which is tough if the CEO has stock options that expire in 3 years.
This is a classic misunderstanding of stock price. If the company opts for burried cable representing a lower TCO, this will be reflected immediatly in the market price, not in 10 years. Thus a CEO could very well care about 10, 20 years profit with 3 year to maturity stock options. Although he would have to convince the market that his choice indeed represents a long term smaller TC0, and it's in the investors and speculators best interest to fully evaluate this study without bias.
And consumers lobby would put pressure and Wal-mart to stop buying it and eventually it would be sold in special stores. Libertarian doesn't mean that there are no rules, it means that people willingly accept those rules. Thinking that in a libertarian society drug would be sold as table salt is as stupid as thinking that Wal-Mart is going to have a "sex-toys" section in its stores just because they can.
for those who say my +1hour thing would last forever you can use a convergent series, a la Zeno. 1hour, then 1/2 hour etc won't last more than 2hours and prevents sniping cause you don't know when it'll be over. Or for the same purpose a random finishing time.
Having a limit time is stupid, it challenges the whole auction principle. There should be a limit time, when there is less than 1 hour left, each new bid resets the remaining time to one hour. Alternatively a blind auction where the winner is the one who offers the highest price and pays the price of the second + a bid increment.
All your arguments are barrier that would apply to any business. The fact that there is a monopoly doesn't change anything.
If you wanted to start a new online auction service you'd have the problem that any customer will prefer ebay to your service since it has more buyers and sellers
37B may be a lot for one man, but that's $6 per person in the world. My point is what matters most is not the amount of money but how you spend it. The amount of "good" you will do depends tremendously on it. Sure helping health, food etc is a plus, but there is no bigger help you can provide to the world than economical help. Where did these 37B come from? What really matters is wealth creation. It might be far more useful to develop credit,investements and promote market economy in the world. The old teach how to fish trick. The biggest chance for the third world right now is globalization and many people seem to forget it. Hey I'm not telling Warren Buffet how to spend here, the net influence of giving that money to charity will be positive, but we should not forget that what makes the world a better place in the long term is wealth creation, not redistribution.
Oh come on! Microsoft has a de facto monopoly, not a coercive monopoly! VLC is completly free and will read anything, linux is free too. You don't have to buy windows, so that monopoly is not hurting the consumers. People can install alternative media player, they don't because they don't see the point, and rightly so. If people want to compete with Microsoft they can do it with innovative products. For exemple itune is concurrencing WMP because it is worth installing over... There are two kind of people, Geeks who think MS products sucks ( I'm in that group by the way ) and can use OSX, Linux, or any other Unix flavor The people who don't care and are not "oppressed" because wmp is shipped with windows and they're fine with it. What about software availability... well software are developped for windows because they know the WinAPI will be there and it'll work. Selling for linux is still a nightmare... but it's changing. The day there will be a consistent linux desktop API, a few companies will start selling for linux, more people will use it, and thus will begin a virtuous circle.
Even a monopoly would not be a big deal in the search domain. There are almost no entry barreers to the market. A monopoly would be forced to behave as if there were competition to remain a monopoly.
A lost soul:) I grew up in a social-democrate country where liberal is used as an insult by all politic tendencies. Not very fun you know. Our liberal issues go faaar beyond questionning a federal-id.
Now s=ure there are things more important than economics, such as freedom.... but how do you define economics? YOU have to stop thinking in term of the $, economic is about managing the well being of people. Their utility doesn't necesseraly reflect money. So when something it good for the economy, it means it's good for the common well being.
We want the same thing, more jobs, stable jobs; but do I think protectionism is the way to do that? Certainly not.
You do realize that all you are going to cause by trying to "protect" the jobs is outsourcing... so are you going to say, we also need to prevent companies from outsourcing... well the businesses will simply leave the country... aha you add, but we will prevent them from doing that. And very soon you are on the way to more and more state control and a dangerous spiral to serfdom.
The money you save consummers when you open your borders to goods and labors is going to be invested in other sectors, probably more advanced technologies. Now I agree with you on one thing, labor is not completely mobile and you can't say that the IT worker is going tomorrow to go in a completly different sector... but an affluence of cheap IT workers will also probably make this same sector grow extremly fast thus requiring more workers with advanced skills.... It is definitely true that a complete stop of protectionism - tomorrow - would cause a very harsh transition, it's like a battery, the systems have been separated so long that there is a very high difference. If you don't want a flood carefully open your gates, once it's done you have the benefits without the risk to the stability of the job market.
