go use some other internets! Oh wait, you mean to say it's not the internets that is being censored? It's actually company or privately-owned websites that are accessed using the internet? And these companies and people who own these sites are able to set the bar for what is allowed on their site? There are many wonderfully open sites out there that will gladly let you post whatever you want despite you not being owed anything by them. Why is this a problem? And kerfuffle? Seriously?
I didn't say the product wasn't in demand, I said it wasn't AS in demand. Less demand means you must shift production of supply down to meet demand or lower cost of product to the point the demand rises again. Either of those require a cut in production costs. Hostess hasn't cut anyone's freedom. They are all free to go find another job now. Freedom and rights that we have given up are a separate issue that I also disagree with strongly.
As far as "should" they? That's up to them as the owners of the business. If they want to keep the business going, they would have to cut costs. They were unable to complete cost cutting and decided they had to shut down so as not to lose money.
The axiom "Never apply to malice what can be attributed to stupidity" applies in reverse for laws like this. What may look like an ineptly written law is more likely meant to hide true, and nefarious purpose. Maybe it's not in this case, but that's my assumption. Global in the title worries me...internet does span the globe, but this is a US law. Don't want to bring the globe into it. I think an acceptable new version of the law would be titled Free Internet Act and would simply read:
No law shall be inacted regulating the use of the internet.
Done.
They could have stayed in business by cutting costs because their product wasn't as in demand. But just like our wonderful country's population, the bakers union would rather lose everything that take a cut.
don't mind him, he just assumes the ads are there just to add to an already "obscene" profit margin. Businesses must make money or they can't exist. If they ride a 0.0001% profit margin they are at risk of small changes in business climate making them insolvent. We have a great example in Hostess. They tried to go through a bankruptcy to try to keep the business alive. But they DARED to say that part of the bankruptcy cost cutting measures would impact the Union pay/benefits. Union strikes, already dangerously strained cash flow interrupted, business has to close for good. Think the union workers feel like they succeeded?
Except then we wouldn't have those hilarious youtube videos where youtube "stars" read those comments how they think they would sound if they had been spoken instead of typed. Comedic gold. Well..some of them anyway.
Good resummarization. However, your Kant reference...that dude smoked some heavy stuff. Actually that's too nice. Way too abstract to be of any consequence. If categorical imperatives were so categorically imperative, you'd be able to read that Wiki article without eyes rolling back in your head. Guy was blowing a lot of hot air to say simple things in order to sound smart.
Reporter or whoever is talking to me and pauses to tweet "real time" thoughts and the interview/conversation ends right there. I hate it when one person is having a conversation with another person and either of them think it's okay to "check their phone" let alone actually read or type something on it. It's rude. However, what Cassian Elwes did was misuse twitter. It wasn't real time. Putting all the tweets together the story is very poorly written. It's feigned real-time stream of consciousness and I'm sure he thought it added some dramatic effect. In reality, it was just Cassian Elwes not knowing the proper medium to tell a story.
a company that loses a dollar is just closer to profitability than one that loses a million. If you continue losing $1 you will eventually go out of business, it just takes slightly longer. You may get more leeway from investors if you only lose $1. But neither is profitable. Profitable means you're getting profit out of it, anything 0 and less is not profitable.
And there are (a lot of) people on slashdot that think the neighbor chef should willingly give you the meal for very close the same price as your kid would charge. I mean why should they have to suffer through lower quality meal just because neighbor chef wants to make absurd profits...
No freaking kidding. But the idiots that plague slashdot think they have a right to an iPad. And they go so far as to say that government should be regulating Apple so that they can't make "absurd" profits...forgetting that people buying them means people really do see them as worth the price.
You should not have been modded troll. While you could just leave the kissing part out of it. People buy their products at the current price at a high enough rate that they are making enough money to keep it at the current price. They may pre-emptively lower the price if they see another product from Samsung or whoever that may directly compete with their sales, but in general they set price based on what people actually buy. The problem is not that Apple sets the price where it does. It's that a bunch of whiners think they can whine their way to lower prices, posting said whines with one of the three Apple products they bought this year.
Because Chrysler, GM and Ford all create same luxury level. Compare a Lexus to a Camry and while the production cost of a lexus may only be a little more, the MSRP is significantly more. Yes those are from the same manufacturer, but people still buy the Lexus even though it does the same thing as the Camry, just looks better doing it.
