this really means something, and what it means is: copyright law (as applied to end consumers), is dead, and unenforceable...
UNENFORCEABLE. END OF STORY
"Oh, OK. Well, thanks fans, it's been fun while it lasted.
Sincerely, 99% of artists."
Or perhaps, that letter should have gone a little differently.
"Fuck you pirate! I'll decide how I'll work for myself, thank you very much! If I could, assuming I'd even want to, tour 365 days per year, or scrounge off your petty merchandising cash, I wouldn't have signed with that soul-sucking, money-grubbing label in the first place, you preachy little ignorant prick!
Make your own damn music. I pity those who would do it for you."
Well, If I were a recording artist, that would be my response. I sure as hell wouldn't put up with this kind of bullshit. Artists need to rise up soon, or they very soon will be downtrodden and oppressed by those who claim to support freedom, but in reality, care only about their own license.
(Please note: the use of swear words is appropriate for the context, and is not meant to incite a flame response; this is genuinely how I feel this particularly offensive post should be rebutted. Also note that this post does not constitute an approval of the ACTA or any of its parts.)
Look at it from the other side -- the ACTA is about trying to make a global police framework to try and stop file sharinng. Let them pass it. Let the government sink billions upon billions tryinng to solve the problem, while we come up with ever more clever ways to evade detection, and eat away at their bottom lines.
There is an undeniably brilliant way of eating away at their bottom line that is, always has been, and always will be undetectable, no matter how much money is spent on enforcement or improving enforcement techniques. Not only that, should you even decide to publicly announce your taking of this course of action to said enforcement, they will be unable to touch you. And, as if this incredible method didn't do enough for you as it is, it also protects you against those snobs making barely-veiled insinuations about your motives for "actively" opposing the ACTA.
Yes, you guessed it: it's called boycotting. It works the same way as pirating, just without the threat of looming lawsuits, and without generating sympathy for the opposing side. Plus, it's great for those of us with bandwidth caps!
Without haptic feedback, motion control is a gimmick, plain and simple.
Without a full brain-to-computer, full immersion interface, complete with feedback to pain sensors, computer games are just a gimmick. Without a brain, stringing together words and posting them on slashdot is just a gimmick.
You don't have to be looking to buy something to want to be aware of what's out there.
Yes, you do.
No you don't. Counterexample: I know a friend who's looking for a cheap video camera, so I'm always interested in hearing about sales or just cheap prices, even though I'm not looking to spend a dollar myself.
Awareness is a limited resource
You make it sound like advertisers can steal awareness permanently. If you, somehow, run out of awareness, then stop memorising ads.
I can already hear the retort, though: "how will I know about new things I didn't know I want/need?" The answer is: friends.
Four things spring to mind when I hear this:
a) How will your friends know about things you didn't know you want/need? b) Will friends pass along the more mundane things, like for example, I don't know, a sale on bed linen, when you actually need it? c) Does this mean that friends look at ads so that you don't have to? d) To an advertiser, this just sounds like astroturfing is your preferred medium of advertising.
Look, if this works for you, more power to you. I'm not trying to say this is a Bad Way To Live, or anything like that. I'm just trying to say that there is a trade-off when blocking advertisements altogether. You do get less information.
C'mon, how seriously do you think anyone takes that lie, I would rather have adds targeted at my personal interests. If you know want you want you don't need adds, and targeted is only post date, not what you are interested in but what you were interested in.
That's a false dichotomy. There isn't a simple choice between:
a) Know everything you want to buy, and never deviate from that list, and b) Not knowing what to buy at all, and being influenced by ads
In fact, very, very few are even close to either of those extremes. Most people have an idea of what they like, but not the specifics of what they want. So, in fact, if advertising is targeted well, most people it targets would appreciate the information (even if they object to the way it's delivered).
Yes yes, you have some scheme for comparing MSRP between companies of different markup that give you omniscience, indicating that, since you are perfect, our system must be a Free Market.
You simply do not care, one bit, about trying to counter my arguments, do you? It's so much easier to make up your own crap. It's a strategy, well known, called a strawman. It's been around for years. It's just that the more effective strawmen are subtle, and generally based around reading the opponents arguments and subtly changing it, or taking quotes out of context. Not so much when you just add in completely unsubstantiated claims, like that I claim that I'm perfect, or that my system provides omniscience, or even that my way is best, or even at all tested! None of those things have I claimed! Not once! Not anywhere! It was a system I came up with, off the top of my head, that I couldn't find any immediate fault with. I never claimed anything different!
