One could say that the reason that profit is there is because they focus on making cool gadgets. Now, I don't believe for a second that they're "not about profit", but I do believe they feel they need to make some of the best stuff out there in order to do it, more or less.
No, they nearly went out of business because they didn't do that. They had crappy leadership who had no idea that they actually needed to differentiate themselves on their products.
It is the goal of producers to maximize profit. It is the goal of consumers to get what they want at the lowest price. Free market Capitalism is the system where producers and consumers are free to set that price.
And when the producers of a commodity come together and "freely" decide to set their prices at the same level? Then what power do the consumers have?
Ever asked your boss to cut back your salary when cost of living goes down?
No, because 1). Cost of living NEVER goes down, and 2). If it somehow did, it would inevitably go back up, so best to have some saved away for when that happens.
Who's to say all our magical 3d printer cornucopia machines will continue to obey us just because they ask?
Easy. Just make their AIs all depressed enough to still do the task, but too depressed to think they can accomplish anything else. That way, we'd only really have to worry about a few robot suicides.
Yeah, but whenever someone brings that up, it always reminds me of the Underpants Gnomes joke. We know where we are, we know where we want to end up, but we have no idea how to actually get there in a way that wouldn't be completely devastating to entire classes of people.
I know the point you're trying to make, but if all sides were doing this, wouldn't this be far preferable to actually sending people into the field of battle?
So instead of buying one that was already made, now I have to actually invest my time and effort into acquiring the skills necessary to design and build one, in addition to acquiring the raw materials needed to make it from. Since these things are not free, I am going to have to continue working at a job. But, due to automation, just about all of the jobs are gone. So now I can't get the money to make my furnace, which means I freeze to death in the winter.
- Before that, there is a more general concept: in your vision, economy (as in the current definition of allocating efficiently limited resources) no longer exists (as, via automation, resources are illimited). The same concept that someone "owns" something (besides, perhaps, art/hobby/sentimental reason) is made obsolete.
Why wouldn't resources still be limited? Those 3D printed things have to be made out of something.
In that future, wouldn't the DRM still be at least a scheme to ensure that those who created something receive the proper royalties that they asked for?
And how do I acquire this 3D printer in the first place if I had no job with which to be able to afford it? Or the "ink" that is needed to create the items?
Actually, it very, very much would be, depending on what market you're talking about. In the infrastructure market, not so much, but then, infrastructure is generally a very poor thing to leave to the "free market", as there can only be so much infrastructure duplicated in a given area. That means natural monopolies. However, if you're talking about the service/content providing market, then it very much would be, as everyone would be competing on a level playing field.
Yes, they still do. Because Verizon should either be charging enough on cost to those other ISPs to where they can still maintain the lines, or they should be lowering their prices to continue to compete.
First, you assume that we actually give a shit about "Capitalism." Second,
because the lot salesmen need to bump up their prices to account for property taxes, keeping auction-goers on staff (where do you think those cars come from), electricity, etc. etc.
These should all be reflected in the "cost" charged to the other salesmen.
And I highly doubt they had to compete with other companies selling Verizon's stuff cheaper. My guess is that Verizon was charging too much to begin with, and when they got hit with competitors that could undercut them on cost, they refused to lower their prices to compete.
No we're not. We're screaming "This is a waste of resources and time!" Last I checked,/. was still a tech news site, so news of a state government taking a shit ton of documents which were originally in electronic form, and only distributing them by paper just screams retarded and inefficient to us.
Wake me when she somehow does that without making her look like an idiot in the process. And wake me when she makes the media look foolish half as many times as she's made herself look foolish.
Slashdot Mirror
In a free market, demand will set the price once a product is past it's initial release.
No it won't. At least not for things that people need, like food, shelter, and fuel.
One could say that the reason that profit is there is because they focus on making cool gadgets. Now, I don't believe for a second that they're "not about profit", but I do believe they feel they need to make some of the best stuff out there in order to do it, more or less.
No, they nearly went out of business because they didn't do that. They had crappy leadership who had no idea that they actually needed to differentiate themselves on their products.
