Ah. Thank you. Here I go confuzzling majority and plurality again. I was more referring to the online book retail market, and the 15% number refers to total book retail, but that's probably what the investigators look at.
I don't understand. Isn't this the very definition of monopolistic no-nos? Company with great majority of market in one area leverages that for dominance in another market. Why isn't the DoJ already involved? Or will it be once we stop having a "Corporations are always right!" administration (if that ever happens)?
The dollar is headed from hero to zero, and once there, the currency and lifestyle disparities between us and our outsourcing vendors (that got us all of this near-free stuff) will be gone.
This is a very strange argument to make. The declining dollar is the one great force against offshore outsourcing. Perhaps it would not surprise you to think that if the dollar drops another 20% against world currencies that our exports will grow more than 20% and our imports will shrink more than 20% (and thus our domestic spending grow higher).
As far as the lack of disparities in lifestyle between us and other nations, well, good! We spend a lot of money in aid (and rightly so) each year trying to get other countries to a decent standard of living. Certainly our trade treaties need to come with working condition standards, but hundreds of millions of people in China living above the poverty line is not a bad thing.
Or, at least in America, a tax on the poor. If you make $400k a year, you don't really care if you get 2 $75 tickets a year. There are some more enlightened countries that make the penalty proportional to income, which is both safer and fairer.
The part that I don't get is why the labels aren't offering to Apple, and thus Apple to its customers album discounts. Sell me an entire Regina Spektor album for the $6 or $7 and I'll gladly pay for it, instead of otherwise buying 4 tracks individually. At that point it's pure profit for everyone involved. I might still buy the one song on it I like, play it more find out I really really like, and buy the whole album--with that song again.
I don't want the album to go away. I think it's a great conceptual unit (when used correctly). Let me pay more for it.
As an aside, I'd appreciate iTunes letting me easily select blocks of music I could keep in the same order, even when listening to randomized music. "Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band" should always be followed by "With a Little Help from My Friends" (and maybe the album's entirety).
One major issue however is that while the roads can take 120mph, the great majority of tires sold in the US aren't designed to go past 90mph, and some less. If policemen had some trivial method to check that someone's entire car could handle higher speeds safely, I'd be more inclined to push for higher speed limits. (Also if they could be automatically micromanaged so it would still be illegal for someone to try to drive 80mph in pouring rainor snow.)
I agree with you entirely, but for the small nitpick that friction/drag losses scale at velocity squared. Since your engine is also less efficient at higher RPMs, I wouldn't be surprised if fuel usage varies with the cube of speed.
We designed and built Potato Guns, for credit, in an upper level engineering class. In another we designed and built autonomous Lego robots. Engineering classes==awesome. I just wish I could afford to go back and take more now.
But there's a circular reasoning problem. The President has lately been telling the American public that his positions are supported by his generals. If his generals can only give their opinions to him, then he is unaccountable.
Just a note: Nobody goes into police work for traffic duty. Any cops who sit with their radar guns did not pick that line of work. Furthermore, communities that have chosen to use supplement their tax base with overly zealot ticketing are not governed by the police who carry this out, but by politicians who make this choice and then direct their police accordingly.
Certainly many cops bully unnecessarily, but giving traffic tickets is not something that they have any say about.
Not to be too nit-picky, but if by "air" you mean the current 21%ish O2, mostly N2 air we breathe that lacks toxic components it most certainly has a cost. In the US the EPA makes companies pay a lot of money (though not nearly enough) to keep the air in the state that it's in. Once you look at opportunity costs, nothing's free.
Even your enjoyment of sunshine (if you're not a pure/.er) comes at the cost of someone not using it above you. You might think this silly, but if you look into gardening in an urban environment, one of the major limitations is places you can put plants that don't interfere with other people's sunlight.
Now you're a real/.er, not even reading the title. I salute you.
This is an article about money being allocated for future research. Ergo, they're not making them yet and really don't know their capabilities, much less price.
Slashdot Mirror
Ah. Thank you. Here I go confuzzling majority and plurality again. I was more referring to the online book retail market, and the 15% number refers to total book retail, but that's probably what the investigators look at.
I don't understand. Isn't this the very definition of monopolistic no-nos? Company with great majority of market in one area leverages that for dominance in another market. Why isn't the DoJ already involved? Or will it be once we stop having a "Corporations are always right!" administration (if that ever happens)?
