Sure, but before I had an MP3 player, I'd buy new music pretty frequently (probably 5 or 6 CDs a month). The timing is no coincidence, I simply now have enough easily accessible music in my library to keep me content. When I had to bother with CDs all the time, I listened to the radio, got interested in new music, got interested in older music I'd missed.
I'm exactly the type of music consumer the RIAA would like to get back, and that they probably claim piracy has taken away from them.
"I hope you realise that there are billions of people in "society" who probably think they can use your money better than you can. Do you really want to go there?"
Yes, yes I do. I currently do go there, though not with billions of people. I still have control over where most of my money is spent (supposedly all, but I do realize that I really have no control over my government, though I tacitly agree to it by continuing to live where I do).
"Also, what were you talking about before? The US had a thriving private interstate industry before the interstate commerce act - which immedaitely killed it. Where do you think the idea for an interstate highway system came from?"
The railroads prior to the interstate commerce act strangled a lot of business... they also strangled competition. The railroad industry was fraught with uncompetitive business practices, each railroad working its damnedest to maintain their monopoly. Charging higher rates to small carriers, removing them from competition; kickbacks, bribes, strong-arming, murder... whatever it took. When railroads expanded into eachother's territory, it was ugly. The railroads really weren't broken by federal action until much later, the Esch-Cummins Act, which forced railroads to maintain unprofitable lines (this was after railroads were returned to private ownership after WWI). Competition from buses, cars, and trucks is what drove in the last nail of the railroad era.
The interstate highway system did not come from the same kind of legislation as the Interstate Commerce Act. The interstate highway system came about because of extensive lobbying from auto makers, who were looking to profit from the mobility of the public in the 50s, and from the goodwill they earned during WWII. The Interstate Commerce Act came about because of public complaints about railroad activity. Also, while profits declined for the major railroads after passage of the interstate commerce act, competitive commerce actually increased -- which is a net benefit to the economy.
In one case you have a portion of the market (mostly consumers) exercising their collective power to limit the 'aggression' of an industry that was driving up the prices of goods; in the other case you have a portion of the market (mostly producers) exercise their collective power to get indirectly subsidized. It's importqant to note that the consumers gave the producers the power to get themselves subsidized in this manner.
Either way, government did not 'limit' the economy... certain segments of the economy manipulate government to benefit them. Government is a tool, that's all... and sure, I'm often disappointed with how that tool is used, but the idea of government isn't invalidated by that.
"However every problem you state (polution, waste, "brain drain") can be shown in the "government gone wild" environment that we have today."
You think these problems would be less with a free economy? Hah.
What you fail to realize, is that government is not an outside actor on the economy. It is fully part of the economy.
"Society is a word that doesn't mean anything. It's an arbitrary group of individuals."
No, it's not an arbitrary group of individuals -- it is the all-inclusive group of individuals.
When individuals can decide what is best without pressure or artifical incentives from external entities (Gov't, big business) you'd see a much different world."
You're right -- much different. Much worse. Profit and personal wealth the only pressure on business activity? Fuck that, despotism sucks, unless you're the despot or his crony.
Look at Africa and the Caribbean if you want to see how quickly unbridled economies turn to crap at feet of personal greed.
"C'mon, total taxes can exceed over 50%, the govt prints up and loans money like it's doomsday... and you can't guess what an economic freedom is?"
Nice straw man. I'm asking you to define 'economic freedoms' because your OP makes no sense; maybe your definition could help shed some light on it. Are you saying that an economic freedom is just not having to pay taxes?
You make these stupid sweeping statements that have no basis in fact, and expect everyone to guess what you're saying? I see, if you can't define the terms, there's no way of disputing your garbage statements.
Government is part of the market. Don't forget that. Economically, it just represents the collective wants and produce of part of the population. The need for superhighways (which, by the way, were heavily lobbied for by the auto industry) was met by government, simply because that's how a significant part of the market established how to do things like massive infrastructure building.
