Your cause would be much advanced if you made arguments that didn't involve repeating the same points over and over again.
Anyway - here's another piece of basic economics:
"In all walks of life, a basic rule of rational economic decision making is: do something only if the marginal utility you get from it exceeds the marginal cost of doing it."
Note the 'exceeds'. Marginal revenue ignores fixed costs and any industry that does that doesn't have long to live.
Prices may fall *towards* marginal costs - after a while several members of the market will go bankrupt it will no longer be perfectly competitive (the rule is only true for perfectly competitive markets) and the prices will go back up.
As with the restaurant example, quoting your rule as an absolute is easy to debunk.
"The price of a product in a competitive market falls to the marginal cost of creating and delivering one more unit. "
There are lots of markets where this just doesn't work though. Take restaurants as the prime example - where the marginal cost is very low but the fixed costs are very high. Even in the presence of strong competition restaurants can't afford for prices to fall *anywhere near* marginal costs.
Of course they try to avoid competing solely on price, but price competition is often a strong factor - and prices still don't get near to the marginal cost. It just doesn't make economic sense (neither in theory nor in practise).
Well, he was a teacher trying to show a movie over projector. If there was an audience then it was a public showing and unless he had the appropriate license probably *not* a lawful showing. :-)
The OLPC hardware is very definitely not commodity hardware that can just be replaced with another brand designed for western consumers.
It is specifically designed for the target market:
* Ultra low-power and designed to be recharged from unstable power sources
* A screen that can be viewed in direct sunlight and can be used as an 'e-book' drawing virtually no power
* Mesh networking for sharing an internet connection
* Durable and easy to repair
These (which are only the ones I know about) are largely features that are uninteresting to manufacturers wanting to sell to western consumers.
Although I disagree with various aspects of how Negroponte has led the project (not allowing small trials and not properly managing the sugar project) it does *seem* that some of the competitors are more interested in killing the OLPC project by selling unsuitable hardware at a loss than genuinely serving the 'market' that the OLPC is targetting.
More competition won't drive down the price of the OLPC, that isn't how the market works.
That's one of the mechanisms. I recently bought a large LCD TV (which I use as a computer monitor). I regularly get the threatening letters - but I've still never had one of the promised visits.
Yes detector vans are real, they can detect the RF signals used to decode the TV signals radiated back through the arial. This doesn't work if you use cable (no arial).
They can tell if it is unlicensed because they know who has paid the license fee...
Some people have odd ideas about the law on licenses (a license for an oscilloscope!!?!?!?). You only need a license if you watch (receive) broadcast television (even if you only watch ITV or Sky you need to pay the license).
If you don't watch TV then you don't have to pay the license. If you have a TV capable of receiving broadcast signals and it is connected to an arial then you will have a hard time proving you don't watch TV...
License inspectors don't have the authority to come into your home unless they have a court order.
Oh - and the spycatcher bloke was bullshitting when he claimed to have invented the technology. It's pretty basic electronics.
The McAfee warning is likely to discourage people from visiting *at all* and if the problem has gone away and McAfee won't fix the warning - what do you suggest they do?
On the face of it it would seem to be defamatory - assuming they have attempted to work with McAfee first (big assumption).
The encryption used to store it is irrelevant - if you are verifying a password with another human that human needs to be able to access it in an unencrypted form. How it is stored is irrelevant if this particular type of weak verification is based on a shared secret.
It was probably his verbal password that this is referring to. When speaking to banks on the phone (in the UK) you use a verbal password that you set when you open the account. The person you are speaking to needs to know the password in order to verify it - it is not part of an automated system...
Libel laws?
The gagging order has just been lifted by the way.
What does this have to do with libel laws? (Absolutely nothing as far as I can tell...)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/oct/13/guardian-gagged-parliamentary-question
Re: Re:
"Are you seriously trying to claim that restaurants defy basic economics?"
No just pointing out your [deliberate] misunderstanding of the point. Calling it 'basic economics' doesn't make your misuse of it any more correct.
Your cause would be much advanced if you made arguments that didn't involve repeating the same points over and over again.
Anyway - here's another piece of basic economics:
"In all walks of life, a basic rule of rational economic decision making is: do something only if the marginal utility you get from it exceeds the marginal cost of doing it."
Note the 'exceeds'. Marginal revenue ignores fixed costs and any industry that does that doesn't have long to live.
Prices may fall *towards* marginal costs - after a while several members of the market will go bankrupt it will no longer be perfectly competitive (the rule is only true for perfectly competitive markets) and the prices will go back up.
As with the restaurant example, quoting your rule as an absolute is easy to debunk.
Marginal cost - really?