Now, what I did claim was that, assuming no wacky off-the-wall faults with my system that I haven't foreseen, using it would, for you personally, create a situation which would satisfy the definition of a free market. You know, the definition which you've made the basis for the small logical portion of your argument? There's no assumption anywhere that I'm perfect, just a logical satisfaction of the definition. So that "since you are perfect" statement you added in there, was just your sheer, deliberate ignorance trying to substitute a laughably obvious strawman in place of the core of my argument.
I'm just impressed that you still have the cojones to keep spouting this crap, when you know that you're trying to counter an argument that you haven't read, and can't understand.
If you notice, I haven't been debating Mr Flamebait. But instead, I've just been saying you are wrong and why.
Saying someone is wrong and saying why is debating, you retard! But, I agree you haven't been debating for a while now. All you've done so far is claim that I'm wrong, with no argument presented, and without even properly knowing what I'm claiming, and thus without knowing what I would be wrong about! (Oh, and also calling me names.)
I can't educate the purposefully stupid, but I can make sure anyone running across your crap and doesn't notice that you are a troll will take note of my systematic and logical destruction of the useless strings of words you call a discussion.
What "logic"? I have completely ridiculed your basic logic skills far too many times already. And I know logic. I'm a pure mathematician; logic (including knowing and adhering to definitions) is my bread and butter. I do it every day, and I'm actually very good at it. Debating is just a hobby. One thing you learn very quickly is the difference between:
"there exists a statement X such that X is false" and "for all statements X, X is false"
You clearly can't see that distinction, since you stopped reading two of my comments, just because you couldn't properly comprehend the purpose of my first statement!
The chances are, overwhelmingly in favour of, if any slashdotter actually reads this crap, they will have the common sense to realise that you can't possibly know what you're talking about, since you haven't read what you're arguing about. Let alone this "systematic and logical destruction" bullshit.
Just because you respond to them doesn't mean you understand them.
That's certainly true. And you've taught me that just because you don't respond to my comments, doesn't mean you understand what I'm talking about. You've also taught me that just because you've taken an economics lesson in grade school, doesn't mean you're equipped to engage in an economics discussion.
It only takes one line to know what everyone other than you is discussing and that you are rambling about something else.
Lol! No really, it doesn't! And what's funnier still is that you'll never be able to test your assertion, because nobody can possibly show you a counterexample!
I'm a douche, and you are wrong. Now are we all in agreement?
It might help this state of agreement if you could actually point out a place where I'm wrong. But, unfortunately, that's not going to be easy; you'll have to get past the first sentences in my posts, and I know how much trouble you have with that.
I have no tolerance for people that make completely incorrect statements and are willfully ignorant in a public forum.
This coming from the (confirmed) douche who engages in an argument, chooses to only read the first statement of the opposition's argument, and wilfully ignores the rest? Bahahahahaha! Do you even read your posts before you post them? I suppose not, since your first sentence is always bullshit! Hahahahaha!
I don't want anyone to think your useless rants about your personal (untested and silly) car theories are somehow related to economics.
Then you're going to have to learn how to debate. Perhaps a grade school debating team would be a good place to start? Don't worry if you're humiliated a few times; it's a natural part of the learning process.
This is about the Free Market and nothing else. In a Free Market, consumers know the cost and pricing of items.
As they do under my system. As I've said repeatedly. As can be arrived with just a little critical thought, and a little reading below the first line of my comments.
You object, for some reason.
I do? It's news to me!
I don't care why or what you think, but I want to make sure no one thinks your random comments about car pricing is somehow related to a Free Market.
I have argued against many, many people here on slashdot. I have been posting here for about 8 years (give or take). I have had some friendly, amicable, and some downright dirty arguments against a wide variety of adversaries. I have been mentally challenged, ruthlessly beaten, unequivocally victorious, and thoroughly entertained.
I can say, in all my years, in all my arguments against all my opponents, I have only once, ever, argued against someone who is as arrogant yet dumb, preachy yet hypocritical, and earnest yet completely and utterly hilarious as yourself. If you are indeed the troll that I think you are, congratulations! It was as much of a resounding success as I have ever seen! I hope you were as entertained as I was.
But, in case you're not, or you don't want to admit it;-), let's continue.
Oh, so Flamebait in your name is unrelated to the topic of flamebait?
Didn't we decide earlier that you didn't have requisite knowledge to know what I'm talking about? Oh, and FYI, the word "Flamebait" was chosen 8 years ago. I'm pretty sure I didn't choose it just in case, one day, we would meet, you would begin an argument about the free market and the car industry, so I could then troll you with a series of deadpan posts about a system for buying cars, all the while dangling it in front of your face, by embedding subtle clues as to my intention into my nickname. If had wanted to do that, I would have called myself TheVelevetTroll.