"Also, I don't recall saying that women shouldn't work, or people shouldn't be educated. - C'mon, you know better than that too."
No, you said that dual incomes and education requirements for high incomes were caused by "[government] taking away economic freedoms," which is total BS. You ignore the real causes, which have nothing to do with taxes. I was pointing out the real causes, which were social modernization and the market. Don't throw up the straw man again, my points were to dispute what you say caused specific results in today's job/wage environment.
"Look, the simple fact is that they are pushing these things to make up for lost freedoms. I'm calling bullshit, respect our freedoms first and let the rest follow on it's own."
What are 'they' pushing? Give me specifics, not only of what they are pushing, but how they are pushing it, and what that has to do with 'freedoms' that are casuing it.
What lost freedoms? Give me specifics, or are you just railing against taxes?
You seem to connect a lot of things that aren't connected, to attribute causation where there is none, to make general sweeping statements that are devoid of meaning.
Serial comics are still in demand. How about serial episodes of TV shows?
Besides, I think you missed the point there -- it's not just about playing the game with Pokemon etc -- it's about collecting.
Sure, there's no *need* for a scheme to serially distribute a/v content. That doesn't mean it won't drive some sales. There's also no *need* for McDonald's at all. There's no *need* for any a/v entertainment content.
It's been shown over and over that serials work. From Dickens to Stephen King, they have been a successful way of driving demand for goods.
"You think the Record labels would really complain if people were to "mostly fill up their players from their own CD collections." That means more CD sales."
I filled my MP3 player with music from CDs I already owned. Haven't bough a single song online, haven't bought a new CD in 6 months.
Quite simply, I have enough music to never get sick of what I own. And since it's all easily at hand, I'm even less likely to get bored with it. I have downloaded some music that is being distributed free of charge by the copyright owners, but that's it.
Now that its so easy for people to access their own library, the music industry needs to do more to get me to spend any money.
Government does not exist outside the market. Government is part of the market. Those services that the government provides are provided due to demand for them...
" If there is an economic advantage to highways, they will exist. Same with every other "service" the government is supplying."
That's bullshit. Capital investment cost of some things are just far too large for private enterprise to take on, especially if they'd lose money for decades. Not only that, but some goods provide a net benefit to society, but not all of the economic benefit is directed to the investors. So by not building the infrastructure, the economy as a whole loses out... even if it means that no one decided to take the loss on building it.
"In case you haven't noticed, we are already headed to the dark ages (in the US anyway) due to massive fiscal irresponsibility. Do you know what the US Treasury budget was for just November? Negative 80+ billion!! Just for November!"
Which is still a tiny fraction of our GDP, which is the only valid way of expressing budget numbers that size. I agree the federal budget deficit is a problem. But it's not as large as people would make it seem. Worst case scenario, we renege on some of our debt. The world economy cannot afford to have us profligate, and if we can swallow our pride, we could weather the storm.
"Maybe regulation and oversight adds to the cost of doing business?"
Sure it does. But when done properly, results in a net benefit to society.
"It also raises an artificial barrier to entry for new businesses. Don't believe that? Try and start a small business."
It's only a slight barrier to entry, and again, at a net benefit to society.
If you want a truly free economy, you've got to find a way to account for all the intangible costs that businesses accrue but society pays for in the long run. Environmental degradation, pollution, brain drain, etc. Your economic model doesn't work without accounting for all costs. A lot of these costs are borne by government because they will be ignored otherwise, until it is too late.
"I blame incompetent people that keep voting in Politicians with no clue about basic economics. As a FYI: taxing incomes didn't start until 1913 when Congress passed the Internal Revenue Act. If I remember correctly, we still had roads, police, etc before then."
Sure we did, but we didn't have tons of other things, nor did we have them to the extent we have them now.
Anyway, it doesn't matter where the tax is assessed, except to give preferential tax treatment to certain individuals or companies or industries.