Given that it's just a tablet, it doesn't actually lock you in a physical cage. You're talking about the oh so important freedom of apps. While I will not be buying any of the iPads any time soon, definitely an Android fan for myself, preferring that your tablet computer just work how you want it to because it's just a tablet computer, not anything important, is just fine. This doesn't create any sort of slippery slope to giving up real freedoms as a matter of convenience. People don't want to think about their tablet computer so they can spend their time thinking about real important matters...well...I'm sure that's what at least some people do with the time they save...maybe....eh..
One big reason I'd be behind that is that the use tax would have a direct representation. My biggest problem with income tax is that it doesn't have a specific representation tied to it. It could go anywhere....in fact, if all taxes had to have specific direct representation (you know actually going to what the tax was meant for) then I may even be okay with Social Security. Maybe....
I guarantee you if there was a way to only pay taxes for things you actually used (use taxes are a very real alternative to income taxes) we would all be way better off. It's not something you could start doing overnight as those who currently pay no taxes would be harmed over the short term, but if someone was promoting the slow transition to a completely use-based tax system I would be behind them 100%.
What about the option of cutting spending? Including potentially some defense spending? You can't tell me that everything the government does right now is critical to the survival of the nation.
You use the term "exploiting" when referring to the fact that someone hires another person to do work. You are using a word that generally has a negative connotation to describe what happens every time someone works for someone else for a wage. If you consider that a bad thing, you are either 5 years old and congratulations on your superb abilities with computers, or you're just missing most of your brain.
Rewriting your last sentence first:
The capitalist works within the law to buy materials and land to build a business they hope will succeed possibly based on knowledge of unfilled demand, by using capital they have raised or borrow and hire what they feel is the right number of people to make sure operations run profitably.
You use negative words because you think capitalism and free markets are a bad thing, but without actual concrete reasons for that hatred, you make shit up and use mean sounding words.
How many jobs would exist without private industry you moron? None. And without private income how would your private income stealing wealth redistribution programs work?
Mostly to the high number of people involved in "managing" government services. The size of government to the services they provide makes the overhead of the big charities like United Way and Red Cross look like a pittance.
Slashdot Mirror
go use some other internets! Oh wait, you mean to say it's not the internets that is being censored? It's actually company or privately-owned websites that are accessed using the internet? And these companies and people who own these sites are able to set the bar for what is allowed on their site? There are many wonderfully open sites out there that will gladly let you post whatever you want despite you not being owed anything by them. Why is this a problem? And kerfuffle? Seriously?
I didn't say the product wasn't in demand, I said it wasn't AS in demand. Less demand means you must shift production of supply down to meet demand or lower cost of product to the point the demand rises again. Either of those require a cut in production costs. Hostess hasn't cut anyone's freedom. They are all free to go find another job now. Freedom and rights that we have given up are a separate issue that I also disagree with strongly.
As far as "should" they? That's up to them as the owners of the business. If they want to keep the business going, they would have to cut costs. They were unable to complete cost cutting and decided they had to shut down so as not to lose money.
The axiom "Never apply to malice what can be attributed to stupidity" applies in reverse for laws like this. What may look like an ineptly written law is more likely meant to hide true, and nefarious purpose. Maybe it's not in this case, but that's my assumption. Global in the title worries me...internet does span the globe, but this is a US law. Don't want to bring the globe into it. I think an acceptable new version of the law would be titled Free Internet Act and would simply read: No law shall be inacted regulating the use of the internet. Done.
The fiscal cliff is just forced cuts and tax increases. Not something the average citizen wants necessarily, but far from being all bad.
They could have stayed in business by cutting costs because their product wasn't as in demand. But just like our wonderful country's population, the bakers union would rather lose everything that take a cut.
don't mind him, he just assumes the ads are there just to add to an already "obscene" profit margin. Businesses must make money or they can't exist. If they ride a 0.0001% profit margin they are at risk of small changes in business climate making them insolvent. We have a great example in Hostess. They tried to go through a bankruptcy to try to keep the business alive. But they DARED to say that part of the bankruptcy cost cutting measures would impact the Union pay/benefits. Union strikes, already dangerously strained cash flow interrupted, business has to close for good. Think the union workers feel like they succeeded?
Except then we wouldn't have those hilarious youtube videos where youtube "stars" read those comments how they think they would sound if they had been spoken instead of typed. Comedic gold. Well..some of them anyway.
Good resummarization. However, your Kant reference ...that dude smoked some heavy stuff. Actually that's too nice. Way too abstract to be of any consequence. If categorical imperatives were so categorically imperative, you'd be able to read that Wiki article without eyes rolling back in your head. Guy was blowing a lot of hot air to say simple things in order to sound smart.
