and every day, companies send million-dollar checks through regular US mail to each other. and the system actually works pretty well. for 47 cents, plus envelope , paper, and special laser cartridges, you can transfer a million dollars. try doing that on paypal, or setting up eletronic systems to do that, and now try to keep those systems secure. now try to do it for 47 cents per transaction.
If you think the actual cost of fulfilling that transaction is 47 cents, you're way off base.
The actual cost is far higher. Keep in mind that the issuer of that check pays the bank for the ability to issue that check. The bank makes money off the funds held for the check; the receiving entity's bank also makes money off the funds while it clears. Never mind the monthly fees both issuer and receiver pay on their accounts.
Just because the cost of the transaction is hidden doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
...and wouldn't think of buying hand tools anywhere else. Can't tell you how many ratchets I've gone through over the years.
Perhaps that's a sign that you should be buying somewhere else. Or maybe buying a better brand.
Out of curiosity, what are you doing with your ratchets that you need to replace them so often that you've lost count of how many times you've had to buy new ones?
I thought Boeing made planes.. shouldn't they concentrate on building stuff that stays UP in the air instead of shooting things down?:)
You need to think more deviously.
1. Boeing makes planes (profit). 2. Boeing makes tools to shoot down planes (profit). 3. Boeing gets contract to replace planes that were shot down (more profit).
Come on, you know the battlefields of the future are going to look like a 1980's G.I. Joe cartoon. Hilarious. Wait... Not really hilarious...
Please RTFA, I quote (emphasis mine):
The science board said tactical laser systems could be developed for broader use because they "enable precision ground attack to minimize collateral damage in urban conflicts." The report suggested, for example, that "future gunships could provide extended precision lethality and sensing."
I don't know what GI Joe cartoons you watched as a kid, but precision was never part of any battle I saw.
What I'm more interested in, of course, is this little tidbit:
Low-power lasers known as "dazzlers" are being used in Iraq, mounted on M-4 rifles, "to warn or temporarily incapacitate individuals," according to the Defense Science Board's report.
This is perhaps the biggest development in modern warfare I've ever read about. I just hope they didn't deploy the Disco version, though the techno/trance version is almost as bad.
What? MSFT has a market cap of ~260 Bn. IBM has a market cap of ~160 Bn.
Besides which, the core of IBM's business is not software, it's services (~50% of revenues in the quarter ending 6/30/08). Hardware comes in 2nd for IBM for revenues.
MSFT's revenue is mostly software sales and licensing.
I'm almost really drawing a blank trying to imagine what Obama could do that could actually be more socialist then the government absorbing the largest financial part of the USA economy.
Maybe you misunderstand the terms you're using. Federal bailout of the financial industry is not socialist, since the federal government is not acquiring control of the banking system.
Instead, what we have is corporatism, or the beginnings of a fascist state (pick your terms). We have the military-industrial complex dominating the manufacturing capability of the economy. We have the government supporting the banking industry with taxpayer money (sure, it's "loans" and "risk guarantees"). We have the extremely wealthy being bailed out by the government while the rank and file get laid off and foreclosed on.
Now, I'm considered left-wing (which is odd, because the *same* views I hold now were considered right-of-center not too long ago). But it is patently obvious that what we have now is government that operates to protect the interests of the wealthy and elite members of society... and we are being told (in not so many words) that this is necessary for the common man to have economic security.
It's trickle-down economics all over again... I thought it was widely known among Bush's supporters that this was his policy? How are you surprised by this? We did the exact same thing under Reagan with the S&L buyouts.
If you are surprised and upset by this, it reflects more on your knowledge of Bush's policies than it reflects on his policies.
Actually, what you need are more mid-level providers. Physician Assistants, Nurse Practitioners, and the like are probably the future of front-line medical care
Absolutely. And med students who think they don't need organic chem should instead pursue education to be a PA or NP. Given the plethora of great online tools for diagnosing, etc, IMO the MD's knowledge base is less and less important in the day-to-day than it used to be.
But, please don't forget the role of the pharmacist, who should be doing most of the heavy lifting associated with chemistry in a clinical setting.
I'll second that, but I'll also add that college-level organic chem should still be required for med students. There's no way high-school level organic chem would be advanced enough to cover what doctors should know.
If you're a medical doctor, and you think organic chem isn't required, you should have become an RN.
Take the infamous NINJA loan: No Income, No Job, No Assets. That is, you're given a mortgage based on nothing but good looks and your credit score. Nothing else is verified.
