>Like Star Trek after Nemesis, the franchise needs
>to be given a rest on the big and small screens
I'm generally perplexed by comments like these. If people think something 'needs a rest' then don't watch it. Lots of people drop shows when they think they've gone on too long. If you think Star Wars is 'done' then don't watch.
Alright, so it's not 'cable' by the standard definition, i.e. not "coaxial cable" - It's a data service over a pair of copper wires. I realize it's still a 'cable' coming into your house, but it's not the standard definition of 'Cable.':)
Does your provider also offer a PVR? i.e. how do you 'watch one show and tape another'?
and my digital cable service is pure digital, no analogue signals coming to my house:)
So if you want to put a second telly somewhere in the house, you have to get a second digital box? i.e. channels 2-60 (or whatever it is) that are typically analog on most cable systems, are *not* analog in your system?
What can or can't be done within the borders of a particular jurisdiction is up to that jurisdiction to decide.
I think what muddies the waters in the USA is how you are 'one nation under law' but your laws are highly regionalized. In some states I will be killed for murder, in some I won't, in some states I can drive really fast, in some states I can't and will get huge fines, in some counties I can engage in oral sex, in others I can't... And so on.
So while Saudi Arabia bans alcohol everywhere, the USA just bans gambling somewhere.
Sometimes I don't get it.../.ers complain because there are thousands of unpatched Windows bot-boxen out there spewing spam... Yet any hint of any kind of auto-update and they complain again?
Sometimes I think all updates should be FORCED whether you want them or not... at least for the 'home' versions of software. This might put some kind of dent in these bots.
'It's a bit hard to believe that all the customers who shop at the world's largest retailer want censored versions of music, though, but that's what they get.
The vast majority of people likely don't want censored music, or, more likely, don't care if Wal*Mart is selling uncensoring music. However, there is a loud moralistic minority that annouces Wal*Mart boycotts etc. if they hear about something they don't like. The majority never chimes in with a counter-opinion, so the minority wins.
Another analogy might be if Wal*Mart starting selling Playboy magazine. I bet 97% of Wal*Mart shoppers wouldn't care and wouldn't alter their purchasing behaviour because of it, but I also guarantee that remaining 3% would picket the store and demand boycotts in their churches. As a result, no playboy.
The only reason the airline can charge more is because they can prevent you from buying a seat from a third party.
Yes and no - United says 'we're the only ones who can sell you a ticket' but they can't prevent you from buying a ticket on Southwest, JetBlue or Delta. They're in effect the 'third party' - The competition.
Competition in major markets has also pretty much determined the lowest fare available anyway - So even if these mythical 'third parties' could resell tickets they probably wouldn't have a discounted fare to offer you anyway. This is one of the reasons Priceline hasn't done as well as one might have expected. In the air the fare you have to bid isn't much, if at all, below what simply purchasing a ticket would have cost.
The economics for ticket sales for air travel are minimally different than for concerts, theater
They're quite different, actually.
Here's something someone recently sent me that helps explain it -
Major airlines have rarely, if ever, posted reasonable profits. So, keeping in mind that a good percentage of flights are always going to lose money, the airline industry has a system that tries to keep this in check. Basically, every flight has its seats divided up into 'classes' (this has nothing to do with first class/business etc) that we'll call A, B, C and D. These classes have mostly to do with price.
When an airline plans a flight, they look at how much it's going to cost, and divide the seats up in different price classes. A simplified model might look like:
Cost of flight : $20,000
When the flight is announced, the airline will say 'if we sell 20 seats at $1000 we break even'. So, They add 20 seats to the plan with an A class.
... or, 40 seats at $500... B class.. 80 at $250 etc.
Then through some process of voodoo economics, the number of various classed seats that must be sold is decided.
So, 3 months before a flight, you can get a C class ticket quite easily, as they expect that in that time they might sell 80 seats. As it gets closer to the flight day, all the $250 seats may have sold, or they start to realize that they are not all going to sell, so they stop selling C class tickets and only have B. Twice the price, but you need half as many customers, which is half as many seats, meals, bags, etc etc.
A few days before the flight there may only be A class tickets, as they'd rather sell just one ticket at A class price than 4 at B class.
If you _really_ need to get somewhere you'll pay whatever they ask right? Besides, if they've sold all the C class, they break even. Adding cheap seats at this point can actually lose money (more staff needed, more fuel needed etc.)
