In NJ, they dpn't even bother with easements. Typically the municipality or state will own all the property with a certain distance from the median of the road, which depends on the size and classification of the road. When they widen the road, eminent domain is used and a 'fair price' is paid for the lost property... but good luck collecting that. And forget about collecting the loss in property value due to a home now sitting right next to a four-lane highway (when it had previously been set back a bit from a fairly busy country road).
"I'll admit Fox News has its ups and downs, but the ire and hatred that liberals have for it is over the top."
Why is the ire and hatred over the top? It's a perfectly natural response to being constantly denigrated by that network. Furthermore, I'm a moderate -- yet according to Fox News, I'm a 'libtard' or something, because I disagree with their talking points. Fox News is helping to cause a fundamental shift in the political polarity scale, where moderate is the new liberal, and 'conservative' means liberally-applied fascism.
Without pressure from constituents, it is even less likely that a bill will ever reach the floor.
Proposed legislation is just as important as legislation that reaches the floor, potentially more so -- once it reaches the floor, most legislators have already decided where they stand on the issue.
Now, in the formative stages of legislative thought, is when it is MOST important to make sure your legislators support your views on issues like this. Waiting until it hits the floor is like waiting to have your brakes fixed until you need to stop to keep from rear-ending someone while barreling down a hill at 80 miles per hour. Our legislature needs 'preventative maintenance' just as much as your car does.
Contact your legislators early. Contact them often.
If it takes you along time to highlight your data set, why don't you use named data ranges?
Re: work to be done -- of course. But the vast majority of most people I know who use Excel regularly only use it for keeping lists (or small databases) and sometimes minor functions.
Ideally, if you need to develop graphs and charts from your data, you should be using Openoffice Chart -- though it also needs some work (see the early March slashdot review/tutorial of Chart 2.0). This is a large point of interoperability, after all -- not only switch between different brands of the same application type, but also to use different applications with the same data.
At the office, I often use Crystal Reports to generate the reports I need from my Excel spreadsheets -- much quicker than generating reports in Excel using VLOOKUP or PRODUCT or the other tools out there. And heaven forbid I need to write yet another VB script to get the functionality I want, especially when I'll want that functionality across different files. The point is that it's important to select the proper tools for the job at hand -- and IMO, a spreadsheet is not a chart/graph generator, nor should it be.
I digress a bit, but there is a reason that MSOffice is so bloated -- they've tried to make each piece do more than it should. For those who never use charts in Excel, why should they have to install that functionality?
Younger populations with good amounts of disposable income? Check. Lots of tech and financial services in these areas.
Crappy weather for a large portion of the year? Check (ATL is nasty in the summer, SEA has a little problem with cloud cover and rain for most of the year, and MN winters...).
The link between education and low population growth has not even come close to being demonstrated as a causative relationship.
Socioeconomic status is what connects these two data, not causation. If you normalize education across all borders, you'll still find disparate reproductive rates based upon economic status. And there is no way we can bring the entire world up to the economic status of the US, Western Europe, or even Free Asia at the current rates of consumption -- there is simply not enough available energy, and not enough material, to produce that kind of wealth. Since that is the case, you will always have the have-nots who, since they will reproduce faster than the haves, will experience deprivation of some sort.
Population will grow until it hits equilibrium based on food supply (which is often resolved by war and/or genocide) -- I think it's a little wishful to think that education will cause people to stop competing for a limited resource. And where there are winnners, there are losers.
Absolutely. Though the telcoms have to pay the government for land that the government buys as right-of-way for public infrastructure, that just comes out of our pockets anyway (like the infrastructure charge on your phone bill). The thing is, though, that your neighbor doesn't own the land the sidewalk is on, nor the sidewalk itself. He may choose to maintain it, but likely that's the property of the municipality or state, depending on what kind of road he's on. IIRC, telcos do get assessed for use of public lands -- but I'm sure it's offset by tax breaks.
And as you bring up, there are all the other intangible costs, like the nuisance of telephone/cable wires on your property.