Actually, IIRC, it was supposed to be an idiot trap, as a social experiment. You know, if I'm arguing with someone, and they can't think up anything intelligent to say, they can just point to my nickname. I think you're about the fourth, fifth, or sixth person (I've kinda lost count) who's actually fallen for it.
You constantly say things that are incorrect and unrelated to the topic at hand.
I'm not sure how someone who fails to read more than one sentence in a post could possibly make that claim. I highly doubt you are even aware of what we are discussing.
Then, when called on it, defend it as relevant and correct.
That's probably because it is relevant and correct. This must be another one of your "claims", like "percentages were invented to lie".
I was talking economics, and you talk about your personal way you beat the system when buying a car (then say something to the effect that you've never used it, and apparently no one else on the planet has either, but it's proven and it works and because it's perfect, then we have a free market).
Everything highlighted is something you added yourself, and that I never said or implied. Let's take those bold bits out of the sentence. Then, we get a much more accurate assessment of my argument:
I was talking economics, and you talk about your personal way you beat the system when buying a car (then say something to the effect that you've never used it, and it works and then we have a free market).
Aside from the bad grammar, yes, that's pretty much the gist of my argument. By using my system (which I never claimed to use), you can fulfil for yourself the free information requirements. Isn't that what you've been bitching about for the last 4 posts? Isn't that exactly what you've decided the topic of this thread is?
Go take econ 101 and tell me what the definition of a Free Market is.
OK, you happy now? I really don't see what this is supposed to prove. I already have enough evidence that you're a douche.
I covered it in economics in elementary school.
Apparently I underestimated you!
But then, it seems you've worked harder on perfecting your "flamebait" skills.
Hmm. More basic logic failure. "I have a name containing the string of characters 'Flamebait'" implies "everything I say is a flamebait". I deduce that you go around shooting up schools, because you said the word "school" in your post, and you have the string "AK" in your name, as in AK-47. Airtight.
Look, if you really can't counter my arguments any other way than to call me names, why don't you just run back to that grade school you love so much? Leave arguing to those who didn't drop out right after their grade school introduction to economics, and to those who can wield elementary logic.
Hey wait. You're that guy I completely bagged out in this discussion. I guess what tipped me off was the way you read one line, and made ridiculous assumptions about the rest of my post. And once again, you are completely and laughably incorrect; the discussion of this system is a vehicle (pun unintended) for a discussion on free-market economics. Specifically, the last paragraph of my post.
But, you're a confirmed idiot, so meh. I'll find more challenging debating opponents.
Yet used in this case for numbers outside that range.
I was talking about the purpose of percentages. Would you believe it, since the invention of percentages, they've actually found new variations on its original purpose. I know, it seems radical and subversive, but it's true!
So, based on that as your premise, everything else you say is presumed wrong.
So, you believe that percentages were invented either:
a) To lie b) Exclusively to express numbers between 0 and 1, no exceptions
You also seem to believe that:
"I don't believe you on point number 1" implies that "You are always wrong, all the time."
That's a pretty epic fail at basic logic, on both counts.
Then what is the purpose of the price, if not to determine the value of the item?
I wasn't talking about prices, I was talking about my system. The purpose of my system is to get you a car while, unlike some other similar systems, avoiding pricing shenanigans. That's it: it delivers you a car.
Are you really arguing that MSRP *reduces* pricing bullshit? Really? Really?
Yes. Maybe. Well, certainly yes if you use it the way I was suggesting. Then, comparing prices is as simple as comparing one number per car, available anywhere, and invariant no matter which car dealer you choose. What could be more simple than that?
Ah, that's the problem. The Free Market is not a market where people are free to make choices or whatever. It's a specific economic system defined in economics where the "rules" include a zero cost to information (everyone knows everything, if they wish to), rational actors, and zero barriers to entry (so that if there is a need, someone can fill it).
"Requires", in this sense, is a fuzzy term. When you say "perfect information", we can approximate it with "almost perfect information" with decent success. In our case here, we can get decent information from free-flowing information from previous customers testifying to the prices they've received.
And, of course, if you think about it, my suggestion basically guarantees you perfect information, so for you, the market is free (or a better approximation of free).
With $2000 discounts on one model, how can you afford not to?
