Doesn't matter if it is or isn't, as long as there are competitive forces (which there always are), they make decisions based on what they think will be the best.
No they make profits relative to the necessary rate or return for that industry/segment.
Now, feel free to be pissed about the government grants and government regulation.
I'm pissed my country wanted to give 2 billion to a group of ISPs to build infrastructure that would have increased costs, locked us in to those companies, and barley improved the status quo.
Also your BBC reference, do you mean like when television was so expensive and could not afford to run at night so they turned the TV stations off? I think you chose a really bad example.
Companies make decisions for all sorts of reasons, you don't need to worry about those, there is some reason why it is making those. You just need to make sure you have the ability (not a right) to change between companies, so ensure there is no regulation on them.
Even though a company could have been entirely sponsored by the government it still needs capital to run, and it still needs to cover it's cost and make a profit (as much as they deem necessary). Unless you want it to be completely state run and controlled, where everyone is paying for it no matter what, then this is the way it has to be. (By the way, you don't want it run by the state, we had that, it's really bad!)
It's nothing to do with that, you obviously don't understand the situation you're in. The ISPs wouldn't cripple their service for no reason. Granted there are often state sponsored monopolies for your ISPs, however the environment/demand/supply has changed, the ISPs need to change with this.
You've still got it really good. Additionally you can move into another city and get a different service, we have to move country.
Yeah, we've got the same thing. Then you need to lobby to deregulate it, or talk to competing companies to get a new ISP in your area.
We have a very similar situation in Australia, and we also have ISPs and other groups fighting against it, and we have people requesting ISPs start up in their city.
The only thing which really stops them is regulation, so you should see what can be done about that, and what ISPs would get behind that.
There have been a lot of grass roots organizations started in Australia to get these kinds of changes done, now that you're having these problems, you'll find you guys might also.
You're right. For being American you should be entitled to a service which the ISP's obviously cant afford.
You're right. It's not whining for you to be consistently complaining about changes to your service which had been well publicized already.
I understand that we pay more due to infrastructure, location, population and taxation.
However, you need to realize you also pay more for changes to those same things.
Additionally, asking for information about how you're going to deal with your new cap, is fucking ridiculous. You're going to deal with it, and you'll be fine.
I am so sick of these whiney posts.... wah wah wah, I might be capped soon.
I've been capped since around 2002.
I live in Australia, I'm capped to 80gb, I download around that each month (which is a lot), and I have 4.5mbit down and 1mbit up.
I also pay $109 for this privilege (although that's on top of $15 per month line fees).
Don't worry about your usage, 250gb is heaps, you will normalize once you're capped, I guarantee it!
Also if you find that your cap is too small, upgrade, change your ISP, or come up with strategies to maximize your cap.
For instance my ISP (http://www.adam.com.au) has separate caps for traffic inside of Australian than it does for outside of Australia. Additionally it also has CommunityNet on its exchanges which basically turns that exchange into a private LAN. Another method is to find people near you and setup your own LAN or sharing network.
There are many ways to maximize your potential.
This is not the end of the world.
You've still got it way better than us and a lot of the rest of the world.
Barriers to entry are be overcome as long as those barriers are not enforced by Government. This is the primary problem telco's have problems competing.
If we are talking about infrastructure that the company has created being a barrier, you are mistaken, since any opportunity to a company is weighed according to it's profitability.
If another telco wants to use their infrastructure then they pay for it, where it is priced against their own internal services.
Under a free market companies will make stupid decisions, however in the long run they will be forced to make better ones, unless you regulate the industry.
There are a few examples of how free markets are not completely efficient (eg, total surplus excluding government surplus is not maximized), however all of the solutions for these problems are often criticized as introducing more problems than they solve. Especially since most of them presume that the government has perfect information, which it never does.
