is starting to get a little annoying. What would be the cost to mine and return an oz of gold from an asteroid?
I have no idea, but my hunch is, a lot. Even after they've been doing it for 20 years.
Somehow I'm not too worried about it blowing the bottom off the gold market. Of course I don't own any gold, but even if I did I wouldn't be too worried about it.
Then again, maybe they'll bring it back 1000 tons at a time. And I'd be able to get that solid gold toilet.
I don't understand this idea that because something is 'hard' (like saying no) or because you really need a job, there needs to be a law protecting you.
Total nonsense. You need to protect yourself. Period.
If you really want the job, then you are making a judgement call that your private stuff is a decent trade for employment. And many people might make that decision happily. In that case, good for them.
I would tell them, 'sorry, can't do that.' And if they didn't hire me because of it, then that's fine - I don't want to work there anyway. No one owes me a job on my own terms.
I'm not saying companies that pull this crap are scummy - they obviously are.
I have a feeling Amazon's point of view is along the lines of "If we let this guy get money, it will encourage people to game the system"
Also, "If he sues we can bog him down in legal crap for 10 years"
Amazon should just see what his rate of sales had been before and offer him some amount based what expected sales would have been during that time. Plus a little.
It's not companies regulating themselves that people want.
It's the Markets (i.e. people, who comprise the markets) that should be regulating the companies.
If you notice, it's indeed the government that's being used against the customer in this case (e.g. laws in place that punish him for no reason)
In reality, the company should be completely liable for any and all bad things that happen from this horrible 'security'. No limits. That is how a market regulates itself - not by passing laws, but punishing a company if they are shitty, instead of using laws to shield themselves.
A business guy who is way more involved with these things said it "seemed almost certain" from the turn of events that the only reason Netflix would have for splitting it's business in half was to sell it - specifically to Amazon.
Due to some bumbling, stock price fell to half and the buyer backed out.
Whether true or not, it's an interesting explanation, to be sure.
Regardless, they have a crap-load of competition on the horizon, so they better figure out something fast.
what you are failing to understand is that there is lots and lots of good content that doesn't come from "big content"
Not to mention the cost of producing content has dropped dramatically over the last decade - just look at how good some homemade youtube videos are.
This is one case where the competition is crazy, and there are insane numbers of competitors. Based on that alone, The current high price model can't last forever. All they can do is prolong it a few years, but eventually it will come crashing down.
Increased numbers of cord cutters will facilitate this process. As the current young generation becomes adults, they will know instinctively how overpriced some of the content costs them. The current models will not survive that.
I think the problem with the Disney movies is the standard 'Disney Vault' bullshit - they pull movies out for 10 years or more at a time, and don't allow sales OR rentals of any of them. Sometimes they let them go onto tv...
He's referring to the fact that under US law, a corporation is considered a 'person' (with some exceptions)
(from wiki)
1 U.S.C. §1 (United States Code) which states:
In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, unless the context indicates otherwise-- the words "person" and "whoever" include corporations, companies, associations, firms, partnerships, societies, and joint stock companies, as well as individuals;
I've always kinda wondered about this, so the article was enlightening. However, to me the important caveat is the final paragraph of the analysis:
So when it comes to Buffett's statement, there are two categories: the rich and the really rich. And the evidence tends to point to the conclusion that the really rich pay less in taxes as a percentage of income then their merely well-to-do counterparts -- if their income comes primarily from investments. Overall, we rate Buffett's statement True.
Which means he's still paying a higher percentage than me.
The gold thing
is starting to get a little annoying. What would be the cost to mine and return an oz of gold from an asteroid?
I have no idea, but my hunch is, a lot. Even after they've been doing it for 20 years.
Somehow I'm not too worried about it blowing the bottom off the gold market. Of course I don't own any gold, but even if I did I wouldn't be too worried about it.
Then again, maybe they'll bring it back 1000 tons at a time. And I'd be able to get that solid gold toilet.
Either way, the future looks cool.
Re: It's absurd.
'"Just walk away?" That's not always an option for some people'
Why not? No seriously, why not?
There's no way you can honestly show me how someone going in for an interview HAS to take the job if they are offered it.
It may suck if they don't. It may make their life harder, having to look for a new one. But this idea that it's "not an option" is bullshit.
Re: Employers abusing current events
This.
I don't understand this idea that because something is 'hard' (like saying no) or because you really need a job, there needs to be a law protecting you.
Total nonsense. You need to protect yourself. Period.
If you really want the job, then you are making a judgement call that your private stuff is a decent trade for employment. And many people might make that decision happily. In that case, good for them.
