I don't know of any business that charges less than they could for their product....
...most big businesses do. They ride the elasticity curve to maximize their overall profit (or sometimes revenue or even penetration). The nature of the curve is such that if you are selling 100,000 units at $20, then you could sell some smaller number (let's say 25,000) at $30.
You generally only see "all the traffic will bear" pricing when demand really exceeds capacity.
IANAL but I have recently had the business law class in the MBA program @ GSU.
It is not illegal in the US to be a monopoly. It is illegal to use your monopoly position to compete unfairly (i.e. "abusive monopolist").
In the US the Dept of Justice and the Dept of Commerce usually consider a firm to be a monopoly if they have ~70% market share. Providing a variety of products or services is not generally necessary to be considered a monopolist. For instance, Amtrak is a monopoly provider of interstate rail travel, the US Post Office is a monopoly provider of First Class Mail service (but not for package service), and many utility companies are monopolies.
If all of the competitors except one in a market space leave the market, the remaining firm is indeed a monopoly. There was some concern recently that Walmart might become a monopoly provider of grocery services in the US. There was a large grocery chain (I can't remember which one, I think it was in California) that was on the verge of bankruptcy. If they stopped operation, Walmart was going to be very close to the 70% mark. I think the grocer did a reorganization instead.
The big thing about being a monopoly is that you are under greater governmental oversight and your business practices can be sharply constrained. However, as Microsoft showed, it is possible to stretch regulatory litigation out until you can get a more friendly administration (i.e. Clinton to Bush).
The guy that wrote the Constitution of the US (Thomas Jefferson) asserted several times that people did not and could not "own" ideas. Period. I have read his reasoning and I have to say, I agree with him. Maybe this is easy for me to say because I am not a media or software company, but I do write short stories, and I still agree with him.
Furthermore, I think people who support the DMCA view of things should consider where we will be as a culture in a few decades. I understand the incentive argument, but the restrictions on reuse have become way more burdensome than is necessary for the promotion of creation. We will lose our creative/technical/cultural lead for this very reason. We currently hold a position very similar to France in the 1700's. Pretty soon we may hold a position very similar to France in the 1900's.
I was just visiting my father in the hospital. Many of the patients had a wireless monitor tracking their heartrates. These heartrates were displayed on a series of computer monitors at the nurse's station. I think they were networked using a bunch of PC's.
Disclaimer: I used to be an airport security monkey (Tampa Int'l Airport).
There is not a secret law at work here. There is a law in the USC requiring the airlines to develop and implement security procedures. This law requires them to keep these regulations secret. The security guard in question probably had no knowledge of the USC, but he has been through training that told him he is not required (or allowed) to show any of his regulations to customers.
This arrangement works out ok if you see the airlines and the gov't as separate entities. If you see them as two intertwined octopus-like organisms then it starts to look more like an intentional evasion of Constitutional guarantees.
I'm not sure where I stand on this issue, exactly. I do know that I used to tell stories about just how bad airport security was, from the perspective of someone who knew. Since Sept 11 I don't think those stories are funny anymore.
For the past couple of years I have designed and built databases for local area charities (for tracking donations, clients, volunteers, whatever). These people really need the help, have no freaking money, and are trying to good things for people. I don't have much money, but a little technical assistance goes a long way. These people really appreciate the help.
Did anyone else think this sentence sounded weird?
We regret the recent positions on Internet governance(i.e., the "new cooperation model") offered by the European Union, the Presidency of which is currently held by the United Kingdom, seems to propose just that - a new structure of intergovernmental control over the Internet.
If you set aside all of those dependent clauses you get "We regret the recent positions on Internet governance offered by the European Union seems to propose just that."
I would have expected "We regretthat the recent positions..."
or maybe
We regret the recent positions... the United Kingdom, because they seem to propose just that.
Additionally, "positions" (plural) should have the verb "seem." Either our leaders have poor grammar, or this is bogus AND our leaders have poor grammar.
Technically they're not denying you travel, they're denying you access to most mass transit. No planes, only some trains, maybe boats(I have no idea). You're free to hoof it, or ride a bike or horse (can't drive a car, motorcycle, or truck, though). You can ride with somebody, hire a car service (maybe), and (someplaces) hitchhike.
Also, I've done some work with the Georgia Law Center for the Homeless and I believe they've gotten homeless people gov't ID before, though I don't think driver's licenses.
post hoc, ergo propter hoc. Maybe they are both responding to something else? 'Nuff said.
There is a nice periodic cycle with CO2 and other greenhouse gases...
Well, okay, so we're due? Is that what you're saying? It's gonna happen regardless?