The Borlaug Hypothesis does, in principle, make sense. But his high-yield production methods cause other problems, like wealth distribution inequities (social), high demand for input (economic), and massive use of fertilizers and pesticides (environmental).
Eventually, the Borlaug Hypothesis falls apart anyway -- population growth is limited by, among other things, food supply. The Borlaug Hypothesis just buys us time until the world population level demands that we use the 'saved' land for agriculture as well.
The only real solution is to stop population growth, or to actually cause a decrease in world population. Everything else is just a stop-gap measure until we reach a population equilibrium, for which famine and starvation is necessary to maintain.
"Are you suggesting that Greenpeace leadership is pro-nuclear but continues to obstruct all efforts to reduce greenhouse gases with nuclear just for the purposes of fund raising?"
IT's not about just fundraising. It's also about identity. Greenpeace has always been anti-nuke -- it's a core part of the group. Greenpeace would cease to exist if the anti-nuke dogma were even seriously challenged at the higher levels.
BTW, most Greenpeace activsts I've known tend not to be the full-belly-appease-my-conscience types. I think you're right about the vast majority of financial supporters, however.
That said, I am in total agreement with Greenpeace that population control is necessary, and that a lot of the GMOs out there exacerbate the problems they are trying solve (be it starvation or other things), even if they go in with the best intentions.
"The big problem is where government is already sticking their nose in my business, such as where certain providers get monopoly status (within the village or the state). In this case, there is cause for concern, but that is already the problem with government regulation: it tends to create monopolies out of preferred enterprises and really hurts the competitive market. "
Telcos had/have a natural monopoly based upon the high infrastructure costs acting as a barrier to entry. Government stepped in to regulate that monopoly -- it was the monopoly that led to government interference, not the other way around.
It's not the format for buying games that keeps me from buying games on my cell phone. It's three things:
1) Battery life. I'm not going to waste charge on gaming. I need my cell phone too much, and spend too much time without access to a charger.
2) Cost. Considering that my Verizon game service charges something like $6-8 per game, why would I bother? Chances are I'll feel like I wasted that money -- I have better gaming experiences with stuff we wrote in BASIC and Pascal in grade school.
3) Suckage. Besides the fact that so many games available for cell phones suck, the phone itself sucks for gaming. From screen size to processor speed to control issues, a cell phone is a sub-par mobile gaming device. If I'm going to spend $400 on a phone that handles games well, I'd just as soon buy a PSP or a DS, thank you.
"We'll remember a brief, shining moment when some kid with a computer and list of html codes could get a message out to hundreds of millions of people."
Sounds like spam to me. Not a shining moment in my book.
"GM doesnt pay for the roads. Taxpayers do. Now if GM went a built a series of roads with their money and only allowed their cars to use those roads, would you object?"
Now, if GM paid for the roads themselves out of monies earned via a legally granted monopoly, say, that only GM cars are allowed to be driven in the region, would you object?
If the roads were partially funded by a special assessment on all drivers of GM cars, regardless of whether they choose to use those roads, would you object?
My point is that there is a spectrum between "we can and should do whatever we want for our benefit" and "we should leave no footprint." Greenpeace is somewhere closer to "leave no footprint" though of course the members of Greenpeace vary in their opinions widely.
When the intent is to determine and promote the ideal balance of human needs versus preservation of the environment, it's all based on the values we assign to each. And quite some time ago, Moore decided that he valued human use far more than most of the other boardmembers did.
The problem with Greenpeace's stance against nuclear energy is that Greenpeace is beholden to its members. And many of them are knee-jerk anti-nuclear people who paid too much attention to the FUD of the 70s and 80s. It's become dogma that nuclear = bad. Props to Moore for challenging this, but his stances on use vs. preservation lean far too much toward use for me.
"The movement toward OpenDocument in the free world, warms the open cockles of my heart. (Emphasis mine)
I sure hope the chambers of your heart aren't open, you might want to visit the doctor if so.
