We're finally open!
Check out ##AltSlashdot on Freenode IRC network for more discussion.
- Set up and manage a high-traffic site (servers, load-balancers, data sites, &c)
- Edit story submissions
- HTML, CSS, and script creation/bugfix/repair
Contact me if interested
John (at) AltSlashdot (dot) org"
Link to Original Source
Well, that's what makes it interesting. Nobody objects to selling a high-end model for a high price, and a low-end model for a low price. Under highly idealized circumstances, feature-keying would let us sell both models for less due to savings in manufacturing and supply chain complexity. Isn't that cost reduction a healthy sign, even if both cars are the same underneath and we've converted tangible, physical differences into pure price discrimination?
But, like you said, feature-keying implies it's still profitable to sell the high-end model at low-end prices, since the high-end model is the low-end model now. And, as you also said, we'd expect the price of the high-end model to fall if the auto industry is the least bit competitive.
However, if it now costs the same to manufacture the high- and low-end models, why manufacture the low-end model at all? Now, we've lost consumer choice: Before, if you were price sensitive, you could pick a lower-end model to save money. Now, there is no lower-end option, even if the higher-end is no longer as expensive as it once was. Sounds unhealthy, doesn't it?
To wit, the only company that made this work was IBM, and they definitely weren't charging market prices for hardware.
You mean the MTBF and AFR published by every hard drive manufacturer since the dawn of time?
...MINUS the cost of having n-many manufacturing lines and trim options. Which, like I said, would have to be significant to make the "in theory" option believable.
I must have missed the part in your political non-sequitur where you had a point. s/libertard/libtard/g, and you'd fit right in with the bastion of intellectuals that comment on Fox News articles.
This could, in theory, work out if producing a single model with all the features saves money over manufacturing every permutation of radio/seats/trim/etc. The high-end would cost less, while still allowing more spartan options for those who want to save money.
In practice, I suspect it's a way to jack up the cost of new vehicles and turn every "sale" into a rental. Not sure if this will help or hurt dealerships--if all the options are already in the car, how will the middlemen get their cut of the value-adds?
Good thing the government forced Blackblaze to publish statistics, then? What fuckwit modded you up?
In the first place, it was unusual for an interlocutory appeal to be granted from the denial of the preliminary injunction motion. In federal court usually you can only appeal from a final judgment.
Similarly, apart from the fact that it's always rare for a certiorari petition to be granted, it's especially tough where the appeal is not from a final judgment, but just from a preliminary injunction denial which does not dispose of the whole case.
So, ARs are universally "cheap." Their ownership needs to be "justified." They're "SHIT unless you need to kill people," which naturally makes them a terrible choice for "self defence." You either don't know what "semi-automatic" means, or you're appallingly ignorant of gun regulations.
What made you think you're "part of the gun crowd," or even qualified to have an opinion? If you actually do own a firearm, you should be ashamed of not knowing the laws you're supposed to be following.