By buying a car with the MSRP that you actually can afford? You're running into a wall because you're approaching it from the wrong angle. You don't look at it from the perspective of looking for the the car you want at the price you can stand, you look at it as the price you want, coming with a car you can stand. Suddenly, things become very simple. You look only at cars you are guaranteed to be able to afford, and pick the best of the lot.
Considering how you place a dollar value on being treated well, while most people walk out of a dealership with a new car feel cheated, then they aren't marketing to you. So, since you aren't the average consumer, and not someone anyone would be making much money on, they don't care one bit about you. You'll cost them more in time than they'll make in profit on you, so why should they fight for your business? Some other chump will buy the car for $2000 more than you will.
That's very true. I don't personally use this system. It was actually a suggestion to you, or anyone else reading this thread, disgruntled with the current situation in car sales, to demonstrate how to actually make the process suit their needs more. The beauty of this system is nowhere does it assume that everyone else has to do the same thing; it still delivers the same effects. It doesn't matter if everyone else is getting screwed over, all this does is ensure that you aren't getting screwed over, which is about the best you can hope for from a plan of action that doesn't involve changing the law. It doesn't matter if Ford is making a mint on other people's ignorance, since you never have to deal with them.
The other beautiful property of this system is that, even though it is you who is benefiting from its use, while others may suffer, they too have the opportunity, should they wish, to use the same system, and reap the same rewards. If enough people do so, then less car companies will be able to afford to keep pricing the way they do, and, in fact, without explicit customer support for their pricing model, they will definitely not be able to continue to price in that way.
But, as you said, this is not the behaviour of the average consumer. My point is that those who would complain have viable options.
If you want to be accurate, abandon percentages. They were invented to lie.
Jesus, you're awfully hard on a simple maths concept. Percentages were not invented to lie. They're a way of easily conveying the first two significant figures of an amount between 1 and 0. They're really not that hard; just divide by 100 to get back to regular numbers. Any confusion with something as simple and established as percentages (they're taught all throughout school, for christ's sake!) lies squarely with the confused. They were given all the chance they needed in order to learn about them, and there's plenty of opportunity now to relearn about them. The rest of us shouldn't be punished for their refusal to learn.
The new price is four times the old price.
That's fine. What's also fine is:
The new price is 400% times the old price.
There, done, and with no confusion at all. When percentages are passed around, or people use "increase" then there's confusion. Increase *to* something, or increase *by* that amount? That's not math, that's language.
OK, so the problem is with the phrases "increase by" and "increase to". Are you really suggesting that there's some kind of ambiguity between these two phrases? I still think the problem is with the people who don't actually read past the word "increase".
Those are linguistic effects invented to editorialize, not convey factual meaning
Citation? For the percentages too, preferably. Can you show me some evidence that these "linguistic effects" were explicitly invented, and for that purpose? Can you show me some evidence for percentages being invented to lie? Otherwise, I would appreciate if you would stop slandering perfectly valid mathematic and language techniques with blatant lies. Thank you.
Useless in determining the relative value of the item.
It's not supposed to determine the value of the item. It's supposed to give you a car at a price you're willing to pay (or less), and avoid all that pricing bullshit. Sure, some cars will be prohibitively expensive when they don't technically need to be, but all that means is that the car companies/dealers need to work a little harder to get a sale from you next time.
And, once you choose your car for the price you're willing to pay, you may get an added discount, which would just be a bonus. See, this is what makes it a free market. It doesn't actually matter if the specific sales data is secret for some vendors. You have a choice whether or not to deal with them.
You are right when you exclude actual sale data and take a related but inaccurate number to be the actual number, you will exclude all error from guessing. But then, you will be wrong.
What you don't seem to be grasping is that there is no "right" or "wrong" answer. The free market is not just a simple value-optimising system, or at least, not in the way you're thinking. The way the seller treats you is a perfectly valid factor in your decision. My suggestion was just a way to reclaim the perfect information conditions you seem to value, and at the same time, get you a car! If this isn't so important to you, feel free to play the pricing game with the shysters, to obtain your "right" answer.
They do those tricks just so people like you will abandon available information that's "hard" to process, and instead take the numbers they invent for that purpose.
Hmm. How is it in their interests to inflate their prices in paper when dealing with "people like me"? Is there some benefit I can't see about making their cars appear less valuable to "people like me"? I highly doubt that these tricks are designed to make people revert to my system, because my system punishes those tricks very severely. With $2000 markups, they really can't compete with other cars of the same utility, so the net effect is that the person generally doesn't buy any such marked up car. So, I ask again, how is driving me away in their business interests?