But if the cockles you're referring to are the bivalve mollusc kind, they are always open -- cockles don't shut. However, they are hermaphroditic and they can jump. Which still presents a problem for your cardiac health.
Seriously, though, formal recognition of this standard removes one of the obstacles to widespread implementation of non-MS office software. The bigger hurdle, of course, is retraining & support expenses (for businesses) and factory (or pre-purchase, anyway) installation of the software (for home users).
This doesn't change the fact that MS formats are the de facto standards in use, but it may help unify the communities that use non-MS formats, leading to a larger install base.
The wikipedia article clearly states that he has a paid psoition from a nuclear-energy consortium.
I happen to agree with a lot of Moore's viewpoints -- but the fact that he was basically kicked out of Greenpeace and no longer believes they know what they are doing does not invalidate Greenpeace -- it just raises questions.
And to imply that Greenpeace supports fossil-fuel energy because they are generally against nuclear is totally misleading. That would only be true if those were the only two energy options.
Re: replanting forests that have been logged, etc -- yes there can be logging practices that are better than others. But clearcutting is not the answer, even replanting them will not mitigate all the disastrous effects from erosiion etc.
Some few people who are attnetion-whores for Greenpeace give a bad rap to an organization comprised of thousands upon thousands of members who beliefs are both rational, environmentalist, and humanist.
Greenpeace is about preservation -- Moore is all about responsible use. The two are VERY different, and 'responsible use' has too widely varying a definition -- see mining practices in Montana, or strip-ranching in the southwest.
Do some more homework. That founder is a paid shill for the nuclear industry now. This was covered pretty extensively sometime last week on slashdot, IIRC.
If you want info on the shill part, check his Wikipedia entry.
Never mind the fact that he's now working with Christine Todd Whitman, who remains one of the most green-washed industry shills ever to come out of the great state of NJ. It's sad that CTW is considered an environmentalist, just as Moore is considered one -- neither of them is anything more than centrist on environmental issues.
Anyway, Greenpeace being refuted by a founding member is meaningless when that founding member has totally changed his perspective.
"I'm sure that people think up the acronyms, and then try to find words that fit. What a bunch of arse.
I'd like my Congressperson to sponsor the BUNCHOFARSE Act: Big UnNecessary CHeeky Acronyms Revised to Sound Elsewise Act. It should be MANDATORY to have such witty acronyms that really[1] reflect the intended purpose and effect of the legislation. How else are we supposed to conveniently have a 'feeling' about a 600-page act that will affect our daily lives, and which not even those voting on it have read?
[1] No, not truly. That would defeat the obfuscatory purpose of the BUNCHOFARSE Act.
Free Culture is a national organization, the NYU chapter is presenting the film, and yes of course it costs money to hire out the Pioneer, which the group has to recoup. The point is the irony of the name "Free Culture at NYU," which is due to the double meaning of the word... oh never mind.
But if you're in the neighborhood, a few pints rarely kills anyone...
"Free Culture at NYU presents: ALTERNATIVE FREEDOM"
Yet tix range from $6.50 to $9.00 per. I guess that would be Free-as-in-speech, not Free-as-in-beer, Culture at NYU.
If anyone local is going, I'll be getting a pint or two at Bleecker Bar (Bleecker & Lafayette) and then walking over, the box office opens at 8:30 for the 9:00 showing tonight.
"Anyway, maybe I'm getting too long-winded here, but the way you ignore the supply end of pricing models by simply stating "what people are willing to pay is the price" is your error, and it's a clear one"
Due to logistical issues, prices are not fluid. And due to the limited number of major sellers, oligopoly (even if there is no collusion) suuplier theory applies, which is why prices are static despite competition. And, as I clearly point out, digital media is neither a commodity, nor is its market a competitive one as currently structured.
Plus, with regard to digital media, supply must be removed from the equation, since supply is infinite. What is instead limited, via copyright, is the number of suppliers, which is quite different -- it's legal monopolization of a non-commodity good.
