jared1988
Apr 19, 05:01 PM
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5061/5632415899_502c6e983f_b.jpg
not my photo :o
not my photo :o
AhmedFaisal
Apr 13, 05:10 PM
Oh silly gays when will you learn. ;)but yeah if a white person called me a n word i'd be mad so the same applies here. I'd be pissed if someone called me a bundle of stocks. :D
Sorry, but black people using the n word is no better than any other ethnicity doing it. And spare me the BS that it's part of the black culture. Any thuggish behavior and language and its glorification is deplorable, no matter the context, who or what it is directed against, and what criminal/amoral/inhumane behavior is exhibited or glorified. Ice T is as much of an jackass using the n word as your local clansman.
Sorry, but black people using the n word is no better than any other ethnicity doing it. And spare me the BS that it's part of the black culture. Any thuggish behavior and language and its glorification is deplorable, no matter the context, who or what it is directed against, and what criminal/amoral/inhumane behavior is exhibited or glorified. Ice T is as much of an jackass using the n word as your local clansman.
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.
tammyinkansas
Mar 10, 12:23 AM
any body help me, I need lyrik john mayal blues music:confused:
Hope this helps:
http://www.metrolyrics.com/john-mayall-lyrics.html
Hope this helps:
http://www.metrolyrics.com/john-mayall-lyrics.html
more...
Soulfly22583
Feb 1, 03:32 PM
http://i.imgur.com/SdwAF.png
jetjaguar
Aug 6, 10:44 AM
Candybar, Slipcover, and changing the Finder back;)ground!
looks great! :)
one of these days i am going to have to try and customize mine as well
looks great! :)
one of these days i am going to have to try and customize mine as well
more...
Macky-Mac
May 6, 10:47 AM
....In terms of national politics I see nothing particularly wrong with that. In terms of being a human being I find it enormously disgusting.
LOL, so it's both ok either way and wrong either way? No offense but I think you've reduced your position to one that doesn't really mean anything
LOL, so it's both ok either way and wrong either way? No offense but I think you've reduced your position to one that doesn't really mean anything
glocke12
May 4, 05:31 PM
Torture is never justified under any circumstances and that includes sleep deprivation, ritual humiliation, or anything else that is euphemistically known as "Enhanced interrogation"
Fighting terrorists should be done no differently to fighting any other war (i.e. within the Geneva Convention).
How do we do that? They are a shadow organization bound by religious or political ideals with no true ties to any nation.
As a result there is no nation that we could go to war with or otherwise hold accountable for their actions.
Fighting terrorists should be done no differently to fighting any other war (i.e. within the Geneva Convention).
How do we do that? They are a shadow organization bound by religious or political ideals with no true ties to any nation.
As a result there is no nation that we could go to war with or otherwise hold accountable for their actions.
more...
WeegieMac
Feb 10, 04:55 PM
One I threw together in Photoshop.
Orion Nebula wallpaper that's common on the web.
Some Apple logo PSD files, went with a glowing black Apple logo.
And a classic line in Myriad Pro.
http://img713.imageshack.us/img713/2732/screenshot20110210at225.png
Orion Nebula wallpaper that's common on the web.
Some Apple logo PSD files, went with a glowing black Apple logo.
And a classic line in Myriad Pro.
http://img713.imageshack.us/img713/2732/screenshot20110210at225.png
aswitcher
Jan 11, 05:33 PM
Yes 5pm GMT
more...
Doctor Q
Aug 19, 12:53 PM
I wonder what the equivalent weight would be for these (http://www.badfads.com/pages/collectibles/8track.html)! :)
markm49uk
Oct 10, 04:46 PM
twitter to me at a personal level that RSS did at a website level. the way i use twitter is to "follow" people that mean something to me. Graphic designers, musicians, comedians, celebrities, and of course friends. Its great to get incite in what these creative minds are doing through out the day. I don't care what a certain person ate for breakfast, but that certain person might have a really awesome link to share. thats the key to twitter. link sharing.
I also use twitter to research. If i am interested in a product, i will type in the product into twitter search and you get instant results to what real people are saying in real time. Thats how i use Twitter, and see some of its benefits.