The big problem with the NINJA loans was that the interest rates given on them did not reflect the risk. Typically NINJA loans were made with just a 1-2% premium over standard loans. They should have been assigned a Phenomenally Increased rate (at least a 5% premium), or PIRATE -- which would have held them in check.
However, because the NINJAs were allowed to go unchecked, we still have a dearth of PIRATES, and thus heavy global warming in addition to the credit crunch.
Heh. Maybe this is what it'll take to make the general public (especially the baby boomers whose parents fought in WWII, or made other sacrifices) aware of how bad the rights deterioration in the US is.
When the Germans do it, it's scary (to a lot of people). When the US does it, is it not also scary?
If you're referring to IQ, you need to do a little more math. IQ is very specific, with 100 being the mean, and 15 being the standard deviation.
If you have a population of four who score 1,1,1,97 respecitively on an intelligence test, what your test tells you is that:
Your mean score is 25. Your standard deviation is 48. Therefore, any score between -23 and 73 is within one standard deviation, and should be considered an "average" score.
The 97 is within two standard deviations, and should be considered a "high" score.
So you can say that our of your population of four, three have average intelligence and one has high intelligence.
Extrapolating information for small samples from statistical tools meant for large populations is fuzzy at best. I know, the parent to your post is the one who made the error...
The confidence interval for a sample of 4 with a standard deviation so high is pretty slim.
I'd like to see ad revenue figures for internet radio. I'd think that audio ads on internet radio would dramatically reduce listenership, due to easy access to ad-free alternatives (such as the listener's own music library at their fingertips).
Please, I'm still not understanding why you think it's an improper analogy.
In my experience over the last 15 or so years, the average accountant has no greater understanding of how their work relates to macroeconomics (hint: it has almost no relevance to macroeconomics) than the average fry cook would understand how their work relates to global strategy for their fast food employer.
That is the purpose of the analogy. You may disagree with my point... I thought I was pretty clear in explaining why I believe so.
And what exactly is an "improper" analogy? Seriously? Is there some usage of an analogy which is "proper", and a reason why another usage would be "improper"?
It's also interesting to note that the commercial FM radio industry has been steadily declining over the last decade or so, much the same way as CD sales have. I'm sure the extremely poor quality of product (not to mention the endless ads) is responsible.
To be fair, competition from downloaded and shared music has had a major impact on terrestrial radio as well. But it's interesting to note that the decline in FM radio parallels the deregulation of the FM radio industry (in particular, the restrictions on ownership of multiple stations in a market) and the massive acquisition spree by Clear Channel.
So I still assert that if the real reason for destroying internet radio is to stop the broadcast of "non-RIAA-approved" music, they would be going after indie radio as well.
The difference is that protections for indie radio have been encoded in law for some time. But they are just as hated by Clearchannel (as competitors) and the RIAA-labels (as non-marketing-channel music sources).
Those explanations generally do not include "killing indie arties" as the primary purpose for SoundExchange. This sounds like a conspiracy theory to me.
It's not the primary purpose. But there are thorns thrown in to hinder indie artists.
So I may be coming off as a conspiracy theorist, there is some speculation on my part.
Russ, your 'monopoly game' is completely specious.
It ignores the fact that most of the state-supported monopolies are in markets that would support natural monopolies if it weren't for government intervention.
While the implementation has been wrought with problems, "state-supported monopolies" exist to restrict the actions of what would naturally be a monopoly anyway.
So, in order to make your game less specious, let's change the requirements a bit. With the exceptions of patents (since they are outside the realm of this short discussion), you name a state-supported monopoly in a market that does not tend towards monopoly, and I'll name a state-supported monopoly in a market that does.
Ready... set... go.
[crickets]
The fact of the matter is that there is no perfect free market, and market inefficiencies tend towards monopoly. Even within the Austrian school of economic thought, it's required that correction be made for monopolies in order for models to work efficiently.
And I'll note that copyright law does not enforce monopoly. Copyrighted works are not commodity goods.
They already do. And what happens is that they still need to pay the Royalties to SoundExchange, who, if the artist is unregistered with them, distribute the cash (less their cut) to two music unions. The artist is then forced to collect the royalties from the unions.
IIRC there is an option for an artist to opt-out of the SoundExchange royalty collection scheme, but it would require the artist to individually license with any station that plays their music. Cost-prohibitive for both the stations and the artists.
Dude, I have a minor in economics and currently work as an accountant. I think I'm qualified to make the statement I made.
If you think accounting and economics are unrelated, you clearly have never heard of an accrual. Items are booked for a reasonable estimate of future cost. Take a wild guess as to what the basis for those estimates are.