Are there constraints on how sellers set prices based upon their costs? Sure. But that is not a supply limitation.
Speaking of long-winded, one other note -- there is indeed competition among different suppliers of downloadable media. It's not necessarily reflected in pricing, though, as service, variety of media available, etc, are valid ways to compete.
Finally, you misqouted me -- "what people are willing to pay is the price" is not what I said. I said that "what people are willing to pay determines the price" -- two very different statements, and the difference is extremely important.
*Just wanted to note that this is true of any good, not just digital media. Non-digital goods obey the same economic laws as digital goods, it's just that the COGS is higher. It breaks down to competitive commodity market vs. nocompetitive non-commodity market.
"The difference between digital media and other goods is that, for the latter, the price is determined by the cost of production and distribution plus extra which is kept as a profit. "
Not at all. Price is determined by how much people are willing to pay.
In a truly competitive commodity market, price will approach the cost of goods sold, but that is not a result of determining price by tacking on some profit to the COGS -- it is a result of needing to underprice your competition while maintaining profitability.
Note, however, that music is not a commodity good -- and therefore price will not necessarily approach the COGS even if the market were competitive. The determinant of price for music is not-so-simply a maximization of (copies sold)*(price), especially since the COGS of digital music is near zero. In other words, whatever the market will bear.
If five suckers pay $30 for an album, the label profits more than if twenty reasonable people pay $5 for that same album. The real problem, then, is the stupidity of people who willingly pay too much and screw it up for the rest of us.
"It's mostly voodoo garbage (no offense to voodoo practicers) but is a fact of life in the interviewing world."
Not just voodoo garbage -- they also serve a very important purpose -- documented justification for not hiring someone. Many large companies use personality tests to help them avoid liability in case of a discrimination lawsuit. Lawsuit prevention seems to be a major function of HR departments at most firms I've worked with.
Slashdot Mirror
In NJ, they dpn't even bother with easements. Typically the municipality or state will own all the property with a certain distance from the median of the road, which depends on the size and classification of the road. When they widen the road, eminent domain is used and a 'fair price' is paid for the lost property... but good luck collecting that. And forget about collecting the loss in property value due to a home now sitting right next to a four-lane highway (when it had previously been set back a bit from a fairly busy country road).
"I'll admit Fox News has its ups and downs, but the ire and hatred that liberals have for it is over the top."
Why is the ire and hatred over the top? It's a perfectly natural response to being constantly denigrated by that network. Furthermore, I'm a moderate -- yet according to Fox News, I'm a 'libtard' or something, because I disagree with their talking points. Fox News is helping to cause a fundamental shift in the political polarity scale, where moderate is the new liberal, and 'conservative' means liberally-applied fascism.
Without pressure from constituents, it is even less likely that a bill will ever reach the floor.
Proposed legislation is just as important as legislation that reaches the floor, potentially more so -- once it reaches the floor, most legislators have already decided where they stand on the issue.
Now, in the formative stages of legislative thought, is when it is MOST important to make sure your legislators support your views on issues like this. Waiting until it hits the floor is like waiting to have your brakes fixed until you need to stop to keep from rear-ending someone while barreling down a hill at 80 miles per hour. Our legislature needs 'preventative maintenance' just as much as your car does.
Contact your legislators early. Contact them often.
If it takes you along time to highlight your data set, why don't you use named data ranges?
Re: work to be done -- of course. But the vast majority of most people I know who use Excel regularly only use it for keeping lists (or small databases) and sometimes minor functions.
Ideally, if you need to develop graphs and charts from your data, you should be using Openoffice Chart -- though it also needs some work (see the early March slashdot review/tutorial of Chart 2.0). This is a large point of interoperability, after all -- not only switch between different brands of the same application type, but also to use different applications with the same data.