Cheers - interesting. Never thought of using it for product searches etc.
I also use twitter to research. If i am interested in a product, i will type in the product into twitter search and you get instant results to what real people are saying in real time. Thats how i use Twitter, and see some of its benefits.
Cheers - interesting. Never thought of using it for product searches etc.
more...
Hisdem
Oct 10, 09:13 AM
Is there a simple way to make the menubar black?
alansmallen
Jun 25, 11:14 AM
I think I'm gonna buy it new.
more...
FX4568
Apr 4, 10:24 PM
Phew. Thanks for clearing that up for us. Until you explained it so well I was really worried.
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
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
thegoldenmackid
Dec 17, 03:46 PM
Yay. I really wish that we could have Marshall/Eminem back as opposed to Slim. I do disagree with his comments:
But Encore just didn't have the caliber to match it
I guess enough time just ain't passed, yet
A couple more years, that s***'ll be ill-matic
Encore might be his best ever.
But Encore just didn't have the caliber to match it
I guess enough time just ain't passed, yet
A couple more years, that s***'ll be ill-matic
Encore might be his best ever.
more...
ShadowXOR
May 5, 04:49 PM
Hope you're ready to shell out some bucks.
ccamelot
Apr 9, 10:39 PM
Try this one:
tell application "Mail"
set latestMessage to content of first message of inbox
end tell
best
Les
tell application "Mail"
set latestMessage to content of first message of inbox
end tell
best
Les
pgyanke
Apr 7, 03:10 PM
Hey, Apple!!!
Can you PLEASE include separate email signatures for separate email boxes?!?!?
Can you PLEASE include separate email signatures for separate email boxes?!?!?
shartypants
Mar 31, 11:08 AM
Eh, so so demo. Still not convincing that this would be useful for hard core photoshop users. It may be tough with big fat fingers to do some detailed stuff.(?) Glad to see they are working on it.
sunfast
Oct 6, 03:27 AM
Draggable tabs is really good news. I like the way things are being gradually improved too. I think Leopard could be a pretty polished OS when we see it.
jared1988
Apr 5, 07:39 AM
meet rusty...
e28
http://tunedmotiondotcom.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/cory_2.jpg
in case your wondering, yes, the wheels are gold plated. baller
http://heavenisinmunich.files.wordpress.com/2010/10/5042931353_70eafa7172_o.jpg?w=590&h=441
mikes other bmw in case your questioning his style
e36
http://ll.speedhunters.com/u/f/eagames/NFS/speedhunters.com/Images/Linhbergh2010/May2010/randomsnaps/4619615261_cbf882e7d8_o.jpg
itb's & velocity stacks *drool*
http://www.loxlee-loves-engines.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/mike-burroughs-bmw-e36-trumpets.jpg
a video of this e36, pretty awesome in HD and all
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OcbiabhEjl0&feature=player_embedded
e28
http://tunedmotiondotcom.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/cory_2.jpg
in case your wondering, yes, the wheels are gold plated. baller
http://heavenisinmunich.files.wordpress.com/2010/10/5042931353_70eafa7172_o.jpg?w=590&h=441
mikes other bmw in case your questioning his style
e36
http://ll.speedhunters.com/u/f/eagames/NFS/speedhunters.com/Images/Linhbergh2010/May2010/randomsnaps/4619615261_cbf882e7d8_o.jpg
itb's & velocity stacks *drool*
http://www.loxlee-loves-engines.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/mike-burroughs-bmw-e36-trumpets.jpg
a video of this e36, pretty awesome in HD and all
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OcbiabhEjl0&feature=player_embedded
R94N
Aug 31, 05:25 AM
Pretty awful thing to do - it's like when people leave their dogs in the car on a hot day - even with the windows rolled down they can still die from the heat sadly. Luckily from the looks of it here the baby wasn't left that long to cause that much harm, but it could've been worse. That guy deserves to be arrested imo.
eva01
Sep 26, 07:40 PM
thank-god webmail is getting an update.
and it is on the main .mac webpage for me at least.
and it is on the main .mac webpage for me at least.
No comments:
Post a Comment