Elsewhere, lectures attendance is not enforced, you're expected to be able to motivate yourself to turn up, and if you don't then you either learn by yourself or you fail. They're places where you can acquire an education, not places where lecturers try to spoon feed you with one.
Uh, I'm not sure what alternate reality you're living in, but not a single one of the several US universities I've attended (all public institutions at that) work anything like you seem to think they do.
I once showed up to a class six times in total, and still passed (just took the exams, skipped the lectures). No one cared.
US universities are more structured than the Oxford/Cambridge model, this is true, but your description of what they're supposedly not is a much better description of what they actually are.
You're a moron. In the Blitz, bombs fell on kids houses in London. Their friends didn't show up the next day, what with being dead and all. Nothing kids in the US today deal with compares, even a little, unless they were on the sidewalk in New York that day.
Your Dad might not have heard about it? Pearl Harbor was on the front page of every newspaper in the country, newspapers hand delivered by kids in many cases.
He isn't a step ahead, he just makes a lot of self-serving noise and stupid/bored reporters report it. Kurzweil is a snake oil salesman for the 21st century. Nothing to see here.
Not nearly as much so as compared to CRT. The only issue with an LED-backlit LCD is eye fatigue from the brightness. This is why God (my pet name for whichever programmer actually first thought of this) came up with a color inversion setting in X-server (and I'm sure Mac and even Windows can do it too.) Voila, black background with glowing text. Still not quite as easy as e-ink, but close.
Also, the hypo used per-unit profit for illustrative purposes, but it was pointing to total profit (i.e. the only change to the equation was CGS and price).
And the hypo is wrong. How many times do I have to say it? Raise prices, sales fall, total profits fall. Anyone who passed algebra can show this. The only time this will not happen is if you were charging a sub-optimal price to begin with (meaning, you could have had higher total profits by raising prices before the cost rose). I'm blue in the face with this one.
You just admitted that there are some special and limited cases. My original point was that you were overstating your position.
None of which apply to a musician who has to buy a guitar. Is he a monopoly holder? No. Does the perceived value of his product rise with price (like wine or sports cars)? No. Was he charging a sub-optimal price? Given the RIAA MBAs setting his price for him, unlikely.
I said that it comes out of profit doesn't mean you have to adjust downward the amount of profit you expect
Yes, and I'm saying that if you want your expectations to conform to reality, you do. Costs go up, total profit falls (some special and limited cases excepted). If you really want to stick to your gun on the question of per-unit profit go ahead, but there's no reason to care about per-unit profit at the expense of total profit.
That is, if you have personal costs (like personal instruments), you adjust upward what you charge if you don't want to damage your profit.
Wrong, oh so wrong. Someone failed microeconomics. Adjusting your price upward can very well result in LOWER profits, (and nearly always will result in lower revenues, unless you were charging a sub-optimal price to begin with).
In the ideal (mathematically) case you would never raise prices in reaction to a fixed (one-off) cost. To do so would always result in lower revenues (and generally profits, though some special cases are exceptions). In the real world fixed costs are amortized, and are only fixed over a certain domain of units produced, but the general principle is the same: raising prices is almost always the wrong move.
Of course, for variable costs you'd be half-right. Raising prices with variable costs protects per-unit profit, but can still result in lower total profit, and cannot increase total-profit back to where it was before the cost increase (unless you were charging a sub-optimal price to begin with).
(All of that is assuming fixed demand curves).
Your hypothetical example is overly simplistic because it neglects the fact that raising the price results in lower sales (some special monopoly-esque/status purchase cases excepted).
Back to my original point: Costs go up, profits go down. Even if you keep your per unit profit, your profits still fall. The only way to increase profits with rising costs is shifting the demand curve (usually through marketing of some kind).
I go on so rarely these days that the odds of me being found to share are about the same as running into Elvis at the mall.
You'd be surprised how many people claim to have had that happen to them (actually, I'd bet its comparable to the number that have been sued for file sharing).
Even a single person downloading an unauthorized copy, when they would have otherwise purchased a copy, decreases sales volume
The mistake that you seem poised to make, and that RIAA trolls make religiously, is equating the two numbers (copies downloaded and sales lost). They are not equal (and any sane economist can explain why inside of 30 seconds). Are SOME sales lost? Of course. But its a hell of a lot less than the number of total downloads.