Additionally, companies develop barriers to entry to push the price from perfect competition towards monopoly, however they are stopped from pushing it to far by other companies competing. If a company is pushing it far without any competition then there are 2 possible reasons: 1) The actual margins of the company are not particularly attractive or there is an immensely unattractive payoff period/npv/etc. If so, perhaps this industry isn't that attractive, and by forcing the introduction of another through whatever means, would not benefit the industry or the consumer. 2) The company has developed a competitive advantage and so they are capitalizing on their innovation and hard work. If so, why would you want to punish a company for doing well and creating so much value for people?
There are theories about why free markets are not always good, and there are "problems" with a free market, however there is no other reasonable alternative.
Acting in ones own interest while operating in a free market always benefits the common good, if you are successful and prosperous.
In this case, Judges don't act in a free market, they act in a democratic market.
If we switch Judge with CEO (kind of like a judge who acts in a free market), we would see that if the CEO's best interests weren't in line with our best interests then he would not be able to pursue his best interests, or at best would have limited time to do it, as it became infinitely expensive.
(Although this example is not the same, since a Judge is not a CEO, however in this comparison we can see that their differences primarily lie in the fact that the Judge does not act in a free market)
It is funny, I hear this time and time again, that "free markets without regulation tend towards imperfect competition" however I have never seen any credible theory which suggests that.
Free markets ALLOW competition, regulation reduces competition/possibilities. By it's very definition it forces markets towards imperfect competition. (Yeah, there are pro-competition laws (monopoly laws), however they are hardly used, especially when compared to how often the anti-competition laws (trademarks, copy rights, patents, taxes, etc) are used)
We need not know EXACTLY how security researches contribute towards the free market. That shows a lack of understanding of the invisible hand of the free market. All we need know that the researches contribute, and if they are successful and pave the way for other researchers to make a living, then the market has deemed them valuable. We know this because they are profitable and thrive.
We need not explain or understand the entire system and all its finer details, all we need understand is that it is inevitably in our (collective "our") best interests.
I am glad this judge has put a gag order on the MIT students, because now there is no exploit, and we are all safe from the terrorists/etc.
As we all know, if we all don't talk about it, it doesn't exist... right?
Okay, so sarcasm aside, this is the most ridiculous idea I have ever heard. Attempting to fix a problem by stopping people from hearing about the problem?
I know I am over simplifying the matter to get my point across, but I'm doing this to point how ridiculous it is.
Additionally by saying "He added that in such cases, the goal of security researchers often seems to be to further their own agendas instead of helping others fix problems." shows a complete lack of understanding of market forces. Yes he is furthering his own agenda, and in the process, he benefits us. It's the market you commie bastard, it isn't evil, we all win, get over it.
I know this might be a little to generalized for your liking, and it certainly isn't specific to this specific publishers games. However this is why people pirate...
There are so many games these days, that you're never sure which you should spend your money on. The bar is consistently driven up by games like Half-Life 2, Crysis, and in the indie market Gish. If you don't meet this bar enough, we don't want to play your game. However, how do we know this?
This is where we pirate, we don't demo. Demo's have often been either too crippled or released too early, such that they aren't an accurate representation of the game. Because of this, a lot of people ignore them, or they will play them with the purview that this will give them an idea on whether or not they will pirate it.
After this decision has been made, whether or not to pirate it, you then go to pirate it. You search for cracks, serials and similar. You'll often find something, which will allow you to play the original game completely. You'll either play it for a small amount of time, or all the way through. All this time you are valuing the work. This is where, there might be problems with the cracked version, but you aren't sure if it's the crack or the original game, and so it becomes devalued. There might be problems in the game, or features you don't like, so it becomes devalued. Does the game try to force you to pay for it (eg, does it have starforce or similar)? You might not play it as much in relation to others, etc. Until such point, that in your mind is an intangible value that you assign to this game.
You now take into account your financial standings. If you can not purchase the game, because you are poor, you don't even consider it. When I was in primary and high school, no one ever considered buying games, besides the ones with parents who liked buying games. As we grew older, we found ourselves buying the games we liked.