At the office, I often use Crystal Reports to generate the reports I need from my Excel spreadsheets -- much quicker than generating reports in Excel using VLOOKUP or PRODUCT or the other tools out there. And heaven forbid I need to write yet another VB script to get the functionality I want, especially when I'll want that functionality across different files. The point is that it's important to select the proper tools for the job at hand -- and IMO, a spreadsheet is not a chart/graph generator, nor should it be.
I digress a bit, but there is a reason that MSOffice is so bloated -- they've tried to make each piece do more than it should. For those who never use charts in Excel, why should they have to install that functionality?
Younger populations with good amounts of disposable income? Check. Lots of tech and financial services in these areas.
Crappy weather for a large portion of the year? Check (ATL is nasty in the summer, SEA has a little problem with cloud cover and rain for most of the year, and MN winters...).
The link between education and low population growth has not even come close to being demonstrated as a causative relationship.
Socioeconomic status is what connects these two data, not causation. If you normalize education across all borders, you'll still find disparate reproductive rates based upon economic status. And there is no way we can bring the entire world up to the economic status of the US, Western Europe, or even Free Asia at the current rates of consumption -- there is simply not enough available energy, and not enough material, to produce that kind of wealth. Since that is the case, you will always have the have-nots who, since they will reproduce faster than the haves, will experience deprivation of some sort.
Population will grow until it hits equilibrium based on food supply (which is often resolved by war and/or genocide) -- I think it's a little wishful to think that education will cause people to stop competing for a limited resource. And where there are winnners, there are losers.
Absolutely. Though the telcoms have to pay the government for land that the government buys as right-of-way for public infrastructure, that just comes out of our pockets anyway (like the infrastructure charge on your phone bill). The thing is, though, that your neighbor doesn't own the land the sidewalk is on, nor the sidewalk itself. He may choose to maintain it, but likely that's the property of the municipality or state, depending on what kind of road he's on. IIRC, telcos do get assessed for use of public lands -- but I'm sure it's offset by tax breaks.
And as you bring up, there are all the other intangible costs, like the nuisance of telephone/cable wires on your property.
The Borlaug Hypothesis does, in principle, make sense. But his high-yield production methods cause other problems, like wealth distribution inequities (social), high demand for input (economic), and massive use of fertilizers and pesticides (environmental).
Eventually, the Borlaug Hypothesis falls apart anyway -- population growth is limited by, among other things, food supply. The Borlaug Hypothesis just buys us time until the world population level demands that we use the 'saved' land for agriculture as well.
The only real solution is to stop population growth, or to actually cause a decrease in world population. Everything else is just a stop-gap measure until we reach a population equilibrium, for which famine and starvation is necessary to maintain.
"Are you suggesting that Greenpeace leadership is pro-nuclear but continues to obstruct all efforts to reduce greenhouse gases with nuclear just for the purposes of fund raising?"
IT's not about just fundraising. It's also about identity. Greenpeace has always been anti-nuke -- it's a core part of the group. Greenpeace would cease to exist if the anti-nuke dogma were even seriously challenged at the higher levels.
BTW, most Greenpeace activsts I've known tend not to be the full-belly-appease-my-conscience types. I think you're right about the vast majority of financial supporters, however.
That said, I am in total agreement with Greenpeace that population control is necessary, and that a lot of the GMOs out there exacerbate the problems they are trying solve (be it starvation or other things), even if they go in with the best intentions.
You're putting the cart before the horse:
"The big problem is where government is already sticking their nose in my business, such as where certain providers get monopoly status (within the village or the state). In this case, there is cause for concern, but that is already the problem with government regulation: it tends to create monopolies out of preferred enterprises and really hurts the competitive market. "
Telcos had/have a natural monopoly based upon the high infrastructure costs acting as a barrier to entry. Government stepped in to regulate that monopoly -- it was the monopoly that led to government interference, not the other way around.
It's not the format for buying games that keeps me from buying games on my cell phone. It's three things:
1) Battery life. I'm not going to waste charge on gaming. I need my cell phone too much, and spend too much time without access to a charger.
