Amerika na ivici propasti?

[Lord Kufer]

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-tainted-steroid-reached-illinois-22-other-states-20121005,0,928745.story

Tainted steroid reached Illinois, 22 other states

Federal health officials say Illinois is among 23 states that received shipments of a steroid linked to a deadly meningitis outbreak.

The Illinois Department of Public Health, however, says there are no illnesses reported in the state.

Health providers are scrambling to notify patients in nearly two dozen states that the routine steroid injections they received for back pain in recent months may have been contaminated with a deadly fungal meningitis.

It became apparent Thursday that hundreds, and perhaps thousands, of people who got the shots between July and September could be at risk after officials revealed that a tainted steroid suspected to have caused a meningitis outbreak in the South had made its way to 75 clinics in 23 states.

  The Food and Drug Administration urged physicians not to use any products at all from the Massachusetts pharmacy that supplied the preservative-free methylprednisolone acetate.

[Meho Krljic]

A mi se nešto mrštimo što popovi sede u savetu RRA. Evo šta kaže američki član kongresa, pa još član komisije za Svemir, nauku i tehnologiju:

Congressman calls evolution lie from 'pit of hell' 

ATHENS, Ga. — Georgia Rep. Paul Broun said in videotaped remarks that evolution, embryology and the Big Bang theory are "lies straight from the pit of hell" meant to convince people that they do not need a savior.
The Republican lawmaker made those comments during a speech Sept. 27 at a sportsman's banquet at Liberty Baptist Church in Hartwell. Broun, a medical doctor, is running for re-election in November unopposed by Democrats.
"God's word is true," Broun said, according to a video posted on the church's website. "I've come to understand that. All that stuff I was taught about evolution and embryology and Big Bang theory, all that is lies straight from the pit of hell. And it's lies to try to keep me and all the folks who are taught that from understanding that they need a savior."

Broun also said that he believes the Earth is about 9,000 years old and that it was made in six days. Those beliefs are held by fundamentalist Christians who believe the creation accounts in the Bible to be literally true.
Broun spokeswoman Meredith Griffanti told the Athens Banner-Herald that Broun was recorded speaking off-the-record to a church group about his religious beliefs. He sits on the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology.
It seems unlikely that Broun's remarks were supposed to be kept private. The banquet was advertised, Broun spoke before an audience and the video of his remarks was posted on the church's website

[scallop]

Šta ćeš. Eno i najviđeniji jevrejski naučnici dokazuju da je Simon iz Pereje bio Mesija pre Hrista i da je ovaj samo plagijator. Potrošiše silne pare na istraživanje neke kamene ploče i jedino što su dokazali je da je ključno slovo za ovu teoriju u nekom trenutku ostrugano i napisano novo koje se ne vidi.

[Meho Krljic]

Srećom, mali čovek još ima načina da uzvrati udarac. Na primer, ako je kvalitetan haker, da se javi na oglas koga navodno daje dobro organizovana sajberbanda kojoj su potrebni saradnici za napad na američke banke:

Cybercrime Gang Recruiting Botmasters for Large-Scale MiTM Attacks on American Banks 

A slew of major American banks, some already stressed by a stream of DDoS attacks carried out over the past 10 days, may soon have to brace themselves for a large-scale coordinated attack bent on pulling off fraudulent wire transfers.
RSA's FraudAction research team has been monitoring underground chatter and has put together various clues to deduce that a cybercrime gang is actively recruiting up to 100 botmasters to participate in a complicated man-in-the-middle hijacking scam using a variant of the proprietary Gozi Trojan.
This is the first time a private cybercrime organization has recruited outsiders to participate in a financially motivated attack, said Mor Ahuvia, cybercrime communications specialist for RSA FraudAction. The attackers are promising their recruits a cut of the profits, and are requiring an initial investment in hardware and training in how to deploy the Gozi Prinimalka Trojan, Ahuvia added. Also, the gang will only share executable files with their partners, and will not give up the Trojan's compilers, keeping the recruits dependent on the gang for updates

Generally, cybercrime gangs deploy as few as five individual botmasters to help in successful campaigns; with this kind of scale, banks could be facing up 30 times the number of compromised machines and fraudulent transfers, if the campaign is successful.
"This Trojan is not well known. This is not SpyEye or Citadel; it's not available for everyone to buy," Ahuvia said. "Security vendors and antivirus signatures are less likely to catch it or be familiar with it. It will be tricky for vendors to detect and block it. This gang is keeping a tight hold on the compiler. By only giving up executable files, they can control how any antivirus signatures are in the wild and keep unique signatures to a minimum."
As many as 30 banks have been targeted, many of them well known and high profile, Ahuvia said. RSA said the gang is targeting American banks because of past success in beating their defenses, as well as a lack of two-factor authentication required for wire transfers.Some European banks, for example, require consumers to use two-factor authentication. She added that RSA FraudAction was unsure how far along the recruitment campaign had gone, or when the attacks would launch.
"There is the chance that once we've gone public, they may abandon their plans because there's too much buzz around it," Ahuvia said. "On the other hand, I don't think anything we know will have such a dramatic effect on them. There are so many Trojans available and so many points of failure in security that could go wrong, that they'd still have some chance of success."
RSA's researchers were able to make the connection to the Gozi Prinimalka Trojan, which has been in circulation since 2008 and responsible for $5 million in fraud-related losses. Prinimalka is similar to the Gozi Trojan in technical and operational aspects, RSA said, leading to speculation the HangUp Team, which was tied to previous Gozi attacks, is behind this attack as well. Prinimalka is Russian for the word "receive" and is a folder name in every URL patch given by this particular gang to its crimeware servers.
Prinimalka uses the same bot-to-server communication pattern and URL trigger list as Gozi, RSA said. But deployment of the two Trojans is different: Gozi writes a single DLL file to bots upon deployment, while Prinimalka writes two, an executable file and a DAT file which reports to the command and control server.
Once the Trojan is launched, the botmaster fires up a virtual machine synching module. The module then duplicates the victim's computer, including identifiable features such as time zone, screen resolution, cookies, browser type and version, and software identification, RSA said. This allows the botmaster to impersonate the victim's machine and access their accounts. Access is carried out over a SOCKS proxy connection installed on the victim's machine, RSA said.
The cloned virtual system then can move about on the genuine IP address of the compromised machine when accessing the bank website. Taking it a step further, the attackers deploy VoIP phone flooding software that will prevent the victim from receiving a confirmation call or text alerting them to unusual transfer activity, RSA said.
"They are looking for this to be a quick campaign," Ahuvia said. "They want to make as much as they can until the banks and users harden their systems. They want to cash out quickly."

