Since when is the market bearing a cost a justification for over pricing? No business has a right to massive profits, especially when it's the result of maintaining a oligopoly over the particular market.
Now, if it were a competitive market, you'd probably have a point, but this isn't a competitive market and you don't have a point. In order for a market to bear a price, there needs to be real and substantial competition.
They'd better be very careful, because if that's how it works, they could very easily find themselves in a world of anti trust hurt. Plus if that's how they do it, somebody is going to pirate it, and there's not a damned thing they can do to enforce it.
The problem is that they're charging you for something you've already paid for. First sale doctrine applies and since you've bought the chip they don't have any legal right to extort more money out of you after they've sold the chip.
You're analogy is hardly analogous. It would be like buying a knife that says "Knife without compass" but somewhere in the manual it says for $10 we'll tell you where it's located. you've paid for the compass, but they want to charge another $10 to let you use it, after you've paid to have it made.
Probably the same way it applies to software. They assert that you've bought a license, except when your copy gets damaged at which point you've bought a physical product and will need to buy another one.
That's not equivalent. They couldn't sell those downclocked chips if they had to sell them at the full clock rate because the reliability would be crap. Some people are comfortable taking on more risk or replacing the chips more frequently and will overclock.
This is charging you for something that you've essentially already paid for. You've paid for the chip, and if you don't pay for the unlock, Intel doesn't get a dime. Consequently it follows that this is just a way of juicing the earnings at the consumers' expense.
Precisely, I've found that I know far more than I think I know, and it isn't until later on that the knowledge is proved or disproved that I have any idea as to what I really know.
It's odd sometimes how gut feeling and instinct end up being correct.
The problem though is that independents aren't necessarily any smarter than partisans, they're just not influenced by the same things.
Republicans have run for quite a while of FUD, tax cuts for the rich and corporatism. Whereas Democrats have run more on emotions and notion that things ought to be more just and that we can do better than what we're currently achieving.
Independents OTOH are tougher in many ways to pin down as some of them think that the party on their side isn't extreme enough, some want something completely different and then some are just unpredictable morons.
Not likely, the texts are advertising activities which are illegal under federal law, I doubt very much that they'll get into any trouble for refusing to pass on adverts for illegal activities. Especially when it can be filtered without human intervention.
CA doesn't have jurisdiction over either company. Either WA or NY would be the relevant place to file suit. Which makes it a bit surprising given that T-mobile is based in WA and the suit should have really gone through the district court in WA state.
No it doesn't. The FCC is a federal agency and the marketer is wanting to market materials which violate federal law. For better or for worse those dispensaries are not legal and as such T-mobile has the right to block them.
That's not really true in the modern era. Linux will run on just about anything these days, I haven't had any hardware not work that wasn't deliberately broken by the manufacturer to use Windows only features. Most hardware vendors remain neutral or provide support. With an increasing number providing proper docs if not actual source code.
You must be a Republican 10% is definitely not more than 90%, it's just that those 10% had a website to stir up trouble. Sort of like how in the US the Republicans took a health care initiative that was supported by the vast majority of people and claimed that most Americans were against it.
When you bend to the demands of a minority group because they're being loud and obnoxious rather than because they're right you've lost touch with democracy.
Which means doing well on cooked up bench marking? Most of the idiots bad mouthing Firefox aren't doing it because it sucks as a browser. Yeah, Firefox isn't the fastest thing out there, but that's largely because with its marketshare it would be irresponsible to pull some of the stunts that the other browsers are pulling. As well as I haven't seen anybody make reliable claims that the Firefox devs are cheating in benchmarks beyond the possible making theirs play more to Firefox's strengths.
Fast is one thing, but it's hardly the only issue. I've tried the others and quite frankly found them to be immature and lacking. It's kind of a bullshit complaint to cite benchmarks existing only in cooked up situations when most people don't use the browser like that. Firefox could be doing a lot better in those tests if they were focusing more on that instead of things that actually matter.
We didn't forget how to go to the moon, we stopped investing the resources in maintaining the capability. The moon was a great accomplishment in terms of jump starting the space program, but there wasn't really a whole lot of quality science coming out of it. Not like today, the science being done in orbit is much, much better than what we were doing back then.
We could get back to the moon pretty quickly if we wanted to, it's mostly a matter of do we really want to spend the resources to do it? We also have higher expectations of safety now than we did back then.
Which is probably just an excuse to not do sequels. Not that I can blame him, sequels are typically really bad for a person's career. $20m will take the sting off of just about anything.
You do realize that they can do quite a bit of testing on the surface, right? For the amount of money involved here, it would surprise me if they didn't have some means of testing it prior to launch without endangering anybody's life.
Weather balloons can't be steered, and they aren't going to stay up there for extended periods of time without being refueled. With the added downside of them stirring up UFO paranoia. We're still dealing with the backlash from the spy balloons of the 40s and 50s.
They can still do it, they just screwed up in assuming that such a plane could be build with parts from around the world. Some companies just don't know how to deal with multinational production.
Slashdot Mirror
Perhaps they field tested theirs while clad in a disguise?
Since when is the market bearing a cost a justification for over pricing? No business has a right to massive profits, especially when it's the result of maintaining a oligopoly over the particular market.