No matter what, those public goods cost money, and that money needs to come from somewhere. Are there inefficiencies? Sure. But if you think there were no taxes before 1913, you've got to be kidding me.
Oh, BTW, icome tax was instituted in the US under Abraham Lincoln... it wasn't until 1913 that it was made permanent.
Also, infrastructure today is much more expensive, even adjusted for inflation, than it was in 1913... you think we had highways back then? The highways that our industry depends on in order to remain competitive?
If you want to go back to the dark ages, feel free... just don't drag the rest of us down with you.
"In other words, your employer could afford to pay you 50% less and have the same standard of living you do today if they could ax the taxes!!"
So, the same standard of living, without roads, hospitals, schools, research grants, bridges, mass transit, courts, police, etc... or do you think that stuff is free?
"THAT is why the US is at a huge economic disadvantage when competing with Asia for jobs"
erm, no. Not at all... or do you think exchange rates are fixed and don't take inflation into account?
The real problem: people in the US expect a much more expensive lifestyle than people in Asia. How many Americans are willing to have a dozen people living in a tiny three-room house with no AC, no car, no dining out, and few or no consumer luxuries?
Stop blaming taxes, and start blaming yourself for not being willing to suck it up. Or, move to a cheap area yourself so that those wages are good enough for you.
Please, explain what you mean by "they took away some economic freedoms."
What the hell is an 'economic freedom'?
And what 'economic freedoms' did we have in 1900 that we don't have today?
If by "they took away some economic freedoms" you mean, "People weren't satisfied with what they could afford," then I might agree with you.
What is boils down to is that the typical American quality of life is much better than it used to be, and all those gains cost money. The employment market, not any mysterious 'they,' is what determined that a college education leads to better jobs. The empowerment of women in the late 40s and early 50s is what led to dual-income households, and the fiscal benefit that conveys.
The government never mandated you need a high school education to get a bank loan -- banks did that, since people without an education tended to be poor credit risks.
Do you think that in 1900 everyone could get by with a decent standard of living only working one job? Do you think that non-working spouses had it as easy as today? How about the people who worked 80 hour weeks just to have room and board for their family -- if they were lucky? How about the countless people who starved or froze to death in the great depression?
Read some history books. Then go read some more. Then read some period fiction from the past century.
And realize that what we consider to be a barely decent standard of living would have been considered very comfortable or even luxurious 50 years ago.
"This article has no place on slashdot because it tells us things we already knew. "
You must be new here.
Seriously, though, this is an article that you would do well to send on to people who may not be avid readers of slashdot. There is so much FUD from the other side going around, it's important that people are aware that so much of what they are hearing is just FUD propaganda.
And it doesn't hurt that HJ is an MIT Professor -- his opinions will carry more weight with Joe Parent than mine or yours.
As long as they offer the same deals to everyone, without individualized contracts, they'd probably meet the nondiscrimination requirement of common carrier status.
Fedex does this, for example. Their volume discount is determined by formula, and can't be negotiated off of the formula. No matter who you are, you'll get the same deal based on your volume -- so Fedex can keep its CC status.
"If my companies could connect quickly through a secondary network at no additional cost (or lower cost), I'd jump on it immediately."
You can bet it would cost more -- whether in terms of actual operating expenses for your company, or in terms of less valuable service provided to your company.
There are a lot of reasons stocks sometimes go down after a split, and it has nothing to do with a board deciding to split just because the price is high.
One, there is sometimes a run-up in price when split rumors circulate.
Two, splits often occur concurrently with dividend payouts; stock prices drop after dividend payouts frequently.
But it's not true that traditionally, prices go down after a split. Splits are done to increase volatility of a profitable stock -- people like to hold onto their shares when a company is doing well. It also broadens the investor base, increasing stability in the long run.
Get used to rejected stories. There is even a whole section in the FAQ devoted to people who wonder why stories get rejected.
I'll tell you this, though -- not many of the stories that are accepted are submitted by slashdotters with high user ID#s.