[Melkor]

Charlie Fuqua, Arkansas Legislative Candidate, Endorses Death Penalty For Rebellious Children In Book

The maintenance of civil order in society rests on the foundation of family discipline. Therefore, a child who disrespects his parents must be permanently removed from society in a way that gives an example to all other children of the importance of respect for parents. The death penalty for rebellious children is not something to be taken lightly. The guidelines for administering the death penalty to rebellious children are given in Deut 21:18-21: This passage does not give parents blanket authority to kill their children. They must follow the proper procedure in order to have the death penalty executed against their children. I cannot think of one instance in the Scripture where parents had their child put to death. Why is this so? Other than the love Christ has for us, there is no greater love then [sic] that of a parent for their child. The last people who would want to see a child put to death would be the parents of the child. Even so, the Scrpture provides a safe guard to protect children from parents who would wrongly exercise the death penalty against them. Parents are required to bring their children to the gate of the city. The gate of the city was the place where the elders of the city met and made judicial pronouncements. In other words, the parents were required to take their children to a court of law and lay out their case before the proper judicial authority, and let the judicial authority determine if the child should be put to death. I know of many cases of rebellious children, however, I cannot think of one case where I believe that a parent had given up on their child to the point that they would have taken their child to a court of law and asked the court to rule that the child be put to death. Even though this procedure would rarely be used, if it were the law of land, it would give parents authority. Children would know that their parents had authority and it would be a tremendous incentive for children to give proper respect to their parents.

[Father Jape]

Upravo dođoh to da okačim. 

[Mme Chauchat]

I cannot think of one instance in the Scripture where parents had their child put to death

a) A to što je Isak zamalo fasovao?

b) A Isus???

c) Tedoh i Avesaloma da pomenem ali zapravo nije bitno...

[Lord Kufer]

http://edition.cnn.com/2012/10/09/us/california-squirrel-plague/index.html?eref=mrss_igoogle_cnn

California squirrel tests positive for plague exposure

Authorities in Riverside County, California, said Tuesday that a ground squirrel has tested positive for exposure to fleas infected with the bacteria that can cause plague.

It's the country's first positive test in more than a decade, according to Dottie Merki, environmental health program chief at the Riverside County Department of Environmental Health.

"It's not something that people should panic about, but we do want them to be educated so they can protect their families and their pets," she said.

The squirrel was picked up in early September at a campground north of Idyllwild, located in the San Jacinto Mountains in southern California.

Routine tests are done as plague is endemic to the area, said Merki. Authorities plan to conduct more tests this week, weather permitting, she said.

Plague is caused by the bacterium, Yersinia pestis.

Humans can get plague from handling an infected animal or from being bitten by a rodent flea carrying the bacterium, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Plague can cause serious illness or death, though modern antibiotics are effective in treating it if administered promptly, the CDC said.

Health officials in Riverside County stressed that the risk of transmission to humans is small, especially if people take the proper precautions. They offered the following advice:

-- Avoid contact with squirrels and other wild animals

-- Do not feed or touch wild animals

-- Do not touch dead animals

-- Do not rest or camp near animal burrows

-- Protect your pets by leaving them at home, or by keeping them on a leash and using flea-control methods

Girl, 7, survives bubonic plague

Deaths rise to 12, with nearly 120 sickened in rare meningitis outbreak

[Lord Kufer]

Do not hug, feed or eat dead squirrels 

[Meho Krljic]

Amerika na ivici propasti! Doktrina prve prodaje u opasnosti!!!!! Dakle, kao što znamo, bez obzira na to da neko drugi poseduje prava na dizajn i sadržaj artikla koji kupujemo, on ne može da polaže pravo na kontrolu nad tim artiklom nakon što smo ga kupili - dakle slobodni smo da ga prodamo nekom drugom bez dozvole vlasnika patenta/ trejdmarka/ kopirajta. E, pa sad, suđenje pred vrhovnim sudom može da donese presedan u kome će se presuditi da ovo ne važi za artikle proizvedene izvan USA i da za takve artikle vlasnik mora da dobije eksplicitnu dozvolu od vlasnika autorskih prava da bi ih prodao.

Drugim rečima: artikli proizvedeni u USA biće retki i skupi i još više proizvodnje će se premestiti u druge zemlje. Pretpostavljam da je sudu ovo jasno i da neće doneti ovakvu presudu, al... ko zna...

Your right to resell your own stuff is in peril 

CHICAGO (MarketWatch) — Tucked into the U.S. Supreme Court's agenda this fall is a little-known case that could upend your ability to resell everything from your grandmother's antique furniture to your iPhone 4.
At issue in Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons is the first-sale doctrine in copyright law, which allows you to buy and then sell things like electronics, books, artwork and furniture, as well as CDs and DVDs, without getting permission from the copyright holder of those products.

