Actually, that's not how they run things these days.
Given you have 1000 items to sell that cost you $1.00 to make. Given you would sell all at $1.50 or less. ($1500 gross - $1000 cost = $500 profit) Given you would sell none at $8.00. You find you can sell 200 of them at $7.00 ($1400 gross - $200 cost = $1200 profit) For simplicity, let's say higher prices give lower profits as sales approach zero. For simplicity, let's say lower prices give lower profits.
Given these facts, businesses will charge $7.00. They don't want the most people to have their product- they want the most profit.
This pricing model is often used for things like books, songs, amusement parks, etc. It's called yield management. Maximum profit. Not maximum product in the hands of consumers. They even do this for food at times.
Historically, corporatism or corporativism (Italian: corporativismo) refers to a political or economic system in which power is given to civic assemblies that represent economic, industrial, agrarian, social, cultural, and professional groups.... Italian fascist corporativism In Italian Fascism, this non-elected form of state "officializing" of every interest into the state was professed to better circumvent the marginalization of singular interests (as would allegedly happen by the unilateral end condition inherent in the democratic voting process). Corporativism would instead better recognize
I agree with you that men and women are different anatomically and biologically.
As far as a man being arrested for being topless... well yes they were well into the 1920's (http://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~roseying/ids110/3FRAME.HTM).
From that site: "Modesty was an issue well into the 1920's. Under the 'Bathing Suit Regulations' published in May 17, 1917, men's suits had to be worn with a skirt or have at least a skirt effect. The skirt had to be worn outside of the trunks. The other alternative was to wear a flannel knee pants with a vest and a fly front. During this time, the knitting mills were rapidly churning out many styles of suits, including the "speed suit," an one piece suit with deeply slashed armholes and closed leg trunks."
So... why do women have to swelter in a western "burka" when men get a pass? Because the law is being unequally enforced on both sexes. Indeed, current cases about topless females tend towards saying a topless female is as legal as a male is tho they still unfairly hold that if she is somehow behaving sexually she can be arrested while a topless male behaving sexually could not.
Consider... the "A" cup flat as a pancake female is arrested for being topless while the "B" cup overweight male next to her (lots of guys basically have breasts once they get fat enough) is not arrested. Is she being given equal protection under the law? No. And when judges are presented with cases that stark, they tend to rule she has as much right as a male to go without a shirt on a hot day.
If we choose to write the laws to respect those differences then cool. If we say "a female who exposes her breasts can be arrested" then that would be the law. When we say "A person wears a shirt or not" then we need to treat all 'person's the same.
Anyway... drifted far afield of my original point which is that the law is very arbitrary these days and it becomes hard for me to respect it. I was outraged by the Hilton thing and in the end not sure if she got more or less than other non-celeb's would have.
But the law says "Adult with person under 18 == Jail Time." Period.
The law doesn't carve out special exceptions for females or males; fertile or infertile. The law doesn't say "Male teacher who have a vasectomy can plow every girl on the cheerleader squad without punishment".
By your logic, the punishment for a male teacher who was infertile should be much less than for a male teacher who was fertile. And likewise those strap-on using lesbian teachers would get a complete "by" since they couldn't possibly impregnate.
And in many cases female teachers are not punished at all. It is only when they go back to the well repeatedly that they get busted.
The underlying principle on BOTH sides is that a 15 year old isn't emotionally or mentally mature enough to make that decision and so it is basically rape. And that mixing a 15 year old with 30 year old is a recipe for a messed up 15 year old (male or female).
Paris is an interesting case I agree. I'm not clear yet whether she ended up with more or less punishment.
And because a lot of guys think it would have been great to have gotten to have sex with their female teachers and do not even see it as potentially damaging.
But the law doesn't make those distinctions and yet it is unevenly enforced (which was my ironic point). We aspire to be a nation of laws, not men when in reality our laws are frequently selectively enforced. That is a problem with making everything illegal is that then you can suppress people you do not like by enforcing the law against them while ignoring it against people you do like.
Sometimes people with no heart are best capable of seeing the truth everyone else doesn't want to admit is true. You are one of the leading lawyers in this anti-riaa charge. I believe you need to be very clear headed and a bit heartless. Use emotion if it helps your case, but don't start believing your own bullshit.