We're just moving it to a different part of the environment. It was still there.
Reporter or whoever is talking to me and pauses to tweet "real time" thoughts and the interview/conversation ends right there. I hate it when one person is having a conversation with another person and either of them think it's okay to "check their phone" let alone actually read or type something on it. It's rude. However, what Cassian Elwes did was misuse twitter. It wasn't real time. Putting all the tweets together the story is very poorly written. It's feigned real-time stream of consciousness and I'm sure he thought it added some dramatic effect. In reality, it was just Cassian Elwes not knowing the proper medium to tell a story.
You mean that stuff that is already in the environment? But if you really want an example, just walk by an Abercrombie & Fitch.
a company that loses a dollar is just closer to profitability than one that loses a million. If you continue losing $1 you will eventually go out of business, it just takes slightly longer. You may get more leeway from investors if you only lose $1. But neither is profitable. Profitable means you're getting profit out of it, anything 0 and less is not profitable.
Your Mac and iOS devices would also not be able to reach google in this scenario. Maybe that's what he meant....but really, probably just retarded.
high margin is relative. overpriced is only if not enough people buy it to make it profitable.
And there are (a lot of) people on slashdot that think the neighbor chef should willingly give you the meal for very close the same price as your kid would charge. I mean why should they have to suffer through lower quality meal just because neighbor chef wants to make absurd profits...
No freaking kidding. But the idiots that plague slashdot think they have a right to an iPad. And they go so far as to say that government should be regulating Apple so that they can't make "absurd" profits...forgetting that people buying them means people really do see them as worth the price.
You should not have been modded troll. While you could just leave the kissing part out of it. People buy their products at the current price at a high enough rate that they are making enough money to keep it at the current price. They may pre-emptively lower the price if they see another product from Samsung or whoever that may directly compete with their sales, but in general they set price based on what people actually buy. The problem is not that Apple sets the price where it does. It's that a bunch of whiners think they can whine their way to lower prices, posting said whines with one of the three Apple products they bought this year.
Because Chrysler, GM and Ford all create same luxury level. Compare a Lexus to a Camry and while the production cost of a lexus may only be a little more, the MSRP is significantly more. Yes those are from the same manufacturer, but people still buy the Lexus even though it does the same thing as the Camry, just looks better doing it.
Given that it's just a tablet, it doesn't actually lock you in a physical cage. You're talking about the oh so important freedom of apps. While I will not be buying any of the iPads any time soon, definitely an Android fan for myself, preferring that your tablet computer just work how you want it to because it's just a tablet computer, not anything important, is just fine. This doesn't create any sort of slippery slope to giving up real freedoms as a matter of convenience. People don't want to think about their tablet computer so they can spend their time thinking about real important matters...well...I'm sure that's what at least some people do with the time they save...maybe....eh..
One big reason I'd be behind that is that the use tax would have a direct representation. My biggest problem with income tax is that it doesn't have a specific representation tied to it. It could go anywhere....in fact, if all taxes had to have specific direct representation (you know actually going to what the tax was meant for) then I may even be okay with Social Security. Maybe....
I guarantee you if there was a way to only pay taxes for things you actually used (use taxes are a very real alternative to income taxes) we would all be way better off. It's not something you could start doing overnight as those who currently pay no taxes would be harmed over the short term, but if someone was promoting the slow transition to a completely use-based tax system I would be behind them 100%.
What about the option of cutting spending? Including potentially some defense spending? You can't tell me that everything the government does right now is critical to the survival of the nation.
You use the term "exploiting" when referring to the fact that someone hires another person to do work. You are using a word that generally has a negative connotation to describe what happens every time someone works for someone else for a wage. If you consider that a bad thing, you are either 5 years old and congratulations on your superb abilities with computers, or you're just missing most of your brain.
Rewriting your last sentence first:
The capitalist works within the law to buy materials and land to build a business they hope will succeed possibly based on knowledge of unfilled demand, by using capital they have raised or borrow and hire what they feel is the right number of people to make sure operations run profitably.
You use negative words because you think capitalism and free markets are a bad thing, but without actual concrete reasons for that hatred, you make shit up and use mean sounding words.
How many jobs would exist without private industry you moron? None. And without private income how would your private income stealing wealth redistribution programs work?
Mostly to the high number of people involved in "managing" government services. The size of government to the services they provide makes the overhead of the big charities like United Way and Red Cross look like a pittance.