As much as such silliness may be in vogue, no its nothing of the sort.
The present law was written under very different conditions, with very different situations in mind, and political bickering and general incompetence prevents legislative change.
You might want to see a shrink, delusions of persecution are a major sign of schizophrenia.
And that it comes out of profit doesn't mean you have to adjust downward the amount of profit you expect from your efforts.
Not sure what parallel universe you're living in, but yes that is exactly what it means. If costs go up, profits go down. Really, it's a mathematical fact: Profits = Revenues - Costs. Costs big, profits small. I don't think I can make this any simpler for you.
Wanting to make money doesn't make you greedy.
Again, that's pretty much exactly what the word means. Well, wanting to make 'excessive' amounts of money, anyway.
You've got some powerful Orwellian newspeak going on in your head.
That aside, do people go around talking about murder with caveats of self-defense? No, people say "don't murder!"
Invalid analogy. If RIAA propaganda materials said 'don't infringe on copyrights!' your analogy would work, but they don't. They say 'don't download music!' which is more akin to saying 'don't drive over 35 miles per hour!,' when in fact that is only illegal in the cases where the speed limit is below that.
Anyone too lazy to google it doesn't deserve to get the OP's point. On a related note, either the OP has a hell of a memory for RFCs or is way more dedicated to his one-liners than I am.
Ie afaik, American courts seem to permit entrapment by undercover agents for some reason
Eh, not really. American courts just have a different standard for what they consider to be actual entrapment (and even then, it varies somewhat depending on the jurisdiction you're charged under).
We didn't make flying safe--flying was just as safe before 9/11 as it is now. New security screening measures have contributed virtually nothing, other than wasting millions of dollars on something that was ALWAYS less likely than being struck by lightning.
Benjamin Franklin said it best when he said "Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both."
Slashdot Mirror
A wifi router doesn't have a flyback transformer (or anything similar AFAIK), so no?
All CRTs do this, this is not news.
Again, you've just described almost every class I've ever taken at a US university.
Elsewhere, lectures attendance is not enforced, you're expected to be able to motivate yourself to turn up, and if you don't then you either learn by yourself or you fail. They're places where you can acquire an education, not places where lecturers try to spoon feed you with one.
Uh, I'm not sure what alternate reality you're living in, but not a single one of the several US universities I've attended (all public institutions at that) work anything like you seem to think they do.
I once showed up to a class six times in total, and still passed (just took the exams, skipped the lectures). No one cared.
US universities are more structured than the Oxford/Cambridge model, this is true, but your description of what they're supposedly not is a much better description of what they actually are.
SHHH! Do not question the comrade's historical propaganda!
You're a moron. In the Blitz, bombs fell on kids houses in London. Their friends didn't show up the next day, what with being dead and all. Nothing kids in the US today deal with compares, even a little, unless they were on the sidewalk in New York that day.
Your Dad might not have heard about it? Pearl Harbor was on the front page of every newspaper in the country, newspapers hand delivered by kids in many cases.
That country is called Texas. The one he's posting from--oh wait. I get it.
He isn't a step ahead, he just makes a lot of self-serving noise and stupid/bored reporters report it. Kurzweil is a snake oil salesman for the 21st century. Nothing to see here.
Not nearly as much so as compared to CRT. The only issue with an LED-backlit LCD is eye fatigue from the brightness. This is why God (my pet name for whichever programmer actually first thought of this) came up with a color inversion setting in X-server (and I'm sure Mac and even Windows can do it too.) Voila, black background with glowing text. Still not quite as easy as e-ink, but close.
Also, the hypo used per-unit profit for illustrative purposes, but it was pointing to total profit (i.e. the only change to the equation was CGS and price).
And the hypo is wrong. How many times do I have to say it? Raise prices, sales fall, total profits fall. Anyone who passed algebra can show this. The only time this will not happen is if you were charging a sub-optimal price to begin with (meaning, you could have had higher total profits by raising prices before the cost rose). I'm blue in the face with this one.
You just admitted that there are some special and limited cases. My original point was that you were overstating your position.
None of which apply to a musician who has to buy a guitar. Is he a monopoly holder? No. Does the perceived value of his product rise with price (like wine or sports cars)? No. Was he charging a sub-optimal price? Given the RIAA MBAs setting his price for him, unlikely.