I've never used friend or foe moderation. Some of the comments criticizing my positions have been painful to read (most of the time because I was wrong having spoken to casually- some of the time because the people were spiteful).
And this is why pretty hot female teachers having sex with 15 year old male students are not punished while handsome male teachers having sex with 15 year old female students go to prison for a decade.
I want to recognize how much respect and admiration everyone at Slashdot now has for all my posts.
---
Cool-- did that change anything? No. The fact is, that compared to the AS/400, microsoft operating systems are festering mounds of viruses that crash without warning at 10 times the rate. Compared to linux, microsoft O/S are boxers with glass jaws.
Instead of adding all of these new features in Vista (which sucked a ton of performance) they needed to shut down all the buffer overflow exposures (which have been avoided because they cause a 1-3% performance hit).
When we stop getting major Trojans, worms, email viruses, IM viruses, etc. then microsoft will get the respect they are proclaiming unilaterally they are getting.
I was standing about 25-30 feet away from the scene & had been recording for about 40 seconds, when the officer told me to stop filming him. I then asked him if it was illegal to be recording? He replies, "Get out of here I don't want you filming me." Still recording I walked away. Angry, he walks up to me, slaps the camera, then grabs it firmly & said, "didn't I tell you to stop recording?". In grabbing my camera, the officer touched my hand & said, "Don't touch me, you know I can arrest you for assaulting an officer." I said, "Ok, ok, just let go of my camera & I will leave." At that moment he grabs me & slams me against the car, causing me to let go of the camera on the hood of the car. Mike, who was in the driver seat, takes the camera & puts it in the car. My hands & arms were on the hood of the car. The officer then sees my gun, takes it & within seconds he slams me to the ground causing my head to hit the sidewalk. I tell him that I have a license to carry. At that moment, his partner comes up from behind me & knees me in the back of my head & they hand-cuff me. I chipped my tooth, bit my tongue (bleeding, leaving a half inch cut) scratched & bruised up my chin. They arrested me without reading my rights or telling me what my charges were. I asked them why I was being arrested? They did not reply.
I was in the car, not knowing why I was being arrested & what was going on, I kept asking them why are you guys arresting me? Another officer opened the car door & started yelling at me to shut-up pointing an electrical gun at me. Then an officer approaches the vehicle asking me for my concealed weapon license. I gave it to him & I asked again why was I being arrested? He did not respond & walks away.
There is also that guy who is refusing to pay his taxes. They cut off his electricity and water but he has his own source of power and water. It's a standoff right now but it will probably end with guns.
In the movies, when a lightsaber hits a lightsaber they both stop. The users even exert a great amount of physical strength against each other. That's the entire point of a lightsaber duel being like fencing. So he has a really good point. This aspect of it would not be in the game.
I'm not as interested in fighting another sword (tho that is sort of cool) as I am in the aspect of blocking blaster shots. I wonder what kind of UI they could give you that would allow you to do that and feel like you were really doing it. In the film world a blaster shot is slower than light (maybe even slower than a bullet) but still extremely fast.
Actually, If you are the person that originated the idea of a toaster, then the government protects you for 17 years. Most governments protect the first person to file the idea for at least a decade.
Key phrase: It is not a defense to a prosecution under this subsection that the law enforcement officer was acting unlawfully in making the arrest, provided he was acting under color of his official authority and provided the law enforcement officer announces his intention to arrest prior to the resistance.
Apparently (via Wiki) this is not the case in Denmark where the person is presumed guilty unless they resist or at least protest their innocence loudly on arrest.
Was the officer escorting them selectively enforcing the law?
Personally- I think law officers being reasonable is preferable to them strictly enforcing the law but it does teeter totter on the edge of bad things (you never know when your group is going to get the law while the other well liked group is going to have the law ignored).
I admire the clowns for anticipating the things the klan would say and pre-preparing clever jokes.
I'm happy to concede it was the democrats since I think both parties are bought and paid for by large corporations and have been for the last 20 to 25 years.
What the democrats invented, Bush mastered however.