I'm sure part of that has to do with the number of submissions -- I'd imagine that newer slashdotters tend to submit fewer articles (especially after being rejected a half dozen times). Part of it also probably has to do with paid product placements (though I haven't seen proof of this).
But I'd speculate that a lot of submissions are dismissed out of hand. Who knows why?
At any rate, it's not worth getting upset about. Most slashdotters who've been around awhile are quite familiar with the phenomenon, though plenty of people will slag off the editors when given a reason (however small that reason may be).
"As for democratically elected? I remember comments from russian reporters... they found themselves odly at home."
Well, the US system isn't really democratic, and definitely doesn't function at the level of democracy intended by most at its founding.
But the point holds -- that there exists the capacity to remove bad leaders from office before too much harm can be done, and that successive administrations have the luxury of divorcing themselves from the actions of prior administrations.
Except that democracy is all about voting for your interests -- or supporting your interests financially in this case.
If you don't like the way the majority of people feel about an issue, you work to make your side the majority. It's not like all of a sudden all the people who didn't vote for GWB in the last election began supporting his policies after the election.
But, the whole reason that there are defined terms for the Presidency and other offices in the US is so that we don't get stuck with bad leadership for decades (and also so no one tries to establish a monarchy). Terms of 2 to 6 years ensures that there is at least the capacity to remove bad leaders and redress wrongs.
"All those 360 games and accessories collecting dust on the shelves will be a hard sell after the holidays (when money will be tight)"
Especially when home heating bills are rolling in, this year the average homeowner will be laying out hundreds more than they did last year... and that crunch will be felt in retail from January through March.
On the plus side, retailers will be having even more massive sales this February than usual... so those of us who are prepared to wait on major purchases look to save some serious dough.
Or you pay a couple bucks for the player. McDs has done this with a lot of toys whose production costs are too high. Buy the meal, get the toy for $X. Don't buy the meal and pay $X+3. Then parents have an incentive to make sure their kids don't lose the player.
That's the beauty of cross-promotion and how easily parents give in to their kids. There are literally millions of people in the US who will do whatever it takes to get their kids to shut up. That's why McD's sells so many million happy meals each year.
And it's not just about McDisney(tm) trying to grow the market, they are each also trying to keep/extend their share of the market. If Parent X is going to take the kids to a fast food joint, then the war is half won -- the second half is making sure they come to your fast food joint.
"You want to keep them wanting more; if it takes 10 visits to see a whole cartoon (or whatever), chances are that the kid will lose interest"
Not if their friends have gotten the new piece.
Kids today are all up on the collectibles... they stay interested in Pokemon, or other CCGs for years, why would they lose interest in this after only 10 weeks?
Especially if the content delivered is not the same for every download... then they 'gotta catch em all'.
"but this new idea, fast food as a conduit for media distribution"
That's kind of backwards, media is being used as a motivation to buy fast food. Remember the McD's compilation CDs from the 90s? A few bucks if you bought a value meal?
It's the same deal as most effective promotions. Going just once won't get you the prize (McMonopoly etal).
Anyway, as I'm sure it will come up: it's a free market. It's up to parents to make the good decisions for their kids, and to prepare their kids to make good decisions for themselves.
If the attraction for this stuff is out of hand, you have the power to prevent it getting out of control in your life. Tune in, turn on, drop out applies as much today as it did in the 60s... except it needs to be tweaked to deal with media, since the 'establishment' now works through major media:
That's a pretty intriguing idea, especially for games with unique/very rare items and an online marketplace. I wonder how expensive implementation would be, and if it would be possible to make it hack-proof.
And by hack-proof, I mean not worthwhile for someone to hack it.
Slashdot Mirror
Sure, but before I had an MP3 player, I'd buy new music pretty frequently (probably 5 or 6 CDs a month). The timing is no coincidence, I simply now have enough easily accessible music in my library to keep me content. When I had to bother with CDs all the time, I listened to the radio, got interested in new music, got interested in older music I'd missed.