"The price of a product in a competitive market falls to the marginal cost of creating and delivering one more unit. "
There are lots of markets where this just doesn't work though. Take restaurants as the prime example - where the marginal cost is very low but the fixed costs are very high. Even in the presence of strong competition restaurants can't afford for prices to fall *anywhere near* marginal costs.
Of course they try to avoid competing solely on price, but price competition is often a strong factor - and prices still don't get near to the marginal cost. It just doesn't make economic sense (neither in theory nor in practise).
Block access to the UK?
For those suggesting that google just block access to the UK:
First off if they are still making money then they just won't do that.
Secondly the tax would be on those buying advertising not those being advertised to. They could stop selling advertising in the UK - but see above...
Online companies prima-facie exempt from tax?
I don't see why companies that make money online should prima-facie be exempt from tax?
Arguing that taxing new and growing business areas is a bad idea is one argument - but how new is online advertising?
Google will only pass the cost of the tax onto customers anyway.
On the nail...
I quite agree. It gets more ridiculous when buying an electronic copy of a book costs more than the paper version - pure absurdity.
But virtual goods should also be free right?
But wouldn't you also argue that as the marginal cost of the virtual goods is zero they should also be giving those away? ;-)
Legal and legitimate
Well, he was a teacher trying to show a movie over projector. If there was an audience then it was a public showing and unless he had the appropriate license probably *not* a lawful showing. :-)
Not commodity hardware
The OLPC hardware is very definitely not commodity hardware that can just be replaced with another brand designed for western consumers.
It is specifically designed for the target market:
* Ultra low-power and designed to be recharged from unstable power sources
* A screen that can be viewed in direct sunlight and can be used as an 'e-book' drawing virtually no power
* Mesh networking for sharing an internet connection
* Durable and easy to repair
These (which are only the ones I know about) are largely features that are uninteresting to manufacturers wanting to sell to western consumers.
Although I disagree with various aspects of how Negroponte has led the project (not allowing small trials and not properly managing the sugar project) it does *seem* that some of the competitors are more interested in killing the OLPC project by selling unsuitable hardware at a loss than genuinely serving the 'market' that the OLPC is targetting.
More competition won't drive down the price of the OLPC, that isn't how the market works.
Re: Occam's razor...
They know who is licensed and who isn't - so they only need to send the vans to specific locations. They have no need to patrol the whole country.
Re: It's done at the point you buy the TV
That's one of the mechanisms. I recently bought a large LCD TV (which I use as a computer monitor). I regularly get the threatening letters - but I've still never had one of the promised visits.
Re: Re: Re: TV detector vans don't exist
They send threatening and demanding letters to any address without a license.
The detector vans are completely unrelated to this. Detector vans are used to gather evidence before getting a court order.
You can write to the BBC and withdraw their right to even come and knock on your door. If you do this they will leave you alone for two years.
I don't have a license (we have a TV to watch DVDs but no arial). They regularly send me letters, but no-one has ever turned up at the house.
Re: Re: Re: Re: TV detector vans don't exist
The signal is radiated back out by the arial. Not hard to detect. Harder if you receive via satellite or cable of course.
Detector Vans and Licenses
Yes detector vans are real, they can detect the RF signals used to decode the TV signals radiated back through the arial. This doesn't work if you use cable (no arial).
They can tell if it is unlicensed because they know who has paid the license fee...
Some people have odd ideas about the law on licenses (a license for an oscilloscope!!?!?!?). You only need a license if you watch (receive) broadcast television (even if you only watch ITV or Sky you need to pay the license).
If you don't watch TV then you don't have to pay the license. If you have a TV capable of receiving broadcast signals and it is connected to an arial then you will have a hard time proving you don't watch TV...
License inspectors don't have the authority to come into your home unless they have a court order.
Oh - and the spycatcher bloke was bullshitting when he claimed to have invented the technology. It's pretty basic electronics.
Rapidshare is no angel
The site really is a haven for pirate and dubious material. It is fairly apparent that they *aren't* doing enough.
No but...
The McAfee warning is likely to discourage people from visiting *at all* and if the problem has gone away and McAfee won't fix the warning - what do you suggest they do?
On the face of it it would seem to be defamatory - assuming they have attempted to work with McAfee first (big assumption).
Re: Verbal verification
The encryption used to store it is irrelevant - if you are verifying a password with another human that human needs to be able to access it in an unencrypted form. How it is stored is irrelevant if this particular type of weak verification is based on a shared secret.
Password
It was probably his verbal password that this is referring to. When speaking to banks on the phone (in the UK) you use a verbal password that you set when you open the account. The person you are speaking to needs to know the password in order to verify it - it is not part of an automated system...
Uhm....
How can they be used to send email *and* never connected to the internet?