srob030869
Feb 12, 07:46 AM
This is Hong Kong.
Judging from this picture, looks like a fancy restaurant in a hotel in the Tsim Tsa Tsui district.
Maybe from The Inter-Continental or the Renaissance Hotels, beside the Avenue of Stars, going from the direction of the image. Mine are not so good, cheap digicam :mad: on a rainy + cloudy November night
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5095/5438734856_d8924d4065_b.jpg
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4098/5438736864_dd2173f392_b.jpg
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5211/5438735950_6011fb8625_b.jpg
Judging from this picture, looks like a fancy restaurant in a hotel in the Tsim Tsa Tsui district.
Maybe from The Inter-Continental or the Renaissance Hotels, beside the Avenue of Stars, going from the direction of the image. Mine are not so good, cheap digicam :mad: on a rainy + cloudy November night
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5095/5438734856_d8924d4065_b.jpg
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4098/5438736864_dd2173f392_b.jpg
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5211/5438735950_6011fb8625_b.jpg
res1233
Apr 4, 10:55 PM
Well, this is macrumors and i try to stay away from economic theories, but you asked for it, so here we go:
Monopolies cause "allocative deadweight loss" (although its main argument applies towards state-owned enterprises)
What does that mean?
In a competitive market, producers dont have the freedom to set a price because the rival can always undercut them until the point where lowering the price will cause in a loss.
BUT the monopolist firm can decide the price it charges by varying the quantity it produces, so it will produce only up to the quantity where its profit is maximized. UNDER NORMAL CIRCUMSTANCES, the level of output is lower than the socially optimal one, which is where the max price a consumer is willing to pay is the same as the minimum price that the producer requires in order not to lose money.
When the amount produced is LESS than the socially optimal quantity, it means not serving some consumers who are perfectly willing to pay MORE than the minimum price that the producer requires but who are unwilling to bear the price at which the monopoly firm can max its profit. The unfulfilled desire of those neglected consumers is the social cost of monopoly.
So basically, monopolies will start losing more money when they start raising the price since consumers will either 1) not be able to access such services (since they will only make the MIN amount for MAX price and by using calculus, you would rather spend a little more in the amount produced and make a little less profit rather than having an EXACT amount although you would make the best profit IF you sold ALL items) or 2) consumers will just stop using it since cell phone devices are not a NECESSITY but instead a WANT. do you think you will pay whatever cellphone company if the price exceeds a certain comfort zone in your income bracket? you wont.
Furthermore, I will take it one more step. Monopolies can be good. If you look at the Mexican carrier, Telcel. The year Telcel was monopolized by Carlos Slim (riches man in the world now) coverage in Mexico grew more than it did in the hands of the state. According to the "monopoly=bad" argument, service in Mexico should have dropped in every other city that is not important in Mexico's economy while service should have exploded in cities such as Mexico City and Puebla. No, it exploded in the main cities while it also exploded with the whole country
In conclusion, monopolies are only dangerous IF the monopoly is a necessity based. i.e. lets say one man owned the whole united states food supply. Then yes, monopolies would be the worst. But not cell phone companies, cmon if monopolies were SOO good for the company why would Bell even break up his own company? just for the lulz? I dont think so. Because the government told him so? I certainly dont believe it since Bell probably would have had the power to lobby his way out and in case nothing worked he couldve just brought it up to the Supreme Court.
Anyways, enough with the economics jargon. Enjoy your economics class :P
I like you.
Monopolies cause "allocative deadweight loss" (although its main argument applies towards state-owned enterprises)
What does that mean?
In a competitive market, producers dont have the freedom to set a price because the rival can always undercut them until the point where lowering the price will cause in a loss.
BUT the monopolist firm can decide the price it charges by varying the quantity it produces, so it will produce only up to the quantity where its profit is maximized. UNDER NORMAL CIRCUMSTANCES, the level of output is lower than the socially optimal one, which is where the max price a consumer is willing to pay is the same as the minimum price that the producer requires in order not to lose money.
