iamshack

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 24, 2012 -> 06:42 PM) Apple just came out with some huge earnings numbers, one of the biggest quarters ever for any company, led by a massive surge of iPhone and iPad sales. Jesus...$97 billion in cash...and the stock rose $33 today on news of the results. Insane.

QUOTE (DirtySox @ Jan 24, 2012 -> 02:40 PM) They are considering Miggy to 3B, or either of them in a corner OF spot as well. Will it work out? Who knows. They have time to worry about it certainly. Well, then I agree with Kal..I'd love to see Miggy flopping around like a beached, drunken whale.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 24, 2012 -> 02:36 PM) What happens next year? I'd imagine they're going to have to eat a bit of that contract to move him...

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Jan 24, 2012 -> 02:36 PM) With V-Mart out for the year, can't he just DH? Except in interleague play, yes.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 24, 2012 -> 02:29 PM) Now let's also note though...he's been somewhat inconsistent in his career, bouncing between 6.4 WAR and 3.4 WAR over the last 3 years. Furthermore, he's also moving to a much worse ballpark for hitting, which has been known to affect big bats in different ways. And if Miguel Cabrera winds up spending time at 3b or DH, then Miguel Cabrera's WAR is going to go down because of position adjustments and deplorable defense. Downplay it any way you want. Bottom line is that for the next 3-4 seasons, that is going to be one hell of a tandem.

QUOTE (fathom @ Jan 24, 2012 -> 03:19 PM) How come no one has said "this Tigers move just puts them in better position to contend with the Sox" yes!

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 24, 2012 -> 03:19 PM) Just at the same position, I'll go: Albert Votto Cabrera And if he's healthy, Adrian Gonzalez. Over the last 4 years, Teixeira has put up similar WAR to Prince, while I'm at it. Well 1st base also happens to have most of the best hitters in baseball...so don't make it sound like we could grab 2nd basemen and do the same thing. He may not be top 5, but he is an elite player, which is the point.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 24, 2012 -> 03:08 PM) You pick. 10 years, $250 for Pujols 9 years, $214 for Fielder. I'll take Pujols. Especially when you consider the potential weight issues. Imagine Prince and Cabrera hitting the buffet together.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 24, 2012 -> 02:11 PM) One thing you ought to take from the 49ers this year is that teams that seem like they're really far away might well be closer than you think. The 49ers looked lost last year, and spectacular this year. I've mentioned this a few times in here...the difference between a crappy NFL team and a very good NFL team is very small...the devil is in the details in a lot of these things...

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Jan 23, 2012 -> 12:30 PM) Papa Johns, Little Caesars, Pizza Hut and Dominoes are all on the same level of suck. You can debate all you want, but in the end they are all bottom barrel pizzas. There is good reason they come for 5 bucks and 10 bucks QUATROS FTW Papa Johns has s***ty pizza but good cheese bread and breadsticks or whatever. Dominos is actually my favorite of the crappy chains... I'll take a frozen HRI over any of the delivery chains... Also, if you know how to make dough well, homemade pizza will blow the doors off anything you can get at Lou's or Uno's or Gino's.

QUOTE (Tex @ Jan 23, 2012 -> 05:49 PM) My mom is recovering from surgery and I wanted to send her a couple dinners, but not really interested in pizza delivery. There was a couple home meal catering services I remember, but they both went out of business. Any ideas? Basically I would like a few dinners she can put in the refrigerator. Get off your butt and make her a big pot of homemade vegetable beef soup!

Crazy that a movie like Bridesmaids could have a Best Supporting Actress nomination

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 24, 2012 -> 11:13 AM) So that we can all read the angry posts/articles about how Jake Peavy is refusing to talk to the media despite his huge salary and ineffectiveness! I have a feeling the Club asked him to do this...I can't see him deciding to just say this randomly on his own.

A good case study for this would be Radiohead's In Rainbows album. The band made it available for download and asked people to pay whatever they felt comfortable paying. Wikipedia

I agree in principle to what both Balta and SS have just posted...but I do agree with Tex as well. I don't favor this legislation, but I do think that artists should be protected from having the fruits of their creative efforts stolen, regardless of whether any profits would come from those goods being stolen or not. A parallel I keep coming back to is songs played on the radio that were recorded using a stereo and an audio cassette (back when people actually did this). Certainly that would be similar to pirating a song via Limewire, yes? This is just sort of a fact of life that came along with distributing your music to radio stations for play over the airwaves and while I am certain artists were not happy about the proliferation of recordable cassette tapes back in the 80's, no one tried to shut down radio stations, did they? So those advocating a deadweight loss theory probably can draw that parallel to backup their argument. Personally, I have always wanted to support the artists whose work I appreciate most by purchasing their works, but I certainly did not then go and illegally download the works of others who I "sort of" appreciated but didn't appreciate enough to shell out my hard-earned dollars for. But that is more of a moral issue than anything else.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jan 23, 2012 -> 06:00 PM) You're still talking about two different things here. There is no cost associated with producing an additional digital copy. This is different from the cost for producing the goods in the first place. The argument is that the ~80% of piracy that's deadweight loss does not represent any cost or loss whatsoever because those people would not otherwise have purchased the goods and there was no cost associated with them copying the goods. If I would never pay anything at all for a Batman DVD, regardless of the availability of pirated copies, what is the cost associated with me making a copy? First of all how do we arrive at that 80% figure? Secondly, that 20% loss seems like it would equate to a huge loss of revenue. As for your Batman question, how can we be sure you would never pay anything at all for a Batman DVD? How did you get your movies prior to being able to steal them? Did you own 0 movies? Did you know immediately whether or not you were going to purchase every movie you indeed did end up purchasing? How do we know that record labels don't charge what they do for albums based having to make up for the perceived loss of revenue (if what you argue is true) even though there is no actual loss of revenue?