I'm exactly the type of music consumer the RIAA would like to get back, and that they probably claim piracy has taken away from them.
"I hope you realise that there are billions of people in "society" who probably think they can use your money better than you can. Do you really want to go there?"
Yes, yes I do. I currently do go there, though not with billions of people. I still have control over where most of my money is spent (supposedly all, but I do realize that I really have no control over my government, though I tacitly agree to it by continuing to live where I do).
"Also, what were you talking about before? The US had a thriving private interstate industry before the interstate commerce act - which immedaitely killed it. Where do you think the idea for an interstate highway system came from?"
The railroads prior to the interstate commerce act strangled a lot of business... they also strangled competition. The railroad industry was fraught with uncompetitive business practices, each railroad working its damnedest to maintain their monopoly. Charging higher rates to small carriers, removing them from competition; kickbacks, bribes, strong-arming, murder... whatever it took. When railroads expanded into eachother's territory, it was ugly. The railroads really weren't broken by federal action until much later, the Esch-Cummins Act, which forced railroads to maintain unprofitable lines (this was after railroads were returned to private ownership after WWI). Competition from buses, cars, and trucks is what drove in the last nail of the railroad era.
The interstate highway system did not come from the same kind of legislation as the Interstate Commerce Act. The interstate highway system came about because of extensive lobbying from auto makers, who were looking to profit from the mobility of the public in the 50s, and from the goodwill they earned during WWII. The Interstate Commerce Act came about because of public complaints about railroad activity. Also, while profits declined for the major railroads after passage of the interstate commerce act, competitive commerce actually increased -- which is a net benefit to the economy.
In one case you have a portion of the market (mostly consumers) exercising their collective power to limit the 'aggression' of an industry that was driving up the prices of goods; in the other case you have a portion of the market (mostly producers) exercise their collective power to get indirectly subsidized. It's importqant to note that the consumers gave the producers the power to get themselves subsidized in this manner.
Either way, government did not 'limit' the economy... certain segments of the economy manipulate government to benefit them. Government is a tool, that's all... and sure, I'm often disappointed with how that tool is used, but the idea of government isn't invalidated by that.
"However every problem you state (polution, waste, "brain drain") can be shown in the "government gone wild" environment that we have today."
You think these problems would be less with a free economy? Hah.
What you fail to realize, is that government is not an outside actor on the economy. It is fully part of the economy.
"Society is a word that doesn't mean anything. It's an arbitrary group of individuals."
No, it's not an arbitrary group of individuals -- it is the all-inclusive group of individuals.
When individuals can decide what is best without pressure or artifical incentives from external entities (Gov't, big business) you'd see a much different world."
You're right -- much different. Much worse. Profit and personal wealth the only pressure on business activity? Fuck that, despotism sucks, unless you're the despot or his crony.
Look at Africa and the Caribbean if you want to see how quickly unbridled economies turn to crap at feet of personal greed.
"C'mon, total taxes can exceed over 50%, the govt prints up and loans money like it's doomsday ... and you can't guess what an economic freedom is?"
Nice straw man. I'm asking you to define 'economic freedoms' because your OP makes no sense; maybe your definition could help shed some light on it. Are you saying that an economic freedom is just not having to pay taxes?
You make these stupid sweeping statements that have no basis in fact, and expect everyone to guess what you're saying? I see, if you can't define the terms, there's no way of disputing your garbage statements.
Government is part of the market. Don't forget that. Economically, it just represents the collective wants and produce of part of the population. The need for superhighways (which, by the way, were heavily lobbied for by the auto industry) was met by government, simply because that's how a significant part of the market established how to do things like massive infrastructure building.
"Also, I don't recall saying that women shouldn't work, or people shouldn't be educated. - C'mon, you know better than that too."
No, you said that dual incomes and education requirements for high incomes were caused by "[government] taking away economic freedoms," which is total BS. You ignore the real causes, which have nothing to do with taxes. I was pointing out the real causes, which were social modernization and the market. Don't throw up the straw man again, my points were to dispute what you say caused specific results in today's job/wage environment.