Then, standby is D class.. since we're about to leave, and we're not going to sell these seats, we'll get you on board... but only if we need the money.
So, they don't want to sell you a seat at any old price, because it takes a seat away from someone who *might* pay more for it. This is why pricing flights is so complex. It may not even be NP complete, and it's nowhere near O(n).
This is very different than the theatre, where they have three or four 'classes of service' and sell off tickets cheap the day of the show.
More time waiting is equivalent to a higher cost ticket. Perhaps your time is worthless?
Nope, but if I'm travelling in business I can just get to the airport and work on my laptop. Who cares whether I'm at my desk or at Starbucks? And if I'm travelling for pleasure I've already taken the day off so who cares if I'm hanging at home or at the bar in the airport?
In reality, ticket prices should go down as the flight nears, in order to encourage sales of the remaining seats.
Incorrect - The vast majority of people who purchase tickets "last minute" are people who MUST travel on date X at time Y. As a result, the airline can and does charge more for these seats, for the 'privilege' of booking last minute. If you study airline economics you'll see that there isn't a pool of last-minute travellers who snap up the cheap seats. There is, however, a pool of last-minute travellers who will pay more to travel right now.
Additionally, agencies should be able to purchase discount tickets and resell them later on.
Both of these things are only possible if all classes of tickets are transferable, and they also both reduce the costs to you as a consumer. Additionally a transferable ticket allows you to cut your losses if it turns out you can't travel as planned.
As a passenger, I don't want to subsidize other passengers who can't 'travel as planned.' Those pax should be purchasing insurance or more expensive tickets, not asking me to subsidize them through my ticket.
Profit margins on the airlines are razor-thin. If 'all classes of tickets were transferable' then the higher costs of administering this would be passed on to the flying public. You and I would pay higher fares. And I don't want to.
You're a complete fool
And you're a complete fool for accusing others of being fools without doing your homework first.
If you think non-transferable tickets save you money. They exist to extract the most money possible out of you, not to save you money.
They save me money. The airline has said "If you're willing to commit to this flight on this day, X days in advance, and you're not going to change your ticket I'll only charge you $Z. If you want additional services on your ticket, we'll charge you more."
Of course they were transferable in the USA and presumably Canada, and I've done it myself. Here's how it worked: You bought a ticket. You decided you didn't want to go. Your friend said they would like to go if you aren't using your ticket. You hand the ticket to your friend. Your friend goes to the airport. He shows them the ticket. He gets on the plane. Easy-peasy.
Ah.. I understand. Sorry, by transferable I thought you meant "change the name on the ticket in the airline computers."
I always figured doing this made it easier to identify the bodies:)
Because you have a greater economic impact. If you blow up a mall in Charlotte, people will probably keep going to malls in Chicago. If blow up LAX, you'll probably cause people to stop flying all over the place, and create ripples throughout the economy.
Weird how tickets being transferable prior to 9/11 didn't cause any of the airlines to have to jack prices up
Not sure where you were in the world, but in the USA and Canada discount-price tickets were NOT transferable prior to 9/11 either. In fact, prior to 9/11 to get a cheap fare you had to stay a Saturday night. That doesn't happen any more - There's one anecdotal piece of evidence of lower fares.
Stop overbooking. Just stop. No conditions, exceptions, nothing.
Overbooking happens because on a certain percentage of flights business travelers always fail to show up. By overbooking the flight they can sell the seats of those no-shows. More bums in the plane = Cheaper airfares. Therefore, I don't want them to stop overbooking as airfares I pay will by extension go up. Bumping = cheaper airfares. Typically most overbooked flights are swarmed with volunteers willing to be bumped in exchange for perks, so this is a red herring. If you show up sufficiently early to check in it's unlikely you'll be bumped due to an overbooking scenario.
Allow tickets to be transferable. That would allow people's plans to be more flexible (but prevent some of the ways they price gouge).
Tickets *are* transferable if you purchase the correct fare class. If you purchase a cheaper ticket there are more restrictions. As a consumer, I don't want all tickets to be transferable, as 'cheaper' fares will disappear.
Paying cash for those kinds of things is so much cheaper
No it's not - If you're a responsible borrower you can profit handily from these deals. Need $5000 worth of furniture? Get it now on a 'pay later' plan, and put the $5000 in an account bearing interest. You get the profit and when the furniture payment's due, just pay it. Get a "borrow at 1% interest!" offer in the mail? Borrow the money, invest it in something safe, pay it off a day before it starts charging interest and pocket the profits. You won't get rich doing this, but you will make several hundred dollars per year - Enough for some nice evenings out or whatever, all for 10 minute's work.