I would tell them, 'sorry, can't do that.' And if they didn't hire me because of it, then that's fine - I don't want to work there anyway. No one owes me a job on my own terms.
I'm not saying companies that pull this crap are scummy - they obviously are.
Re:
You have it basically right.
However, as the basic premise can take many forms, I feel there's plenty of value in calling attention to the different forms.
The more times one is exposed to all the variations in an idea, the easier it is to spot them on one's own.
Re:
Maybe it's just me, but these preemptive-troll posts are starting to feel like a replacement for 'First!!!11!'
Re: Re: Re: Good to see
For me, it's a service.
It's the service of removing the DRM and making it work with a new OS so I don't have to think about anything other than playing.
That is worth $3, easy.
How hard is it to fool their algorithm?
I have a feeling Amazon's point of view is along the lines of "If we let this guy get money, it will encourage people to game the system"
Also, "If he sues we can bog him down in legal crap for 10 years"
Amazon should just see what his rate of sales had been before and offer him some amount based what expected sales would have been during that time. Plus a little.
Re:
"Remember, those are Canadian Dollars, and I believe 10 Canadian Bucks equals US$2.75"
I remember when this was funny.
I see something suspicious...
...there's this group of guys with guns waving people down and going through their cars.
Who can I report that to?
Re:
How it works:
You: I don't consent to your search!
Them: Only people who have something to hide say that! Now we have probable cause!
Although in court they just say you were "acting suspicious"
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It's not companies regulating themselves that people want.
It's the Markets (i.e. people, who comprise the markets) that should be regulating the companies.
If you notice, it's indeed the government that's being used against the customer in this case (e.g. laws in place that punish him for no reason)
In reality, the company should be completely liable for any and all bad things that happen from this horrible 'security'. No limits. That is how a market regulates itself - not by passing laws, but punishing a company if they are shitty, instead of using laws to shield themselves.
Re: Re: Re: Who owns mailboxes?
Out here in the rural areas, newspapers will put up a small box under the mailbox so you can have your newspaper delivered in a dry place.
I don't see why you couldn't put up a UPS box, but who knows - maybe the papers have to pay a licensing fee or some other such nonsense.
I'd like to see someone put up a no-mail box, and then cause a stink when the usps puts somethin in it..
buyout fall-through?
A business guy who is way more involved with these things said it "seemed almost certain" from the turn of events that the only reason Netflix would have for splitting it's business in half was to sell it - specifically to Amazon.
Due to some bumbling, stock price fell to half and the buyer backed out.
Whether true or not, it's an interesting explanation, to be sure.
Regardless, they have a crap-load of competition on the horizon, so they better figure out something fast.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
what you are failing to understand is that there is lots and lots of good content that doesn't come from "big content"
Not to mention the cost of producing content has dropped dramatically over the last decade - just look at how good some homemade youtube videos are.
This is one case where the competition is crazy, and there are insane numbers of competitors. Based on that alone, The current high price model can't last forever. All they can do is prolong it a few years, but eventually it will come crashing down.
Increased numbers of cord cutters will facilitate this process. As the current young generation becomes adults, they will know instinctively how overpriced some of the content costs them. The current models will not survive that.
Re: maybe they read the same small-town paper
Thanks for reminding me of this - just awesome.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZyQjr1YL0zg
Re: Re: Re: Re: Disingenuous
I think the problem with the Disney movies is the standard 'Disney Vault' bullshit - they pull movies out for 10 years or more at a time, and don't allow sales OR rentals of any of them. Sometimes they let them go onto tv...
Not piracy
Just a note that in this case, it's not exactly 'piracy' but rather as Mike said, another avenue for distribution.
But of course, if you just replace 'piracy' with 'free copies' your post is still perfectly valid.
Re:
A perfect example of 'unintended consequences' and why the laws in this country are so screwed up -
They allowed the pharm companies to jack up prices above market value; so of course people found a way to circumvent it.
Now we name that a 'loophole' so we can demonize it, then create a few more laws to 'close' it.
Rinse, repeat.
Re: Re: Drug Companies
He's referring to the fact that under US law, a corporation is considered a 'person' (with some exceptions)
(from wiki)
1 U.S.C. §1 (United States Code) which states:
In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, unless the context indicates otherwise-- the words "person" and "whoever" include corporations, companies, associations, firms, partnerships, societies, and joint stock companies, as well as individuals;
On the Buffett thing...
I've always kinda wondered about this, so the article was enlightening. However, to me the important caveat is the final paragraph of the analysis:
Which means he's still paying a higher percentage than me.