I find it intriguing that he does not answer one of the questions raised by the student.
This is the problem with debates and political q&a's today. You asked "Why did you vote for bill 1234" and they answer "I firmly believe in a happiness for everyone and strong families" which has nothing to do with the question.
He was saying that the original charges of "smelling funny" are dropped and they keep the "resisting arrest" charge (which would not have occurred in the first place without the bogus charge they were using to arrest you on).
The only issue that i have with the "campus" argument is that the republicans have been defining away all public space to the point that the only public space to protest is now miles away in some cases. I would say that a student would have a reasonable expectation that they could protest on a campus where they were a student.
Well I do not carry a weapon so I will defer to your superior expertise in this area.
I can see how you could make those arguments but given where we were 30 years ago (when we were reacting to the police and government abuses of the 1960's) and where we are today (where we appear to be headed back to the worst of the 60's and beyond) it stinks to me. It seems like one more nail in the coffin on democracy and one more step towards fascism and feudalism.
Prior to video, this kind of thing probably happened constantly. I know my cop relative is a curious hybrid of hero and thug. He puts his life on the line to protect people while at the same time he gleefully relates stories about abusing his power and intimidating them and getting away with it because he is the law.
I would prefer that they restrain him since he wasn't hopped up on drugs or posing a serious threat to them. It seemed to me that they had him overpowered and decided to go for harsher measures just for grins or because they were hyped up and just went for it. It feels fascist to me as does the near blind support for them doing this.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, that's not how they run things these days.
Given you have 1000 items to sell that cost you $1.00 to make.
Given you would sell all at $1.50 or less. ($1500 gross - $1000 cost = $500 profit)
Given you would sell none at $8.00.
You find you can sell 200 of them at $7.00 ($1400 gross - $200 cost = $1200 profit)
For simplicity, let's say higher prices give lower profits as sales approach zero.
For simplicity, let's say lower prices give lower profits.
Given these facts, businesses will charge $7.00. They don't want the most people to have their product- they want the most profit.
This pricing model is often used for things like books, songs, amusement parks, etc. It's called yield management. Maximum profit. Not maximum product in the hands of consumers. They even do this for food at times.
Actually there is a pretty strong relation going back to WWII.
...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporatism
Historically, corporatism or corporativism (Italian: corporativismo) refers to a political or economic system in which power is given to civic assemblies that represent economic, industrial, agrarian, social, cultural, and professional groups.
Italian fascist corporativism
In Italian Fascism, this non-elected form of state "officializing" of every interest into the state was professed to better circumvent the marginalization of singular interests (as would allegedly happen by the unilateral end condition inherent in the democratic voting process). Corporativism would instead better recognize
I agree with you that men and women are different anatomically and biologically.
As far as a man being arrested for being topless... well yes they were well into the 1920's
(http://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~roseying/ids110/3FRAME.HTM).
From that site:
"Modesty was an issue well into the 1920's. Under the 'Bathing Suit Regulations' published in May 17, 1917, men's suits had to be worn with a skirt or have at least a skirt effect. The skirt had to be worn outside of the trunks. The other alternative was to wear a flannel knee pants with a vest and a fly front. During this time, the knitting mills were rapidly churning out many styles of suits, including the "speed suit," an one piece suit with deeply slashed armholes and closed leg trunks."
So... why do women have to swelter in a western "burka" when men get a pass? Because the law is being unequally enforced on both sexes. Indeed, current cases about topless females tend towards saying a topless female is as legal as a male is tho they still unfairly hold that if she is somehow behaving sexually she can be arrested while a topless male behaving sexually could not.
Consider... the "A" cup flat as a pancake female is arrested for being topless while the "B" cup overweight male next to her (lots of guys basically have breasts once they get fat enough) is not arrested. Is she being given equal protection under the law? No. And when judges are presented with cases that stark, they tend to rule she has as much right as a male to go without a shirt on a hot day.
If we choose to write the laws to respect those differences then cool. If we say "a female who exposes her breasts can be arrested" then that would be the law. When we say "A person wears a shirt or not" then we need to treat all 'person's the same.