Under the doctrine, which the Supreme Court has recognized since 1908, you can resell your stuff without worry because the copyright holder only had control over the first sale.
Put simply, though Apple Inc. /quotes/zigman/68270/quotes/nls/aapl AAPL +0.80%  has the copyright on the iPhone and Mark Owen has it on the book "No Easy Day," you can still sell your copies to whomever you please whenever you want without retribution.
That's being challenged now for products that are made abroad, and if the Supreme Court upholds an appellate court ruling, it would mean that the copyright holders of anything you own that has been made in China, Japan or Europe, for example, would have to give you permission to sell it.
"It means that it's harder for consumers to buy used products and harder for them to sell them," said Jonathan Band, an adjunct professor at Georgetown University Law Center, who filed a friend-of-the-court brief on behalf of the American Library Association, the Association of College and Research Libraries and the Association for Research Libraries. "This has huge consumer impact on all consumer groups."
Another likely result is that it would hit you financially because the copyright holder would now want a piece of that sale.
It could be your personal electronic devices or the family jewels that have been passed down from your great-grandparents who immigrated from Spain. It could be a book that was written by an American writer but printed and bound overseas, or an Italian painter's artwork.
There are implications for a variety of wide-ranging U.S. entities, including libraries, musicians, museums and even resale juggernauts eBay Inc. /quotes/zigman/76117/quotes/nls/ebay EBAY +1.17%  and Craigslist. U.S. libraries, for example, carry some 200 million books from foreign publishers.
"It would be absurd to say anything manufactured abroad can't be bought or sold here," said Marvin Ammori, a First Amendment lawyer and Schwartz Fellow at the New American Foundation who specializes in technology issues.
The case stems from Supap Kirtsaeng's college experience. A native of Thailand, Kirtsaeng came to America in 1997 to study at Cornell University. When he discovered that his textbooks, produced by Wiley, were substantially cheaper to buy in Thailand than they were in Ithaca, N.Y., he rallied his Thai relatives to buy the books and ship them to him in the United States.

He then sold them on eBay, making upward of $1.2 million, according to court documents.
Wiley, which admitted that it charged less for books sold abroad than it did in the United States, sued him for copyright infringement. Kirtsaeng countered with the first-sale doctrine.

[mac]

Auh, ovo je baš zeznut slučaj. Ne znam ni za koga da navijam. S jedne strane jesam pristalica politike da siromašniji delovi sveta plaćaju manje za isti proizvod, ali s druge strane kupac jeste vlasnik onoga što je kupio, uključujući i prava na prodaju. Možda bi se stvar rešila iznajmljivanjem knjiga.

[scallop]

Mi tu nismo u iskušenju. Kod nas je sve skuplje nego u Americi. Međutim, ja bih neke stvari mogao da kupim tamo, pa da risejlujem ovde.

[Meho Krljic]

Ma, mislim, meni je prilično jasno zašto se izdavač mršti i tužaka ali ko ih jebe? Prodaja stvari koje smo kupili mora biti "prirodno" pravo, a ako imaju problem sa tim što se neko setio da od toga napravi biznis - zašto oni ne poprave svoj biznis model i budu mu dostojna konkurencija? Nego sad da menjamo zakone da bi se očuvao njihov zastareli. Pazi kurca!!

[mac]

Opiši mi molim te taj bolji biznis model. Moje predviđanje je da će izdavačke kuće izjednačiti cene, to jest neće sve biti jednako jeftino nego jednako skupo. Ljudi u siromašnim državama neće moći sebi da priušte stručne knjige, što znači da će još više tehnološki zaostati u odnosu na razvijene zemlje. Da li je to prihvatljiv gubitak?

[Lord Kufer]

Ma ovo je već samrtni hropac. Sad gledajte kanibalizam između korporacija.

[scallop]

Opiši mi molim te taj bolji biznis model. Moje predviđanje je da će izdavačke kuće izjednačiti cene, to jest neće sve biti jednako jeftino nego jednako skupo. Ljudi u siromašnim državama neće moći sebi da priušte stručne knjige, što znači da će još više tehnološki zaostati u odnosu na razvijene zemlje. Da li je to prihvatljiv gubitak?

Pogrešna ti je procena. Izdavačke kuće to ne mogu da realizuju. Ti silni tiraži, koji samo štampani u Aziji mogu da budu za izdavače dovoljno jeftini, moraju da budu prodati u dovoljnom procentu da bi bili isplativi. A nemaju doboljan broj kupaca koji bi platili retail price od, na primer, 30$ za knjigu "Meat" koju sam ja u fazi bargain ( koja je na kraju lanca skidanja cene iz sale i total sale) platim 5,99$. Već sam napisao da je i to više od cene koju su oni platili. Dakle, mora da postoji niža cena za deo tiraža koji ne dospeva na njihovo domaće tržište i ne podleže domaćim poreskim taksama. Naravno, oni mogu da pokušaju da spreče dopremanje tih jeftinijih knjiga u SAD, ali, kad stignu pravo kupca je nenadjebivo. Mislim da se linkovana priča odnosi na naučne i stručne knjige, gde su tiraži manji, a cena basnoslovna (100 i više dolara), ali, te knjige se i lakše unose u zemlju pa su na istom.