It is the goal of producers to maximize profit. It is the goal of consumers to get what they want at the lowest price. Free market Capitalism is the system where producers and consumers are free to set that price.
And when the producers of a commodity come together and "freely" decide to set their prices at the same level? Then what power do the consumers have?
Ever asked your boss to cut back your salary when cost of living goes down?
No, because 1). Cost of living NEVER goes down, and 2). If it somehow did, it would inevitably go back up, so best to have some saved away for when that happens.
Who's to say all our magical 3d printer cornucopia machines will continue to obey us just because they ask?
Easy. Just make their AIs all depressed enough to still do the task, but too depressed to think they can accomplish anything else. That way, we'd only really have to worry about a few robot suicides.
Left unchecked, that's how Capitalism trends itself toward.
Yeah, but whenever someone brings that up, it always reminds me of the Underpants Gnomes joke. We know where we are, we know where we want to end up, but we have no idea how to actually get there in a way that wouldn't be completely devastating to entire classes of people.
Not if you're trying to imagine one that would actually work, and doesn't depend on everyone involved to "play nice."
And our wars will be fought by automated drones.
I know the point you're trying to make, but if all sides were doing this, wouldn't this be far preferable to actually sending people into the field of battle?
So instead of buying one that was already made, now I have to actually invest my time and effort into acquiring the skills necessary to design and build one, in addition to acquiring the raw materials needed to make it from. Since these things are not free, I am going to have to continue working at a job. But, due to automation, just about all of the jobs are gone. So now I can't get the money to make my furnace, which means I freeze to death in the winter.
- Before that, there is a more general concept: in your vision, economy (as in the current definition of allocating efficiently limited resources) no longer exists (as, via automation, resources are illimited). The same concept that someone "owns" something (besides, perhaps, art/hobby/sentimental reason) is made obsolete.
Why wouldn't resources still be limited? Those 3D printed things have to be made out of something.
Or you could not be an idiot and realize that the poster was making a joke by linking to a (seemingly pretty cool) toy.
In that future, wouldn't the DRM still be at least a scheme to ensure that those who created something receive the proper royalties that they asked for?
And how do I acquire this 3D printer in the first place if I had no job with which to be able to afford it? Or the "ink" that is needed to create the items?
You really think those at the top would be at all in favor of doing that? It would mean they no longer have their status at the top.
Actually, it very, very much would be, depending on what market you're talking about. In the infrastructure market, not so much, but then, infrastructure is generally a very poor thing to leave to the "free market", as there can only be so much infrastructure duplicated in a given area. That means natural monopolies. However, if you're talking about the service/content providing market, then it very much would be, as everyone would be competing on a level playing field.
Yes, they still do. Because Verizon should either be charging enough on cost to those other ISPs to where they can still maintain the lines, or they should be lowering their prices to continue to compete.
First, you assume that we actually give a shit about "Capitalism." Second,
because the lot salesmen need to bump up their prices to account for property taxes, keeping auction-goers on staff (where do you think those cars come from), electricity, etc. etc.
These should all be reflected in the "cost" charged to the other salesmen.
And I highly doubt they had to compete with other companies selling Verizon's stuff cheaper. My guess is that Verizon was charging too much to begin with, and when they got hit with competitors that could undercut them on cost, they refused to lower their prices to compete.
But now you're screaming cover-up
No we're not. We're screaming "This is a waste of resources and time!" Last I checked, /. was still a tech news site, so news of a state government taking a shit ton of documents which were originally in electronic form, and only distributing them by paper just screams retarded and inefficient to us.
There's not really such a thing as 'American Spirits'
They're a brand of cigarettes which claim to be 'natural' and have no additional additives/ingredients other than tobacco.
If you don't think that she has her hand in this, then you're either an idiot, or have a crush on Palin. But I repeat myself.
Wake me when she somehow does that without making her look like an idiot in the process. And wake me when she makes the media look foolish half as many times as she's made herself look foolish.
They're public records. EVERYONE has business inquiring into this stuff.
It's been shown that you do not have a right to privacy in public.