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jan 23, 2012 -> 06:07 PM) ??? How would iTunes increase piracy? Of course if no one pirated anything they'd have more revenue. No one is arguing against that. What we're arguing against is that the impact is not that great, certainly compared to what they're proposing, and that they already have robust enforcement mechanisms. Because the product I am pirating can be enjoyed so much more easily and conveniently now?

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jan 23, 2012 -> 05:55 PM) iTunes would decrease the likelihood of piracy. How many people own iPods and iTunes worldwide? I'd say your assertion is very debatable, considering the ease of which music can now be enjoyed. Secondly, the music industry is making more money now due to iTunes than it was when sales were at rock bottom in the early 2000's...the fact that I can so easily purchase music via iTunes now, and yet people are still pirating music on limewire pro seems like while even if piracy has decreased, the overall lost revenues could still be greater.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jan 23, 2012 -> 05:32 PM) No, there isn't. This is basic economics and is separate from a free-rider issue. The act of me making a digital copy of something does not cost anyone anything, discounting the negligible electricity costs. This is a distinctly different situation than me stealing a physical CD from a store, as someone had to manufacture, ship and retail that physical good. You're only looking at the actual production costs for that particular unit you stole. This is only true to some extent. I've linked to numerous studies in this thread that examine the actual impact of piracy, and it's found to be relatively minimal. Somewhere around 80% of illegal downloads are "deadweight loss" people, or, in other words, people who wouldn't be paying for the item if it wasn't available for free. They don't represent losses to anyone since their demand for the item at any price > $0.00 is zero. Now, the other 20% does represent some loss. Demand is less in this case, but I don't see a compelling reason for retailers and producers to suddenly start dropping prices due to increased demand for a digital good. There's essentially zero marginal costs for producing more, so additional sales represent pure profits. Please take note that I have said several times in this thread that I am not advocating for pirating or saying that there should be no copyright protections. I clearly stated that I have no issue with The Mega Conspiracy arrests. You're only looking at the actual production costs for that particular unit you stole. An album or movie or a novel is not like a brick, or a computer, or a physical cd even, as you mention. It's a creative work that required effort and talent and lots of work to create. How do your basic economics value that? What is it worth? The time the artist took to create it?

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jan 23, 2012 -> 05:36 PM) I worked at a record store in high school (2000-2002). We had a whole wall of singles. However, on iTunes, nearly every song can be purchased as a single, rather than 10-40% of the album.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jan 23, 2012 -> 05:42 PM) Here's a 2004 study that investigated the impact of pirating. A 2004 study that occurred before the advent of iTunes. This is a bit outdated for purposes of this discussion.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 23, 2012 -> 04:24 PM) You never bought a "Single"? How many singles were released from each album?

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 23, 2012 -> 05:03 PM) Yes, they certainly do. However, what is the end result of that in terms of actual prices of music? Do we actually see things like prices fluctuating depending on sales? Do we actually see prices varying substantially between artists depending on demand? Do we see substantial moves in prices depending on how an artist is selling? Heck, do we see different prices for the early-adopters for an album versus the people who decide to buy an album after hearing it on the radio 50 times? There is uniformity. You pay about the same price per song on itunes that you pay for an actual CD. You might save a dollar or two if you buy an album on an opening week sale, and that's about it. You don't see deep discounting to move merchandise after a CD has been on the market for 4 years (like you do with movies, for example). You don't see variation in prices between bands who sell 50k copies and 5 million copies. Everything is uniform. And even beyond that, the price of music has barely changed since I bought my first CD's back in the early 90's. The prices are totally uncompetitive. They don't go down if music sales go up, they don't go up if music sales go down. They don't? I've bought all kinds of albums for $6.99 or 7.99 and I have also paid as much as $13.99 back in the day of physical CDs. That is a difference of 50% of 1 unit...that isn't price fluctuation? Secondly, why is it somehow necessary for music pricing to follow the model of other goods? What does the fact that the price doesn't decrease with time have to do with you illegally stealing it? Thirdly, do you realize how big of a leap it was for record companies to agree to sell single songs as opposed to full-length albums? I'd say that was a pretty big leap from how things were when you first began buying music in the early 90's.

If you're going to have MVP's being picked though, you sure as s*** can't have OBAMA choosing them. You should have one OBJECTIVE person choose the MVP's, or else, have all the predictions submitted to an OBJECTIVE non-participant and kept secret until the contest has been completed. That being said, I agree with Badger that no one really has much of a stink here... But yeah, the kicker was not the MVP either.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 23, 2012 -> 04:56 PM) No. Perhaps you could elaborate? Don't you think they conduct profit maximization studies?