Jump to content

willm

Atømican
  • Content Count

    379
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by willm

  1. Other religions which were recently invented, such as the examples you provide, have not really been invented. They are different, more modern interpretations of ideas/texts that we cannot definitively prove were invented. Even if we did, they don't charge extravagant prices to continue learning the dogma. Can you name any other religion that charges mandatory extravagant prices to learn the dogma, and that we have a similar level of evidence that it was invented? (Ignoring the fact we have evidence that it was invented for tax evasion reasons by a washed out sci-fi author, and much of the organizations technicians and strategies...)
  2. willm

    Swipey Swipey

    Or, "If I artificially limit quotas and charge the same price, then I have less expense which means more revenue. Then all those Aussie internet users will suffer and I'll have the last laugh!" Why is that so implausible?
  3. willm

    Naturalistic Pantheism

    Interesting. I don't understand the significance a God would play, if not some sort of conscious entity however. If god is simply a glue or force that brings things together, would that not amount to worshiping(for those that do) various physics constructs?
  4. I would suggest Scientology is different due to the payments not being voluntary, and being extravagant. Other religions may take income, but they don't charge you to join and increase the price everytime you learn a bit more of the dogma. The Bible, Qu'ran, Torah, Veda etc, all are free. In fact, people would happily give you a copy and sit down and explain it with you. All of which is insignificant in light of the fact unlike other religions, we have very real and irrefutable evidence that Scientology was invented.
  5. For those that watch Curb your enthusiasm, the seinfeld cast has reunited on that show, to film a fictional reunion show. I love Seinfeld, one of the greatest sitcoms in the history of sitcoms, hands down. There is some information on www.hbo.com, trailers etc. Tonight's episode is a 40 minute special, and I'm hoping it will actually have a Seinfeld episode within. Is anyone else excited?
  6. willm

    Seinfeld reunion, of sorts.

    Well, the finale was entertaining. There was a lot of seinfeld footage, but definitely not a new episode. Still, it was nice to see the characters again.
  7. willm

    Swipey Swipey

    No, not really. Most reasonable people would take decent or tidy profit to mean a reasonably yet not extravagant income, being higher than is required to break even. Limited version has a perfectly ordinary meaning, meaning a product or service that is somehow limitied. I don't understand why you're arguing semantics. The terms may be arbitrary, but they certainly are not hard to grasp the meaning of, and not in this context. So it is analogous to the internet situation in Australia, with the wholesale controlled by a few companies doing what airline B is doing. The internet services in Australia are unnecessarily limited in a technical way, while costing significantly more than they should. I'm happy to leave this and agree with your point a few posts ago, saying the government should be regulating things a bit more thoroughly. Either way, I really can't be bothered to keep arguing this. It was interesting though. Cheers.
  8. willm

    Swipey Swipey

    I'm not claiming to use the technically correct terms to the field of economics, but in laymans terms the meanings should be perfectly clear. Sure, all of that is true. It's also true that the service is artificially limited. I am reposting the end of my last post, as I added it before you replied: Another analogy may be airlines and baggage. Let's say there are two airlines, airline A, and airline B. Both use the exact same planes, and for the purposes of the analogy, have almost identical profit margins, staff, and charge the same prices for tickets to the same destinations. Now, each airline can allow each passenger to carry 20kg of baggage each without losing profit. Indeed, they will still be making a profit. Now, airline A won't charge to check in bags, because it has a strategy of pleasing customers, thinking it will elad to repeat business, and hence more profit. Airline B on the other hand considers charging for baggage anyway, to increase profit in the short-term. Airline b reduces the free baggage to 10kg per passenger. Placing an artificial limitation on the amount of baggage a passenger can take with them. They then charge $30/ per additional kilo. Their choice to introduce an artificial limitation, as opposed to airline A's natural limitation, can and will impact their pricing, although it is a separate issue. edit: Anyhoo, I can't be bothered debating this anymore. It was nice talking with you dude, but no more from me.
  9. willm

    Swipey Swipey

    I can't help but feel I have already explained this. They are selling a limited version of the service. Instead of limiting the service to a level just to make a decent profit, they are limiting the service as much as possible, and then charging more than a "naturally limited" service would cost. With naturally limited mean limited only to the extent they can still make a tidy profit. A better question might be, do you think $60/month for a 256/64k connection with a 6gb download cap is fairly priced, coming from one of the biggest ISP's given the limitations on Australia's internet connectivity? However, I don't see the point in debating this, even if you disagree, as it has gotten away from the original issue. Well, that would be inaccurate. A company sets prices based on various criteria. In this case, ISP's are raising their prices based on artificial limitations of the services they provide. Maybe you're thinking of this in the wrong context. When I say artificial limitations, I mean it in purely technical terms. Nich... also points out a good example of why the service is artificially limited.
  10. willm

