I in no way, shape, or form am insisting that you all fly around in propeller powered aeroplanes. I don't make generalizations like that.
I am merely pointing out that there is a geographical advantage in that region which is not shared in cross-continental American flight.
God forbid I should paint an entire nation of culturally distinct and intriguing people of terrorism. You, sir, seem to be intentionally misrepresenting me.
Sorry, but your post smacks of a lack of understanding of the value of central governance.
abolish police? courts? national defense? how about the water infrastructure? electrical systems? roads? hospitals? fire departments?
yeah. good luck with that.
Truth is, we need the government because it provides for the common needs in a way that satisfies the freeloader problem.
you think corruption is bad now? look at the post-communist russian states. Anarchy? you have no idea.
How would you like to be price gouged by the firefighters while your house burned down? or have ambulances refuse to take you until you agree to sign a contract [after all, we ARE saving your life, so i figure 50% of all income in perpetuity isn't too much to ask...]?
Is OUR government well formed and efficient? heck no. Abolish it? that would just make everything you are griping about even worse.
at least until you deal with ground depressurization and imploding tubes. trains tend to carry many more passengers than airplanes. tube crash, anyone?
what is the nominal cost of you taking a digital file you own and copying it on your computer? aside from the minimal electrical expenditure, which isn't fully related to the process itself (your computer idles and uses power), the actual monetary cost is almost 0.
how many planes where in the sky then as opposed to now?
a fractional amount.
still, mid-airs still occured, and made news when they did. when was the last unintentional collision you've heard of? the last 3?
the comparitive speed of space flight progress to modern day gigabauds is still fractional. Scientists knew that photonic communication was possible, they just didn't have the technology to process it. it is also much easier to get light and electrons to do what you want than to get a plane that travels mach 12 (still hasn't been reached, we recently got to what? 10.4?)
well, one potential answer could be the following:
distance.
Travel within the Eurasia/Mediterranean is cheap because they have much shorter distances to travel and can use much smaller planes than American cross-continental flights. Yes, jet fuel is more expensive, but prop jets don't use as much fuel as jumbos.
Thanks for the response.
what about communication lessons then? ways of dealing with stress and getting around personal filters to external inputs (to reach not what you HEARD, but what they actually SAID) and using that as a basis to form proper communication.
I think that, if properly communicated, these issues of educating children can be dealt with and problems prevented with a high level of efficacy.
we aren't preventing the expression, just the commercialization without proper dues (again, most art isn't created for commercial purposes; see above)
There is leeway in copyright to express ideas that are SIMILAR, one just cannot rip-off obviously from pre-existing content. if a person is discouraged enough that it prevents his parroting of of a creative source, eh. no real loss there. People are not infinitely creative, and a really good idea is worth nothing if the only expression it's originator can find is disallowed by IP law.
If it is disallowed by (properly applied) IP law, and there is NO OTHER POSSIBLE EXPRESSION of the idea than to copycat someone elses, then it clearly isn't creative to begin with. Find enough of a difference to make it a unique work.
That's the point. Copyright isn't about enabling the commercialization of art, it's about enabling and encouraging the blossoming of GOOD art, not just a recreation of someone elses.
if those companies can survive by charging lower fares, it must mean that it costs less for them in the long term. so they are charging what it costs.
in an open market, the production of goods will reach an equillibrium where suppliers will produce at their marginal costs. If a minority of people have an more efficient method of production, their marginal costs will be lower, enabling to make a profit. people with inefficient production will be forced to leave the market. that's just how it works naturally.
do you feel safer knowing that the likelihood of being in a mid-air collision is less than being struck by lightning or getting cancer or being killed in a car accident?
be a bit more greatful for government control in a public transportation medium (roads, rails, and air)
AGAIN
See:
YouTube, DeviantArt, Gutenberg Press, BLOGS
Movies/music, art/drawing, all forms of literary expression
The idea is that creators are creating because they know they'll get a steady stream of income from it.
The majority of people posting on these open public formats aren't looking or expecting to make ANY sort of income; they want to express themselves and would like public recognition - an opening to an audience or critiques for improvement. PROFIT IS NOT THE EXCLUSIVE REASON FOR CREATING ART.
Nor should it be - the market will automatically reward that which it values through the process of ecouraging GOOD ART to be produced.
The majority of art created nowadays is done without direct monetary incentive.
I was referring to IP, not copyright - by staunching the flow of creative ART flowing from a particular formula, you encourage it to pop up elsewhere. Imagine if one had wheels, one had treads, and one had a million tiny legs. It's just dumb.
not at all: is that not encouraging innovation in the market place? are you saying that the present hinge design for the car door is the ONLY ONE that could possibly work or make sense?
but again, I was referring to the creation of ART (the text of the novel), not the creation of GOODS (the physical book).
please don't compare communication progress to tranportation progress unless you really think we should be able to create teleporters by now.