Time is free in the same way as life is free, but I've never heard anyone seriously recommend wasting either of them.
As for the energy, well, the rabbit had to work its butt off to get that energy didn't it? For the record, I know how circular that argument is. Such is life.
Capitalism requires informed consumers. Most companies work very hard to prevent their consumers from being informed. "Private" negotiations for random discounts off inflated MSRP is very anti-capitalistic.
Not at all. Consumers can easily take such tactics into account. One easy way is to simply take the inflated MSRP as the comparison price. Then, no amount of shady private deals can affect your decision.
And, given the number of people making this error, I'd argue that a large portion will understand it the way it was intended. And when that happens, then not only are the facts not in error, but the semantics aren't in error either.
But then, oh god, what if there are *two or more* large groups of people, each interpreting it differently? Then what? Are they all just correct? Does the number 400% convey the correct meaning, depending on who you're talking to? How do you convey information in such an environment?
I'll tell you how. You set a standard, and you stick to it. Moreover, you set the standard for everyone, so that people don't have to constantly keep track of where they're getting their information from. Elementary arithmetic is not the same as language; you can't just let it evolve in to its own dialects. You actually have to choose a standard and stick to it.
So, I suppose, every time you hear of a 3D movie/television/game, there's some confusion. You hold out hope that they are referring to real 3D, but every time, you are crushed and disappointed. False advertising only occurs when there is some kind of fraud being perpetrated, that is, when the advertisement exploits some confusion about what is being sold. If everyone knows what they're talking about (and, for practical purposes, everyone does), then it's not a fraudulent advertisement; it's a marketing term.
Besides, if you have a look at the link provided by the guy posting above you, you'll see that Sony refers everywhere to "Stereoscopic 3D", rather than "Real 3D", so I think you'll find that the advertising is far from fraudulent, even by your standards.
Slashdot Mirror
Flamebait. That was pretty quick. Perhaps, next time, I should sugar-coat it a bit, huh? :-/
"Oh, OK. Well, thanks fans, it's been fun while it lasted.
Sincerely, 99% of artists."
Or perhaps, that letter should have gone a little differently.
"Fuck you pirate! I'll decide how I'll work for myself, thank you very much! If I could, assuming I'd even want to, tour 365 days per year, or scrounge off your petty merchandising cash, I wouldn't have signed with that soul-sucking, money-grubbing label in the first place, you preachy little ignorant prick!
Make your own damn music. I pity those who would do it for you."
Well, If I were a recording artist, that would be my response. I sure as hell wouldn't put up with this kind of bullshit. Artists need to rise up soon, or they very soon will be downtrodden and oppressed by those who claim to support freedom, but in reality, care only about their own license.
(Please note: the use of swear words is appropriate for the context, and is not meant to incite a flame response; this is genuinely how I feel this particularly offensive post should be rebutted. Also note that this post does not constitute an approval of the ACTA or any of its parts.)
There is an undeniably brilliant way of eating away at their bottom line that is, always has been, and always will be undetectable, no matter how much money is spent on enforcement or improving enforcement techniques. Not only that, should you even decide to publicly announce your taking of this course of action to said enforcement, they will be unable to touch you. And, as if this incredible method didn't do enough for you as it is, it also protects you against those snobs making barely-veiled insinuations about your motives for "actively" opposing the ACTA.
Yes, you guessed it: it's called boycotting. It works the same way as pirating, just without the threat of looming lawsuits, and without generating sympathy for the opposing side. Plus, it's great for those of us with bandwidth caps!
The victims are not your friends, your family, and hopefully, not you.
Without a full brain-to-computer, full immersion interface, complete with feedback to pain sensors, computer games are just a gimmick. Without a brain, stringing together words and posting them on slashdot is just a gimmick.
Hands up everyone here who thought, before reading this or the tags, that correlation was the same as causation. Anybody?
OK, so now hands up everyone who thinks we need to tag every story about a study with "correlationisnotcausation"?
No you don't. Counterexample: I know a friend who's looking for a cheap video camera, so I'm always interested in hearing about sales or just cheap prices, even though I'm not looking to spend a dollar myself.
You make it sound like advertisers can steal awareness permanently. If you, somehow, run out of awareness, then stop memorising ads.
Four things spring to mind when I hear this:
a) How will your friends know about things you didn't know you want/need?
b) Will friends pass along the more mundane things, like for example, I don't know, a sale on bed linen, when you actually need it?
c) Does this mean that friends look at ads so that you don't have to?
d) To an advertiser, this just sounds like astroturfing is your preferred medium of advertising.
