the presumption of innocence does not apply since even if you can't prove their crimes in court, the defendant should still be punished. You want to magically hand-wave away the profound cost to society of such an approach to justice. Here's a clue egowumpus - the fact that you left out the crucial point in the original quote just shows that you understood it, realized it knocked the shit out of your argument, but don't have a strong enough ego to accept it.
I can only hope your hysteria comes from having been shown, point by point, why the US is in fact obligated to recognize the UHDR. I'll leave the consequences of it not living up to it's obligations out of it, and instead suggest that you work on your defensiveness. Project much? Tell me, have you stopped beating your wife, or was I wrong about that?
As soon as you posted citing the UHDR it was like waving a big flag that said "idiot poster" - I've encountered a couple of other people who did exactly the same thing. When pressed on it, they did exactly what you did this time too - citing all kinds of baloney that did mean one damn thing to back up their claims about the UHDR, but absolutely refused to admit just how wrong they were. You know the UHDR has zero meaning in the USA, I know it, and so does any other poor soul has bothered to read even your second reply in this sub-thread. But, true to form, you just can't admit you were wrong.
You're for the seeking justice being hard? Because to do the opposite would somehow magically conjure (negative, I assume?) unintended consequences? Let me get this straight, you are for murdering babies because you haven't said a word against it? When did you stop beating your wife?
You are the one who has clearly decided that the presumption of innocence does not apply since even if you can't prove their crimes in court, the defendant should still be punished. You want to magically hand-wave away the profound cost to society of such an approach to justice.
But the United States is bound by treaty to at least recognize it, Do you have some private, hysterically funny definition of non-binding that no one else does? Do you think "recognize" means to see and identify? Because you have not laid out one reason that the US, or any other country, must recognize the UHDR in any significant sense, so as to give it more than ZERO MEANING.
I think this is more a sign that the telco's really need to look at phone security. It is also a sign that we have waaaay too many SWAT teams for our own good. Its all about those federal dollars solving problems that don't exist, but bring home the pork anyway.
I give you The UN Charter, a treaty signed by the United States in 1945. Oh boy you got me now! Totally proved your point! How could I have ever questioned you? It's right there in the first chapter of the UN Charter - ALL DECLARATIONS BY THE UNITED NATIONS HAVE THE FULL FORCE AND BINDING OF INTERNATIONAL TREATIES. Why didn't I know that?
You should not have a system that encourages behavior that makes seeking justice difficult; rather the opposite. The path to hell is paved with good intentions. You might want to investigate the law of unintended consequences, even though Congress never passed it, the UN never made it a non-binding declaration, it is still one of the highest laws of the land.
While you may ascribe zero meaning to it, you'd be wrong. The UHDR is not a treaty. Thus article 6 has ZERO MEANING in relation to the UHDR.
I am advocating no such thing. Sorry dude, but there is NO OTHER WAY to interpret, "Even if that advocacy never results in 'won' cases, it increases the friction, the energy cost, of doing business in a people-adverse way." except as advocating for barratry. You are welcome to retract that statement though.
But the United States is bound by treaty to at least recognize it Which has zero meaning.
I think that in particular, when you have a large company persecuting dissenting employees, the government has a duty to advocate for the people. Even if that advocacy never results in 'won' cases, it increases the friction, the energy cost, of doing business in a people-adverse way. You are advocating for justice through barratry. In effect, the presumption of guilt.
Again, why not just have the government own the lines, and they determine a price? That would be better, because unlike the telcos, they wouldn't charge $400 per customer, just what they need. A monopoly is a monopoly, regardless of who is running it -- which means all the bad stuff that monopolies do will still happen under the government. Just look at what a great job the TSA has done since the federalization of airport security screening for one example.
I'd rather see something along the lines of the government outlawing exclusive franchaise agreements that keep second and third carriers out of the market in local towns rather than take over the business. You still have to worry about oligopoly problems, but at least there is a chance of competition driving up efficiencies.
I didn't say their belief doesn't matter; I basically said that I wasn't going to slam all of the Islamic religion and all Muslims because of the actions of the fanatical ones. And yet, you assume that the only motivation for suicide bombings is religious fanaticism.
I meant terrorists that claim the Islamic religion. Whether or not they are true Muslims or whatever is up to the Islamic community to decide, I suppose, but they at least claim to believe it, hence my little term. So, just what does their belief matter if it is "up to the Islamic community to decide?"
I am not sure what "earthly motivation" there is for killing yourself and bringing as many Westerners with you... you aren't even around afterwards to enjoy whatever earthly reward there is. Really? You can't think of even just one? That's gotta be willful.
at least do it with an understanding of both sides; maybe start with finding out what exactly the terrorists are really fighting. Pot, kettle black. The "islam-believing terrorists" - surely you mean fanatics, or do you really believe that all muslims labeled as terrorists are on some sort of holy war with no other more earthly motivations?
Why is there an astrophe in wants?:P That's due to the "use it or lose it" nature of government funding. This year, the FBI has a slight surplus of apostrophes, but they are worried that if they show a surplus, their apostrophe funding will be cut and next year they will not have enough apostrophes to fight all the terrorism that they need too.