It's really apples and oranges. Both fields are driven to higher levels of speed and efficiency by our overall levels of technology and computing. You can't compare travel to electronic communication - it's not a matter of priorities, it's a matter of physics; YOU try accelerating a massed body to a significant fraction of the speed of light to compare it to photons zipping down a fiber optic cable.
I don't believe that Mike would conflate air travel with the transport business, but it seems that the airplane industry would...
the point he was making was a comment on a worst-case scenario; IF the running of airplanes becomes economically infeasable and IF there is no sufficiently expedient alternative mode of transportation THEN the following industries could see a severe jolt from the sudden absence of airtravel.
On the other hand; are larger planes more fuel efficient per weight than smaller planes to keep in the air? If so, what would essentially happen is smaller businesses with smaller planes would get crowded out of the market (a phenomenon we are already seeing) and, if demand doesn't drop equivalently, the remaining businesses will see larger and larger planes (already happening) carrying more and more passengers (again, already happening - average flight is 90 something percent booked) until you have an oligopoly of a few large companies ferrying cargo and carrying passengers and a minimal amount of commercial planes in the air.
Perhaps air transport just becomes a natural monopoly/oligopoly under the appropriate circumstances; when the fixed costs (planes) becomes oppressively high in order to keep the marginal costs (fuel) efficient enough to make a profit. Are there any other examples of this? the train industry, perhaps?
www.wheeltug.com - go there for research; it's about a highly specialized electric motor with enough torque to taxi a 777 to the runway without the use of jet engines. It will save millions (possibly billions) of gallons of fuel each year that are spent by idling airplanes.
On the post: And What Would Happen If Commercial Aviation Was Simply Impossible To Do Profitably?
Re: Re: Re: Yawn....
I am merely pointing out that there is a geographical advantage in that region which is not shared in cross-continental American flight.
God forbid I should paint an entire nation of culturally distinct and intriguing people of terrorism. You, sir, seem to be intentionally misrepresenting me.
On the post: Do We Need a National CTO?
Re: Free Market Anarchism
abolish police? courts? national defense? how about the water infrastructure? electrical systems? roads? hospitals? fire departments?
yeah. good luck with that.
Truth is, we need the government because it provides for the common needs in a way that satisfies the freeloader problem.
you think corruption is bad now? look at the post-communist russian states. Anarchy? you have no idea.
How would you like to be price gouged by the firefighters while your house burned down? or have ambulances refuse to take you until you agree to sign a contract [after all, we ARE saving your life, so i figure 50% of all income in perpetuity isn't too much to ask...]?
Is OUR government well formed and efficient? heck no. Abolish it? that would just make everything you are griping about even worse.
On the post: And What Would Happen If Commercial Aviation Was Simply Impossible To Do Profitably?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Well, there's always advertising to "save" the day!
good god. that's a depressing idea...
On the post: And What Would Happen If Commercial Aviation Was Simply Impossible To Do Profitably?
Re: Re: Electric Trains.
it's a statistical inevitability that out of a group of x with a clearly defined and ordered ranking that someone will fall in position y within x
On the post: And What Would Happen If Commercial Aviation Was Simply Impossible To Do Profitably?
Re: Electric Trains.
On the post: And What Would Happen If Commercial Aviation Was Simply Impossible To Do Profitably?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: And What Would Happen If Commercial Aviation Was Simply Impossible To Do Profitably?
Re: Re: Re: Re:
giving away goods for free is only in the realm where reproductive costs are essentially 0.
On the post: And What Would Happen If Commercial Aviation Was Simply Impossible To Do Profitably?
Re: Re: Re: how do you kill an industry?
a fractional amount.
still, mid-airs still occured, and made news when they did. when was the last unintentional collision you've heard of? the last 3?
On the post: And What Would Happen If Commercial Aviation Was Simply Impossible To Do Profitably?
Re: Re: Re: The price of peace
On the post: And What Would Happen If Commercial Aviation Was Simply Impossible To Do Profitably?
Re: Yawn....
distance.
Travel within the Eurasia/Mediterranean is cheap because they have much shorter distances to travel and can use much smaller planes than American cross-continental flights. Yes, jet fuel is more expensive, but prop jets don't use as much fuel as jumbos.
On the post: Parents Are Never Going To Be Able To Monitor All Kids Online Activities
Re: Re: Re: Teach the Children Values
what about communication lessons then? ways of dealing with stress and getting around personal filters to external inputs (to reach not what you HEARD, but what they actually SAID) and using that as a basis to form proper communication.