[Meho Krljic]

Prilično je poznato da su univerzitetski udžbenici u USA izuzetno skupi jer postoji kartelski model poslovanja njihovih izdavača, zaštićenih postojećom legislativom. Mislim da smo pisali o tome negde ovde ali mrzi me sad da tražim pa evo ovo istraživanje. Pošto se izvan USA bore sa konkurencijom, tamo knjige prodaju po prihvatljivijim cenama. Dakle, čini mi se da se odgovor sam nameće - tržišno poslovanje.

[Lord Kufer]

Tamo je sve biznis. Čak je i biznis - biznis 
Svaki sistem kreće od mikromenadžmenta, pa kad dovoljno naraste ide se na makromenadžment, a onda, kad sistem preraste sebe, opet se ide na mikromenadžment a to je već početak kataklizme jer se aktivira autoimuna bolest.

Nekada, kada su knjige bile u pitanju, outsourcing je išao u SSSR, tamo su skupi udžbenici prevođeni bez licence i koštali su džabalesku. Trebalo je samo malo znati ruski.
Ne znam da li sada i dalje radi ta piraterija. Bilo bi dobro da radi.

[Mme Chauchat]

Ma, mislim, meni je prilično jasno zašto se izdavač mršti i tužaka ali ko ih jebe? Prodaja stvari koje smo kupili mora biti "prirodno" pravo, a ako imaju problem sa tim što se neko setio da od toga napravi biznis - zašto oni ne poprave svoj biznis model i budu mu dostojna konkurencija? Nego sad da menjamo zakone da bi se očuvao njihov zastareli. Pazi kurca!!

Nek si im reko!
I što samo američki udžbenici? Važi to i za druge neanglofone zemlje i njihovu stručnu literaturu. -.-

[Meho Krljic]

Možda važi al ovi pokušavaju da naruše princip prilično svet za Ameriku (slobodno tržište) da bi zaštitili svoj oligopolski položaj pa zato njih pominjemo.

[mac]

Pazi sad sekundarni efekat. Recimo da na istu temu imamo nekoliko stručnih knjiga. Tebi treba samo jedna. Knjige su različite po kvalitetu, ali jedna je najbolja, i svi je žele. Sad nastupaju Tajlanđani koji uvoze u jače tržište tu najbolju knjigu koju svi žele. Zbog Tajlanđana najbolja knjiga ima najmanju zaradu. Šta će u budućnosti raditi izdavačke kuće? Prosto, potrudiće se da njihova knjiga na datu temu ne bude najbolja.

[Meho Krljic]

Ne, zaboga, ovde je poenta da su cene u USA "nreprirodno" visoke jer nema stvarnog nadmetanja na tržištu. Dakle, rešenje je da se uspostavi normalna konkurencija i nadmetanje kvalitetom i cenom. Druge grane industrije to već rade, zašto bismo izdavačima udžbenika davali poseban zakonski status?

[scallop]

Izvinjavam se, ali mene uvek poremeti upotreba termina oligopolija i možda sam loše uveren da wiki barata nepreciznim primerima. Prema podacima sa kojima sam ja radio oligopolija je razmerena od 0 do 100% i ocenjuje stepen monopolizacije u nekoj privrednoj grani. Ukoliko se više prouzvođača udružuje radi kontrole prodaje svojih proizvoda onda je takvo udruživanje sankcionisano antitrust ili antimonopolskom regulativom. Stoga se John Wiley & Sons i slične firme koje se bave izdavaštvom naučne literature ne mogu nazivati "oligopolistima", jer su naučna područja toliko razuđena da ne mogu biti tržišno kartelski kontrolisana. Visoke cene naučne literature su isključivo posledica ograničenih tiraža.

[Meho Krljic]

Pa, ja sam dao link na studiju koja se problemom bavi, baci pogled šta tamo kažu. Ili, evo citata koji dosta otkriva:

In seeking to determine causes for the perceived rise in textbook prices, the
GAO interviewed a wide variety of industry specialists, including

"executives from five textbook publishers that account for more than 80 percent

of new textbook sales; the three major national used textbook wholesalers; three

companies that operate over 1,300 college textbook retail stores, or 29 percent of

stores nationwide; the National Association of College Stores; the Association of

American Publishers; the California and state Public Interest Research Groups;

and various other industry experts" (2005, p. 2).

The study found that between 1986 and 2004, college textbooks prices rose at twice the

rate of annual inflation. The cost of textbooks had nearly tripled in that time frame. The study

also agrees with the earlier state PIRGs reports in naming textbooks as a burden relative to the

type of institution attended: For first-time, full-time students at a four-year public institution,

textbooks cost an average of $898 in the 2003-04 school year, compared with $886 for the same

year at two-year public institutions. For the first group, this number made up roughly a quarter of

the cost of tuition and fees, but for the second group, the number made up roughly three-quarters

of the cost of tuition and fees (Government Accountability Office, 2005, p. 3).

The GAO study agrees with the "Ripoff 101" reports in naming the practice of bundling

as a main cause of increased prices. The report cites its discussion with publishing executives

who claimed that "they have tailored their instructional supplements to enhance instructor

productivity and teaching, largely to meet the needs of instructors in an environment of funding

cuts" (p. 15). However, the report also cites that wholesalers, retailers and public interest groups

that were interviewed in the course of the study voiced concern that the practice of bundling

"may limit the ability students have to decrease their costs by purchasing less expensive used

textbooks" (p. 16), which lines up well with the arguments presented in the "Ripoff 101" reports.

Among the explanation of the difficulties associated with bundling, retailers reported that they

cannot reliably attain new bundled materials to be sold along with the used books, and that

12

bundled items with broken seals must be absorbed at loss by the retailer if returned by the

student because the publishers will only accept the return of sealed bundles (p. 16, 17).