2) Cost. Considering that my Verizon game service charges something like $6-8 per game, why would I bother? Chances are I'll feel like I wasted that money -- I have better gaming experiences with stuff we wrote in BASIC and Pascal in grade school.
3) Suckage. Besides the fact that so many games available for cell phones suck, the phone itself sucks for gaming. From screen size to processor speed to control issues, a cell phone is a sub-par mobile gaming device. If I'm going to spend $400 on a phone that handles games well, I'd just as soon buy a PSP or a DS, thank you.
"We'll remember a brief, shining moment when some kid with a computer and list of html codes could get a message out to hundreds of millions of people."
Sounds like spam to me. Not a shining moment in my book.
"GM doesnt pay for the roads. Taxpayers do. Now if GM went a built a series of roads with their money and only allowed their cars to use those roads, would you object?"
Now, if GM paid for the roads themselves out of monies earned via a legally granted monopoly, say, that only GM cars are allowed to be driven in the region, would you object?
If the roads were partially funded by a special assessment on all drivers of GM cars, regardless of whether they choose to use those roads, would you object?
My point is that there is a spectrum between "we can and should do whatever we want for our benefit" and "we should leave no footprint." Greenpeace is somewhere closer to "leave no footprint" though of course the members of Greenpeace vary in their opinions widely.
When the intent is to determine and promote the ideal balance of human needs versus preservation of the environment, it's all based on the values we assign to each. And quite some time ago, Moore decided that he valued human use far more than most of the other boardmembers did.
The problem with Greenpeace's stance against nuclear energy is that Greenpeace is beholden to its members. And many of them are knee-jerk anti-nuclear people who paid too much attention to the FUD of the 70s and 80s. It's become dogma that nuclear = bad. Props to Moore for challenging this, but his stances on use vs. preservation lean far too much toward use for me.
"The movement toward OpenDocument in the free world, warms the open cockles of my heart. (Emphasis mine)
I sure hope the chambers of your heart aren't open, you might want to visit the doctor if so.
But if the cockles you're referring to are the bivalve mollusc kind, they are always open -- cockles don't shut. However, they are hermaphroditic and they can jump. Which still presents a problem for your cardiac health.
Seriously, though, formal recognition of this standard removes one of the obstacles to widespread implementation of non-MS office software. The bigger hurdle, of course, is retraining & support expenses (for businesses) and factory (or pre-purchase, anyway) installation of the software (for home users).
This doesn't change the fact that MS formats are the de facto standards in use, but it may help unify the communities that use non-MS formats, leading to a larger install base.
The wikipedia article clearly states that he has a paid psoition from a nuclear-energy consortium.
I happen to agree with a lot of Moore's viewpoints -- but the fact that he was basically kicked out of Greenpeace and no longer believes they know what they are doing does not invalidate Greenpeace -- it just raises questions.
And to imply that Greenpeace supports fossil-fuel energy because they are generally against nuclear is totally misleading. That would only be true if those were the only two energy options.
Re: replanting forests that have been logged, etc -- yes there can be logging practices that are better than others. But clearcutting is not the answer, even replanting them will not mitigate all the disastrous effects from erosiion etc.
Some few people who are attnetion-whores for Greenpeace give a bad rap to an organization comprised of thousands upon thousands of members who beliefs are both rational, environmentalist, and humanist.
Greenpeace is about preservation -- Moore is all about responsible use. The two are VERY different, and 'responsible use' has too widely varying a definition -- see mining practices in Montana, or strip-ranching in the southwest.
Do some more homework. That founder is a paid shill for the nuclear industry now. This was covered pretty extensively sometime last week on slashdot, IIRC.
Anyway, here's a link with some info for you: Waikiki presentation.
If you want info on the shill part, check his Wikipedia entry.
Never mind the fact that he's now working with Christine Todd Whitman, who remains one of the most green-washed industry shills ever to come out of the great state of NJ. It's sad that CTW is considered an environmentalist, just as Moore is considered one -- neither of them is anything more than centrist on environmental issues.