Then suddenly near present times, the level of greenhouse gases shoots up by a massive level.
Well, okay. Maybe (I said maybe, okay?) every time the cycle turns up there is a sharp increase that is of too short a duration to be captured in the ice. I'm not sure that I believe they have that kind of discrimination over 600,000 years of data. For sure I don't trust anyone leaping up and saying It's done! Established fact! Proof positive! No further possible questions!
. . . will stream to laptop PCs running Sony's LocationFree Player or to a PlayStation Portable (PSP) running firmware version 2.5 (a free upgrade to this version is available via the PSP's network update function)
the delicate balance that existed before we began adding our share.
That delicate balance never existed. Earth has been heating up for thousands of years.
Sulphates? CO2 levels are pretty much uniform over the entire planet. Here is the temperature record for the oldest continually operating weather station in Australia:
If you walk along the cliff tops with your eyes closed and you fall off, is it the cliffs fault ?
This is a pretty facetious analogy. Doing something stupid to yourself and having something done to you by malicious others are not the same things. Being deceived by skillful liars is hardly an offense.
...sometimes you have to accept responsibility for things that happen to you.
You're kidding, right? You should only take responsibility for decisions you make and actions you take. You have to live with things that happen to you, but that's different from accepting responsibility.
So all your examples can be twisted the other way.
Sure, any examples can be twisted. This has nothing to do with the original point I made.
I mean, what does the word "provocative" mean ?
You're dodging my point. Next we'll be arguing over what the meaning of the word 'is' is.
Why were locks invented ?
Because there are bad people out there, that want to do bad things. We respond by making it harder to do those bad things. This is a perfect example of what I am suggesting with regard to corporations: let's make it harder for them to do things that are bad for us.
Slashdot Mirror
...otherwise erstwhile...?
:)
I don't think erstwhile means what you think it means
I don't know of any business that charges less than they could for their product....
...most big businesses do. They ride the elasticity curve to maximize their overall profit (or sometimes revenue or even penetration). The nature of the curve is such that if you are selling 100,000 units at $20, then you could sell some smaller number (let's say 25,000) at $30.
You generally only see "all the traffic will bear" pricing when demand really exceeds capacity.
Apologies in advance if this is overly pedantic.
This is Slashdot.
Your logic and reason are not welcome here.
Diablo 1. I still play it when I need some uncomplicated fun.
Please see my several other apologies for my mistake in this thread.
That's me talking out my ass. Sorry, and thanks for the correction.
Color me a dumbass. Sorry about that.
IANAL but I have recently had the business law class in the MBA program @ GSU.
It is not illegal in the US to be a monopoly. It is illegal to use your monopoly position to compete unfairly (i.e. "abusive monopolist").
In the US the Dept of Justice and the Dept of Commerce usually consider a firm to be a monopoly if they have ~70% market share. Providing a variety of products or services is not generally necessary to be considered a monopolist. For instance, Amtrak is a monopoly provider of interstate rail travel, the US Post Office is a monopoly provider of First Class Mail service (but not for package service), and many utility companies are monopolies.
If all of the competitors except one in a market space leave the market, the remaining firm is indeed a monopoly. There was some concern recently that Walmart might become a monopoly provider of grocery services in the US. There was a large grocery chain (I can't remember which one, I think it was in California) that was on the verge of bankruptcy. If they stopped operation, Walmart was going to be very close to the 70% mark. I think the grocer did a reorganization instead.
The big thing about being a monopoly is that you are under greater governmental oversight and your business practices can be sharply constrained. However, as Microsoft showed, it is possible to stretch regulatory litigation out until you can get a more friendly administration (i.e. Clinton to Bush).
Lawyers.
A work is the property of the author.
/ a1_8_8s12.html
The guy that wrote the Constitution of the US (Thomas Jefferson) asserted several times that people did not and could not "own" ideas. Period. I have read his reasoning and I have to say, I agree with him. Maybe this is easy for me to say because I am not a media or software company, but I do write short stories, and I still agree with him.
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents
Furthermore, I think people who support the DMCA view of things should consider where we will be as a culture in a few decades. I understand the incentive argument, but the restrictions on reuse have become way more burdensome than is necessary for the promotion of creation. We will lose our creative/technical/cultural lead for this very reason. We currently hold a position very similar to France in the 1700's. Pretty soon we may hold a position very similar to France in the 1900's.
I was just visiting my father in the hospital. Many of the patients had a wireless monitor tracking their heartrates. These heartrates were displayed on a series of computer monitors at the nurse's station. I think they were networked using a bunch of PC's.
Who had to renounce their citizenship? Do you mean Padilla?