At this point you compare your intangible value, to the actual asked value. Does this game, in comparison to the other games you've bought, deserve your money? If the amount they are asking for is too much compared to how you have valued it, you will not pay for it. If the value is below you will pay for it. However this is relative, and so you are competing with the other games in this persons catalog.
This is why people pirate. This is why people pirate games, tv, movies, music, and anything.
We are all bombarded with useless low value works that we need to value and decide about, that this is second nature.
I have found this to be true for 95% of people, in fact, my anecdote about me in high school and being unable to pay until I got a job, guess which games I bought when I got money? All of the games I valued and hadn't been able to pay for years earlier.
As it stands I've bought Half-Life and Half-Life 2 and mods about 3 times now. (Due to packaging and losing cd/serials)
I've bought WarCraft 2, twice. (Lost the CD)
And over the years about 20 other games, and I'm not even a gamer. I have an antiquated system which couldn't even think about playing Crysis, and I don't spend any money on things I don't like. But even I've still bought a lot of games.
You'll hear a lot of "why should I buy this, if I can get it for free" from people. These people don't understand themselves, or the situation. I've talked to a lot of people with this ideology and when you explain the above to them, and question the reason why they bought the games they did, it always comes back to "well i really like (value) that game.
What should you as a developer/publisher take away from this?
Sell your game for a specific amount, but have it on an honor based system. Ask them to pay for it, but allow them to play the full version. If they value it, they will buy it. Look at providing community competition based features, like a competition board where everyone who pays a monthly fee gets to compete for scores, or organize other contests. Have an area where people can donate
Damn, I must have missed the economics lecture on how the price is not set by the supply and demand curves.
Please professor, go on.
</sarcasm>
The only issues which actually affect it are ones which affect supply and demand.
Yes, speculators do alter this temporarily, and it's why they can drive it up.
Yes, political issues do alter this, and it's why they can drive it up.
Price is ALWAYS set by supply and demand, you can't argue that. However, you can argue that other factors are affecting the system, or you can argue that the equilibrium price has moved from perfect competition.
I think what you're talking about here is a leadership framework. I'm a fan of the Situational Leadership model.
The only time I've found being an "arsehole" (relative term here) actually works is when your employees are in a R1 readiness state. They feel more comfortable with you using a S1 style.
However, if you don't change inrelation to their development, you're going to be shooting yourself in the foot, since you'll gain resentment, inefficiencies and you'll have low skill retention.
There is no one way you should act all the time, your style needs to change with the person/situation/etc.
(You probably know this, just didn't articulate it.)
Re:It only works in the top slot
on
Inside Steve's Brain
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Hey, nice rhetoric! I didn't realize this "fact".
You really should correct the wikipedia article and the many other articles online which prove elsewise.
Seriously, you've never heard about the rise and fall of the roman empire, being largely due to their economy?
Or you couldn't have at least typed in one of many google queries before posting?
It's ridiculous you were modded so high.
Also, if we assume that by MBA's you mean the upper ranks of business, then you're just talking about leaders and people who's sole purpose is to create value for others. With this definition, I think you'll find EVERY society has been created by people with this drive.
Then lets move on to ECON 103 (I'm not in America so I have no idea about your numbering).
The equilibrium price always falls in between perfect competition and monopoly. Although total surplus is maximized under perfect competition, this is not to say that all (or any) companies should be forced to produce at quantities which would produce an equilibrium price of a perfectly competitive market.
To break a oligopolie (to me at least), implies that you would split apart those companies. Instead to break an oligopolie it is better to free the markets in which they oeprate. This will introduce the competition which is necessary.
Don't pretend to know about a topic, when you obviously don't.