When the amount produced is LESS than the socially optimal quantity, it means not serving some consumers who are perfectly willing to pay MORE than the minimum price that the producer requires but who are unwilling to bear the price at which the monopoly firm can max its profit. The unfulfilled desire of those neglected consumers is the social cost of monopoly.
So basically, monopolies will start losing more money when they start raising the price since consumers will either 1) not be able to access such services (since they will only make the MIN amount for MAX price and by using calculus, you would rather spend a little more in the amount produced and make a little less profit rather than having an EXACT amount although you would make the best profit IF you sold ALL items) or 2) consumers will just stop using it since cell phone devices are not a NECESSITY but instead a WANT. do you think you will pay whatever cellphone company if the price exceeds a certain comfort zone in your income bracket? you wont.
Furthermore, I will take it one more step. Monopolies can be good. If you look at the Mexican carrier, Telcel. The year Telcel was monopolized by Carlos Slim (riches man in the world now) coverage in Mexico grew more than it did in the hands of the state. According to the "monopoly=bad" argument, service in Mexico should have dropped in every other city that is not important in Mexico's economy while service should have exploded in cities such as Mexico City and Puebla. No, it exploded in the main cities while it also exploded with the whole country
In conclusion, monopolies are only dangerous IF the monopoly is a necessity based. i.e. lets say one man owned the whole united states food supply. Then yes, monopolies would be the worst. But not cell phone companies, cmon if monopolies were SOO good for the company why would Bell even break up his own company? just for the lulz? I dont think so. Because the government told him so? I certainly dont believe it since Bell probably would have had the power to lobby his way out and in case nothing worked he couldve just brought it up to the Supreme Court.
Anyways, enough with the economics jargon. Enjoy your economics class :P
I like you.
Amazing Iceman
Nov 19, 01:06 PM
Three possibilities:
a) Stolen stock.
b) Purchased directly from a "contact" in China.
c) Purchased using surplus advertising budget, so even if they loose money selling them it wouldn't be a loss. This could be the reason why there's limited stock, only a few units available at a time for each store.
I may get one for my wife anyways. She wouldn't need more than 16GB for sure.
a) Stolen stock.
b) Purchased directly from a "contact" in China.
c) Purchased using surplus advertising budget, so even if they loose money selling them it wouldn't be a loss. This could be the reason why there's limited stock, only a few units available at a time for each store.
I may get one for my wife anyways. She wouldn't need more than 16GB for sure.
Peyote
Sep 25, 01:17 PM
Let him sleep over there if he wants to, but only if she's hot. :p
more...
Sydde
May 6, 01:42 AM
I wonder who we'll end up pissing off now with our policies ...
Oh, IDK, how about Americans.
Oh, IDK, how about Americans.
Corndog5595
Nov 13, 05:40 PM
MacRumors Mobile (http://forums.macrumors.com/wap/)
more...
kugino
Nov 29, 08:59 PM
Okay, I think $100k is a *little* excessive... and could encourage those who aren't as passionate about children to pursue a teaching job just for the money.
I think starting at $50-60k would be more than reasonable... I mean for only working 9 months out of the year plus receiving the benefits that teachers usually do... that'll sweeten the deal a lot. Especially in my field, physics, the way things are now I could either start as a teacher for $40k if I'm very lucky, or $50k+ in the industry. I'm just out of college and as poor as a rat... what do you think I would do? I'm not Mr. Materialistic or anything, but I have school and an apartment to pay for.
I think the real monetary incentive in teaching should be the bottom right corner of the matrix... those who have higher degrees and have worked for many years. It'll encourage people to be into teaching for the long-haul. However, that might introduce problems with ever-changing research on effective teaching styles, so maybe that isn't just a great idea.
Just some thoughts.
