How can you tell if it's more efficient as a monopoly than as a toll network when you remove the very thing that determines efficiency i.e. the price?
I get that stopping every few klicks or tens of klicks is a timewaster and inefficient but nowadays we have all this wonderful wireless technology and strong encryption so tolls are no longer any way near as inefficient as they were.
Do you have any actual data or is it just conjecture?
No, not through size alone it takes more than that. But I'm not ruling out the existance of a point where the increased bureaucracy and inefficiencies inevitably leads to evil in spite of good ownership.
That would solve the problem. It would probably also create much bigger problems. Something should be done but what I cannot tell you.
I did and I see standard oil continually lowering their prices as costs fell to keep newcomers out of the business. I see alcoa doing the same. The same goes for some of the "robber baron" railway tycoons.
Have you actually looked at history or did you only look at the parts supporting your preconceptions?
As for companies "turning evil" when above a certain size I'm convinced it's due to the shortsightedness that comes when the original owners relinquish or otherwise are no longer in control. Then the only check on shortsighted behaviour are the shareholders and they tend not to hold accountable for errors nor very interested in the long term.
The only decently behaving (giving the customers what they want) large companies seem to be the ones still under the original owners control. Examples are: google, walmart and maybe IKEA. There are probably better examples and you'll probably disagree with walmart.
No, I don't find it troublesome that he spends his cash they way he sees fit. What I do find troublesome is the amount of hypocrisy it takes for you to complain about Bezos spending while still spending money on an internet connection instead of saving some starving children with that money instead.
You see, if you come by money or goods voluntarily you are free to spend it the way you see fit. You should afford the others the same freedom.
Ever heard of battlefield 2? I believe that was one of if not the first game with "persistent levelling". Not to the same degree as COD or the later Bad Company but there were a few years between the titles.
Yeah but the difference is that the soviets did follow Marx. What California did was price fixing which is not following Friedman, Rand or whatever name fits.
When communists claim that soviet wasn't communist they are either liars or using equivocation. When libertarians claim that a market isn't free enough it is usually true. And in the case of deregulation in California it's so bleeding obvious you'd have to purposely ignore such small regulations as fixing the fucking price.
The question is if the other neighboring monopolies are getting subsidies from taxes. If they are they're not cheaper you're just paying differently for it.
You stuff food in your face, I stuff food in my face, ad nauseam. That isn't a meal, that's boring. You put the penis all the way in, you take the penis most of the way out, ad nauseam. That isn't fun that's boring. You say things, I say things, ad nauseam. That isn't fun that's boring. You abuse commas, I abuse commas, ad nauseam. That isn't fun, that's boring.
You have a point but your argument or whatever you want to call it sucks.
Poor people put less of a premium on a good environment than rich people do.
There are countless examples in western countries of toxic waste dumping. Much of it about as informed as what's going on in China. It would appear that pollution is a stepping stone to wealth.
Growth is when something is better than it was minus maintenance. When you say you can't grow the economy forever you are right in a sense (sun ending, heat death of the universe etc.) but wrong in the sense that you actually mean. Further growth is only impossible when everything and I mean everything is exactly like everyone wants it. Then your silly talk about further growth being impossible might be wroth listening to. As it is you should probably go suck a tailpipe as you're not good for much else.
Also, growth in monetary terms must be higher than inflation otherwise your company is losing. Being static is fine but it still requires a monetary growth equal to inflation.,
All it takes for almost any women to put almost any man in lockup for several days is their word. That is not reasonable and it is not something to defend.
What does the floating barrel have to do with accuracy during movement? Either I've missed something fundamental or you have. The point of a floating barrel is that there is nothing affected by temperature or humidity touching the barrel along its length. It's still attached to the receiver (?) and it's a fricking thick walled metal pipe that doesn't care about a few G's this way or that way. At least not in comparison to the general innacuracy anyone would have when on the run/move.
When I was about six years old I upended a pot of boiling water on my woolen clad foot. All I got was a second degree burn on my big toe. Please tell me how the fuck an adult gets third degree burns from tea.
What about me who appreciates both a milkshake an my own special concoction of campari, angostura bitter and tonic water but still dislikes beer. Hell, I can drinl angostura neat.
ATM though I've only been drinking semi cheap polish vodka which is suprisingly tasty. Called Zubrowka if anyone is interested. I might be reaching my limits though as I'm responding to this.
That's just because we're in the infancy of social networking sites or more generally in the infancy of the internet itself. At some point (which we may or may not have reached) things will stabilize and we'll see a single or a few large players that will dominate for a long time period. Compare this to any new industry, be it automobile or even personal computers. They all start out with insane diversity, shrink and stabilize to a few large players which usually gets complacent and/or makes mistakes and get taken to the cleaners by some upcoming company which will then be the new large player until they screw up.
Slashdot Mirror
How can you tell if it's more efficient as a monopoly than as a toll network when you remove the very thing that determines efficiency i.e. the price?
I get that stopping every few klicks or tens of klicks is a timewaster and inefficient but nowadays we have all this wonderful wireless technology and strong encryption so tolls are no longer any way near as inefficient as they were.
Do you have any actual data or is it just conjecture?
I can't tell if this is meant sincerely or as satire.
No, not through size alone it takes more than that. But I'm not ruling out the existance of a point where the increased bureaucracy and inefficiencies inevitably leads to evil in spite of good ownership.
