Cable companies were locking down their set-top boxes so that consumers would be forced to pay monthly for them(It also allows for easier DRM, but that is really a secondary concern). The bigger problem is that there are only 4 major cable companies(and therefore only a couple of set-top companies), so if cable companies are doing the buying instead of consumers, it creates a monospony situation and opens the door to collusion.
By forcing interoperability(all of the set-top boxes were using similar standards anyway), they put the buying power back in the hands of consumers, enabling a more efficient market structure.
Yeah, because warrant-less wiretaps, extraordinary rendition , and near constant government surveillance is the hallmark of any free system of government.
I'm going to create a party called "Shiny Happy People's Joy"(TM), proceed to kill babies, and and then watch you defend me.
Lets be honest, anyone stupid and racist enough to be scared by the "Uppity blacks are fucking white women!1!1" thing was almost definitely not going to vote for Ford. If the add was shown in any state outside outside of the south, it would have guaranteed Ford's victory unless everyone involved with the ad was fired.
Corkers subsequent win is more of a indicator for why I should stay away from Tennessee then of Republican dirty tricks.
I do not think that HTTP was mandated by the goverment, and gopher sites still exist. But at some point, the overwhelming majority of users pick a particular one.
Companies want to force spending, but they rarely have the power to. Making something incompatible with a competitors products has costs as well as benefits, and most of the time, the former outweighs the latter.
And when it doesnt, thats what we have anti-trust for.
But lets be realistic, information transfer has both negative and positive impacts. How long until we see aid workers being lynched because of rumors that the new vaccine is a western plot to make locals impotent?
Until we see Al-Qaeda recruiting third world kids using IM?(The countries they are sending the laptops to are poor but transitioning economies where food and water issues have been figured out, but where were are still serious macro-economic problems. This is where terrorism usually thrives.)
I support the laptop roll out , but I hope someone is planning for these problems.
Suppose demand suddenly skyrockets:
If raising output is cheap, then producers will raise output considerably to take advantage of rapidly growing demand. Because we are dealing with a oligopoly with inefficient competition, prices will stabilize to a lower point than before, reflecting the differences in price elasticity between businessmen and normal consumers.
Excise taxes create deadweight loss, property solutions usually do not.
"Much better to have a group of scientists and economists get together and figure out what the actual remediation costs of CO2 emissions are projected to be in the near term and assess a carbon tax rate. Out of which we could pay for coastal flooding remediation, fusion research, compensating people for economic losses related to extreme weather and population relocation."
Our goal should be to stop climate change, not to pay for fixing its problems. The possible effects of climate change are unpredictable, because the earth is such a complex system. It is fully possible that damages could total trillions of dollars. It will be much cheaper to prevent climate change than to pay for it.
"The cost of infrastructure improvements is tied to the cost of labor, which is far cheaper in other countries. The Empire State building was built in just one year during the Great Depression, because labor was so relatively cheap and they could afford to hire lots of people."
Yes, but the improvements necessary to lower emissions do not require unskilled labor, not exactly the same thing.
Ok, half my family are Moroccan immigrants in France. They are unable to get good jobs because of France's labor policy. In France, nearly all employee's have the right to legal review if they are fired. However, temporary jobs do not count. So this creates a two-tier job system, with employees hiring and shedding temporary jobs, while retaining a couple of impossible to shed permanent jobs.
And the reforms? it tried to eliminate legal review to termination. And I dont see why protest is necessary for a law allowing age discrimination, most smart companies dont do it, and if you catch an employer that stupid, find another job.
There are some exceptions, such as Ubisoft. But France has twice the population of California, you cant float a couple companies as their saving grace.
Yes, a carbon tax is a nice idea, but it does not guarantee that the carbon used will be used for the most efficient purpose. The other problem is that setting the value of the tax requires quite a bit of guesswork, as we do not really know much about the price elasticity of carbon. It seems more attractive to have a committee of scientists say "we need to reduce our levels to X tons this year" and then issue x tons of credits, and let things get figured out from there.
Obviously, this requires a international credit solution, but since most CO2 is produced in developed countries, we can start by creating a international agreement with Japan, the EU, and the USA and a couple other first world nations. I don't expect large scale outsourcing, The infrastructure improvements necessary to lower CO2 emissions are far cheaper than relocating to the other side of the world to a place without solid property rights or infrastructure.
... Look, if there is no slavery, violence, or any other type of coercion, then profits=benefit. That is because any additional amount of profit signifies a trade that made both parties better off, otherwise it would not have been made. If there are those things, then we should work on eliminating them.