-Clive
you obviously haven't taught before, have you? for "only" working 9 months...the fact is, if teaching were a year-round gig, no one would do it. and i don't know what "benefits" you're talking about. someone once figured out that if you count all the out-of-school hours that teachers spend on grading, prepping, etc., many teachers are actually paid less than minimum wage.
i've always felt that not only are good teachers worth $100grand/year, but that kind of salary would make teaching competitive so that bright, enthusiastic, and promising individuals would have a reason to pursue teaching and not be turned off by the poor wages. yes, there will be some who pursue it strictly for the money, but if the wages are high enough, there will be increased competition for jobs and the good teachers will more often than not get the jobs. bad teachers or those who don't care about the kids are easy to identify.
my 2 cents...sorry for the OT rant.
I think starting at $50-60k would be more than reasonable... I mean for only working 9 months out of the year plus receiving the benefits that teachers usually do... that'll sweeten the deal a lot. Especially in my field, physics, the way things are now I could either start as a teacher for $40k if I'm very lucky, or $50k+ in the industry. I'm just out of college and as poor as a rat... what do you think I would do? I'm not Mr. Materialistic or anything, but I have school and an apartment to pay for.
I think the real monetary incentive in teaching should be the bottom right corner of the matrix... those who have higher degrees and have worked for many years. It'll encourage people to be into teaching for the long-haul. However, that might introduce problems with ever-changing research on effective teaching styles, so maybe that isn't just a great idea.
Just some thoughts.
-Clive
you obviously haven't taught before, have you? for "only" working 9 months...the fact is, if teaching were a year-round gig, no one would do it. and i don't know what "benefits" you're talking about. someone once figured out that if you count all the out-of-school hours that teachers spend on grading, prepping, etc., many teachers are actually paid less than minimum wage.
i've always felt that not only are good teachers worth $100grand/year, but that kind of salary would make teaching competitive so that bright, enthusiastic, and promising individuals would have a reason to pursue teaching and not be turned off by the poor wages. yes, there will be some who pursue it strictly for the money, but if the wages are high enough, there will be increased competition for jobs and the good teachers will more often than not get the jobs. bad teachers or those who don't care about the kids are easy to identify.
my 2 cents...sorry for the OT rant.
Will Cheyney
Dec 17, 06:15 PM
Special thanks to Susan Kare for her brilliant icon creating abilities.
more...
iMeowbot
Dec 23, 01:54 AM
I like that, it's kind of reminiscent of the ancient Apple green displays that had the nylon mesh glare screens.
mac.rumors
Sep 9, 11:03 PM
They sure are! :D
I found two other Michael Jackson ones if you're interested :)
Great!! Thanks very much!!!
I found two other Michael Jackson ones if you're interested :)
Great!! Thanks very much!!!
more...
imacintel
Oct 21, 02:25 PM
http://att.macrumors.com/contest/DE8A4B.png
oyah
Feb 18, 10:46 AM
My service provider offers CPanel Horde for webmail. I didn't used to mind that but now Horde has been changed in lots of crappy ways and I don't like it. Plus it doesn't work at all on Safari.
Is there a way for me to get my webmail through another service?
Is there a way for me to get my webmail through another service?
more...
JesterJJZ
Jun 25, 10:54 PM
I have a couple Seagate drives I don't need. They are both:
250gigs capacity
Seagate Barracuda 7200.8
PATA/IDE interface
Used for backup purposes, not much actual "on" time. Tested and working.
Moving everything to larger SATA drives don't need these.
Will consider best offer. Looking for around $40 a piece.
PM me.
Thanks!
250gigs capacity
Seagate Barracuda 7200.8
PATA/IDE interface
Used for backup purposes, not much actual "on" time. Tested and working.
Moving everything to larger SATA drives don't need these.
Will consider best offer. Looking for around $40 a piece.
PM me.
Thanks!