Heh. You can't accrue for future cost. You accrue for current expense unrecordable as a direct expense for some reason. If you estimate & accrue for future cost, you are realizing gain/loss from future appreciation/depreciation in the current period, which is a big no-no.
As for estimation of future price, why exactly would you accrue expense for a future cost? Who received services/goods at an unspecified price? Technically, if that is the case, you should accrue at current market value, then when you actually book the expense from the source document (contract & receipt or invoice) you should book any difference in the current period, since it represents appreciation/depreciation from prior period.
Economists and accountants both use science. Its the method of application that differs. Accountants generally work with actual numbers while economists generally work with the numbers that accountants prove to make generalizations about the economy. Just looking at the titles give this much information.
Accountants do not use science. There is no theory involved in accounting. Please note that there is a big difference between finance and accounting, perhaps that is where the misunderstanding comes from? Finance and economics are much more interrelated than accounting and economics are.
I just don't believe that internet radio is really that powerful, that it really actually completely undermines the "market oligopoly" (as you put it) in some way that traditional radio (which includes thousands of small, independent, and public stations which already play whatever they want whenever they want with no input whatsoever from "the industry") can't do.
Well, first, I believe it's an effort to nip internet radio before it competes o a massive scale. The competition is there, and making inroads...
Second, who do you think really controls terrestrial radio? Not to get all tinfoil-hattish, but the consolidation of terrestrial radio stations has really reduced the variety of radio that's available. The RIAA companies want homogenized radio, which maximizes their profits. Clear Channel et al deliver that. Advertisers want huge conglomerate radio station networks. Clear Channel et al deliver that.
As for the small, independent, and public stations that play whatever they want... what kind of market share do you think they have? I live in a major metro area... I have very few choices. And none that really cater to my tastes.
Seriously, the power of the major labels derives from one thing only -- their ability to market their artists. Any threat to this ability could potentially kill their marketing power, and thus their business.
There's a reason that current law forces internet radio stations to pay SoundExchange even for indie artists -- it's to kill off the the playtime of those indie artists.
I'm in the same exact boat. But now, I'll make a point of only buying used CDs and records, rather than dropping cash to the RIAA member companies.
I have disposable income. I believe that pirating is immoral, and I don't do it. I don't listen to terrestrial radio (even in the car). I have canceled my satellite subscription. I don't go to shows. I don't watch any music-affiliated television.
Sure, I'm an outlier case, but my primary means of exposure to new music I'd like to buy is being destroyed by the companies that stand to profit the most from it.
One other thing: regardless of how this shakes down over the next few months, I just want to send a big thanks to Tim Westergren, Will Glaser, Jon Craft and the rest of the folks from Pandora (Joe Kennedy, fellow Jersey guy included) and the Music Genome Project. You've made my life more enjoyable. I hope this works out for you.
Why doest Pandora just strike up with indie studios and go mono e mono with musicians for play rights?
Because the demand for indie music is dwarfed by the demand for big-label music. I know I'd stop listening to Pandora most of the time if they stopped offering music from the 70s and 80s that I listen to the most.
And if Congress is forcing internet radio companies to pay to some RIAA-hole, countersue them under RICO. After all, they're pooling their money. And isnt payola illegal?
Please explain exactly how the RIAA could be prosecuted under RICO. I don't mean to pick on you, but I often see remarks that the RIAA should be prosecuted under RICO, and I have yet to see a clear analysis of how exactly they violate RICO laws. And as for payola, this is the opposite of payola. The big labels are not paying for airtime.
What I'd like to see is an anti-trust suit against SoundExchange. We won't see one, of course, because it'd be political suicide to take on the RIAA when they own the political system.
What I'd really like to see is a retreat from fascism (call it corporatism if you like), but that sure as hell isn't happening any time soon.
Slashdot Mirror
If you think the actual cost of fulfilling that transaction is 47 cents, you're way off base.
The actual cost is far higher. Keep in mind that the issuer of that check pays the bank for the ability to issue that check. The bank makes money off the funds held for the check; the receiving entity's bank also makes money off the funds while it clears. Never mind the monthly fees both issuer and receiver pay on their accounts.
Just because the cost of the transaction is hidden doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
Perhaps that's a sign that you should be buying somewhere else. Or maybe buying a better brand.
Out of curiosity, what are you doing with your ratchets that you need to replace them so often that you've lost count of how many times you've had to buy new ones?
You need to think more deviously.
1. Boeing makes planes (profit).
2. Boeing makes tools to shoot down planes (profit).
3. Boeing gets contract to replace planes that were shot down (more profit).
There is no ???.