Another point where the GAO study agrees with the "Ripoff 101" reports concerns the

frequency of new editions of textbooks, which the report finds to have an adverse effect on

student finances. Publishers admit that textbooks are revised on a cycle of three to four years.

The report shows that the turnover rate of new editions prevents the establishment of a used book

market for students and prevents retailers from buying back old editions from students. While the

publishers claim it is a practice "driven by instructors who want the most current material and

may seek products from competitors if they are unable to meet the demand" (Government

Accountability Office, 2005, p. 18), the study cites a letter created by the state PIRGs from April

2004 which undercuts this argument: "700 mathematics and physics instructors from 150

universities across the country have petitioned one publisher to delay revisions until there have

been substantial changes in content or teaching methods that merit revision" (p. 18). However,

the report does offer up the publishers' counter argument that although new revisions do not

always reflect substantial change in content, they might reflect new teaching methods.

Finally, the study examines the allegations first touched on in the second edition of the

state PIRGs report, namely that textbook publishers charge more for books sold domestically

than for those sold overseas. Rather than completely vilifying the textbook publishers, as the

"Ripoff 101" reports do, the GAO report states that "college textbook prices in the United States

may exceed prices in other countries because textbook publishers assign prices that reflect the

market conditions found in each country" (p. 21), a practice that has become more transparent

with the rise of e-commerce. The report further states that "the practice of differential pricing is

not exclusive to textbook publishing and occurs both within and outside the United States" (p.

23), thus dismissing it as a concern except in the context of public awareness of the disparity.

However, the report does note that the publishers interviewed were concerned with the

possibility of large-scale reimportation of textbooks from other countries, and had worked to

strengthen contracts with foreign distributors to prevent this from occurring (p. 25). This does

not, however, prevent students from purchasing single copies of textbooks from overseas.

The tone of the GAO report is very impartial, unlike that of the state PIRGs reports. The

study notes that prices for tuition have risen even more than those of textbooks in the same time

period. The bundling practice is approached as the road of progress, ultimately able to increase

13

the quality of an American education. It also notes that the cost of textbooks can be prohibitive in

2-year institutions where they represent three-fourths of the cost of tuition, which

disproportionately affects the affordability of education for a certain segment of the population.

The theme of lack of choice for students is prevalent throughout the report. However, because

this report serves as an impartial study, the GAO offers no suggestions for the remediation of the

problem. The report leaves it to campus, state and federal policymakers to approach the issue as

they see fit after being presented with the facts of the matter.

After this report was released, media coverage of the issue exploded, which led to

heightened public awareness. Some specific examples of campus and state policy moves in

response are covered in the Section III of this paper. The next major report released on the

subject was the Advisory Committee on Student Financial Assistance.

[Meho Krljic]

A što se tiče odnosa oligopola i kartela, pa wikipedija kaže i:

Oligopolistic competition can give rise to a wide range of different outcomes. In some situations, the firms may employ restrictive trade practices (collusion, market sharing etc.) to raise prices and restrict production in much the same way as a monopoly. Where there is a formal agreement for such collusion, this is known as a cartel. A primary example of such a cartel is OPEC which has a profound influence on the international price of oil.
Firms often collude in an attempt to stabilize unstable markets, so as to reduce the risks inherent in these markets for investment and product development.[citation needed] There are legal restrictions on such collusion in most countries. There does not have to be a formal agreement for collusion to take place (although for the act to be illegal there must be actual communication between companies)–for example, in some industries there may be an acknowledged market leader which informally sets prices to which other producers respond, known as price leadership.
In other situations, competition between sellers in an oligopoly can be fierce, with relatively low prices and high production. This could lead to an efficient outcome approaching perfect competition. The competition in an oligopoly can be greater when there are more firms in an industry than if, for example, the firms were only regionally based and did not compete directly with each other.
Thus the welfare analysis of oligopolies is sensitive to the parameter values used to define the market's structure. In particular, the level of dead weight loss is hard to measure. The study of product differentiation indicates that oligopolies might also create excessive levels of differentiation in order to stifle competition.

[scallop]

Jel' si ti razumeo šta u tvojim linkovima piše? Upravo ono šta pokušavam da ti pojasnim. NBC, CBS, ABC i Fox su "oligopolija" sa procentom svog učešća na tržištu masvnih medija, ali će se poklati oko jednog procenta gledanosti. A kretanje cena školovanja, literature, bundlinga i redovnih godišnjih "dorađenih" izdanja u SAD od 1986. do 2007. su posledica reganovštine.

[Meho Krljic]

Dakle, kartelsko ponašanje!!!!

[scallop]

Otprilike. Mada u SAD "kartelsko" vide kao kriminalno udruživanje narko bosova. Trust je više prekršajno. Ako hoćeš, mogu da ti potražim jedan fini dijagram raspodele oligopolije masovnih medija u SAD. Imam negde šemu.

[Meho Krljic]

Ma ne moraš, to je već predaleko od teme koju ovde koliko-toliko diskutujemo. Da se udžbenici štampaju svake godine  sa minimalnim izmenama a da dilovi sa školama pomažu da se studentima praktično onemogući korišćenje starih. To svakako nije poštovanje slobodnog tržišta bla bla bla.

[scallop]

Ti si mislio da se to dešava samo kod nas? Evo, ja imam Kotlerove Principles of Marketing trinaesto izdanje! (2010). Sad ih ima sigurno 15. A koštao nas je skoro 200$. "Izmenjeno i dopunjeno", a ne možeš ni da nađeš šta je to. "If you purchased this book within the United States or Canada you should be aware that it has been wrongfully imported without approval of the Publisher or th Autor." Šta god to značilo.