    Swipey Swipey

    Here's a question, how do you define "overcharging"? Given Product X, how can you tell if a company is over charging for it? Rob. Answering a question with a question? To tell if a company is overcharging or not would be specific to various circumstances and situations. Instead of going down this path and debating the meaning of overcharging, how about suggesting an alternative term to artificial restrictions? I'm more than happy to disagree, but I can't see that phrase being inaccurate in the least. It is the extent of the restrictions, not the restrictions themselves I have a problem with.
  11. willm

    Swipey Swipey

    No, I don't understand how you can say that it is not. It is not always a negative thing, and quite often is is necessary for business. In the case of internet access in Australia however, it has gone to far, and has a negative impact. I don't understand why you disagree that overcharging for a product they are underselling is placing artificial limitations on the product. The natural limitations would be the point to which they could sell the product, and still make a tidy profit. The fact that the product is significantly limited past this, only to make additional profit(greed), means artificial limitations are placed on the product. You've tried to convince me of what I already knew, and what is common knowledge, and I'm not sure why? As I said, I have no problem with products limiting access to make a profit. That doesn't change the fact that that is part of, or perhaps a major reason out internet access is so sucky. You seem to be arguing against the term "artificial restrictions", and I honestly don't see why. The problem I have is with the scope, or extent of these artificial limitations, in a specific context. Not that companies place artificial restrictions. However, I agree we probably do agree, although I would be interested to know if I have misunderstood your point(s). If not, all is good :) edit: The way I am thinking of it makes so much sense to me, and I am having a hard time thinking of it in different terms. What definitions would you use?
  12. willm

    Swipey Swipey

    Sure, I don't disagree. All I ever said, was that Australia is largely behind, not only because of geography, but because of companies placing artificial restrictions on their services. I never said or meant to imply that I think that companies should develop a sense of ethics, and I do think that the government should have interfered. Your link does not resolve to any specific list of companies. Were you trying to be smart, or did the link not work as you intended? I have no problem with companies making a profit by limiting access to their products and technology, as I said. I have a problem when it gets out of hand, and has significantly negative implications.
  13. willm

    Swipey Swipey

    The thing is, when it comes to something like the internet, which can be argued to be essential for many things, it should not be so artificially restricted. If the service is sold at less capacity, then it should not sold at more than the price of full capacity. This all comes back to what I said originally, is that it's a shame we don't have reasonably priced plans like the rest of the world. Geography is partly to blame. Greedy companies are much more so. Companies exist to make profit. Companies that make profit by limiting access to technology and restricting progress should not exist, or should be brought into line.
  14. willm

    Lending money.

    id call the cops. and they would rightfully laugh in your face. Or, politely explain why they should be. if you lend someone $100 and they vanish or fail to pay you back, thats called theft. i know a lot of cops arnt so dedicated to their jobs that they would start a manhunt over $100, and nor should they. but i would at least expect them to note the name and the accusation, so if the person ever surfaces at a copshop to pay a fine or whatever they can be challenged over it. It's not theft if you give it to them. You may have the right to seek to have a debt reclaimed legally, but it would never be theft.
  15. willm

    Swipey Swipey

    Ahh...sorry for not being able to explain myself more clearly. It's not that I think companies have a product they could sell at a profit, and are not doing so. As you say, that does not sound logical. Rather, I believe companies are selling less than the full product they could sell at a profit, and charging more for it. An analogy may be, I don't know - batteries. If batteries normally came in sets of 4, for $20, and the company was earning a profit, I think it would be lame for them to repackage batteries individually, and sell them for $15. That analogy is full of holes, so don't pick it apart, but I do hope it demonstrates the point I am trying to make. To go with my batteries analogy... Let's say there were a battery shortage for some sort. Consumers and small businesses need less batteries than large organisations/enterprises. Now, battery companies could sell their 4 packs of batteries to consumers for $20 each, at a profit. If they wanted to charge businesses more, for whatever reason...than OK, sure. However, when they start taking apart the 4 packs of batteries, and selling them individually to consumers for $15, and then to businesses for $60 in packs of two, I think that is wrong. It is shafting the consumer, and creating more demand than there should be. For a lot of products this might be fine. For things like the internet, and to a lesser extent batteries(power), I think this behavior is less justifiable. Sorry for the analogy...but do you get what I mean?
  16. willm

    Shapeshifting Reptiles are your masters.