Yes Milton Friedman calls it a subsidy and rightly so. It is not normal that the businesses depend on the state to grant H1-B to some and not to others. Does this mean that he is for protectionnist mesures in the labor market? NOT AT ALL, it may simply mean that in his opinion every businness should be able to hire foreign workers with no regulation. Granting H1-B to some and not to others, that is the subsidy. It does n
Protectionism is bad idea, be it for good or jobs. So you don't want Indian to come and take jobs in the US? Well think of the consequences:
- The company will outsource to India, and Indian worked cost far less when he Lives in India than in the US.
- If a worker offer a lower labor cost it's a gift to the american economy. The goods will be cheaper, the consumer will save money, invest in other sectors etc..
- If someone wishes a workvisa it means he intends to work, not live on welfare. The intent to work should be a plus for immigrants not a minus...
Protectionism is the most dangerous economic fallacy ever. Come on you're the US, you are liberals, don't fall for that old interventionnist trick.
Maybe you wouldn't invest in the next Mat Groning show but hell would I! What about new artists? Well as I said there's no difference with the actual system except on who finances the show. New artists would start small, not with 1-2 million dollars episodes, then if they have success be able to raise more funds. And what do you mean "donate" ??? What part of "BUYING shares" don't you undersand ? It's not about people "giving" 1-2 million to produce the show, it's about people investing in the show... Heck, it could even be people who don't give a shit about Futurama but think it'll make money. Theeeeeen it's about selling the show, people (different people) pay to download it and see it, plus it can have commercials in it. I'm not sure how many downloads it would get... it's true that internet has a harch concurrence with TV and much more persons will watch TV, so that kind of thing would work at first for geek audiences. Well guess who would be a good candidate?
You seem confused, of course they do. When they raise the money by selling shares that covers all the production costs, including their paycheck. And they keep shares to themselves so that they also have an interest in the profits of the show. Look the only difference with the actual system is that they rely on public fundraising instead of comedy central. There are relatively few TV channels that Futurama could be on, they form an oligopoly. Getting on their schedule means concurrence with a lot of shows, so the channel is in a good position to require a great part of the benefits (i.e force a low "share" price if you want). There is no such problem on the Internet. And yes they could include commercials in the shows you download and yes they could allow you to pay a little more to get no commercials etc. Free market capitalism at it's best.
Who needs comedy central?
on
Futurama Returns
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
Ok that's indeed great news... the sad news is Futurama is still dependent on Comedy Central. Why do shows still need this kind of deals?
Idealy this would happen:
There is an official Futurama web-site, they say they want a new season, they need US $ X to produce it. They sell shares on their website or through ebay using a dutch auction in order to finance the project. Geeks buy them.
They make the episodes.
They realase them on the internet in a non DRM format and using bittorrent so they don't have to pay for bandwith.
People pay a small amount of money to download the.torrent file. If they want to pirate it anyway nothing will stop them so why bother with protection.
Many people download that great show, the benefits are given to the shareholders.
Everyone is happy.
That's really what the RIAA really is affraid of. Artists now have a way to have vertical control, marketting, distribution etc. They claim to fight piracy but really want to make this come as late as they can. Once the artists realize they can actually make more money by short circuiting the distribution cartels
a) price will also fall for the consummer
b) more competition of works, more quality
Because the government at a decision level doesn't understand these questions...
the guys who made that decision are probably non-evil geeks.
If NAT had never existed then VOIP would be so much easier... Skype was successful for only one reason, they had very good tricks to get around NAT...
Wait until RIAA starts lobbying the government and say NAT actually prevents P2P, that IPv6 is a dangerous pirate tool that will allow anonymous p2p nets, and a terrorist tool featuring encryption of packets.
Yes but NAT is evil, it's a dirty hack. Plus NAT is changing the face of the internet, clearly separating content provider and producers. Sure you can host your blog anywhere now, but what about censorship ? If things such as darknets, freenets, etc become needed NAT will be a major annoyance.
that money is often tight and your standard laborer in China makes roughly $50-$100 USD per month. Can you expect them to afford tuition rates of £200-400? Not really.
Hum, tuitions fee in the states are generally much more than 4 months of salary.
Slashdot Mirror
...and it has still recently voted a DMCA like text.
They should tax brains too, you can store a lot of tunes into them, + it wouldn't be a huge cost for our lawmakers.
which is tough if the CEO has stock options that expire in 3 years.