But the annual revenue of every society is always precisely equal to the exchangeable value of the whole annual produce of its industry, or rather is precisely the same thing with that exchangeable value. As every individual, therefore, endeavors as much he can both to employ his capital in the support of domestic industry, and so to direct that industry that its produce may be of the greatest value; every individual necessarily labors to render the annual revenue of the society as great as he can. He generally, indeed, neither intends to promote the public interest, nor knows how much he is promoting it. By preferring the support of domestic to that of foreign industry, he intends only his own security; and by directing that industry in such a manner as its produce may be of the greatest value, he intends only his own gain, and he is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention. Nor is it always the worse for the society that it was not part of it. By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it. I have never known much good done by those who affected to trade for the public good. It is an affectation, indeed, not very common among merchants, and very few words need be employed in dissuading them from it.
Where does it mention anything about perfect knowledge?
When you take a job, do you have perfect knowledge of all possible jobs and their income?
Under capitalistm/communism, do you think you would have perfect knowledge?
Free markets do not require perfect knowledge, free markets require people to make their own choices, and when they make these choices they choose the most profitable ones, which are the most beneficial for society as a whole (that's why they are more profitable)... and in this way they are directing industry to be the most productive, intend only their own gain, they are led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of their intention.
Understand?
If you take a snapshot of any market, it looks like chaos, there are companies failing, companies succeeding, companies doing bad things, companies doing good things, however, if you look at this system over time (long enough time), you will notice the free system always has the most growth, highest quality of living, and the greatest social mobility.
(None of this is subjective or debatable, if you're an anarchist you need to head on over to www.mises.org and get some free learnings into ya!)
I run both Opera and FireFox however Opera never FEELS faster to me. Perhaps it is the default settings, or perhaps the sites I go to Gmail, Gcal, Slashdot, etc, all feel a lot faster in FireFox.
Also, FireFox feels easier to use.
And then, FireFox has all of the plugins I now love, and can't get rid of.
Opera is doing good, but they need to focus on their target markets needs over their speed or standards compliance.
Slashdot Mirror
$109 AUD per month + line rental.
Have a look at their website, there are peering services which can help you maximize your internal quota (like PeeringSA).
Already answered these exact questions. Have a look at some of the other guys replies.
Doesn't matter if it is or isn't, as long as there are competitive forces (which there always are), they make decisions based on what they think will be the best.
Yeah, I'm about the same.
But now that I am working full time, I find it quite hard, even with heavy leeching to reach my maximum quota of 160gb. I've only reached it twice.
That's a lot of games, movies and tv.
Obviously they can't afford to have customers use more than that, or they wouldn't be doing it.
Yeah, there are many strategies, the hired server is a common one used by serious leechers in Australia.
No they make profits relative to the necessary rate or return for that industry/segment.
Now, feel free to be pissed about the government grants and government regulation.
I'm pissed my country wanted to give 2 billion to a group of ISPs to build infrastructure that would have increased costs, locked us in to those companies, and barley improved the status quo.
Also your BBC reference, do you mean like when television was so expensive and could not afford to run at night so they turned the TV stations off? I think you chose a really bad example.
Companies make decisions for all sorts of reasons, you don't need to worry about those, there is some reason why it is making those. You just need to make sure you have the ability (not a right) to change between companies, so ensure there is no regulation on them.
Even though a company could have been entirely sponsored by the government it still needs capital to run, and it still needs to cover it's cost and make a profit (as much as they deem necessary). Unless you want it to be completely state run and controlled, where everyone is paying for it no matter what, then this is the way it has to be. (By the way, you don't want it run by the state, we had that, it's really bad!)
It's nothing to do with that, you obviously don't understand the situation you're in. The ISPs wouldn't cripple their service for no reason. Granted there are often state sponsored monopolies for your ISPs, however the environment/demand/supply has changed, the ISPs need to change with this.
You've still got it really good. Additionally you can move into another city and get a different service, we have to move country.
It's not that bad.
Yeah, we've got the same thing. Then you need to lobby to deregulate it, or talk to competing companies to get a new ISP in your area.
We have a very similar situation in Australia, and we also have ISPs and other groups fighting against it, and we have people requesting ISPs start up in their city.