I take care of the summer reservations for a small beach resort. We don't take cash - If people want to pay cash I tell them to take it to the post office and get a money order and give me that. We're always booked solid, so if someone walks away because of our policy I just move to the next person on my waiting list. Why don't we take cash? Because reservations are handled in Vancouver and the deposits are done at a credit union on Vancouver Island. It's too much of a hassle to ship the cash to the final point, or set up a transfer for a thousand-dollar payment.
Right - That's what you should continue to do. I'm suggesting you keep some cash *at home* in a safe place, and tap into that instead of the ATM. Then you'll save the fees, and you won't be carrying around hundreds of dollars. This also has the added benefit of helping you if there's a natural disaster - Tornado, Flood, Earthquake, Power Grid failure - You'll still have CASH and be able to make purchases.
>I don't use my credit card, though -- too much temptation to let the balance sit.
Well, that's just something you need to train yourself out of:)
>Canadian banks have posted record profits and yet the fees only go up and up
If you're not happy about fees buy shares in the banks. If you'd bought shares in CIBC 5 years ago you'd've more than doubled your money. That would have more than covered any ATM fees you'd've paid in that time.
I never understand people who complain about banking fees. What is everyone doing using the ATMs so much anyway? Take out a couple of hundred bucks (or whatever) and hide that at home. Tap into it when you need it and there's your spending money. Make purchases with your credit card, and pay it off each month. If people had spending pattern like that they'd pay virtually no banking fees at all. This is how people banked before ATMs - Just do it again. I'll go out with friends for the evening and they'll take $30 out of the ATM. I'll say "what are you doing? Take out $100 and you won't have to go through this again in three days."
I wouldn't be surprised to see an uprising of this idea within a year in Canada.
It's not as big of a problem up here in Canada. There is already a federal sales tax of 6% that applies to nearly all purchases (food staples are exempt etc.). So if you order something online from a Canadian vendor like amazon.CA you pay the 6% tax.
Although this tax goes into the federal coffers, some of it does get redistributed to the provinces as 'transfer payments.' Also, provincial income taxes are higher, so the provinces aren't as dependent on consumption taxes.
other people's freedoms should be restricted to facilitate this
Why is a 'freedom' for me to copy someone else's product and sell it, preventing Bill Best from recouping the investment (in this case, time & research) that he put into 'inventing' the thing in the first place? It's not a 'freedom' that's taken away, for goodness sakes.
Slashdot Mirror
>to be given a rest on the big and small screens
I'm generally perplexed by comments like these. If people think something 'needs a rest' then don't watch it. Lots of people drop shows when they think they've gone on too long. If you think Star Wars is 'done' then don't watch.
Alright, so it's not 'cable' by the standard definition, i.e. not "coaxial cable" - It's a data service over a pair of copper wires. I realize it's still a 'cable' coming into your house, but it's not the standard definition of 'Cable.' :)
Does your provider also offer a PVR? i.e. how do you 'watch one show and tape another'?
So if you want to put a second telly somewhere in the house, you have to get a second digital box? i.e. channels 2-60 (or whatever it is) that are typically analog on most cable systems, are *not* analog in your system?
I think what muddies the waters in the USA is how you are 'one nation under law' but your laws are highly regionalized. In some states I will be killed for murder, in some I won't, in some states I can drive really fast, in some states I can't and will get huge fines, in some counties I can engage in oral sex, in others I can't... And so on.
So while Saudi Arabia bans alcohol everywhere, the USA just bans gambling somewhere.
The problem with bonding 10 friggin' lines is your ISP must support it with the infrastructure at their end. Many don't/won't/can't...
Who are you, Richie Rich? :)
Sometimes I think all updates should be FORCED whether you want them or not... at least for the 'home' versions of software. This might put some kind of dent in these bots.
The vast majority of people likely don't want censored music, or, more likely, don't care if Wal*Mart is selling uncensoring music. However, there is a loud moralistic minority that annouces Wal*Mart boycotts etc. if they hear about something they don't like. The majority never chimes in with a counter-opinion, so the minority wins.