Now, if it were a competitive market, you'd probably have a point, but this isn't a competitive market and you don't have a point. In order for a market to bear a price, there needs to be real and substantial competition.
They'd better be very careful, because if that's how it works, they could very easily find themselves in a world of anti trust hurt. Plus if that's how they do it, somebody is going to pirate it, and there's not a damned thing they can do to enforce it.
An Intel fanboy in this age? How udderly preposterous. Do they sit around playing games with Intel IGPs?
The problem is that they're charging you for something you've already paid for. First sale doctrine applies and since you've bought the chip they don't have any legal right to extort more money out of you after they've sold the chip.
You're analogy is hardly analogous. It would be like buying a knife that says "Knife without compass" but somewhere in the manual it says for $10 we'll tell you where it's located. you've paid for the compass, but they want to charge another $10 to let you use it, after you've paid to have it made.
Probably the same way it applies to software. They assert that you've bought a license, except when your copy gets damaged at which point you've bought a physical product and will need to buy another one.
That's not equivalent. They couldn't sell those downclocked chips if they had to sell them at the full clock rate because the reliability would be crap. Some people are comfortable taking on more risk or replacing the chips more frequently and will overclock.
This is charging you for something that you've essentially already paid for. You've paid for the chip, and if you don't pay for the unlock, Intel doesn't get a dime. Consequently it follows that this is just a way of juicing the earnings at the consumers' expense.
Isn't that a compelling reason why they shouldn't have any rights under the constitution?
That's African American faxes, you insensitive clod.
So, tracking down cat abusers is not for anybody's benefit?
Precisely, I've found that I know far more than I think I know, and it isn't until later on that the knowledge is proved or disproved that I have any idea as to what I really know.
It's odd sometimes how gut feeling and instinct end up being correct.
The problem though is that independents aren't necessarily any smarter than partisans, they're just not influenced by the same things.
Republicans have run for quite a while of FUD, tax cuts for the rich and corporatism. Whereas Democrats have run more on emotions and notion that things ought to be more just and that we can do better than what we're currently achieving.
Independents OTOH are tougher in many ways to pin down as some of them think that the party on their side isn't extreme enough, some want something completely different and then some are just unpredictable morons.
Not likely, the texts are advertising activities which are illegal under federal law, I doubt very much that they'll get into any trouble for refusing to pass on adverts for illegal activities. Especially when it can be filtered without human intervention.
CA doesn't have jurisdiction over either company. Either WA or NY would be the relevant place to file suit. Which makes it a bit surprising given that T-mobile is based in WA and the suit should have really gone through the district court in WA state.
No it doesn't. The FCC is a federal agency and the marketer is wanting to market materials which violate federal law. For better or for worse those dispensaries are not legal and as such T-mobile has the right to block them.
That's not really true in the modern era. Linux will run on just about anything these days, I haven't had any hardware not work that wasn't deliberately broken by the manufacturer to use Windows only features. Most hardware vendors remain neutral or provide support. With an increasing number providing proper docs if not actual source code.
You must be a Republican 10% is definitely not more than 90%, it's just that those 10% had a website to stir up trouble. Sort of like how in the US the Republicans took a health care initiative that was supported by the vast majority of people and claimed that most Americans were against it.
When you bend to the demands of a minority group because they're being loud and obnoxious rather than because they're right you've lost touch with democracy.
True, but if you're going to cater to some people, then you damn well better not whine about failing to pick up marketshare.
Which means doing well on cooked up bench marking? Most of the idiots bad mouthing Firefox aren't doing it because it sucks as a browser. Yeah, Firefox isn't the fastest thing out there, but that's largely because with its marketshare it would be irresponsible to pull some of the stunts that the other browsers are pulling. As well as I haven't seen anybody make reliable claims that the Firefox devs are cheating in benchmarks beyond the possible making theirs play more to Firefox's strengths.
Fast is one thing, but it's hardly the only issue. I've tried the others and quite frankly found them to be immature and lacking. It's kind of a bullshit complaint to cite benchmarks existing only in cooked up situations when most people don't use the browser like that. Firefox could be doing a lot better in those tests if they were focusing more on that instead of things that actually matter.
Not really necessary, we can already do that via special effects. Putting somebody's life in jeopardy like this is just plain silly.
We didn't forget how to go to the moon, we stopped investing the resources in maintaining the capability. The moon was a great accomplishment in terms of jump starting the space program, but there wasn't really a whole lot of quality science coming out of it. Not like today, the science being done in orbit is much, much better than what we were doing back then.
We could get back to the moon pretty quickly if we wanted to, it's mostly a matter of do we really want to spend the resources to do it? We also have higher expectations of safety now than we did back then.
Which is probably just an excuse to not do sequels. Not that I can blame him, sequels are typically really bad for a person's career. $20m will take the sting off of just about anything.
You do realize that they can do quite a bit of testing on the surface, right? For the amount of money involved here, it would surprise me if they didn't have some means of testing it prior to launch without endangering anybody's life.
Weather balloons can't be steered, and they aren't going to stay up there for extended periods of time without being refueled. With the added downside of them stirring up UFO paranoia. We're still dealing with the backlash from the spy balloons of the 40s and 50s.
They can still do it, they just screwed up in assuming that such a plane could be build with parts from around the world. Some companies just don't know how to deal with multinational production.