The only thing which really stops them is regulation, so you should see what can be done about that, and what ISPs would get behind that.
There have been a lot of grass roots organizations started in Australia to get these kinds of changes done, now that you're having these problems, you'll find you guys might also.
Nah, they can in Australia too. However, the contract needs to specify that they can.
However some ISPs grandfather in plans.
I was on Internode when they went to shaping and then to capping.
You're right. For being American you should be entitled to a service which the ISP's obviously cant afford.
You're right. It's not whining for you to be consistently complaining about changes to your service which had been well publicized already.
I understand that we pay more due to infrastructure, location, population and taxation.
However, you need to realize you also pay more for changes to those same things.
Additionally, asking for information about how you're going to deal with your new cap, is fucking ridiculous. You're going to deal with it, and you'll be fine.
I get 160gb on Adam Internet, 80gb external (outside of PIPE traffic and similar) and 80gb internal traffic (inside PIPE).
Also I do heaps of uploading and downloading from CommunityNet, which is awesome.
If you live in SA, I'd recommend it.
I am so sick of these whiney posts.... wah wah wah, I might be capped soon.
I've been capped since around 2002.
I live in Australia, I'm capped to 80gb, I download around that each month (which is a lot), and I have 4.5mbit down and 1mbit up.
I also pay $109 for this privilege (although that's on top of $15 per month line fees).
Don't worry about your usage, 250gb is heaps, you will normalize once you're capped, I guarantee it!
Also if you find that your cap is too small, upgrade, change your ISP, or come up with strategies to maximize your cap.
For instance my ISP (http://www.adam.com.au) has separate caps for traffic inside of Australian than it does for outside of Australia. Additionally it also has CommunityNet on its exchanges which basically turns that exchange into a private LAN. Another method is to find people near you and setup your own LAN or sharing network.
There are many ways to maximize your potential.
This is not the end of the world.
You've still got it way better than us and a lot of the rest of the world.
tractor repair and internet policy go hand in hand.
Barriers to entry are be overcome as long as those barriers are not enforced by Government. This is the primary problem telco's have problems competing.
If we are talking about infrastructure that the company has created being a barrier, you are mistaken, since any opportunity to a company is weighed according to it's profitability.
If another telco wants to use their infrastructure then they pay for it, where it is priced against their own internal services.
Under a free market companies will make stupid decisions, however in the long run they will be forced to make better ones, unless you regulate the industry.
There are a few examples of how free markets are not completely efficient (eg, total surplus excluding government surplus is not maximized), however all of the solutions for these problems are often criticized as introducing more problems than they solve. Especially since most of them presume that the government has perfect information, which it never does.
Additionally, companies develop barriers to entry to push the price from perfect competition towards monopoly, however they are stopped from pushing it to far by other companies competing. If a company is pushing it far without any competition then there are 2 possible reasons:
1) The actual margins of the company are not particularly attractive or there is an immensely unattractive payoff period/npv/etc. If so, perhaps this industry isn't that attractive, and by forcing the introduction of another through whatever means, would not benefit the industry or the consumer.
2) The company has developed a competitive advantage and so they are capitalizing on their innovation and hard work. If so, why would you want to punish a company for doing well and creating so much value for people?
There are theories about why free markets are not always good, and there are "problems" with a free market, however there is no other reasonable alternative.
Acting in ones own interest while operating in a free market always benefits the common good, if you are successful and prosperous.
In this case, Judges don't act in a free market, they act in a democratic market.
If we switch Judge with CEO (kind of like a judge who acts in a free market), we would see that if the CEO's best interests weren't in line with our best interests then he would not be able to pursue his best interests, or at best would have limited time to do it, as it became infinitely expensive.
(Although this example is not the same, since a Judge is not a CEO, however in this comparison we can see that their differences primarily lie in the fact that the Judge does not act in a free market)
It is funny, I hear this time and time again, that "free markets without regulation tend towards imperfect competition" however I have never seen any credible theory which suggests that.