This is a classic misunderstanding of stock price. If the company opts for burried cable representing a lower TCO, this will be reflected immediatly in the market price, not in 10 years. Thus a CEO could very well care about 10, 20 years profit with 3 year to maturity stock options. Although he would have to convince the market that his choice indeed represents a long term smaller TC0, and it's in the investors and speculators best interest to fully evaluate this study without bias.
And consumers lobby would put pressure and Wal-mart to stop buying it and eventually it would be sold in special stores.
Libertarian doesn't mean that there are no rules, it means that people willingly accept those rules. Thinking that in a libertarian society drug would be sold as table salt is as stupid as thinking that Wal-Mart is going to have a "sex-toys" section in its stores just because they can.
1) it's ugly, I mean UGLY
2) it's wrong!
It's definitely NOT the best spreadsheet, it's ages begind excel or even gnumeric
for those who say my +1hour thing would last forever you can use a convergent series, a la Zeno.
1hour, then 1/2 hour etc
won't last more than 2hours and prevents sniping cause you don't know when it'll be over.
Or for the same purpose a random finishing time.
Having a limit time is stupid, it challenges the whole auction principle. There should be a limit time, when there is less than 1 hour left, each new bid resets the remaining time to one hour.
Alternatively a blind auction where the winner is the one who offers the highest price and pays the price of the second + a bid increment.
All your arguments are barrier that would apply to any business.
The fact that there is a monopoly doesn't change anything.
If you wanted to start a new online auction service you'd have the problem that any customer will prefer ebay to your service since it has more buyers and sellers
37B may be a lot for one man, but that's $6 per person in the world.
My point is what matters most is not the amount of money but how you spend it. The amount of "good" you will do depends tremendously on it. Sure helping health, food etc is a plus, but there is no bigger help you can provide to the world than economical help. Where did these 37B come from? What really matters is wealth creation. It might be far more useful to develop credit,investements and promote market economy in the world. The old teach how to fish trick. The biggest chance for the third world right now is globalization and many people seem to forget it. Hey I'm not telling Warren Buffet how to spend here, the net influence of giving that money to charity will be positive, but we should not forget that what makes the world a better place in the long term is wealth creation, not redistribution.
Oh come on! Microsoft has a de facto monopoly, not a coercive monopoly! VLC is completly free and will read anything, linux is free too. You don't have to buy windows, so that monopoly is not hurting the consumers.
People can install alternative media player, they don't because they don't see the point, and rightly so. If people want to compete with Microsoft they can do it with innovative products. For exemple itune is concurrencing WMP because it is worth installing over...
There are two kind of people, Geeks who think MS products sucks ( I'm in that group by the way ) and can use OSX, Linux, or any other Unix flavor
The people who don't care and are not "oppressed" because wmp is shipped with windows and they're fine with it.
What about software availability... well software are developped for windows because they know the WinAPI will be there and it'll work. Selling for linux is still a nightmare... but it's changing. The day there will be a consistent linux desktop API, a few companies will start selling for linux, more people will use it, and thus will begin a virtuous circle.
your costs & benefits are proportionnal to your userbase.
So non, no barrier...
Ebay, Craigslist, these have huge barriers.
Even a monopoly would not be a big deal in the search domain. There are almost no entry barreers to the market. A monopoly would be forced to behave as if there were competition to remain a monopoly.
A lost soul :) I grew up in a social-democrate country where liberal is used as an insult by all politic tendencies. Not very fun you know. Our liberal issues go faaar beyond questionning a federal-id.
Now s=ure there are things more important than economics, such as freedom.... but how do you define economics? YOU have to stop thinking in term of the $, economic is about managing the well being of people. Their utility doesn't necesseraly reflect money. So when something it good for the economy, it means it's good for the common well being.
We want the same thing, more jobs, stable jobs; but do I think protectionism is the way to do that? Certainly not.
You do realize that all you are going to cause by trying to "protect" the jobs is outsourcing... so are you going to say, we also need to prevent companies from outsourcing... well the businesses will simply leave the country... aha you add, but we will prevent them from doing that. And very soon you are on the way to more and more state control and a dangerous spiral to serfdom.
The money you save consummers when you open your borders to goods and labors is going to be invested in other sectors, probably more advanced technologies. Now I agree with you on one thing, labor is not completely mobile and you can't say that the IT worker is going tomorrow to go in a completly different sector... but an affluence of cheap IT workers will also probably make this same sector grow extremly fast thus requiring more workers with advanced skills.... It is definitely true that a complete stop of protectionism - tomorrow - would cause a very harsh transition, it's like a battery, the systems have been separated so long that there is a very high difference. If you don't want a flood carefully open your gates, once it's done you have the benefits without the risk to the stability of the job market.