That would solve the problem. It would probably also create much bigger problems. Something should be done but what I cannot tell you.
I did and I see standard oil continually lowering their prices as costs fell to keep newcomers out of the business. I see alcoa doing the same. The same goes for some of the "robber baron" railway tycoons.
Have you actually looked at history or did you only look at the parts supporting your preconceptions?
As for companies "turning evil" when above a certain size I'm convinced it's due to the shortsightedness that comes when the original owners relinquish or otherwise are no longer in control. Then the only check on shortsighted behaviour are the shareholders and they tend not to hold accountable for errors nor very interested in the long term.
The only decently behaving (giving the customers what they want) large companies seem to be the ones still under the original owners control. Examples are: google, walmart and maybe IKEA. There are probably better examples and you'll probably disagree with walmart.
No, I don't find it troublesome that he spends his cash they way he sees fit. What I do find troublesome is the amount of hypocrisy it takes for you to complain about Bezos spending while still spending money on an internet connection instead of saving some starving children with that money instead.
You see, if you come by money or goods voluntarily you are free to spend it the way you see fit. You should afford the others the same freedom.
Condescending, moi?
OK, I understand and agree.
Thank you for the clarification!
That's the second reading fail I made in a single day. I need to stop reading things.
But I still don't get how you can call what COD did first steps if you're aware of BF2.
Indeed he does....
I somehow substituted Lenin with Putin in my mind. My bad.
Useful idiots is an old KGB or general soviet/russian intelligence expression.
I came across the term in spy novels over ten years ago.
Ever heard of battlefield 2? I believe that was one of if not the first game with "persistent levelling". Not to the same degree as COD or the later Bad Company but there were a few years between the titles.
Yeah but the difference is that the soviets did follow Marx. What California did was price fixing which is not following Friedman, Rand or whatever name fits.
When communists claim that soviet wasn't communist they are either liars or using equivocation. When libertarians claim that a market isn't free enough it is usually true. And in the case of deregulation in California it's so bleeding obvious you'd have to purposely ignore such small regulations as fixing the fucking price.
The question is if the other neighboring monopolies are getting subsidies from taxes. If they are they're not cheaper you're just paying differently for it.
Nice ad hominem, dickface.
That's a great argument you've got there.
You stuff food in your face, I stuff food in my face, ad nauseam. That isn't a meal, that's boring.
You put the penis all the way in, you take the penis most of the way out, ad nauseam. That isn't fun that's boring.
You say things, I say things, ad nauseam. That isn't fun that's boring.
You abuse commas, I abuse commas, ad nauseam. That isn't fun, that's boring.
You have a point but your argument or whatever you want to call it sucks.
Poor people put less of a premium on a good environment than rich people do.
There are countless examples in western countries of toxic waste dumping. Much of it about as informed as what's going on in China. It would appear that pollution is a stepping stone to wealth.
American examples:
Valley of the drums
Love Canal
Alkali lake chemical waste dump
Iron Mountain Mine
I did as soon as I heard it proposed that mere possession of child porn would be made illegal.
It's not rocket surgery, you know.
Growth is when something is better than it was minus maintenance. When you say you can't grow the economy forever you are right in a sense (sun ending, heat death of the universe etc.) but wrong in the sense that you actually mean. Further growth is only impossible when everything and I mean everything is exactly like everyone wants it. Then your silly talk about further growth being impossible might be wroth listening to. As it is you should probably go suck a tailpipe as you're not good for much else.
Also, growth in monetary terms must be higher than inflation otherwise your company is losing. Being static is fine but it still requires a monetary growth equal to inflation.,
Why are you defending the "justice" system?
All it takes for almost any women to put almost any man in lockup for several days is their word. That is not reasonable and it is not something to defend.
What does the floating barrel have to do with accuracy during movement? Either I've missed something fundamental or you have. The point of a floating barrel is that there is nothing affected by temperature or humidity touching the barrel along its length. It's still attached to the receiver (?) and it's a fricking thick walled metal pipe that doesn't care about a few G's this way or that way. At least not in comparison to the general innacuracy anyone would have when on the run/move.
You fucking retard. Dioxin was a contaminant of agent orange it was not the actual agent.
What you say is mostly true but it's also clear that most who claim to be socialists have no idea what socialism means.
When I was about six years old I upended a pot of boiling water on my woolen clad foot. All I got was a second degree burn on my big toe. Please tell me how the fuck an adult gets third degree burns from tea.
What about me who appreciates both a milkshake an my own special concoction of campari, angostura bitter and tonic water but still dislikes beer. Hell, I can drinl angostura neat.
ATM though I've only been drinking semi cheap polish vodka which is suprisingly tasty. Called Zubrowka if anyone is interested. I might be reaching my limits though as I'm responding to this.
That's just because we're in the infancy of social networking sites or more generally in the infancy of the internet itself. At some point (which we may or may not have reached) things will stabilize and we'll see a single or a few large players that will dominate for a long time period. Compare this to any new industry, be it automobile or even personal computers. They all start out with insane diversity, shrink and stabilize to a few large players which usually gets complacent and/or makes mistakes and get taken to the cleaners by some upcoming company which will then be the new large player until they screw up.
You deserve a response but I'm tired as hell ATM and that mass of text requires me to step out of the browser.
I'll respond later tonight or tomorrow.