[Meho Krljic]

Ma, nisam ja ništa mislio, ne preterujmo, samo sam ukazao da sad ljudi koji imaju povlašćen položaj na tržištu posežu za potencijalno apsurdnim sudskim odlukama da taj položaj cementiraju i da je to u neskladu sa zdravim razumom, idejom nekog slobodnog tržišta itd.

Elem, druga tema: Bajden i Rajan su sinoć (tj. do malopre) debatovali i evo kratkog sižea:

Biden, the anti-Obama, brings exasperation to debate with Ryan 

On Thursday night, vice president Joe Biden and congressman Paul Ryan sat at a semi-circular piece of corporate office furniture to debate various aspects of foreign and domestic policy. With moderator Martha Raddatz at the helm, the 90-minute conversation between the two contenders began fairly civilly, and grew increasingly snippy.
Those hoping for a few true wildman outbursts or gaffes from the easily lampooned Biden were disappointed. The vice president, however, grinning hugely, shaking his head and even giggling during some of his opponent's answers, did seem exasperated with the much younger congressman for most of the debate.
Answering the moderator's first question, about the recent terrorist attack on the American consulate in Benghazi, Libya, Biden, a former chairperson of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, promised that the Obama administration would "find and bring justice to the men" responsible for the death of Ambassador Chris Stevens and the three other Americans killed during the attack.
Ryan came back with the claim that the president's foreign policy is "making us less safe."

Shortly after, Biden had his first bona fide 'Biden moment': "With all due respect, that's a bunch of malarkey," he said. (Moments later "malarkey" and "malarky" were trending on Twitter.)
As the candidates segued to domestic issues, Biden went after the Romney/Ryan ticket for being on the side of fat cats. "They continue to put the interest of millionaires and billionaires ... ahead of the military and middle class," Biden said.
In response—and attempting to defend Romney's controversial 47 percent remark—Ryan said (to laughter), "I think the vice president knows, sometimes the words don't always come out of your mouth the way you want."
"But I always say what I mean," Biden retorted with a grin.
The vice president did seem to say what he meant for much of the debate, even looking straight at the camera and addressing viewers directly.

On Medicare, Biden asked: "Folks, all you seniors out there, have you been denied choices?" It was a daytime television commercial moment fit for a consummate salesman: there should have been an 800 number for people to dial so Biden could chat with them.
Raddatz also questioned the candidates about their tickets' respective tax plans. Biden pointed his pointer finger at Raddatz and proclaimed for the second time during the debate that Romney and Ryan were intending "to [hold] the middle class hostage."
Ryan, sounding like a wonky accountant running numbers and bobbing his head side to side a bit like a turtle, responded that there aren't enough rich people to pay for the Obama administration's spending. Then, taking a cue from Biden, he addressed the camera directly: "Watch out middle class, the tax bill is coming to you."
(At 9:53 p.m. ET, "Joe Biden's teeth" was also trending on Twitter.)
Ryan also claimed that bipartisanship could make his ticket's vague proposed tax plan work.
"Different than this administration, we actually want to have big, bipartisan agreements," Ryan said, suggesting cooperation could lead to budget cuts that would pay for a 20 percent tax cut across the board for Americans. "Look at what Tip O'Neil and Ronald Reagan did. They worked out of a framework."
"The only way you can find $5 trillion in deductions is to cut deductions for the middle class," Biden said. Otherwise, it's "not mathematically possible."
"It is mathematically possible," Ryan responded. "Jack Kennedy lowered taxes and raised revenue."
This provoked the only line that could possibly count as the debate's real zinger.
"Oh, now you're Jack Kennedy," Biden said, evoking visions of the 1988 vice-presidential debate between Lloyd Bentsen and Dan Quayle. ("Senator, I served with Jack Kennedy, I knew Jack Kennedy, Jack Kennedy was a friend of mine," Bentsen had said. "Senator, you're no Jack Kennedy.")
During that same exchange, the biggest zinger of the night was almost Raddatz's. She asked Ryan directly for details on the tax cuts: "Do you actually have the specifics, or are you still working on it?"
Closing out, Raddatz moved back to foreign policy, covering Afghanistan, and then asked the two Catholic candidates how their faith impacts their views on abortion.
Then, with the debate having grown downright testy, Raddatz said, "Let me calm down things here just for a minute," and asked her last question: "If you were elected, what would you both give to this country as a man, and human being, that no one else could?"
Ryan suggested his capacity to solve problems, but then rattled off statistics about jobs and the economy instead of sticking with the question.
Biden, casual, went broad: "Let me tell ya," he said. "My record stands for itself. Whatever I say, I do. I treat Main Street and Wall Street the same. You grow this country from the middle out, not the top down."
In his closing statement, Biden went again for the emotional connection to viewers that he reached for much of the evening. "You probably detected my frustration with [Ryan and Romney's] attitude toward the American people," he said. "All [the American people] are looking for is an even shot. The president and I are not going to rest until they have a clear shot and peace of mind and can say to their family, 'It's gonna be OK.'"
Ryan, in closing, said: "Wouldn't it be nice to have a job creator in the White House?" he asked. "The choice is clear, and the choice rests with you, and we ask you for your vote."
   

[scallop]

Znam da te više ne zanima, ali, pošto smo se potrudili. Možda će te zanimati kako su pre pet godina bili raspodeljenji udeli masovnih medija, (ali i piva) na tržištu SAD. Za slaninicu nisam imao.



Uploaded with ImageShack.us

[Meho Krljic]

Bogami, sa automobilima je situacija alarmantna    Dženeral Motors dakle gazi američke potrošače željeznom čizmom. Ali čak ni oni ne pokušavaju da sudski spreče konkurenciju da se nadmeće. Bar ne da ja znam, naravno.