Anyway, Greenpeace being refuted by a founding member is meaningless when that founding member has totally changed his perspective.
I think you're kicking a dead horse.
Carrier pigeons have been extinct for some time.
"I'm sure that people think up the acronyms, and then try to find words that fit. What a bunch of arse.
I'd like my Congressperson to sponsor the BUNCHOFARSE Act: Big UnNecessary CHeeky Acronyms Revised to Sound Elsewise Act. It should be MANDATORY to have such witty acronyms that really[1] reflect the intended purpose and effect of the legislation. How else are we supposed to conveniently have a 'feeling' about a 600-page act that will affect our daily lives, and which not even those voting on it have read?
[1] No, not truly. That would defeat the obfuscatory purpose of the BUNCHOFARSE Act.
Free Culture is a national organization, the NYU chapter is presenting the film, and yes of course it costs money to hire out the Pioneer, which the group has to recoup. The point is the irony of the name "Free Culture at NYU," which is due to the double meaning of the word... oh never mind.
But if you're in the neighborhood, a few pints rarely kills anyone...
Hmm. From the NYC movie info link:
"Free Culture at NYU presents:
ALTERNATIVE FREEDOM"
Yet tix range from $6.50 to $9.00 per. I guess that would be Free-as-in-speech, not Free-as-in-beer, Culture at NYU.
If anyone local is going, I'll be getting a pint or two at Bleecker Bar (Bleecker & Lafayette) and then walking over, the box office opens at 8:30 for the 9:00 showing tonight.
"Anyway, maybe I'm getting too long-winded here, but the way you ignore the supply end of pricing models by simply stating "what people are willing to pay is the price" is your error, and it's a clear one"
Due to logistical issues, prices are not fluid. And due to the limited number of major sellers, oligopoly (even if there is no collusion) suuplier theory applies, which is why prices are static despite competition. And, as I clearly point out, digital media is neither a commodity, nor is its market a competitive one as currently structured.
Plus, with regard to digital media, supply must be removed from the equation, since supply is infinite. What is instead limited, via copyright, is the number of suppliers, which is quite different -- it's legal monopolization of a non-commodity good.
Are there constraints on how sellers set prices based upon their costs? Sure. But that is not a supply limitation.
Speaking of long-winded, one other note -- there is indeed competition among different suppliers of downloadable media. It's not necessarily reflected in pricing, though, as service, variety of media available, etc, are valid ways to compete.
Finally, you misqouted me -- "what people are willing to pay is the price" is not what I said. I said that "what people are willing to pay determines the price" -- two very different statements, and the difference is extremely important.
*Just wanted to note that this is true of any good, not just digital media. Non-digital goods obey the same economic laws as digital goods, it's just that the COGS is higher. It breaks down to competitive commodity market vs. nocompetitive non-commodity market.
"The difference between digital media and other goods is that, for the latter, the price is determined by the cost of production and distribution plus extra which is kept as a profit. "
Not at all. Price is determined by how much people are willing to pay.
In a truly competitive commodity market, price will approach the cost of goods sold, but that is not a result of determining price by tacking on some profit to the COGS -- it is a result of needing to underprice your competition while maintaining profitability.
Note, however, that music is not a commodity good -- and therefore price will not necessarily approach the COGS even if the market were competitive. The determinant of price for music is not-so-simply a maximization of (copies sold)*(price), especially since the COGS of digital music is near zero. In other words, whatever the market will bear.
If five suckers pay $30 for an album, the label profits more than if twenty reasonable people pay $5 for that same album. The real problem, then, is the stupidity of people who willingly pay too much and screw it up for the rest of us.
"It's mostly voodoo garbage (no offense to voodoo practicers) but is a fact of life in the interviewing world."
Not just voodoo garbage -- they also serve a very important purpose -- documented justification for not hiring someone. Many large companies use personality tests to help them avoid liability in case of a discrimination lawsuit. Lawsuit prevention seems to be a major function of HR departments at most firms I've worked with.