Slashdot Mirror
The world is not a zero-sum game
By forcing interoperability(all of the set-top boxes were using similar standards anyway), they put the buying power back in the hands of consumers, enabling a more efficient market structure.
To make sure radio stations do not jam each other?
Set Top boxes are more of a anti-trust issue, you are not comparing apples to apples
I'm going to create a party called "Shiny Happy People's Joy"(TM), proceed to kill babies, and and then watch you defend me.
Corkers subsequent win is more of a indicator for why I should stay away from Tennessee then of Republican dirty tricks.
Companies want to force spending, but they rarely have the power to. Making something incompatible with a competitors products has costs as well as benefits, and most of the time, the former outweighs the latter.
And when it doesnt, thats what we have anti-trust for.
My understanding is that is more of a anti-trust issue
The film will be made, with Ford or without.
Seriously? That sounds interesting, where can I read up on that?
This would be great if there was some way to verify it, document letterhead, that sort of thing.
Until we see Al-Qaeda recruiting third world kids using IM?(The countries they are sending the laptops to are poor but transitioning economies where food and water issues have been figured out, but where were are still serious macro-economic problems. This is where terrorism usually thrives.)
I support the laptop roll out , but I hope someone is planning for these problems.
Good point, though I still have the naivety to doubt that happens often.
Your never running for public office, I can say that much
Well, yes, if you decide to judge a programmer's coding skills based on his clothes, you really should be open to lawsuits.
Then its DRM, would be hacked in days, in weeks there would be a tool easy enough for teens to use.
Apple's focus is usability. It makes products that are very usable.
Suppose demand suddenly skyrockets: If raising output is cheap, then producers will raise output considerably to take advantage of rapidly growing demand. Because we are dealing with a oligopoly with inefficient competition, prices will stabilize to a lower point than before, reflecting the differences in price elasticity between businessmen and normal consumers.
we've been trying to do that to them for years, we have now set the spammers against themselves!
I did as you said, it seems like Nigeria is rather insignificant, the problem is more one of population density.
"Much better to have a group of scientists and economists get together and figure out what the actual remediation costs of CO2 emissions are projected to be in the near term and assess a carbon tax rate. Out of which we could pay for coastal flooding remediation, fusion research, compensating people for economic losses related to extreme weather and population relocation."
Our goal should be to stop climate change, not to pay for fixing its problems. The possible effects of climate change are unpredictable, because the earth is such a complex system. It is fully possible that damages could total trillions of dollars. It will be much cheaper to prevent climate change than to pay for it.
"The cost of infrastructure improvements is tied to the cost of labor, which is far cheaper in other countries. The Empire State building was built in just one year during the Great Depression, because labor was so relatively cheap and they could afford to hire lots of people."
Yes, but the improvements necessary to lower emissions do not require unskilled labor, not exactly the same thing.
I disagree with most of what you said, but I want to commend you on your $100 figure, I just did the calculation, and you are right.
Ok, half my family are Moroccan immigrants in France. They are unable to get good jobs because of France's labor policy. In France, nearly all employee's have the right to legal review if they are fired. However, temporary jobs do not count. So this creates a two-tier job system, with employees hiring and shedding temporary jobs, while retaining a couple of impossible to shed permanent jobs. And the reforms? it tried to eliminate legal review to termination. And I dont see why protest is necessary for a law allowing age discrimination, most smart companies dont do it, and if you catch an employer that stupid, find another job. There are some exceptions, such as Ubisoft. But France has twice the population of California, you cant float a couple companies as their saving grace.
Yes, a carbon tax is a nice idea, but it does not guarantee that the carbon used will be used for the most efficient purpose. The other problem is that setting the value of the tax requires quite a bit of guesswork, as we do not really know much about the price elasticity of carbon. It seems more attractive to have a committee of scientists say "we need to reduce our levels to X tons this year" and then issue x tons of credits, and let things get figured out from there. Obviously, this requires a international credit solution, but since most CO2 is produced in developed countries, we can start by creating a international agreement with Japan, the EU, and the USA and a couple other first world nations. I don't expect large scale outsourcing, The infrastructure improvements necessary to lower CO2 emissions are far cheaper than relocating to the other side of the world to a place without solid property rights or infrastructure.
... Look, if there is no slavery, violence, or any other type of coercion, then profits=benefit. That is because any additional amount of profit signifies a trade that made both parties better off, otherwise it would not have been made. If there are those things, then we should work on eliminating them.