Another analogy might be if Wal*Mart starting selling Playboy magazine. I bet 97% of Wal*Mart shoppers wouldn't care and wouldn't alter their purchasing behaviour because of it, but I also guarantee that remaining 3% would picket the store and demand boycotts in their churches. As a result, no playboy.
This was exactly the premise of Tom Clancy's latest 'thriller' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Teeth_of_the_Tige r
Yes and no - United says 'we're the only ones who can sell you a ticket' but they can't prevent you from buying a ticket on Southwest, JetBlue or Delta. They're in effect the 'third party' - The competition. Competition in major markets has also pretty much determined the lowest fare available anyway - So even if these mythical 'third parties' could resell tickets they probably wouldn't have a discounted fare to offer you anyway. This is one of the reasons Priceline hasn't done as well as one might have expected. In the air the fare you have to bid isn't much, if at all, below what simply purchasing a ticket would have cost.
The economics for ticket sales for air travel are minimally different than for concerts, theater
They're quite different, actually.
Here's something someone recently sent me that helps explain it -
Major airlines have rarely, if ever, posted reasonable profits. So, keeping in mind that a good percentage of flights are always going to lose money, the airline industry has a system that tries to keep this in check. Basically, every flight has its seats divided up into 'classes' (this has nothing to do with first class/business etc) that we'll call A, B, C and D. These classes have mostly to do with price.
When an airline plans a flight, they look at how much it's going to cost, and divide the seats up in different price classes. A simplified model might look like: Cost of flight : $20,000 When the flight is announced, the airline will say 'if we sell 20 seats at $1000 we break even'. So, They add 20 seats to the plan with an A class.
Then through some process of voodoo economics, the number of various classed seats that must be sold is decided.
So, 3 months before a flight, you can get a C class ticket quite easily, as they expect that in that time they might sell 80 seats. As it gets closer to the flight day, all the $250 seats may have sold, or they start to realize that they are not all going to sell, so they stop selling C class tickets and only have B. Twice the price, but you need half as many customers, which is half as many seats, meals, bags, etc etc.
A few days before the flight there may only be A class tickets, as they'd rather sell just one ticket at A class price than 4 at B class. If you _really_ need to get somewhere you'll pay whatever they ask right? Besides, if they've sold all the C class, they break even. Adding cheap seats at this point can actually lose money (more staff needed, more fuel needed etc.)
Then, standby is D class.. since we're about to leave, and we're not going to sell these seats, we'll get you on board... but only if we need the money.
So, they don't want to sell you a seat at any old price, because it takes a seat away from someone who *might* pay more for it. This is why pricing flights is so complex. It may not even be NP complete, and it's nowhere near O(n).
This is very different than the theatre, where they have three or four 'classes of service' and sell off tickets cheap the day of the show.
Nope, but if I'm travelling in business I can just get to the airport and work on my laptop. Who cares whether I'm at my desk or at Starbucks? And if I'm travelling for pleasure I've already taken the day off so who cares if I'm hanging at home or at the bar in the airport?
In reality, ticket prices should go down as the flight nears, in order to encourage sales of the remaining seats.
Incorrect - The vast majority of people who purchase tickets "last minute" are people who MUST travel on date X at time Y. As a result, the airline can and does charge more for these seats, for the 'privilege' of booking last minute. If you study airline economics you'll see that there isn't a pool of last-minute travellers who snap up the cheap seats. There is, however, a pool of last-minute travellers who will pay more to travel right now.
Additionally, agencies should be able to purchase discount tickets and resell them later on.
They do: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airline_consolidators
Both of these things are only possible if all classes of tickets are transferable, and they also both reduce the costs to you as a consumer. Additionally a transferable ticket allows you to cut your losses if it turns out you can't travel as planned.
As a passenger, I don't want to subsidize other passengers who can't 'travel as planned.' Those pax should be purchasing insurance or more expensive tickets, not asking me to subsidize them through my ticket.
Profit margins on the airlines are razor-thin. If 'all classes of tickets were transferable' then the higher costs of administering this would be passed on to the flying public. You and I would pay higher fares. And I don't want to.
You're a complete fool
And you're a complete fool for accusing others of being fools without doing your homework first.
If you think non-transferable tickets save you money. They exist to extract the most money possible out of you, not to save you money.
They save me money. The airline has said "If you're willing to commit to this flight on this day, X days in advance, and you're not going to change your ticket I'll only charge you $Z. If you want additional services on your ticket, we'll charge you more."