Anyway... drifted far afield of my original point which is that the law is very arbitrary these days and it becomes hard for me to respect it. I was outraged by the Hilton thing and in the end not sure if she got more or less than other non-celeb's would have.
But the law says "Adult with person under 18 == Jail Time." Period.
The law doesn't carve out special exceptions for females or males; fertile or infertile.
The law doesn't say "Male teacher who have a vasectomy can plow every girl on the cheerleader squad without punishment".
By your logic, the punishment for a male teacher who was infertile should be much less than for a male teacher who was fertile. And likewise those strap-on using lesbian teachers would get a complete "by" since they couldn't possibly impregnate.
And in many cases female teachers are not punished at all. It is only when they go back to the well repeatedly that they get busted.
The underlying principle on BOTH sides is that a 15 year old isn't emotionally or mentally mature enough to make that decision and so it is basically rape. And that mixing a 15 year old with 30 year old is a recipe for a messed up 15 year old (male or female).
Paris is an interesting case I agree. I'm not clear yet whether she ended up with more or less punishment.
And because a lot of guys think it would have been great to have gotten to have sex with their female teachers and do not even see it as potentially damaging.
But the law doesn't make those distinctions and yet it is unevenly enforced (which was my ironic point). We aspire to be a nation of laws, not men when in reality our laws are frequently selectively enforced. That is a problem with making everything illegal is that then you can suppress people you do not like by enforcing the law against them while ignoring it against people you do like.
Fair enough.
Just being a canary in the coal mine Ray.
Sometimes people with no heart are best capable of seeing the truth everyone else doesn't want to admit is true.
You are one of the leading lawyers in this anti-riaa charge. I believe you need to be very clear headed and a bit heartless. Use emotion if it helps your case, but don't start believing your own bullshit.
I suggest you stick with comments that reach a positive moderation regardless of whether they are friend or foe.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groupthink
I've never used friend or foe moderation. Some of the comments criticizing my positions have been painful to read (most of the time because I was wrong having spoken to casually- some of the time because the people were spiteful).
Yes.
And this is why pretty hot female teachers having sex with 15 year old male students are not punished while handsome male teachers having sex with 15 year old female students go to prison for a decade.
Because the law is blind and impartial.
In line with microsoft's pronouncement,
I want to recognize how much respect and admiration everyone at Slashdot now has for all my posts.
---
Cool-- did that change anything? No. The fact is, that compared to the AS/400, microsoft operating systems are festering mounds of viruses that crash without warning at 10 times the rate. Compared to linux, microsoft O/S are boxers with glass jaws.
Instead of adding all of these new features in Vista (which sucked a ton of performance) they needed to shut down all the buffer overflow exposures (which have been avoided because they cause a 1-3% performance hit).
When we stop getting major Trojans, worms, email viruses, IM viruses, etc. then microsoft will get the respect they are proclaiming unilaterally they are getting.
It's not my story... it's a quote from the link.
But stuff like that has been reported several times here on slashdot.
Basically, if you offend the police they will frequently arrest you to punish you.
And as we know, if you have the temerity to video tape them breaking the law, they will arrest you for illegally recording their statements.
http://boards.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/WebX.fcgi?14@76.0a7SfrUKW8F%5E0@.ef0686f/18
I was standing about 25-30 feet away from the scene & had been recording for about 40 seconds, when the officer told me to stop filming him. I then asked him if it was illegal to be recording? He replies, "Get out of here I don't want you filming me." Still recording I walked away. Angry, he walks up to me, slaps the camera, then grabs it firmly & said, "didn't I tell you to stop recording?". In grabbing my camera, the officer touched my hand & said, "Don't touch me, you know I can arrest you for assaulting an officer." I said, "Ok, ok, just let go of my camera & I will leave." At that moment he grabs me & slams me against the car, causing me to let go of the camera on the hood of the car. Mike, who was in the driver seat, takes the camera & puts it in the car. My hands & arms were on the hood of the car. The officer then sees my gun, takes it & within seconds he slams me to the ground causing my head to hit the sidewalk. I tell him that I have a license to carry. At that moment, his partner comes up from behind me & knees me in the back of my head & they hand-cuff me. I chipped my tooth, bit my tongue (bleeding, leaving a half inch cut) scratched & bruised up my chin. They arrested me without reading my rights or telling me what my charges were. I asked them why I was being arrested? They did not reply.