I said that it comes out of profit doesn't mean you have to adjust downward the amount of profit you expect
Yes, and I'm saying that if you want your expectations to conform to reality, you do. Costs go up, total profit falls (some special and limited cases excepted). If you really want to stick to your gun on the question of per-unit profit go ahead, but there's no reason to care about per-unit profit at the expense of total profit.
That is, if you have personal costs (like personal instruments), you adjust upward what you charge if you don't want to damage your profit.
Wrong, oh so wrong. Someone failed microeconomics. Adjusting your price upward can very well result in LOWER profits, (and nearly always will result in lower revenues, unless you were charging a sub-optimal price to begin with).
In the ideal (mathematically) case you would never raise prices in reaction to a fixed (one-off) cost. To do so would always result in lower revenues (and generally profits, though some special cases are exceptions). In the real world fixed costs are amortized, and are only fixed over a certain domain of units produced, but the general principle is the same: raising prices is almost always the wrong move.
Of course, for variable costs you'd be half-right. Raising prices with variable costs protects per-unit profit, but can still result in lower total profit, and cannot increase total-profit back to where it was before the cost increase (unless you were charging a sub-optimal price to begin with).
(All of that is assuming fixed demand curves).
Your hypothetical example is overly simplistic because it neglects the fact that raising the price results in lower sales (some special monopoly-esque/status purchase cases excepted).
Back to my original point: Costs go up, profits go down. Even if you keep your per unit profit, your profits still fall. The only way to increase profits with rising costs is shifting the demand curve (usually through marketing of some kind).
I go on so rarely these days that the odds of me being found to share are about the same as running into Elvis at the mall.
You'd be surprised how many people claim to have had that happen to them (actually, I'd bet its comparable to the number that have been sued for file sharing).
Even a single person downloading an unauthorized copy, when they would have otherwise purchased a copy, decreases sales volume
The mistake that you seem poised to make, and that RIAA trolls make religiously, is equating the two numbers (copies downloaded and sales lost). They are not equal (and any sane economist can explain why inside of 30 seconds). Are SOME sales lost? Of course. But its a hell of a lot less than the number of total downloads.
As much as such silliness may be in vogue, no its nothing of the sort.
The present law was written under very different conditions, with very different situations in mind, and political bickering and general incompetence prevents legislative change.
You might want to see a shrink, delusions of persecution are a major sign of schizophrenia.
And that it comes out of profit doesn't mean you have to adjust downward the amount of profit you expect from your efforts.
Not sure what parallel universe you're living in, but yes that is exactly what it means. If costs go up, profits go down. Really, it's a mathematical fact: Profits = Revenues - Costs. Costs big, profits small. I don't think I can make this any simpler for you.
Wanting to make money doesn't make you greedy.
Again, that's pretty much exactly what the word means. Well, wanting to make 'excessive' amounts of money, anyway.
You've got some powerful Orwellian newspeak going on in your head.
That aside, do people go around talking about murder with caveats of self-defense? No, people say "don't murder!"
Invalid analogy. If RIAA propaganda materials said 'don't infringe on copyrights!' your analogy would work, but they don't. They say 'don't download music!' which is more akin to saying 'don't drive over 35 miles per hour!,' when in fact that is only illegal in the cases where the speed limit is below that.
Anyone too lazy to google it doesn't deserve to get the OP's point. On a related note, either the OP has a hell of a memory for RFCs or is way more dedicated to his one-liners than I am.
Actually...yeah. I mean, assuming the image is any good. How'd you manage to keep the chromatic and spherical aberration bearable at that aperature?
Ie afaik, American courts seem to permit entrapment by undercover agents for some reason
Eh, not really. American courts just have a different standard for what they consider to be actual entrapment (and even then, it varies somewhat depending on the jurisdiction you're charged under).
Yes AOL was. The information being sought out in this case was not.
Actually it's only half of a world of a difference.
What could ever possibly be awesome about being a henchman? SERIOUSLY? That's almost as bad as being a redshirt.
We didn't make flying safe--flying was just as safe before 9/11 as it is now. New security screening measures have contributed virtually nothing, other than wasting millions of dollars on something that was ALWAYS less likely than being struck by lightning.
Benjamin Franklin said it best when he said "Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both."
No he didn't, because he didn't say that.