[Джон Рейнольдс]

Да ли би ми неко објаснио како је то постојао стопостотни монопол у америчкој аутоиндустрији?

Џенерал моторс је један од три велика играча, далеко је од монополисте. Тако је било пре пет година, тако је и сад.

[scallop]

Ko govori o Dženeral Motorsu? Reč je o automobilima, a oni nemaju konkurenciju na američkom tržištu ličnog prevoza. Trotineti su totalna margina.

[Lord Kufer]

Monopol automobilske industrije i naftne industrije, sprečio je izgradnju odgovarajućih metroa, recimo u LA.

[Джон Рейнольдс]

Ko govori o Dženeral Motorsu? Reč je o automobilima, a oni nemaju konkurenciju na američkom tržištu ličnog prevoza. Trotineti su totalna margina.

Мехо уноси забуну. 

[Meho Krljic]

Pa i ja sam se šalio, mislim, DžM mi je pao na pamet jer su jedina američka firma za koju znam da danas proizvodi automobile. A stopostotni monopol bi značio da su oni ta firma. Al ko zna šta ovaj grafikon zaista znači 

[scallop]

Oligopolija govori o razuđenosti, višecentričnosti. Odnosno, na neki način ilustruje i specijalizaciju proizvodnje. Što je ona složenija ima manje konkurenata na tržištu i konkurenti lakše nalaze zajednički jezik kako da tu prednost iskoriste (zloupotrebe). Žao mi je što grafikon nije jasniji.

[Lord Kufer]

Grafikon je previše pojednostavljen. Bilo bi zanimljivo videti još mnogo toga na jednom takvom grafikonu.

[Джон Рейнольдс]

Pa i ja sam se šalio, mislim, DžM mi je pao na pamet jer su jedina američka firma za koju znam da danas proizvodi automobile.

Сигурно знаш за "Форд" и "Крајслер". То је "велика тројка".

[Meho Krljic]

Jesu, ali pošto ne pratim scenu, pomislio sam da su oni možda u nekom momentu kupljeni od strane Japanaca ili Nijemaca ili Korejaca or sumtin i da je DžM jedini ostao pravi američki...

[Meho Krljic]

Nego, Amerika na ivici propasti: student greškom dobio putem babovog čeka za penziju 690 milijuna dolara ali je bio pošten pa vratio državi:

Student returns check for a half-billion dollars 

Let's face it: We could all imagine what to do with a little extra cash. But when Allen Smith received his monthly Veterans Affairs dependency check, it contained an unimaginable amount. Instead of the usual $650, it was made out for a half-billion dollars. Billion.
The 22-year-old receives a dependency check from the Department of the Treasury to help with college expenses, because his father served in the U.S. Air Force. It's just usually not that much.
Still, that's a lot of textbooks.
Smith's mother, Patricia Attwood Smith, told WTVM, "He immediately, immediately went to the VA officer at Fort Benning ... (and) turned in the check." She added she is proud of her son and knows his father is smiling down on him.
So where does the $690,000,000 actually belong? That remains a mystery.
Smith was told the check could have been a misprint or the office could have been hacked. The VA inspector general assured Attwood Smith that the check will get back to where it belongs.

[Lord Kufer]

http://www.b92.net/info/vesti/index.php?yyyy=2012&mm=10&dd=13&nav_category=78&nav_id=651363

Pucano na Obamin štab u Denveru

Izvor: Beta

Los Anđeles -- Nepoznate osobe su pucale na predizborni štab američkog predsednika Baraka Obame u Denveru, saopštila je danas lokalna policija.

U trenutku incidenta bilo je ljudi u prostorijama, a kako se veruje nepoznati napadači su iz automobila pucali u pravcu zgrade, rekla je portparolka policije u Denveru Rakel Lopes.

Na sajtu lista Denver vestvord postavljena je fotografija sa mesta incidenta na kojoj se vidi slomljeno staklo na prozorima kancelarija.

Istraga u vezi sa pucnjavom je u toku.

Predsednički izbori u SAD održaće se 6. novembra.

[Father Jape]

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/14/opinion/sunday/the-self-destruction-of-the-1-percent.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

[raindelay]

Serija tuzbi protiv dobrih dela se nastavlja

Paramedic punished for giving blanket to elderly fire survivor wearing only underpants

A Detroit paramedic is in hot water for what seems to have been an act of kindness - giving a blanket to an elderly man who was cold. Two weeks ago, a house caught fire, and the man who lived there was taken outside wearing only his underwear.

Paramedic Jeff Gaglio gave him a blanket. Then, Gaglio was informed that the department was bringing him up on charges for his action.
Jerald James, chief of the Emergency Medical Service (EMS), who is responsible for Gaglio's punishment, said in defence of the charges, "We can't have an employee who feels that they have a right to give away state property without getting prior approval." In fact, his department and the city of Detroit are strapped for cash.

However, it has also been revealed that the department did not pay for the blanket. The one that Gaglio gave away had been donated. Gaglio explained his frustration: "I'm being punished for giving a man a blanket. Something that would seem like a common everyday courtesy. Something that any man or woman would do in the city of Detroit."


http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/trending-now/paramedic-punished-giving-blanket-cold-elderly-fire-survivor-174434660.html

[Meho Krljic]

Stvarno bizar. Mislim, čak i da je tako, možda su mogli da se lepo dogovore među kolegama da kupe ćebe da se nadoknadi ovo i svi zadovoljni... Ludilo.

[Barbarin]

Ameri će stvarno propadnu 

[Lord Kufer]

Desenzitacija.