I'm not so sure about ass trophies the extra ass-trophies though.
Note that according to Article 23 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, that is a human rights abuse and should be prosecuted as such; it's the sign of a sick governmental body that can't manage it. You should note that the UDHR is not enforceable anywhere, it's not a law of any nation.
Furthermore it's impractical to enforce any actual laws against that sort of under-cover retaliation because it is extremely difficult to prove - you'd waste all available resources weeding out all the false positives. Sure, the egregious cases are easy, but we aren't talking about egregious cases.
Of course, the "force" in my previous post means that they stop giving you the temporary disability pension so you are "forced" to go back to work if you want to afford to live. In theory, without nationalized/single-payer health insurance, you would be free to purchase disability insurance that is more lenient or less lenient in what qualifies as disability. In theory at least...
Disclaimer: I'm all for protesting walmart although I don't think it's right to pay people to do it. At first I agreed. But now I don't. And it is because of retaliation.
A wal-mart employee that protests has a fair chance of facing increased scrutiny leading to firing for some sort of jusitifiable, but trivial, violation. When the protests are outsourced to independents, the employees reduce their risk (but increase their costs since they have to pay these people).
Furthermore, despite their rhetoric, unions are about improving the situation of union members, not the population as a whole. So it may seem hypocritical to outsource the protesting, but if the end result is better for union members then so be it.
Slashdot Mirror
If sellers make more money due to a quirk of the bidding system, do they really "deserve" that money in the first place?
Sniping is the equivalent of a silent auction and thus is the antidote to automatic bid escalation. It is "set it and forget it" -- it takes the emotional response out of the equation.
Gee, how does creating a tiny arms industry have anything to do with the effectiveness of the embargo?
Not all mpeg2 encoders are created equal, nor is it as simple as saying that encoder A is always "better" than encoder B. So comparing an HD re-encode with a retail disc doesn't necessarily say anything about the retail disc.
Which HD version? The bootleg MPEG2 with DTS, or one of the BLU-RAY releases?
That also might an indictment of your 50" tv's quality rather than anything in particular about the movie.
The conspiracy theory is that the studios have been doing that specifically to boost the perceived improvement of the HD releases of the sequels and figuring that the people who are DVD-only will never notice the difference because comparing different movies is subjective anyway.
Their passwords may no longer be feasible to guess/crack, but if they are compromised in some other way - like snooping - you've guaranteed that they will stay permanently compromised.
Do you think that doing so somehow magically makes your argument valid? "Even if that advocacy never results in 'won' cases, it increases the friction, the energy cost, of doing business in a people-adverse way." You are the one who has clearly decided that the presumption of innocence does not apply since even if you can't prove their crimes in court, the defendant should still be punished. You want to magically hand-wave away the profound cost to society of such an approach to justice. Here's a clue egowumpus - the fact that you left out the crucial point in the original quote just shows that you understood it, realized it knocked the shit out of your argument, but don't have a strong enough ego to accept it. I can only hope your hysteria comes from having been shown, point by point, why the US is in fact obligated to recognize the UHDR. I'll leave the consequences of it not living up to it's obligations out of it, and instead suggest that you work on your defensiveness. Project much? Tell me, have you stopped beating your wife, or was I wrong about that?
As soon as you posted citing the UHDR it was like waving a big flag that said "idiot poster" - I've encountered a couple of other people who did exactly the same thing. When pressed on it, they did exactly what you did this time too - citing all kinds of baloney that did mean one damn thing to back up their claims about the UHDR, but absolutely refused to admit just how wrong they were. You know the UHDR has zero meaning in the USA, I know it, and so does any other poor soul has bothered to read even your second reply in this sub-thread. But, true to form, you just can't admit you were wrong.
Peace out jackass.
You are the one who has clearly decided that the presumption of innocence does not apply since even if you can't prove their crimes in court, the defendant should still be punished. You want to magically hand-wave away the profound cost to society of such an approach to justice. But the United States is bound by treaty to at least recognize it, Do you have some private, hysterically funny definition of non-binding that no one else does? Do you think "recognize" means to see and identify? Because you have not laid out one reason that the US, or any other country, must recognize the UHDR in any significant sense, so as to give it more than ZERO MEANING.
Proof by anecdote is no proof at all.
I'd rather see something along the lines of the government outlawing exclusive franchaise agreements that keep second and third carriers out of the market in local towns rather than take over the business. You still have to worry about oligopoly problems, but at least there is a chance of competition driving up efficiencies.
I'm not so sure about ass trophies the extra ass-trophies though.
Furthermore it's impractical to enforce any actual laws against that sort of under-cover retaliation because it is extremely difficult to prove - you'd waste all available resources weeding out all the false positives. Sure, the egregious cases are easy, but we aren't talking about egregious cases.
A wal-mart employee that protests has a fair chance of facing increased scrutiny leading to firing for some sort of jusitifiable, but trivial, violation. When the protests are outsourced to independents, the employees reduce their risk (but increase their costs since they have to pay these people).
Furthermore, despite their rhetoric, unions are about improving the situation of union members, not the population as a whole. So it may seem hypocritical to outsource the protesting, but if the end result is better for union members then so be it.