Please RTFA, I quote (emphasis mine):
I don't know what GI Joe cartoons you watched as a kid, but precision was never part of any battle I saw.
What I'm more interested in, of course, is this little tidbit:
This is perhaps the biggest development in modern warfare I've ever read about. I just hope they didn't deploy the Disco version, though the techno/trance version is almost as bad.
What? MSFT has a market cap of ~260 Bn. IBM has a market cap of ~160 Bn.
Besides which, the core of IBM's business is not software, it's services (~50% of revenues in the quarter ending 6/30/08). Hardware comes in 2nd for IBM for revenues.
MSFT's revenue is mostly software sales and licensing.
Yar, mead be a drink not fit for a swabbie, tis rum we relate to.
Talk like a Viking day be in March, ye Danish scallawag.
Maybe you misunderstand the terms you're using. Federal bailout of the financial industry is not socialist, since the federal government is not acquiring control of the banking system.
Instead, what we have is corporatism, or the beginnings of a fascist state (pick your terms). We have the military-industrial complex dominating the manufacturing capability of the economy. We have the government supporting the banking industry with taxpayer money (sure, it's "loans" and "risk guarantees"). We have the extremely wealthy being bailed out by the government while the rank and file get laid off and foreclosed on.
Now, I'm considered left-wing (which is odd, because the *same* views I hold now were considered right-of-center not too long ago). But it is patently obvious that what we have now is government that operates to protect the interests of the wealthy and elite members of society... and we are being told (in not so many words) that this is necessary for the common man to have economic security.
It's trickle-down economics all over again... I thought it was widely known among Bush's supporters that this was his policy? How are you surprised by this? We did the exact same thing under Reagan with the S&L buyouts.
If you are surprised and upset by this, it reflects more on your knowledge of Bush's policies than it reflects on his policies.
Absolutely. And med students who think they don't need organic chem should instead pursue education to be a PA or NP. Given the plethora of great online tools for diagnosing, etc, IMO the MD's knowledge base is less and less important in the day-to-day than it used to be.
But, please don't forget the role of the pharmacist, who should be doing most of the heavy lifting associated with chemistry in a clinical setting.
Good points. Maybe I should turn off the karma bonus for my posts :)
I'll second that, but I'll also add that college-level organic chem should still be required for med students. There's no way high-school level organic chem would be advanced enough to cover what doctors should know.
If you're a medical doctor, and you think organic chem isn't required, you should have become an RN.
25 years. Warhammer Fantasy Battle was originally published in 1983. (Yes, I still have miniatures I bought in '84).
The big problem with the NINJA loans was that the interest rates given on them did not reflect the risk. Typically NINJA loans were made with just a 1-2% premium over standard loans. They should have been assigned a Phenomenally Increased rate (at least a 5% premium), or PIRATE -- which would have held them in check.
However, because the NINJAs were allowed to go unchecked, we still have a dearth of PIRATES, and thus heavy global warming in addition to the credit crunch.
Heh. Maybe this is what it'll take to make the general public (especially the baby boomers whose parents fought in WWII, or made other sacrifices) aware of how bad the rights deterioration in the US is.
When the Germans do it, it's scary (to a lot of people). When the US does it, is it not also scary?
If you're referring to IQ, you need to do a little more math. IQ is very specific, with 100 being the mean, and 15 being the standard deviation.
If you have a population of four who score 1,1,1,97 respecitively on an intelligence test, what your test tells you is that:
Your mean score is 25. Your standard deviation is 48. Therefore, any score between -23 and 73 is within one standard deviation, and should be considered an "average" score.
The 97 is within two standard deviations, and should be considered a "high" score.
So you can say that our of your population of four, three have average intelligence and one has high intelligence.
Extrapolating information for small samples from statistical tools meant for large populations is fuzzy at best. I know, the parent to your post is the one who made the error...
The confidence interval for a sample of 4 with a standard deviation so high is pretty slim.
I'd like to see ad revenue figures for internet radio. I'd think that audio ads on internet radio would dramatically reduce listenership, due to easy access to ad-free alternatives (such as the listener's own music library at their fingertips).
Yeah, I tried that. My wife modded all our sexy time as (-1, overrated).
So I modded her (-1, troll)...
Didn't work out so well, I'm sleeping in the garage nowadays.
Please, I'm still not understanding why you think it's an improper analogy.
In my experience over the last 15 or so years, the average accountant has no greater understanding of how their work relates to macroeconomics (hint: it has almost no relevance to macroeconomics) than the average fry cook would understand how their work relates to global strategy for their fast food employer.
That is the purpose of the analogy. You may disagree with my point... I thought I was pretty clear in explaining why I believe so.