"Look, the simple fact is that they are pushing these things to make up for lost freedoms. I'm calling bullshit, respect our freedoms first and let the rest follow on it's own."
What are 'they' pushing? Give me specifics, not only of what they are pushing, but how they are pushing it, and what that has to do with 'freedoms' that are casuing it.
What lost freedoms? Give me specifics, or are you just railing against taxes?
You seem to connect a lot of things that aren't connected, to attribute causation where there is none, to make general sweeping statements that are devoid of meaning.
Serial comics are still in demand. How about serial episodes of TV shows?
Besides, I think you missed the point there -- it's not just about playing the game with Pokemon etc -- it's about collecting.
Sure, there's no *need* for a scheme to serially distribute a/v content. That doesn't mean it won't drive some sales. There's also no *need* for McDonald's at all. There's no *need* for any a/v entertainment content.
It's been shown over and over that serials work. From Dickens to Stephen King, they have been a successful way of driving demand for goods.
"You think the Record labels would really complain if people were to "mostly fill up their players from their own CD collections." That means more CD sales."
I filled my MP3 player with music from CDs I already owned. Haven't bough a single song online, haven't bought a new CD in 6 months.
Quite simply, I have enough music to never get sick of what I own. And since it's all easily at hand, I'm even less likely to get bored with it. I have downloaded some music that is being distributed free of charge by the copyright owners, but that's it.
Now that its so easy for people to access their own library, the music industry needs to do more to get me to spend any money.
Government does not exist outside the market. Government is part of the market. Those services that the government provides are provided due to demand for them...
" If there is an economic advantage to highways, they will exist. Same with every other "service" the government is supplying."
That's bullshit. Capital investment cost of some things are just far too large for private enterprise to take on, especially if they'd lose money for decades. Not only that, but some goods provide a net benefit to society, but not all of the economic benefit is directed to the investors. So by not building the infrastructure, the economy as a whole loses out... even if it means that no one decided to take the loss on building it.
"In case you haven't noticed, we are already headed to the dark ages (in the US anyway) due to massive fiscal irresponsibility. Do you know what the US Treasury budget was for just November? Negative 80+ billion!! Just for November!"
Which is still a tiny fraction of our GDP, which is the only valid way of expressing budget numbers that size. I agree the federal budget deficit is a problem. But it's not as large as people would make it seem. Worst case scenario, we renege on some of our debt. The world economy cannot afford to have us profligate, and if we can swallow our pride, we could weather the storm.
"Maybe regulation and oversight adds to the cost of doing business?"
Sure it does. But when done properly, results in a net benefit to society.
"It also raises an artificial barrier to entry for new businesses. Don't believe that? Try and start a small business."
It's only a slight barrier to entry, and again, at a net benefit to society.
If you want a truly free economy, you've got to find a way to account for all the intangible costs that businesses accrue but society pays for in the long run. Environmental degradation, pollution, brain drain, etc. Your economic model doesn't work without accounting for all costs. A lot of these costs are borne by government because they will be ignored otherwise, until it is too late.
"I blame incompetent people that keep voting in Politicians with no clue about basic economics. As a FYI: taxing incomes didn't start until 1913 when Congress passed the Internal Revenue Act. If I remember correctly, we still had roads, police, etc before then."
Sure we did, but we didn't have tons of other things, nor did we have them to the extent we have them now.
Anyway, it doesn't matter where the tax is assessed, except to give preferential tax treatment to certain individuals or companies or industries.
No matter what, those public goods cost money, and that money needs to come from somewhere. Are there inefficiencies? Sure. But if you think there were no taxes before 1913, you've got to be kidding me.
Oh, BTW, icome tax was instituted in the US under Abraham Lincoln... it wasn't until 1913 that it was made permanent.
Also, infrastructure today is much more expensive, even adjusted for inflation, than it was in 1913... you think we had highways back then? The highways that our industry depends on in order to remain competitive?