Look, if this works for you, more power to you. I'm not trying to say this is a Bad Way To Live, or anything like that. I'm just trying to say that there is a trade-off when blocking advertisements altogether. You do get less information.
You don't have to be looking to buy something to want to be aware of what's out there. So no, I was not making that assumption.
Well, not every advertisement is untrustworthy, and even then, you're supposed to follow up with your own research. Think of it like Wikipedia.
That's a false dichotomy. There isn't a simple choice between:
a) Know everything you want to buy, and never deviate from that list, and
b) Not knowing what to buy at all, and being influenced by ads
In fact, very, very few are even close to either of those extremes. Most people have an idea of what they like, but not the specifics of what they want. So, in fact, if advertising is targeted well, most people it targets would appreciate the information (even if they object to the way it's delivered).
Name one civil liberty that apple has raped.
You simply do not care, one bit, about trying to counter my arguments, do you? It's so much easier to make up your own crap. It's a strategy, well known, called a strawman. It's been around for years. It's just that the more effective strawmen are subtle, and generally based around reading the opponents arguments and subtly changing it, or taking quotes out of context. Not so much when you just add in completely unsubstantiated claims, like that I claim that I'm perfect, or that my system provides omniscience, or even that my way is best, or even at all tested! None of those things have I claimed! Not once! Not anywhere! It was a system I came up with, off the top of my head, that I couldn't find any immediate fault with. I never claimed anything different!
Now, what I did claim was that, assuming no wacky off-the-wall faults with my system that I haven't foreseen, using it would, for you personally, create a situation which would satisfy the definition of a free market. You know, the definition which you've made the basis for the small logical portion of your argument? There's no assumption anywhere that I'm perfect, just a logical satisfaction of the definition. So that "since you are perfect" statement you added in there, was just your sheer, deliberate ignorance trying to substitute a laughably obvious strawman in place of the core of my argument.
I'm just impressed that you still have the cojones to keep spouting this crap, when you know that you're trying to counter an argument that you haven't read, and can't understand.
Saying someone is wrong and saying why is debating, you retard! But, I agree you haven't been debating for a while now. All you've done so far is claim that I'm wrong, with no argument presented, and without even properly knowing what I'm claiming, and thus without knowing what I would be wrong about! (Oh, and also calling me names.)
What "logic"? I have completely ridiculed your basic logic skills far too many times already. And I know logic. I'm a pure mathematician; logic (including knowing and adhering to definitions) is my bread and butter. I do it every day, and I'm actually very good at it. Debating is just a hobby. One thing you learn very quickly is the difference between:
"there exists a statement X such that X is false"
and
"for all statements X, X is false"
You clearly can't see that distinction, since you stopped reading two of my comments, just because you couldn't properly comprehend the purpose of my first statement!
The chances are, overwhelmingly in favour of, if any slashdotter actually reads this crap, they will have the common sense to realise that you can't possibly know what you're talking about, since you haven't read what you're arguing about. Let alone this "systematic and logical destruction" bullshit.
Please do. I tire of talking down to you.
That's certainly true. And you've taught me that just because you don't respond to my comments, doesn't mean you understand what I'm talking about. You've also taught me that just because you've taken an economics lesson in grade school, doesn't mean you're equipped to engage in an economics discussion.
Thank you, it's been fun.
Lol! No really, it doesn't! And what's funnier still is that you'll never be able to test your assertion, because nobody can possibly show you a counterexample!
It might help this state of agreement if you could actually point out a place where I'm wrong. But, unfortunately, that's not going to be easy; you'll have to get past the first sentences in my posts, and I know how much trouble you have with that.
This coming from the (confirmed) douche who engages in an argument, chooses to only read the first statement of the opposition's argument, and wilfully ignores the rest? Bahahahahaha! Do you even read your posts before you post them? I suppose not, since your first sentence is always bullshit! Hahahahaha!
Then you're going to have to learn how to debate. Perhaps a grade school debating team would be a good place to start? Don't worry if you're humiliated a few times; it's a natural part of the learning process.
As they do under my system. As I've said repeatedly. As can be arrived with just a little critical thought, and a little reading below the first line of my comments.
I do? It's news to me!
I have argued against many, many people here on slashdot. I have been posting here for about 8 years (give or take). I have had some friendly, amicable, and some downright dirty arguments against a wide variety of adversaries. I have been mentally challenged, ruthlessly beaten, unequivocally victorious, and thoroughly entertained.
