Prices aren't just a function of supply, they're also function of demand (what the market can bear). Since a model with more storage is more desirable, the price will increase more than proportionally.
Or put it this way: A 0 GB iPhone would be throughly useless, so it wouldn't sell for $200, it would sell for near zero.
Another way: when combined with the rest of a phone that can actually make use of said storage, the additional storage becomes more valuable than it otherwise would.
There shouldn't be anything unusual about this. Profiting is literally the act of making something more valuable than the sum of its parts, including labor. And likewise, you're said to take a loss when you make something less than the sum of its parts (thereby destroying value).
I'm not quite sure what you're referring to, Black-Scholes describes how to price futures contracts, and it does remarkably well at doing that. It's just based on the rate of interest, which should seem obvious.
Generally when it fails, it's because of a faulty assumption, same as assuming zero air resistance and zero friction at low speeds in physics, right. Usually it's good enough, many times it's not.
The difference is in economics we can actually mathematically prove the theorem when the initial assumptions are true. Air resistance and such is experimentally tested, not proven.
Hmmm. Not necessarily. You can apply economics to any situation where multiple, scarce resources must be allocated to autonomous consumers based on some criteria.
Suppose I have resources A and B. To accomplish task Y I'd need 2 A or 3 B; and to accomplish task Z I'd need 3 A and 5 B.
It doesn't matter if A/B is RAM/HDD or doctors/nurses. Economics says that, even though A is better at both tasks than B, it'll actually be cheapest to deploy B to task Y if and deploy A to task Z.
It's really no different than saying to get from point M to N, I'd need 10 Joules of energy based on some physics calculations.
Human economics happens to be the hardest because because there's no rational basis for our wants, they're completely arbitrary and can't be measured. I'm not sure if there's a name that makes a distinction between human wants and other wants, though.
Economics could only be considered a social science to the extent it deals with the interactions of trade between people, and the objective results of people with different subjective desires.
Economics can also be one of the hardest sciences there is, on par with kinematics: Economics invented game theory, and has many mathematical theorems, like the Law of Supply and Demand, the Law of Comparative Advantage, and the Black-Scholes model.
At least this has something to do with electromagnetic spectrum, but only tangentially: They're still claiming the ability to rule over hardware and software, as opposed to merely effects that are detectable over the air.
Well, generally it's a good thing that we have an independent judiciary. It ensures that they don't get caught up in the mob's favorite punching bag of the moment.
The problem here is that a judiciary is only supposed to hear cases of controversy: That means there has to be two sides, and the case can't go on if there's no one to prosecute.
In other words, if what they are saying is true, this means the Turkish courts are effectively judge AND prosecutor.
Because if I can get away with murder, that necessarily implies that there is "no political community able to enforce it". "It," here, would be laws against murder.
Of course slaves have rights. They're just being violated. If slavery is legal, then they're also being violated by the police and the government. There should be nothing unusual about this notion that the government can violate one's rights, too.
If I have one person on an island, can that person be enslaved? Is there any way their rights can be violated at all? The answer is simply no.
Suppose we add more people to this island. It doesn't change anything, except now you have multiple people who want to claim the same scarce resources, and can thus violate each other's rights.
An enslaved person has rights, they never go away, they're just being violated by all the rest of society.
So then murder is OK so long as I can successfully get away with it. Got it.
How about throwing someone into a jail cell? What about throwing someone in a jail cell because they said something objectionable?
Because what you're saying is, so long as no one opposes me, that's totally cool. Uh huh.
Who says what is legitimate? The "people", are you serious?
What about an island with one person? It's impossible for anyone's rights to be violated, there's nobody else to violate them!
What about an island with two people? Can one kill the other?
What about a totalitarian government ran by a tiny minority? They don't have "the People's will".
What about a court that strikes down (refuses to enforce) an overwhelmingly popular law in a democracy?
If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind.
People tend not to question the laws of gravity, because when they do, they tend to end up mangled. The same thing happens for questioning the basic laws of economics. If you have no objective mechanism for deciding who is right to act on what, the outcome isn't generally very pleasant.
Nothing about "natural right" implies that it enforces itself. Quite the contrary. If rights enforced themselves, they'd be called "laws", surely you're familiar with the law of gravitation.
A right defines what sort of moral or ethical claims you have on other people. If you have the right to free speech, then no one may (lawfully|ethically|morally) use violence against you for speaking. Different people have different ideas on how to protect these rights, of course, but you get the idea.
The US Constitution says: Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech [emphasis mine]
The Constitution didn't create a "freedom of speech", it's protecting one that pre-exists.
Just because people (typically police, but any individual) have been known to abridge the freedom of speech doesn't make it any less of a natural right.
The fact that Facebook is in a better position than individuals to resist state coercion to the contrary is besides the point.
People don't magically gain rights because they form together in a group. Employees of Facebook and police in Germany alike don't gain any ability to silence people or kill people, any more than you or I could.
Anything that congress passes, that they don't have the authority to pass, is null and void: As if it never existed from the very start.