Disclaimer: I used to be an airport security monkey (Tampa Int'l Airport).
There is not a secret law at work here. There is a law in the USC requiring the airlines to develop and implement security procedures. This law requires them to keep these regulations secret. The security guard in question probably had no knowledge of the USC, but he has been through training that told him he is not required (or allowed) to show any of his regulations to customers.
This arrangement works out ok if you see the airlines and the gov't as separate entities. If you see them as two intertwined octopus-like organisms then it starts to look more like an intentional evasion of Constitutional guarantees.
I'm not sure where I stand on this issue, exactly. I do know that I used to tell stories about just how bad airport security was, from the perspective of someone who knew. Since Sept 11 I don't think those stories are funny anymore.
For the past couple of years I have designed and built databases for local area charities (for tracking donations, clients, volunteers, whatever). These people really need the help, have no freaking money, and are trying to good things for people. I don't have much money, but a little technical assistance goes a long way. These people really appreciate the help.
Did anyone else think this sentence sounded weird?
... the United Kingdom, because they seem to propose just that.
We regret the recent positions on Internet governance(i.e., the "new cooperation model") offered by the European Union, the Presidency of which is currently held by the United Kingdom, seems to propose just that - a new structure of intergovernmental control over the Internet.
If you set aside all of those dependent clauses you get "We regret the recent positions on Internet governance offered by the European Union seems to propose just that."
I would have expected "We regret that the recent positions..."
or maybe
We regret the recent positions
Additionally, "positions" (plural) should have the verb "seem." Either our leaders have poor grammar, or this is bogus AND our leaders have poor grammar.
Technically they're not denying you travel, they're denying you access to most mass transit. No planes, only some trains, maybe boats(I have no idea). You're free to hoof it, or ride a bike or horse (can't drive a car, motorcycle, or truck, though). You can ride with somebody, hire a car service (maybe), and (someplaces) hitchhike.
Also, I've done some work with the Georgia Law Center for the Homeless and I believe they've gotten homeless people gov't ID before, though I don't think driver's licenses.
... your calm levelheadedness is not welcome here :)
Bill? Is that you?
Also temperature slightly lags behind CO2
post hoc, ergo propter hoc. Maybe they are both responding to something else? 'Nuff said.
There is a nice periodic cycle with CO2 and other greenhouse gases...
Well, okay, so we're due? Is that what you're saying? It's gonna happen regardless?
Then suddenly near present times, the level of greenhouse gases shoots up by a massive level.
Well, okay. Maybe (I said maybe, okay?) every time the cycle turns up there is a sharp increase that is of too short a duration to be captured in the ice. I'm not sure that I believe they have that kind of discrimination over 600,000 years of data. For sure I don't trust anyone leaping up and saying It's done! Established fact! Proof positive! No further possible questions!
getting thicker/bigger, not thinner/smaller
http://www.ucsc.edu/currents/01-02/01-28/antarcti
and yet the Antarctic ice sheets are colder than ever and getting bigger and thicker.
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/29
...what's happening here is the scientific community's consensus...
...what's happening here is the consensus of a vocal part of the scientific community ...
There, I fixed it for you.
. . . will stream to laptop PCs running Sony's LocationFree Player or to a PlayStation Portable (PSP) running firmware version 2.5 (a free upgrade to this version is available via the PSP's network update function)
...aaaaaaaaaand a rootkit.
the delicate balance that existed before we began adding our share.
_ station.py?id=501947030000&data_set=1&num_neighbor s=1
That delicate balance never existed. Earth has been heating up for thousands of years.
Sulphates? CO2 levels are pretty much uniform over the entire planet. Here is the temperature record for the oldest continually operating weather station in Australia:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/gistemp
Now that's global warming!
If you walk along the cliff tops with your eyes closed and you fall off, is it the cliffs fault ?
...sometimes you have to accept responsibility for things that happen to you.
This is a pretty facetious analogy. Doing something stupid to yourself and having something done to you by malicious others are not the same things. Being deceived by skillful liars is hardly an offense.
You're kidding, right? You should only take responsibility for decisions you make and actions you take. You have to live with things that happen to you, but that's different from accepting responsibility.
So all your examples can be twisted the other way.
Sure, any examples can be twisted. This has nothing to do with the original point I made.
I mean, what does the word "provocative" mean ?
You're dodging my point. Next we'll be arguing over what the meaning of the word 'is' is.
Why were locks invented ?
Because there are bad people out there, that want to do bad things. We respond by making it harder to do those bad things. This is a perfect example of what I am suggesting with regard to corporations: let's make it harder for them to do things that are bad for us.