If you want to go back to the dark ages, feel free... just don't drag the rest of us down with you.
Out of curiosity, how many kids do you have, and how many kids are you around frequently?
Kids aren't always at home. And they like to show off to their friends. By your rationale, Pokemon cards would have been a bust here in the US.
So, yeah. Yeah, definitely.
"In other words, your employer could afford to pay you 50% less and have the same standard of living you do today if they could ax the taxes!!"
So, the same standard of living, without roads, hospitals, schools, research grants, bridges, mass transit, courts, police, etc... or do you think that stuff is free?
"THAT is why the US is at a huge economic disadvantage when competing with Asia for jobs"
erm, no. Not at all... or do you think exchange rates are fixed and don't take inflation into account?
The real problem: people in the US expect a much more expensive lifestyle than people in Asia. How many Americans are willing to have a dozen people living in a tiny three-room house with no AC, no car, no dining out, and few or no consumer luxuries?
Stop blaming taxes, and start blaming yourself for not being willing to suck it up. Or, move to a cheap area yourself so that those wages are good enough for you.
Please, explain what you mean by "they took away some economic freedoms."
What the hell is an 'economic freedom'?
And what 'economic freedoms' did we have in 1900 that we don't have today?
If by "they took away some economic freedoms" you mean, "People weren't satisfied with what they could afford," then I might agree with you.
What is boils down to is that the typical American quality of life is much better than it used to be, and all those gains cost money. The employment market, not any mysterious 'they,' is what determined that a college education leads to better jobs. The empowerment of women in the late 40s and early 50s is what led to dual-income households, and the fiscal benefit that conveys.
The government never mandated you need a high school education to get a bank loan -- banks did that, since people without an education tended to be poor credit risks.
Do you think that in 1900 everyone could get by with a decent standard of living only working one job? Do you think that non-working spouses had it as easy as today? How about the people who worked 80 hour weeks just to have room and board for their family -- if they were lucky? How about the countless people who starved or froze to death in the great depression?
Read some history books. Then go read some more. Then read some period fiction from the past century.
And realize that what we consider to be a barely decent standard of living would have been considered very comfortable or even luxurious 50 years ago.
"This article has no place on slashdot because it tells us things we already knew. "
You must be new here.
Seriously, though, this is an article that you would do well to send on to people who may not be avid readers of slashdot. There is so much FUD from the other side going around, it's important that people are aware that so much of what they are hearing is just FUD propaganda.
And it doesn't hurt that HJ is an MIT Professor -- his opinions will carry more weight with Joe Parent than mine or yours.
See my post from last time this was discussed on slashdot:
t hreshold=1&commentsort=0&tid=95&mode=thread&pid=14 162317%2314165101rel=url2html-32438http://slashdot .org/comments.pl?sid=169910&threshold=1&commentsor t=0&tid=95&mode=thread&pid=14162317#14165101>
ahref=http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=169910&
As long as they offer the same deals to everyone, without individualized contracts, they'd probably meet the nondiscrimination requirement of common carrier status.
Fedex does this, for example. Their volume discount is determined by formula, and can't be negotiated off of the formula. No matter who you are, you'll get the same deal based on your volume -- so Fedex can keep its CC status.
"If my companies could connect quickly through a secondary network at no additional cost (or lower cost), I'd jump on it immediately."
You can bet it would cost more -- whether in terms of actual operating expenses for your company, or in terms of less valuable service provided to your company.
There are a lot of reasons stocks sometimes go down after a split, and it has nothing to do with a board deciding to split just because the price is high.
One, there is sometimes a run-up in price when split rumors circulate.
Two, splits often occur concurrently with dividend payouts; stock prices drop after dividend payouts frequently.
But it's not true that traditionally, prices go down after a split. Splits are done to increase volatility of a profitable stock -- people like to hold onto their shares when a company is doing well. It also broadens the investor base, increasing stability in the long run.
Well, TFA is news.