Buschmaster
Nov 20, 12:18 PM
I'm beginning to think out this will come out about when the Powerbook G5 does...
more...
paulst
Sep 27, 02:02 AM
... POP doesn't really do it for me, I'll only use it if they provide IMAP access.
Joshua, they do provide IMAP access :) ... From the help pages:
... use mail.mac.com for the POP or IMAP server, and your ISP's SMTP server for the outgoing mail server. If your email program supports SMTP authentication, you can use smtp.mac.com instead of your ISP's SMTP server.
In Mac OS 9, your email program uses POP by default. Mac OS X Mail uses IMAP by default for .Mac Mail accounts.
Joshua, they do provide IMAP access :) ... From the help pages:
... use mail.mac.com for the POP or IMAP server, and your ISP's SMTP server for the outgoing mail server. If your email program supports SMTP authentication, you can use smtp.mac.com instead of your ISP's SMTP server.
In Mac OS 9, your email program uses POP by default. Mac OS X Mail uses IMAP by default for .Mac Mail accounts.
kgarner
Aug 30, 11:40 AM
Do you have a link that explains this more. I would like to check it out before offering an opinion. I don't see anything about it on Google's site. Thanks.
more...
vvebster
Feb 2, 09:46 AM
February Desktop
Reebok4523
Apr 7, 09:11 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8G4 Safari/6533.18.5)
I didn't even know that much storage could exist lol
I didn't even know that much storage could exist lol
Philalbe
Mar 20, 09:02 AM
The larger projects are the ones you make your money on. Little jobs sometimes hardly warrant all the time in initial consultation, doing quotes, invoices, possibly banking cheques and other admin. So don't necessarily turn down good work, but just make sure you're setting your prices, not him. Charge him for every minute of author's corrections too, and make sure that's written on the quote that he signs to accept the job.
Oh, and I forgot to say before, if you do decide to take on any more work from him, make sure you get paid for these jobs first! He could be a non-payer, and then you'll really know what a nightmare client is all about!
Hi. Thanks for the advice. I definitely won't lift a finger towards another job until he pays for this one. I made sure he paid up for the logo before I started the site concept. Overall the guy gives me bad vibes. My other clients are always happy with the end result and we interact civilly. If this guy talks down to me one more, I'll politely cut him loose. Who needs the headache. :) Thanks again!
Oh, and I forgot to say before, if you do decide to take on any more work from him, make sure you get paid for these jobs first! He could be a non-payer, and then you'll really know what a nightmare client is all about!
Hi. Thanks for the advice. I definitely won't lift a finger towards another job until he pays for this one. I made sure he paid up for the logo before I started the site concept. Overall the guy gives me bad vibes. My other clients are always happy with the end result and we interact civilly. If this guy talks down to me one more, I'll politely cut him loose. Who needs the headache. :) Thanks again!
WiiDSmoker
Mar 25, 10:43 AM
So basically Apple will still have the crummy Maps.app on iOS 5.0
Huntn
May 4, 09:08 AM
I served this country for all most a decade as a U.S.Navy Officer and it has aggravated me from the start when the Bush Administration started making excuses to torture because we have bunches of soldiers at risk. Prior to this we had the moral high ground to say that torturing is not moral. Not that U.S. soldiers were never tortured, but by this action we have put US POWS at greater risk and now if we say "It's not right to torture", we'll just be laughed at. Keep in mind this policy was put into place by ******* gun-ho politicians who never served in a war, did not think or care about ramifications/blowback. :mad:
coder12
Apr 25, 12:11 AM
A disgrace on so many levels.
Disgrace has never been so beautiful.:p
Disgrace has never been so beautiful.:p
iParis
Sep 5, 02:13 PM
Lights! <3
MattyMac
Oct 31, 11:00 AM
Sweet! Hopefully I can buy a few for gifts...
Note: This is my first comment! I feel so cool! :cool:
Welcome.
Note: This is my first comment! I feel so cool! :cool:
Welcome.
Нема коментара:
Постави коментар