I was in the car, not knowing why I was being arrested & what was going on, I kept asking them why are you guys arresting me? Another officer opened the car door & started yelling at me to shut-up pointing an electrical gun at me. Then an officer approaches the vehicle asking me for my concealed weapon license. I gave it to him & I asked again why was I being arrested? He did not respond & walks away.
There is also that guy who is refusing to pay his taxes. They cut off his electricity and water but he has his own source of power and water. It's a standoff right now but it will probably end with guns.
Another piece of Star Trek lore enters the real world.
In the movies, when a lightsaber hits a lightsaber they both stop. The users even exert a great amount of physical strength against each other. That's the entire point of a lightsaber duel being like fencing. So he has a really good point. This aspect of it would not be in the game.
I'm not as interested in fighting another sword (tho that is sort of cool) as I am in the aspect of blocking blaster shots. I wonder what kind of UI they could give you that would allow you to do that and feel like you were really doing it. In the film world a blaster shot is slower than light (maybe even slower than a bullet) but still extremely fast.
I've seen this many times in life and it is discouraging.
People wait for something to be working and then they pile on and try to take it over or destroy it.
I guess it is just human nature.
Is openoffice something that could be forked if there was a really nasty breakdown?
Actually,
If you are the person that originated the idea of a toaster, then the government protects you for 17 years. Most governments protect the first person to file the idea for at least a decade.
What is asserting is that once you resist arrest, the original charge doesn't matter.
Doing a little googling, he appears correct (at least in New Jersey and probably in most united states)
http://www.njlaws.com/resisting_arrest.htm
Key phrase: It is not a defense to a prosecution under this subsection that the law enforcement officer was acting unlawfully in making the arrest, provided he was acting under color of his official authority and provided the law enforcement officer announces his intention to arrest prior to the resistance.
Apparently (via Wiki) this is not the case in Denmark where the person is presumed guilty unless they resist or at least protest their innocence loudly on arrest.
There is an interesting and subtle point here.
Did the clowns have a permit?
Was the officer escorting them selectively enforcing the law?
Personally- I think law officers being reasonable is preferable to them strictly enforcing the law but it does teeter totter on the edge of bad things (you never know when your group is going to get the law while the other well liked group is going to have the law ignored).
I admire the clowns for anticipating the things the klan would say and pre-preparing clever jokes.
I'm happy to concede it was the democrats since I think both parties are bought and paid for by large corporations and have been for the last 20 to 25 years.
What the democrats invented, Bush mastered however.
I find it intriguing that he does not answer one of the questions raised by the student.
This is the problem with debates and political q&a's today. You asked "Why did you vote for bill 1234" and they answer "I firmly believe in a happiness for everyone and strong families" which has nothing to do with the question.
He was saying that the original charges of "smelling funny" are dropped and they keep the "resisting arrest" charge (which would not have occurred in the first place without the bogus charge they were using to arrest you on).
The only issue that i have with the "campus" argument is that the republicans have been defining away all public space to the point that the only public space to protest is now miles away in some cases. I would say that a student would have a reasonable expectation that they could protest on a campus where they were a student.
Otherwise, I agree with most of what you say.
Well I do not carry a weapon so I will defer to your superior expertise in this area.
I can see how you could make those arguments but given where we were 30 years ago (when we were reacting to the police and government abuses of the 1960's) and where we are today (where we appear to be headed back to the worst of the 60's and beyond) it stinks to me. It seems like one more nail in the coffin on democracy and one more step towards fascism and feudalism.
I suppose you have a good point.
Prior to video, this kind of thing probably happened constantly. I know my cop relative is a curious hybrid of hero and thug. He puts his life on the line to protect people while at the same time he gleefully relates stories about abusing his power and intimidating them and getting away with it because he is the law.
I would prefer that they restrain him since he wasn't hopped up on drugs or posing a serious threat to them. It seemed to me that they had him overpowered and decided to go for harsher measures just for grins or because they were hyped up and just went for it. It feels fascist to me as does the near blind support for them doing this.