[Meho Krljic]

More assertive Obama trades barbs with Romney, targets wealth issues 

A much more aggressive President Barack Obama showed up to the second presidential debate Tuesday, which at times devolved into angry crosstalk with Republican rival Mitt Romney.
President Obama was under pressure to perform dramatically better at this debate—held at Hofstra University in Long Island, N.Y.—than the one held two weeks ago. Gov. Romney's energetic performance at that first debate quickly boosted him in the polls, with some recent measures showing he and the president in a virtual tie among likely voters.
Romney kept up his Denver demeanor, attacking Obama on his jobs record, failure to pass immigration reform, policies in the Middle East, and other issues. But this time, instead of simply repeating portions of his stump speech, Obama was ready with specific retorts and counter-attacks. The president frequently accused Romney of twisting facts, occasionally interrupting him as he spoke.
At one point, the debate almost became a shouting match over whether President Obama had cut back oil extraction from public lands. Obama repeatedly said Romney was lying about his claim that oil production was down, pointedly saying, "Not true, Governor Romney." (Politifact ranked a similar claim by a conservative super PAC "half true.") Feeling the heat, moderator Candy Crowley took the candidates to another topic.


The 90-minute town hall-style debate got personal at times. Romney took a detour on an answer on immigration reform to address Obama campaign claims that his personal fortune is invested in China and shielded from taxes. "Mr. President, have you looked at your pension?" he asked, implying the president is also unaware of the nature of his investments. "You know, I don't look at my pension," Obama retorted, adding, "It's not as big as yours so it doesn't take as long."


Obama returned more than once to the topic of Romney's wealth, saying Romney sees nothing unfair about millionaires paying the same tax rate as a nurse or other middle-class worker. Later in the debate, Romney criticized Obama for attending political events so soon after the U.S. ambassador to Libya, Chris Stevens, was killed, and also said Obama's campaign unfairly painted him as a villain. Obama closed the debate by mentioning Romney's leaked comments that half the country is dependent on government.
Both candidates appeared comfortable with the more intimate town hall-style, during which an audience of 80 undecided voters, handpicked by polling organization Gallup, watched and asked questions. Audience members picked by Crowley asked the candidates about immigration reform, jobs, gun control, the gender pay gap, and other issues. In answer to a question about the economy from college student Jeremy Epstein, Romney said if elected he could guarantee Epstein would find employment when he graduates in 2014 because of his economic policies. "I'm going to make sure you get a job," Romney said. Obama answered a question about the pay gap with a personal story about his mother's struggle to make ends meet while raising two children on her own.
By the end of the debate, Romney spoke for nearly 41 minutes, Obama a little over 44 minutes.
The final debate of the election is Monday in Boca Raton, Florida, and will focus on foreign policy.
   

Obama wins the second debate. Too bad it's not the one that mattered. 

When the evening began, one observation dominated the conversation: "If President Barack Obama has another debate like the last one, the election's over."
When the evening ended, I was struck by a different thought: If Obama had performed this way at the first debate, the election would have been over.
In every debate, whatever the format, whatever the questions, there is one and only one way to identify the winner: Who commands the room? Who drives the narrative? Who is in charge? More often than not on Tuesday night, I think, Obama had the better of it.
From a substantive view, there was one argument that the president was seeking to make over and over: Don't let Mitt Romney fool you; he's a rich guy out to protect the interests of the well-off, not the middle-class.
That's why he referenced not just Romney's tax plan, but Romney's taxes, the fact that the Republican presidential nominee paid a lower rate on his millions than ordinary working-class folks do on theirs, the fact that Romney has invested heavily in China. And when Romney went at Obama with almost the exact same argument he used so devastatingly against Newt Gingrich—"have you checked your pension?"—Obama came back with, "I haven't looked at my pension; it's not as big as yours. (For super-wonks it harked back to a 1982 debate between Mario Cuomo and the super-wealthy Lew Lehrman, when Cuomo reached over, grabbed Lehrman's hand, and said, "Nice watch, Lou!")
As a tactical matter, Obama executed one of the toughest of maneuvers: the counterpunch. When Romney attacked Obama for hindering the use of coal, the President recalled an appearance of Romney as governor of Massachusetts, where he vowed to shut down a coal-fired power plant. (The fact that Romney was probably right about the danger will be the subject of earnest substantive post-debate analyses that have no place here!)
And in talking about an area where the Obama administration has clear vulnerabilities—the attack on the American consulate in Libya—Obama summoned the inherent high ground of the presidency to condemn the "politicization" of the attack.
To be clear: There was nothing particularly off about Romney. He had several strong moments, most especially contrasting what Obama said he would do in 2008 with what in fact had happened over the past four years. This was, and is, the single most powerful argument against returning Obama to the White House, and Romney deployed it effectively.
It's just that Obama found what he could not find in Denver—a coherent thread to make the case that he understands the middle-class in a way Romney does not. For those Democratic partisans wondering where "the 47 percent" argument was, Obama was saving it for the close which—because of a pre-debate coin flip—Romney could not answer. In this sense, it was like Reagan's famous "are you better off?" question from 1980.
In a larger sense, however, Obama's success is unlikely to have anything like the impact of that 1980 debate, nor will it likely alter the terrain of the campaign as the first debate of 2012 did. Had the Obama of this debate showed up two weeks ago, he might well have ended Romney's effort to present himself as a credible alternative to the president.
That opportunity vanished that night. While it's clear that Obama's performance will revive the enthusiasm of his supporters, it seems unlikely that it will cause those impressed by Romney to reconsider. Like they say in show business, timing is everything.