And what exactly is an "improper" analogy? Seriously? Is there some usage of an analogy which is "proper", and a reason why another usage would be "improper"?
To be fair, competition from downloaded and shared music has had a major impact on terrestrial radio as well. But it's interesting to note that the decline in FM radio parallels the deregulation of the FM radio industry (in particular, the restrictions on ownership of multiple stations in a market) and the massive acquisition spree by Clear Channel.
The difference is that protections for indie radio have been encoded in law for some time. But they are just as hated by Clearchannel (as competitors) and the RIAA-labels (as non-marketing-channel music sources).
It's not the primary purpose. But there are thorns thrown in to hinder indie artists.
So I may be coming off as a conspiracy theorist, there is some speculation on my part.
Russ, your 'monopoly game' is completely specious.
It ignores the fact that most of the state-supported monopolies are in markets that would support natural monopolies if it weren't for government intervention.
While the implementation has been wrought with problems, "state-supported monopolies" exist to restrict the actions of what would naturally be a monopoly anyway.
So, in order to make your game less specious, let's change the requirements a bit. With the exceptions of patents (since they are outside the realm of this short discussion), you name a state-supported monopoly in a market that does not tend towards monopoly, and I'll name a state-supported monopoly in a market that does.
Ready... set... go.
[crickets]
The fact of the matter is that there is no perfect free market, and market inefficiencies tend towards monopoly. Even within the Austrian school of economic thought, it's required that correction be made for monopolies in order for models to work efficiently.
And I'll note that copyright law does not enforce monopoly. Copyrighted works are not commodity goods.
They already do. And what happens is that they still need to pay the Royalties to SoundExchange, who, if the artist is unregistered with them, distribute the cash (less their cut) to two music unions. The artist is then forced to collect the royalties from the unions.
IIRC there is an option for an artist to opt-out of the SoundExchange royalty collection scheme, but it would require the artist to individually license with any station that plays their music. Cost-prohibitive for both the stations and the artists.
?
:)
What are you smoking, and can I have some?
You have completely befuddled me... which is maybe a first on slashdot.
If you think I'm an anarchist... well... you obviously haven't read a lot of my posts
That said, have at ye!
Well, first, I believe it's an effort to nip internet radio before it competes o a massive scale. The competition is there, and making inroads...
Second, who do you think really controls terrestrial radio? Not to get all tinfoil-hattish, but the consolidation of terrestrial radio stations has really reduced the variety of radio that's available. The RIAA companies want homogenized radio, which maximizes their profits. Clear Channel et al deliver that. Advertisers want huge conglomerate radio station networks. Clear Channel et al deliver that.
As for the small, independent, and public stations that play whatever they want... what kind of market share do you think they have? I live in a major metro area... I have very few choices. And none that really cater to my tastes.
Seriously, the power of the major labels derives from one thing only -- their ability to market their artists. Any threat to this ability could potentially kill their marketing power, and thus their business.
There's a reason that current law forces internet radio stations to pay SoundExchange even for indie artists -- it's to kill off the the playtime of those indie artists.
I'm in the same exact boat. But now, I'll make a point of only buying used CDs and records, rather than dropping cash to the RIAA member companies.
I have disposable income. I believe that pirating is immoral, and I don't do it. I don't listen to terrestrial radio (even in the car). I have canceled my satellite subscription. I don't go to shows. I don't watch any music-affiliated television.
Sure, I'm an outlier case, but my primary means of exposure to new music I'd like to buy is being destroyed by the companies that stand to profit the most from it.
One other thing: regardless of how this shakes down over the next few months, I just want to send a big thanks to Tim Westergren, Will Glaser, Jon Craft and the rest of the folks from Pandora (Joe Kennedy, fellow Jersey guy included) and the Music Genome Project. You've made my life more enjoyable. I hope this works out for you.
Because the demand for indie music is dwarfed by the demand for big-label music. I know I'd stop listening to Pandora most of the time if they stopped offering music from the 70s and 80s that I listen to the most.
Please explain exactly how the RIAA could be prosecuted under RICO. I don't mean to pick on you, but I often see remarks that the RIAA should be prosecuted under RICO, and I have yet to see a clear analysis of how exactly they violate RICO laws. And as for payola, this is the opposite of payola. The big labels are not paying for airtime.
What I'd like to see is an anti-trust suit against SoundExchange. We won't see one, of course, because it'd be political suicide to take on the RIAA when they own the political system.
What I'd really like to see is a retreat from fascism (call it corporatism if you like), but that sure as hell isn't happening any time soon.