Get used to rejected stories. There is even a whole section in the FAQ devoted to people who wonder why stories get rejected.
I'll tell you this, though -- not many of the stories that are accepted are submitted by slashdotters with high user ID#s.
I'm sure part of that has to do with the number of submissions -- I'd imagine that newer slashdotters tend to submit fewer articles (especially after being rejected a half dozen times). Part of it also probably has to do with paid product placements (though I haven't seen proof of this).
But I'd speculate that a lot of submissions are dismissed out of hand. Who knows why?
At any rate, it's not worth getting upset about. Most slashdotters who've been around awhile are quite familiar with the phenomenon, though plenty of people will slag off the editors when given a reason (however small that reason may be).
"As for democratically elected? I remember comments from russian reporters... they found themselves odly at home."
Well, the US system isn't really democratic, and definitely doesn't function at the level of democracy intended by most at its founding.
But the point holds -- that there exists the capacity to remove bad leaders from office before too much harm can be done, and that successive administrations have the luxury of divorcing themselves from the actions of prior administrations.
Except that democracy is all about voting for your interests -- or supporting your interests financially in this case.
If you don't like the way the majority of people feel about an issue, you work to make your side the majority. It's not like all of a sudden all the people who didn't vote for GWB in the last election began supporting his policies after the election.
But, the whole reason that there are defined terms for the Presidency and other offices in the US is so that we don't get stuck with bad leadership for decades (and also so no one tries to establish a monarchy). Terms of 2 to 6 years ensures that there is at least the capacity to remove bad leaders and redress wrongs.
"All those 360 games and accessories collecting dust on the shelves will be a hard sell after the holidays (when money will be tight)"
Especially when home heating bills are rolling in, this year the average homeowner will be laying out hundreds more than they did last year... and that crunch will be felt in retail from January through March.
On the plus side, retailers will be having even more massive sales this February than usual... so those of us who are prepared to wait on major purchases look to save some serious dough.
Or you pay a couple bucks for the player. McDs has done this with a lot of toys whose production costs are too high. Buy the meal, get the toy for $X. Don't buy the meal and pay $X+3. Then parents have an incentive to make sure their kids don't lose the player.
That's the beauty of cross-promotion and how easily parents give in to their kids. There are literally millions of people in the US who will do whatever it takes to get their kids to shut up. That's why McD's sells so many million happy meals each year.
And it's not just about McDisney(tm) trying to grow the market, they are each also trying to keep/extend their share of the market. If Parent X is going to take the kids to a fast food joint, then the war is half won -- the second half is making sure they come to your fast food joint.
"You want to keep them wanting more; if it takes 10 visits to see a whole cartoon (or whatever), chances are that the kid will lose interest"
Not if their friends have gotten the new piece.
Kids today are all up on the collectibles... they stay interested in Pokemon, or other CCGs for years, why would they lose interest in this after only 10 weeks?
Especially if the content delivered is not the same for every download... then they 'gotta catch em all'.
Genius.
"but this new idea, fast food as a conduit for media distribution"
That's kind of backwards, media is being used as a motivation to buy fast food. Remember the McD's compilation CDs from the 90s? A few bucks if you bought a value meal?
It's the same deal as most effective promotions. Going just once won't get you the prize (McMonopoly etal).
Anyway, as I'm sure it will come up: it's a free market. It's up to parents to make the good decisions for their kids, and to prepare their kids to make good decisions for themselves.
If the attraction for this stuff is out of hand, you have the power to prevent it getting out of control in your life. Tune in, turn on, drop out applies as much today as it did in the 60s... except it needs to be tweaked to deal with media, since the 'establishment' now works through major media:
Tune out, turn off, drop out.
That's a pretty intriguing idea, especially for games with unique/very rare items and an online marketplace. I wonder how expensive implementation would be, and if it would be possible to make it hack-proof.
And by hack-proof, I mean not worthwhile for someone to hack it.
Or possibly a meta-Nazi.