Free markets ALLOW competition, regulation reduces competition/possibilities. By it's very definition it forces markets towards imperfect competition. (Yeah, there are pro-competition laws (monopoly laws), however they are hardly used, especially when compared to how often the anti-competition laws (trademarks, copy rights, patents, taxes, etc) are used)
We need not know EXACTLY how security researches contribute towards the free market. That shows a lack of understanding of the invisible hand of the free market. All we need know that the researches contribute, and if they are successful and pave the way for other researchers to make a living, then the market has deemed them valuable. We know this because they are profitable and thrive.
We need not explain or understand the entire system and all its finer details, all we need understand is that it is inevitably in our (collective "our") best interests.
I am glad this judge has put a gag order on the MIT students, because now there is no exploit, and we are all safe from the terrorists/etc.
As we all know, if we all don't talk about it, it doesn't exist... right?
Okay, so sarcasm aside, this is the most ridiculous idea I have ever heard. Attempting to fix a problem by stopping people from hearing about the problem?
I know I am over simplifying the matter to get my point across, but I'm doing this to point how ridiculous it is.
Additionally by saying "He added that in such cases, the goal of security researchers often seems to be to further their own agendas instead of helping others fix problems." shows a complete lack of understanding of market forces. Yes he is furthering his own agenda, and in the process, he benefits us. It's the market you commie bastard, it isn't evil, we all win, get over it.
I know this might be a little to generalized for your liking, and it certainly isn't specific to this specific publishers games. However this is why people pirate...
There are so many games these days, that you're never sure which you should spend your money on. The bar is consistently driven up by games like Half-Life 2, Crysis, and in the indie market Gish. If you don't meet this bar enough, we don't want to play your game. However, how do we know this?
This is where we pirate, we don't demo. Demo's have often been either too crippled or released too early, such that they aren't an accurate representation of the game. Because of this, a lot of people ignore them, or they will play them with the purview that this will give them an idea on whether or not they will pirate it.
After this decision has been made, whether or not to pirate it, you then go to pirate it. You search for cracks, serials and similar. You'll often find something, which will allow you to play the original game completely. You'll either play it for a small amount of time, or all the way through. All this time you are valuing the work. This is where, there might be problems with the cracked version, but you aren't sure if it's the crack or the original game, and so it becomes devalued. There might be problems in the game, or features you don't like, so it becomes devalued. Does the game try to force you to pay for it (eg, does it have starforce or similar)? You might not play it as much in relation to others, etc. Until such point, that in your mind is an intangible value that you assign to this game.
You now take into account your financial standings. If you can not purchase the game, because you are poor, you don't even consider it. When I was in primary and high school, no one ever considered buying games, besides the ones with parents who liked buying games. As we grew older, we found ourselves buying the games we liked.
At this point you compare your intangible value, to the actual asked value. Does this game, in comparison to the other games you've bought, deserve your money? If the amount they are asking for is too much compared to how you have valued it, you will not pay for it. If the value is below you will pay for it. However this is relative, and so you are competing with the other games in this persons catalog.
This is why people pirate. This is why people pirate games, tv, movies, music, and anything.
We are all bombarded with useless low value works that we need to value and decide about, that this is second nature.
I have found this to be true for 95% of people, in fact, my anecdote about me in high school and being unable to pay until I got a job, guess which games I bought when I got money? All of the games I valued and hadn't been able to pay for years earlier.
As it stands I've bought Half-Life and Half-Life 2 and mods about 3 times now. (Due to packaging and losing cd/serials)
I've bought WarCraft 2, twice. (Lost the CD)
And over the years about 20 other games, and I'm not even a gamer. I have an antiquated system which couldn't even think about playing Crysis, and I don't spend any money on things I don't like. But even I've still bought a lot of games.