Ah.. I understand. Sorry, by transferable I thought you meant "change the name on the ticket in the airline computers."
I always figured doing this made it easier to identify the bodies :)
Because you have a greater economic impact. If you blow up a mall in Charlotte, people will probably keep going to malls in Chicago. If blow up LAX, you'll probably cause people to stop flying all over the place, and create ripples throughout the economy.
Not sure where you were in the world, but in the USA and Canada discount-price tickets were NOT transferable prior to 9/11 either. In fact, prior to 9/11 to get a cheap fare you had to stay a Saturday night. That doesn't happen any more - There's one anecdotal piece of evidence of lower fares.
Overbooking happens because on a certain percentage of flights business travelers always fail to show up. By overbooking the flight they can sell the seats of those no-shows. More bums in the plane = Cheaper airfares. Therefore, I don't want them to stop overbooking as airfares I pay will by extension go up. Bumping = cheaper airfares. Typically most overbooked flights are swarmed with volunteers willing to be bumped in exchange for perks, so this is a red herring. If you show up sufficiently early to check in it's unlikely you'll be bumped due to an overbooking scenario.
Allow tickets to be transferable. That would allow people's plans to be more flexible (but prevent some of the ways they price gouge).
Tickets *are* transferable if you purchase the correct fare class. If you purchase a cheaper ticket there are more restrictions. As a consumer, I don't want all tickets to be transferable, as 'cheaper' fares will disappear.
They're not first-class seats per se, but you can already do this on United and a number of other carriers. For more see:
http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=44 2986
When the bomb goes off there'll be a thousand mutations! Andromeda will spread everywhere! They'll never be rid of it!
Sure. Compare the price of a DVD player today to the price of a DVD player in 2000.
No it's not - If you're a responsible borrower you can profit handily from these deals. Need $5000 worth of furniture? Get it now on a 'pay later' plan, and put the $5000 in an account bearing interest. You get the profit and when the furniture payment's due, just pay it. Get a "borrow at 1% interest!" offer in the mail? Borrow the money, invest it in something safe, pay it off a day before it starts charging interest and pocket the profits. You won't get rich doing this, but you will make several hundred dollars per year - Enough for some nice evenings out or whatever, all for 10 minute's work.
I take care of the summer reservations for a small beach resort. We don't take cash - If people want to pay cash I tell them to take it to the post office and get a money order and give me that. We're always booked solid, so if someone walks away because of our policy I just move to the next person on my waiting list. Why don't we take cash? Because reservations are handled in Vancouver and the deposits are done at a credit union on Vancouver Island. It's too much of a hassle to ship the cash to the final point, or set up a transfer for a thousand-dollar payment.
Right - That's what you should continue to do. I'm suggesting you keep some cash *at home* in a safe place, and tap into that instead of the ATM. Then you'll save the fees, and you won't be carrying around hundreds of dollars. This also has the added benefit of helping you if there's a natural disaster - Tornado, Flood, Earthquake, Power Grid failure - You'll still have CASH and be able to make purchases.
>I don't use my credit card, though -- too much temptation to let the balance sit.
Well, that's just something you need to train yourself out of :)
If you're not happy about fees buy shares in the banks. If you'd bought shares in CIBC 5 years ago you'd've more than doubled your money. That would have more than covered any ATM fees you'd've paid in that time.
I never understand people who complain about banking fees. What is everyone doing using the ATMs so much anyway? Take out a couple of hundred bucks (or whatever) and hide that at home. Tap into it when you need it and there's your spending money. Make purchases with your credit card, and pay it off each month. If people had spending pattern like that they'd pay virtually no banking fees at all. This is how people banked before ATMs - Just do it again. I'll go out with friends for the evening and they'll take $30 out of the ATM. I'll say "what are you doing? Take out $100 and you won't have to go through this again in three days."
It's not as big of a problem up here in Canada. There is already a federal sales tax of 6% that applies to nearly all purchases (food staples are exempt etc.). So if you order something online from a Canadian vendor like amazon.CA you pay the 6% tax.
Although this tax goes into the federal coffers, some of it does get redistributed to the provinces as 'transfer payments.' Also, provincial income taxes are higher, so the provinces aren't as dependent on consumption taxes.
Why is a 'freedom' for me to copy someone else's product and sell it, preventing Bill Best from recouping the investment (in this case, time & research) that he put into 'inventing' the thing in the first place? It's not a 'freedom' that's taken away, for goodness sakes.