    I've been enjoying it OK, but there has been some horrible, horrible dialogue. In the pilot, the kid who was annoyed about ID4....it seemed so horribly forced and out of place. Then referencing 9/11 for no reason, etc. I've also been wondering how the aliens have sex while dressed in human skin....
  17. willm

    Swipey Swipey

    Ah okay, then you and I have different definitions of "artificial restrictions", as I'd guess 1shot does. At the end of the days Telcos, and indeed any company, can offer any product they see fit - or not offer any product they see fit. If they aren't willing to sell styx extra quota, then I'd be putting my money on the fact that it's because it's not profitable for them. And I see no problem with a company choosing not to do something non-profitable. Rob. Out of curiosity, what would you take "artificial restrictions" to mean? To me, it is when the market deliberately undersells services, to save money. I have no problem with companies not doing something profitable, but based on the behavior of the market over the last 5 years when contrasted with our internet capacity, it seems that companies are deliberately underselling their services and underutilizing the counties internet capacity. Perhaps to sell it to customers with bigger wallets. This sort of behavior is reliant on artificial restrictions, is just greedy, and residents in Australia are being disadvantaged as a result*. That I do have a problem with. *Assuming there is any truth to what I said. I certainly can't prove it, but looking at the last 5 years...even the last 10 years, it certainly seems reasonable.
  18. willm

    Lending money.

    Yes, exactly. As long as I can afford it and won't hurt myself, I will give anyone I truly consider a friend as much as they need. I may even inconvenience myself a bit if they need be. This is generally only for people I am quite close with, but I would even help out acquaintances if I consider them trust worthy. I would like to think my friends would help me out if I was down on my luck for whatever reason...although I can't always say that has been the case. Still, I think it's a good attitude to help out people if you can. Of course, this is only for small amounts...nothing more than a few hundred. obviously, the bigger the amount of money, the more complicated the lending may be. id call the cops. and they would rightfully laugh in your face. Or, politely explain why they should be.
  19. willm

    Swipey Swipey

    Monopoly? What monopoly? My reply was in reference to robzy's post, which referenced the weakening of telstra's monopoly.
  20. willm

    Swipey Swipey

    Definitely not artificial restrictions being lowered. Other options include, as you said, internet capacity being upgraded, more competition, newer technology (ADSL2), the weakening of Telstra's monoply, etc. Rob. How can you say "Definitely not"? On what authority? Besides, I think you missed the point of my question. Internet capacity has not been substantial upgraded over the last 5 years, not to a point that would match the price decrease/quota increase. Also, I would consider the effects of a monopoly/increased competition to be the reasons for artificial restrictions.
  21. willm

    Swipey Swipey

    You're right, they are nothing but accusations at the moment, and I'm not going to go and research to back them up due to a lack of time(yet here I am :/ ). Let me ask you though, given Australia's internet capacity in total over the last 5 years, do you think the general decrease in price, and increase in quota over the last 5 years, is due to our internet capacity being upgraded, or artificial restrictions being lowered?
  22. Much more than that, we have plenty of recent, irrefutable evidence that scientology was purely invented, created as a way to gain additional income. The fact that 50 years later it has gone to far, and people actually get suckered into thinking it is accurate, is a shame. Any decent government *should* outlaw it. There is absolutely nothing wrong with people wanting to believe the dogma, as retarded as that may be, but scamming money out of people *is* criminal, and should not be allowed to continue. Furthermore, scientology should have a legal requirement not to misinform people of the origins of their institution before recruiting people. Also,
  23. willm

    Swipey Swipey

    Geography. There are only a limited amount of pipes connecting us with the rest of the world, and it's very expensive to build more. Don't get me wrong, IMHO the Government should be plowing money into building more (unless they are already?)... but for now that's how it is. Rob. Oh, I know there are limitations, but I don't think the typical broadband plan is an accurate reflection of those limitations. The price for a plan, for say 20gb, as well as the fact that going over will get your speed reduced to dial-up or less... Australia has real, physical limitations as to how fast internet connections can be, and how much quota people can have. Companies have placed significant artificial limitations on top of these, which is unacceptable.
  24. willm

    Swipey Swipey

    The difference, possibly, is that it is artificially limited. What is stopping them from giving reasonably priced plans and caps in line with the rest of the world?
  25. willm

    You want crazy?

    A revolution is called for when a despotic government is tying down citizens, abusing power, not granting or protecting any rights and not being fair or just in any way...etc This is simply a rather vocal upset minority starved for attention.
×