I think that, if properly communicated, these issues of educating children can be dealt with and problems prevented with a high level of efficacy.
On the post: Parents Are Never Going To Be Able To Monitor All Kids Online Activities
Re: Re: Re: Teach the Children Values
I knew I could count on you for some humor today.
On the post: Free Doesn't Mean Unpaid
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Bookselling movies?
There is leeway in copyright to express ideas that are SIMILAR, one just cannot rip-off obviously from pre-existing content. if a person is discouraged enough that it prevents his parroting of of a creative source, eh. no real loss there.
People are not infinitely creative, and a really good idea is worth nothing if the only expression it's originator can find is disallowed by IP law.
If it is disallowed by (properly applied) IP law, and there is NO OTHER POSSIBLE EXPRESSION of the idea than to copycat someone elses, then it clearly isn't creative to begin with. Find enough of a difference to make it a unique work.
That's the point. Copyright isn't about enabling the commercialization of art, it's about enabling and encouraging the blossoming of GOOD art, not just a recreation of someone elses.
On the post: And What Would Happen If Commercial Aviation Was Simply Impossible To Do Profitably?
Re: Give up!!
in an open market, the production of goods will reach an equillibrium where suppliers will produce at their marginal costs. If a minority of people have an more efficient method of production, their marginal costs will be lower, enabling to make a profit. people with inefficient production will be forced to leave the market. that's just how it works naturally.
On the post: And What Would Happen If Commercial Aviation Was Simply Impossible To Do Profitably?
Re: how do you kill an industry?
be a bit more greatful for government control in a public transportation medium (roads, rails, and air)
On the post: Parents Are Never Going To Be Able To Monitor All Kids Online Activities
Re: Teach the Children Values
[I'm talking to you, angry dude. jk]
Anyone here think that parenting lessons should be a requirement in highschool or college curriculae?
On the post: Free Doesn't Mean Unpaid
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Bookselling movies?
See:
YouTube, DeviantArt, Gutenberg Press, BLOGS
Movies/music, art/drawing, all forms of literary expression
The idea is that creators are creating because they know they'll get a steady stream of income from it.
The majority of people posting on these open public formats aren't looking or expecting to make ANY sort of income; they want to express themselves and would like public recognition - an opening to an audience or critiques for improvement. PROFIT IS NOT THE EXCLUSIVE REASON FOR CREATING ART.
Nor should it be - the market will automatically reward that which it values through the process of ecouraging GOOD ART to be produced.
The majority of art created nowadays is done without direct monetary incentive.
On the post: Free Doesn't Mean Unpaid
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Bookselling movies?
Imagine if one had wheels, one had treads, and one had a million tiny legs. It's just dumb.
not at all: is that not encouraging innovation in the market place? are you saying that the present hinge design for the car door is the ONLY ONE that could possibly work or make sense?
but again, I was referring to the creation of ART (the text of the novel), not the creation of GOODS (the physical book).
On the post: And What Would Happen If Commercial Aviation Was Simply Impossible To Do Profitably?
Re: The price of peace
It's really apples and oranges. Both fields are driven to higher levels of speed and efficiency by our overall levels of technology and computing. You can't compare travel to electronic communication - it's not a matter of priorities, it's a matter of physics; YOU try accelerating a massed body to a significant fraction of the speed of light to compare it to photons zipping down a fiber optic cable.
On the post: And What Would Happen If Commercial Aviation Was Simply Impossible To Do Profitably?
Re: Marketing Myopia
the point he was making was a comment on a worst-case scenario; IF the running of airplanes becomes economically infeasable and IF there is no sufficiently expedient alternative mode of transportation THEN the following industries could see a severe jolt from the sudden absence of airtravel.
On the other hand; are larger planes more fuel efficient per weight than smaller planes to keep in the air? If so, what would essentially happen is smaller businesses with smaller planes would get crowded out of the market (a phenomenon we are already seeing) and, if demand doesn't drop equivalently, the remaining businesses will see larger and larger planes (already happening) carrying more and more passengers (again, already happening - average flight is 90 something percent booked) until you have an oligopoly of a few large companies ferrying cargo and carrying passengers and a minimal amount of commercial planes in the air.
Perhaps air transport just becomes a natural monopoly/oligopoly under the appropriate circumstances; when the fixed costs (planes) becomes oppressively high in order to keep the marginal costs (fuel) efficient enough to make a profit. Are there any other examples of this? the train industry, perhaps?
www.wheeltug.com - go there for research; it's about a highly specialized electric motor with enough torque to taxi a 777 to the runway without the use of jet engines. It will save millions (possibly billions) of gallons of fuel each year that are spent by idling airplanes.
Next >>