I can say, in all my years, in all my arguments against all my opponents, I have only once, ever, argued against someone who is as arrogant yet dumb, preachy yet hypocritical, and earnest yet completely and utterly hilarious as yourself. If you are indeed the troll that I think you are, congratulations! It was as much of a resounding success as I have ever seen! I hope you were as entertained as I was.
But, in case you're not, or you don't want to admit it ;-), let's continue.
Didn't we decide earlier that you didn't have requisite knowledge to know what I'm talking about? Oh, and FYI, the word "Flamebait" was chosen 8 years ago. I'm pretty sure I didn't choose it just in case, one day, we would meet, you would begin an argument about the free market and the car industry, so I could then troll you with a series of deadpan posts about a system for buying cars, all the while dangling it in front of your face, by embedding subtle clues as to my intention into my nickname. If had wanted to do that, I would have called myself TheVelevetTroll.
Actually, IIRC, it was supposed to be an idiot trap, as a social experiment. You know, if I'm arguing with someone, and they can't think up anything intelligent to say, they can just point to my nickname. I think you're about the fourth, fifth, or sixth person (I've kinda lost count) who's actually fallen for it.
I'm not sure how someone who fails to read more than one sentence in a post could possibly make that claim. I highly doubt you are even aware of what we are discussing.
That's probably because it is relevant and correct. This must be another one of your "claims", like "percentages were invented to lie".
Everything highlighted is something you added yourself, and that I never said or implied. Let's take those bold bits out of the sentence. Then, we get a much more accurate assessment of my argument:
Aside from the bad grammar, yes, that's pretty much the gist of my argument. By using my system (which I never claimed to use), you can fulfil for yourself the free information requirements. Isn't that what you've been bitching about for the last 4 posts? Isn't that exactly what you've decided the topic of this thread is?
OK, you happy now? I really don't see what this is supposed to prove. I already have enough evidence that you're a douche.
Apparently I underestimated you!
Hmm. More basic logic failure. "I have a name containing the string of characters 'Flamebait'" implies "everything I say is a flamebait". I deduce that you go around shooting up schools, because you said the word "school" in your post, and you have the string "AK" in your name, as in AK-47. Airtight.
Look, if you really can't counter my arguments any other way than to call me names, why don't you just run back to that grade school you love so much? Leave arguing to those who didn't drop out right after their grade school introduction to economics, and to those who can wield elementary logic.
Hey wait. You're that guy I completely bagged out in this discussion. I guess what tipped me off was the way you read one line, and made ridiculous assumptions about the rest of my post. And once again, you are completely and laughably incorrect; the discussion of this system is a vehicle (pun unintended) for a discussion on free-market economics. Specifically, the last paragraph of my post.
But, you're a confirmed idiot, so meh. I'll find more challenging debating opponents.
I was talking about the purpose of percentages. Would you believe it, since the invention of percentages, they've actually found new variations on its original purpose. I know, it seems radical and subversive, but it's true!
So, you believe that percentages were invented either:
a) To lie
b) Exclusively to express numbers between 0 and 1, no exceptions
You also seem to believe that:
"I don't believe you on point number 1" implies that "You are always wrong, all the time."
That's a pretty epic fail at basic logic, on both counts.
I wasn't talking about prices, I was talking about my system. The purpose of my system is to get you a car while, unlike some other similar systems, avoiding pricing shenanigans. That's it: it delivers you a car.
Yes. Maybe. Well, certainly yes if you use it the way I was suggesting. Then, comparing prices is as simple as comparing one number per car, available anywhere, and invariant no matter which car dealer you choose. What could be more simple than that?
"Requires", in this sense, is a fuzzy term. When you say "perfect information", we can approximate it with "almost perfect information" with decent success. In our case here, we can get decent information from free-flowing information from previous customers testifying to the prices they've received.
And, of course, if you think about it, my suggestion basically guarantees you perfect information, so for you, the market is free (or a better approximation of free).
By buying a car with the MSRP that you actually can afford? You're running into a wall because you're approaching it from the wrong angle. You don't look at it from the perspective of looking for the the car you want at the price you can stand, you look at it as the price you want, coming with a car you can stand. Suddenly, things become very simple. You look only at cars you are guaranteed to be able to afford, and pick the best of the lot.
That's very true. I don't personally use this system. It was actually a suggestion to you, or anyone else reading this thread, disgruntled with the current situation in car sales, to demonstrate how to actually make the process suit their needs more. The beauty of this system is nowhere does it assume that everyone else has to do the same thing; it still delivers the same effects. It doesn't matter if everyone else is getting screwed over, all this does is ensure that you aren't getting screwed over, which is about the best you can hope for from a plan of action that doesn't involve changing the law. It doesn't matter if Ford is making a mint on other people's ignorance, since you never have to deal with them.