Sure you can't have both. Which one do you think he advocates ?
Yes Milton Friedman calls it a subsidy and rightly so. It is not normal that the businesses depend on the state to grant H1-B to some and not to others. Does this mean that he is for protectionnist mesures in the labor market? NOT AT ALL, it may simply mean that in his opinion every businness should be able to hire foreign workers with no regulation. Granting H1-B to some and not to others, that is the subsidy. It does n
Protectionism is bad idea, be it for good or jobs.
So you don't want Indian to come and take jobs in the US? Well think of the consequences:
- The company will outsource to India, and Indian worked cost far less when he Lives in India than in the US.
- If a worker offer a lower labor cost it's a gift to the american economy. The goods will be cheaper, the consumer will save money, invest in other sectors etc..
- If someone wishes a workvisa it means he intends to work, not live on welfare. The intent to work should be a plus for immigrants not a minus...
Protectionism is the most dangerous economic fallacy ever. Come on you're the US, you are liberals, don't fall for that old interventionnist trick.
You are right and I agree with you, but you're mistaking me for someone I'm not:
- I rent a pretty expensive apartment on my own.
- I own private equity shares.
- I have a thorough background in finance.
Should I surrender my slashdot card?
Maybe you wouldn't invest in the next Mat Groning show but hell would I!
What about new artists? Well as I said there's no difference with the actual system except on who finances the show. New artists would start small, not with 1-2 million dollars episodes, then if they have success be able to raise more funds. And what do you mean "donate" ??? What part of "BUYING shares" don't you undersand ? It's not about people "giving" 1-2 million to produce the show, it's about people investing in the show... Heck, it could even be people who don't give a shit about Futurama but think it'll make money.
Theeeeeen it's about selling the show, people (different people) pay to download it and see it, plus it can have commercials in it. I'm not sure how many downloads it would get... it's true that internet has a harch concurrence with TV and much more persons will watch TV, so that kind of thing would work at first for geek audiences. Well guess who would be a good candidate?
You seem confused, of course they do. When they raise the money by selling shares that covers all the production costs, including their paycheck. And they keep shares to themselves so that they also have an interest in the profits of the show. Look the only difference with the actual system is that they rely on public fundraising instead of comedy central. There are relatively few TV channels that Futurama could be on, they form an oligopoly. Getting on their schedule means concurrence with a lot of shows, so the channel is in a good position to require a great part of the benefits (i.e force a low "share" price if you want). There is no such problem on the Internet. And yes they could include commercials in the shows you download and yes they could allow you to pay a little more to get no commercials etc. Free market capitalism at it's best.
Ok that's indeed great news... the sad news is Futurama is still dependent on Comedy Central. Why do shows still need this kind of deals? Idealy this would happen: There is an official Futurama web-site, they say they want a new season, they need US $ X to produce it. They sell shares on their website or through ebay using a dutch auction in order to finance the project. Geeks buy them. They make the episodes. They realase them on the internet in a non DRM format and using bittorrent so they don't have to pay for bandwith. People pay a small amount of money to download the .torrent file. If they want to pirate it anyway nothing will stop them so why bother with protection.
Many people download that great show, the benefits are given to the shareholders.
Everyone is happy.
That's really what the RIAA really is affraid of. Artists now have a way to have vertical control, marketting, distribution etc. They claim to fight piracy but really want to make this come as late as they can. Once the artists realize they can actually make more money by short circuiting the distribution cartels
a) price will also fall for the consummer
b) more competition of works, more quality
Because the government at a decision level doesn't understand these questions... the guys who made that decision are probably non-evil geeks. If NAT had never existed then VOIP would be so much easier... Skype was successful for only one reason, they had very good tricks to get around NAT... Wait until RIAA starts lobbying the government and say NAT actually prevents P2P, that IPv6 is a dangerous pirate tool that will allow anonymous p2p nets, and a terrorist tool featuring encryption of packets.
Yes but NAT is evil, it's a dirty hack. Plus NAT is changing the face of the internet, clearly separating content provider and producers. Sure you can host your blog anywhere now, but what about censorship ? If things such as darknets, freenets, etc become needed NAT will be a major annoyance.
That's one good pron collection!
how come?
What are the odds of losing an eye by putting one of the glasses branch into it ? I'd like to know that and compare it to the risks of surgery
that money is often tight and your standard laborer in China makes roughly $50-$100 USD per month. Can you expect them to afford tuition rates of £200-400? Not really.
Hum, tuitions fee in the states are generally much more than 4 months of salary.