Any executive action that takes place under an unconstitutional statute is just as valid as an executive action that took place without the statute, i.e. not at all.
So yes, anything that is unconstitutional is necessarily illegal.
This is exactly how SCOTUS strikes down laws as unconstitutional: The laws stay on the books, but they're considered as useless as a law that tries to declare the earth flat: They're wholly unenforceable, because the court will refuse to uphold them.
For instance in Smash Bros., you can fight against your amiibo to give it experience and it'll pick up on your play style. This data is saved back to the NFID chip and can be brought to amiibo tournaments to see whose is the best, which play styles tend to defeat which play styles, etc.
It is quite interesting to see it all in action.
(And good grief, you wouldn't call your D&D minis "dolls" would you? Same thing.)
I don't exclude the existence of other systems, there's any number of variables you could include to create an n-dimensional system of economic and political systems. A far more accurate one is, indeed, two dimensional, and splits out economic liberty from civil liberty. You could add even more dimensions, depending on how accurately you want to describe an arbritrary system.
That's not really necessary here, and capitalism can exist in a large number of these systems, there's no One True 'Right' way to do it.
Some societies will define that ordering food means you have to pay for it before you walk out. Some won't. Both can be capitalism.
Some societies will run justice systems differently, some might be Common Law, others Civil Law. It doesn't really matter, Capitalism is just one building block that means one thing, and gives you certain useful characteristics when applied.
Hi, you must be new to Slashdot. A little primer for you to get started:
One of the greatest traditions is being able to be funny while also being totally serious. Hence frequent use of +1 Funny for Insightful posts and vice-versa.
The middle is Capitalism: It proscribes rule of law, things like ownership of resources, voluntary exchange, don't take other people's stuff, enforcement of contracts, and presumes the existence of a justice system.
There's no reason to believe that "rah, rah, [middle of the road] free market capitalism" will lead you to Somalia: Right now it seems to be doing a pretty good job of leading us to corporatism, and at the extreme this becomes fascism.
Slashdot Mirror
Prices aren't just a function of supply, they're also function of demand (what the market can bear). Since a model with more storage is more desirable, the price will increase more than proportionally.
Or put it this way: A 0 GB iPhone would be throughly useless, so it wouldn't sell for $200, it would sell for near zero.
Another way: when combined with the rest of a phone that can actually make use of said storage, the additional storage becomes more valuable than it otherwise would.
There shouldn't be anything unusual about this. Profiting is literally the act of making something more valuable than the sum of its parts, including labor. And likewise, you're said to take a loss when you make something less than the sum of its parts (thereby destroying value).
The reasons why we have certain desires don't have any impact the actual laws of economics.
Also, none of those are necessarily true. They might be true for 90-99.99% of the population, but not as a matter of definite fact.
What's the last thing physics ever proved as a matter of mathematical theorem?
Go on, I'm waiting
I'm not quite sure what you're referring to, Black-Scholes describes how to price futures contracts, and it does remarkably well at doing that. It's just based on the rate of interest, which should seem obvious.
Generally when it fails, it's because of a faulty assumption, same as assuming zero air resistance and zero friction at low speeds in physics, right. Usually it's good enough, many times it's not.
The difference is in economics we can actually mathematically prove the theorem when the initial assumptions are true. Air resistance and such is experimentally tested, not proven.
Hmmm. Not necessarily. You can apply economics to any situation where multiple, scarce resources must be allocated to autonomous consumers based on some criteria.
Suppose I have resources A and B. To accomplish task Y I'd need 2 A or 3 B; and to accomplish task Z I'd need 3 A and 5 B.
It doesn't matter if A/B is RAM/HDD or doctors/nurses. Economics says that, even though A is better at both tasks than B, it'll actually be cheapest to deploy B to task Y if and deploy A to task Z.
It's really no different than saying to get from point M to N, I'd need 10 Joules of energy based on some physics calculations.
Human economics happens to be the hardest because because there's no rational basis for our wants, they're completely arbitrary and can't be measured. I'm not sure if there's a name that makes a distinction between human wants and other wants, though.
Economics could only be considered a social science to the extent it deals with the interactions of trade between people, and the objective results of people with different subjective desires.
Economics can also be one of the hardest sciences there is, on par with kinematics: Economics invented game theory, and has many mathematical theorems, like the Law of Supply and Demand, the Law of Comparative Advantage, and the Black-Scholes model.
At least this has something to do with electromagnetic spectrum, but only tangentially: They're still claiming the ability to rule over hardware and software, as opposed to merely effects that are detectable over the air.
Well, generally it's a good thing that we have an independent judiciary. It ensures that they don't get caught up in the mob's favorite punching bag of the moment.
The problem here is that a judiciary is only supposed to hear cases of controversy: That means there has to be two sides, and the case can't go on if there's no one to prosecute.
In other words, if what they are saying is true, this means the Turkish courts are effectively judge AND prosecutor.
Because if I can get away with murder, that necessarily implies that there is "no political community able to enforce it". "It," here, would be laws against murder.