The other beautiful property of this system is that, even though it is you who is benefiting from its use, while others may suffer, they too have the opportunity, should they wish, to use the same system, and reap the same rewards. If enough people do so, then less car companies will be able to afford to keep pricing the way they do, and, in fact, without explicit customer support for their pricing model, they will definitely not be able to continue to price in that way.
But, as you said, this is not the behaviour of the average consumer. My point is that those who would complain have viable options.
Jesus, you're awfully hard on a simple maths concept. Percentages were not invented to lie. They're a way of easily conveying the first two significant figures of an amount between 1 and 0. They're really not that hard; just divide by 100 to get back to regular numbers. Any confusion with something as simple and established as percentages (they're taught all throughout school, for christ's sake!) lies squarely with the confused. They were given all the chance they needed in order to learn about them, and there's plenty of opportunity now to relearn about them. The rest of us shouldn't be punished for their refusal to learn.
That's fine. What's also fine is:
OK, so the problem is with the phrases "increase by" and "increase to". Are you really suggesting that there's some kind of ambiguity between these two phrases? I still think the problem is with the people who don't actually read past the word "increase".
Citation? For the percentages too, preferably. Can you show me some evidence that these "linguistic effects" were explicitly invented, and for that purpose? Can you show me some evidence for percentages being invented to lie? Otherwise, I would appreciate if you would stop slandering perfectly valid mathematic and language techniques with blatant lies. Thank you.
It's not supposed to determine the value of the item. It's supposed to give you a car at a price you're willing to pay (or less), and avoid all that pricing bullshit. Sure, some cars will be prohibitively expensive when they don't technically need to be, but all that means is that the car companies/dealers need to work a little harder to get a sale from you next time.
And, once you choose your car for the price you're willing to pay, you may get an added discount, which would just be a bonus. See, this is what makes it a free market. It doesn't actually matter if the specific sales data is secret for some vendors. You have a choice whether or not to deal with them.
What you don't seem to be grasping is that there is no "right" or "wrong" answer. The free market is not just a simple value-optimising system, or at least, not in the way you're thinking. The way the seller treats you is a perfectly valid factor in your decision. My suggestion was just a way to reclaim the perfect information conditions you seem to value, and at the same time, get you a car! If this isn't so important to you, feel free to play the pricing game with the shysters, to obtain your "right" answer.
Hmm. How is it in their interests to inflate their prices in paper when dealing with "people like me"? Is there some benefit I can't see about making their cars appear less valuable to "people like me"? I highly doubt that these tricks are designed to make people revert to my system, because my system punishes those tricks very severely. With $2000 markups, they really can't compete with other cars of the same utility, so the net effect is that the person generally doesn't buy any such marked up car. So, I ask again, how is driving me away in their business interests?
Time is free in the same way as life is free, but I've never heard anyone seriously recommend wasting either of them.
As for the energy, well, the rabbit had to work its butt off to get that energy didn't it? For the record, I know how circular that argument is. Such is life.
Not at all. Consumers can easily take such tactics into account. One easy way is to simply take the inflated MSRP as the comparison price. Then, no amount of shady private deals can affect your decision.
But then, oh god, what if there are *two or more* large groups of people, each interpreting it differently? Then what? Are they all just correct? Does the number 400% convey the correct meaning, depending on who you're talking to? How do you convey information in such an environment?
I'll tell you how. You set a standard, and you stick to it. Moreover, you set the standard for everyone, so that people don't have to constantly keep track of where they're getting their information from. Elementary arithmetic is not the same as language; you can't just let it evolve in to its own dialects. You actually have to choose a standard and stick to it.
So, I suppose, every time you hear of a 3D movie/television/game, there's some confusion. You hold out hope that they are referring to real 3D, but every time, you are crushed and disappointed. False advertising only occurs when there is some kind of fraud being perpetrated, that is, when the advertisement exploits some confusion about what is being sold. If everyone knows what they're talking about (and, for practical purposes, everyone does), then it's not a fraudulent advertisement; it's a marketing term.
Besides, if you have a look at the link provided by the guy posting above you, you'll see that Sony refers everywhere to "Stereoscopic 3D", rather than "Real 3D", so I think you'll find that the advertising is far from fraudulent, even by your standards.
Could it be that it's at the discretion of owner of the platform? That fits both scenarios.