You'll hear a lot of "why should I buy this, if I can get it for free" from people. These people don't understand themselves, or the situation. I've talked to a lot of people with this ideology and when you explain the above to them, and question the reason why they bought the games they did, it always comes back to "well i really like (value) that game.
What should you as a developer/publisher take away from this?
Sell your game for a specific amount, but have it on an honor based system. Ask them to pay for it, but allow them to play the full version. If they value it, they will buy it. Look at providing community competition based features, like a competition board where everyone who pays a monthly fee gets to compete for scores, or organize other contests. Have an area where people can donate
Damn, I must have missed the economics lecture on how the price is not set by the supply and demand curves.
Please professor, go on.
</sarcasm>
The only issues which actually affect it are ones which affect supply and demand.
Yes, speculators do alter this temporarily, and it's why they can drive it up.
Yes, political issues do alter this, and it's why they can drive it up.
Price is ALWAYS set by supply and demand, you can't argue that. However, you can argue that other factors are affecting the system, or you can argue that the equilibrium price has moved from perfect competition.
I think what you're talking about here is a leadership framework. I'm a fan of the Situational Leadership model.
The only time I've found being an "arsehole" (relative term here) actually works is when your employees are in a R1 readiness state. They feel more comfortable with you using a S1 style.
However, if you don't change inrelation to their development, you're going to be shooting yourself in the foot, since you'll gain resentment, inefficiencies and you'll have low skill retention.
There is no one way you should act all the time, your style needs to change with the person/situation/etc.
(You probably know this, just didn't articulate it.)
Hey, nice rhetoric! I didn't realize this "fact".
You really should correct the wikipedia article and the many other articles online which prove elsewise.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_commerce
Seriously, you've never heard about the rise and fall of the roman empire, being largely due to their economy?
Or you couldn't have at least typed in one of many google queries before posting?
It's ridiculous you were modded so high.
Also, if we assume that by MBA's you mean the upper ranks of business, then you're just talking about leaders and people who's sole purpose is to create value for others. With this definition, I think you'll find EVERY society has been created by people with this drive.
Then lets move on to ECON 103 (I'm not in America so I have no idea about your numbering).
The equilibrium price always falls in between perfect competition and monopoly. Although total surplus is maximized under perfect competition, this is not to say that all (or any) companies should be forced to produce at quantities which would produce an equilibrium price of a perfectly competitive market.
To break a oligopolie (to me at least), implies that you would split apart those companies. Instead to break an oligopolie it is better to free the markets in which they oeprate. This will introduce the competition which is necessary.
Oh also... the market you're talking about in this context... ISN'T A FREE MARKET.
This is one of the more heavily regulated markets.
So, your point makes even less sense.
Don't pretend to know about a topic, when you obviously don't.
Where does it mention anything about perfect knowledge?
When you take a job, do you have perfect knowledge of all possible jobs and their income?
Under capitalistm/communism, do you think you would have perfect knowledge?
Free markets do not require perfect knowledge, free markets require people to make their own choices, and when they make these choices they choose the most profitable ones, which are the most beneficial for society as a whole (that's why they are more profitable)... and in this way they are directing industry to be the most productive, intend only their own gain, they are led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of their intention.
Understand?
If you take a snapshot of any market, it looks like chaos, there are companies failing, companies succeeding, companies doing bad things, companies doing good things, however, if you look at this system over time (long enough time), you will notice the free system always has the most growth, highest quality of living, and the greatest social mobility.
(None of this is subjective or debatable, if you're an anarchist you need to head on over to www.mises.org and get some free learnings into ya!)
I run both Opera and FireFox however Opera never FEELS faster to me. Perhaps it is the default settings, or perhaps the sites I go to Gmail, Gcal, Slashdot, etc, all feel a lot faster in FireFox.
Also, FireFox feels easier to use.
And then, FireFox has all of the plugins I now love, and can't get rid of.
Opera is doing good, but they need to focus on their target markets needs over their speed or standards compliance.