Of course slaves have rights. They're just being violated. If slavery is legal, then they're also being violated by the police and the government. There should be nothing unusual about this notion that the government can violate one's rights, too.
If I have one person on an island, can that person be enslaved? Is there any way their rights can be violated at all? The answer is simply no.
Suppose we add more people to this island. It doesn't change anything, except now you have multiple people who want to claim the same scarce resources, and can thus violate each other's rights.
An enslaved person has rights, they never go away, they're just being violated by all the rest of society.
So then murder is OK so long as I can successfully get away with it. Got it.
How about throwing someone into a jail cell? What about throwing someone in a jail cell because they said something objectionable?
Because what you're saying is, so long as no one opposes me, that's totally cool. Uh huh.
Who says what is legitimate? The "people", are you serious?
What about an island with one person? It's impossible for anyone's rights to be violated, there's nobody else to violate them!
What about an island with two people? Can one kill the other?
What about a totalitarian government ran by a tiny minority? They don't have "the People's will".
What about a court that strikes down (refuses to enforce) an overwhelmingly popular law in a democracy?
People tend not to question the laws of gravity, because when they do, they tend to end up mangled. The same thing happens for questioning the basic laws of economics. If you have no objective mechanism for deciding who is right to act on what, the outcome isn't generally very pleasant.
Nothing about "natural right" implies that it enforces itself. Quite the contrary. If rights enforced themselves, they'd be called "laws", surely you're familiar with the law of gravitation.
A right defines what sort of moral or ethical claims you have on other people. If you have the right to free speech, then no one may (lawfully|ethically|morally) use violence against you for speaking. Different people have different ideas on how to protect these rights, of course, but you get the idea.
The US Constitution says: Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech [emphasis mine]
The Constitution didn't create a "freedom of speech", it's protecting one that pre-exists.
Just because people (typically police, but any individual) have been known to abridge the freedom of speech doesn't make it any less of a natural right.
The point is everyone has the freedom of speech.
The fact that Facebook is in a better position than individuals to resist state coercion to the contrary is besides the point.
People don't magically gain rights because they form together in a group. Employees of Facebook and police in Germany alike don't gain any ability to silence people or kill people, any more than you or I could.
The Constitution is the supreme law of the land.
Anything that congress passes, that they don't have the authority to pass, is null and void: As if it never existed from the very start.
Any executive action that takes place under an unconstitutional statute is just as valid as an executive action that took place without the statute, i.e. not at all.
So yes, anything that is unconstitutional is necessarily illegal.
This is exactly how SCOTUS strikes down laws as unconstitutional: The laws stay on the books, but they're considered as useless as a law that tries to declare the earth flat: They're wholly unenforceable, because the court will refuse to uphold them.
Hi, hello. I'm not sure what the difference between the links are, but hey, whatever floats your boat.
And/or monster truck.
Slashdot, I know it'd violate your lovely tradition and all, but is it too much trouble to check your links before they go live?
http://www.redbull.com/us/en/g...
How do you get to "the cloud" at a tournament with no Internet access, again?
This isn't always available or desirable.
For instance in Smash Bros., you can fight against your amiibo to give it experience and it'll pick up on your play style. This data is saved back to the NFID chip and can be brought to amiibo tournaments to see whose is the best, which play styles tend to defeat which play styles, etc.
It is quite interesting to see it all in action.
(And good grief, you wouldn't call your D&D minis "dolls" would you? Same thing.)
This looks OK, at least compared to the Windows version, but... where can I fork it?
OK, answer me this: How much does a Calorie (kilocalorie) weigh? How much weight do I lose if I burn one kilocalorie, or under which conditions?
(Btw, if you're referring to food Calories, it's always a capital C, or preferably just call it kilocalorie.)
Totally a typo. Or spell check. Obviously.
But yes, you are correct.
I don't exclude the existence of other systems, there's any number of variables you could include to create an n-dimensional system of economic and political systems. A far more accurate one is, indeed, two dimensional, and splits out economic liberty from civil liberty. You could add even more dimensions, depending on how accurately you want to describe an arbritrary system.
That's not really necessary here, and capitalism can exist in a large number of these systems, there's no One True 'Right' way to do it.
Some societies will define that ordering food means you have to pay for it before you walk out. Some won't. Both can be capitalism.
Some societies will run justice systems differently, some might be Common Law, others Civil Law. It doesn't really matter, Capitalism is just one building block that means one thing, and gives you certain useful characteristics when applied.
Hi, you must be new to Slashdot. A little primer for you to get started:
One of the greatest traditions is being able to be funny while also being totally serious. Hence frequent use of +1 Funny for Insightful posts and vice-versa.
No rule of law is Somalia.
Total authoritarian rule is North Korea.
The middle is Capitalism: It proscribes rule of law, things like ownership of resources, voluntary exchange, don't take other people's stuff, enforcement of contracts, and presumes the existence of a justice system.
There's no reason to believe that "rah, rah, [middle of the road] free market capitalism" will lead you to Somalia: Right now it seems to be doing a pretty good job of leading us to corporatism, and at the extreme this becomes fascism.