The dollar is headed from hero to zero, and once there, the currency and lifestyle disparities between us and our outsourcing vendors (that got us all of this near-free stuff) will be gone.
This is a very strange argument to make. The declining dollar is the one great force against offshore outsourcing. Perhaps it would not surprise you to think that if the dollar drops another 20% against world currencies that our exports will grow more than 20% and our imports will shrink more than 20% (and thus our domestic spending grow higher).
As far as the lack of disparities in lifestyle between us and other nations, well, good! We spend a lot of money in aid (and rightly so) each year trying to get other countries to a decent standard of living. Certainly our trade treaties need to come with working condition standards, but hundreds of millions of people in China living above the poverty line is not a bad thing.
...That every single drinks dispenser in the entire game world dispense only Coca-Cola.
That's not realistic or unobtrusive at all.
I take it you've never been to Atlanta?
Or, at least in America, a tax on the poor. If you make $400k a year, you don't really care if you get 2 $75 tickets a year. There are some more enlightened countries that make the penalty proportional to income, which is both safer and fairer.
Agreed. Need option to change it back. When it was just text it looked a lot more like I was working while reading /.
The part that I don't get is why the labels aren't offering to Apple, and thus Apple to its customers album discounts. Sell me an entire Regina Spektor album for the $6 or $7 and I'll gladly pay for it, instead of otherwise buying 4 tracks individually. At that point it's pure profit for everyone involved. I might still buy the one song on it I like, play it more find out I really really like, and buy the whole album--with that song again.
I don't want the album to go away. I think it's a great conceptual unit (when used correctly). Let me pay more for it.
As an aside, I'd appreciate iTunes letting me easily select blocks of music I could keep in the same order, even when listening to randomized music. "Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band" should always be followed by "With a Little Help from My Friends" (and maybe the album's entirety).
Anybody know why either of these don't happen?
There is no such thing as a moderate when it comes to religion.
I take it you've never heard of the Unitarian Univeralists? I know they're not for everyone, but they are the very definition of a moderate religion.
One major issue however is that while the roads can take 120mph, the great majority of tires sold in the US aren't designed to go past 90mph, and some less. If policemen had some trivial method to check that someone's entire car could handle higher speeds safely, I'd be more inclined to push for higher speed limits. (Also if they could be automatically micromanaged so it would still be illegal for someone to try to drive 80mph in pouring rainor snow.)
I agree with you entirely, but for the small nitpick that friction/drag losses scale at velocity squared. Since your engine is also less efficient at higher RPMs, I wouldn't be surprised if fuel usage varies with the cube of speed.
Yes, Digg is rather alien, isn't it?
We designed and built Potato Guns, for credit, in an upper level engineering class. In another we designed and built autonomous Lego robots. Engineering classes==awesome. I just wish I could afford to go back and take more now.
+1 Troll.
But there's a circular reasoning problem. The President has lately been telling the American public that his positions are supported by his generals. If his generals can only give their opinions to him, then he is unaccountable.
I would agree with you if this were not the case.
Just a note: Nobody goes into police work for traffic duty. Any cops who sit with their radar guns did not pick that line of work. Furthermore, communities that have chosen to use supplement their tax base with overly zealot ticketing are not governed by the police who carry this out, but by politicians who make this choice and then direct their police accordingly.
Certainly many cops bully unnecessarily, but giving traffic tickets is not something that they have any say about.
Dude, tags need some finite length. "cheers" is enough for me.
Ads just on search pages is a good idea. I was going to say just on locked entries, but your idea is better.
Hacking sperm banks FTW!
Actually, most characters were zombies in that one too.
I'm sorry I haven't mod points today. That was awesome.
Not to be too nit-picky, but if by "air" you mean the current 21%ish O2, mostly N2 air we breathe that lacks toxic components it most certainly has a cost. In the US the EPA makes companies pay a lot of money (though not nearly enough) to keep the air in the state that it's in. Once you look at opportunity costs, nothing's free.
/.er) comes at the cost of someone not using it above you. You might think this silly, but if you look into gardening in an urban environment, one of the major limitations is places you can put plants that don't interfere with other people's sunlight.
Even your enjoyment of sunshine (if you're not a pure
JAX does as well.
Now you're a real /.er, not even reading the title. I salute you.
This is an article about money being allocated for future research. Ergo, they're not making them yet and really don't know their capabilities, much less price.
But Puritans don't have sex!
You met your wife online in 1981??? On a bbs or something? You're that one guy who's given the rest of us false hope all these years???