Online retailers have taken to changing prices frequently--perhaps, hourly--because why should airline passengers have all the fun of finding out they paid twice as much as someone who bought the same product five minutes after they did?
An article in today's Times reports on this practice, adopted by Wal-Mart, Target, Amazon, and other retailers. Companies monitor each others' prices and then immediately adjust their own to undercut their competitors, sometimes by as little as two cents. Obviously, some consumers reap significant benefits--to the extent that saving two cents on "Mario Kart" can be considered "significant"--but retailers may face a backlash from those customers irked at being gouged--to the extent that charging an extra two cents on "Mario Kart" can be considered "gouging."
Couldn't this seriously backfire on the retailers? Once buyers get wind of this practice--i.e., now--won't they start trying to game the system? Right now, these stores are just competing for the sake of being able to say that they provide the lowest price. But if I'm in the market for a Bodum wok--whatever that is--and I know retailers are just going to keep lowering the price--why wouldn't I just sit back and wait?
People may not be able to do that with airline tickets: When people have to go somewhere at a certain time, then they pretty much have to accept whatever price is being offered. But when it comes to plain old retail products? Why buy now if the price is just going to keep coming down? If enough people do this, prices will get so low that Wal-Mart'll just start giving stuff away--or even paying people to take it!
Saturday, December 1, 2012
Friday, November 30, 2012
Octopussy's Garden
James Bond movie or Beatles song?
(A completely pointless quiz)
From Russia With Love
Back in the USSR
Die Another Day
Devil in Her Heart
Goldeneye
Blackbird
Tomorrow Never Knows
Quantum of Solace
Across the Universe
Diamonds Are Forever
You Only Live Twice
Happiness Is a Warm Gun
The Inner Light
Golden Slumbers
The World Is Not Enough
The Living Daylights
For Yor Eyes Only
Matchbox
Never Say Never Again
Not a Second Time
(A completely pointless quiz)
From Russia With Love
Back in the USSR
Die Another Day
Devil in Her Heart
Goldeneye
Blackbird
Tomorrow Never Knows
Quantum of Solace
Across the Universe
Diamonds Are Forever
You Only Live Twice
Happiness Is a Warm Gun
The Inner Light
Golden Slumbers
The World Is Not Enough
The Living Daylights
For Yor Eyes Only
Matchbox
Never Say Never Again
Not a Second Time
Thursday, November 29, 2012
I Read the News Today Oy Vey
Necessity is the mother of invention. Invention's father? Nobody knows. Necessity's a bit of a whore.
Let me start over.
Necessity is the mother of invention. LACK of necessity, though, births newsworthy nonsense. No less than three of today's front-page stories in the New York Times revolved around things less necessary than mackerel-sized biking shorts.
For starters, senators ranging from the once-respectable John McCain to the I-once-thought-reasonable Susan Collins continue to wax apoplectic over UN Ambassador Susan Rice's "gaffes" in the wake of the terrorist attack on the US consulate in Benghazi. The fact that these "gaffes," shared on several Sunday morning news programs, consisted of intelligence-approved talking points--talking points initially requested by a congressman, no less!--makes no difference to these watchdogs of American safety, who are convinced--convinced, I say!--that Rice's performance in this matter makes her an utterly unacceptable candidate for Secretary of State, which is why they have made clear that they are unlikely to support her for nomination to this position for which she has not, in fact, been nominated!
Well, pre-emptive nominee-bashing is never out of style. Let's see what else is in the news.
Ah, the University of Tennessee has fired its head football coach, Derek "Say-This-Name-With-a-Straight-Face" Dooley. Fair enough. The team has staggered to a disappointing 1-7 record, and the university has to fire the coach since it can't fire the players (but just wait 'til they see their P.E. grades!). Here's the thing, though: Dooley has a contract, so the university must pay him about $5 million for the privilege of being fired! Throw in money owed to his coaching staff, who will likely also be let go, and the total amount the school will shell out comes to about $18 million. In case you're wondering where the money will come from, well, don't worry: It's going to be taken from money earmarked for scholarships--academic scholarships, by the way, not athletic scholarships--'cause, you know, why would UT cut funding for the athletic department, what with its dysfunctional 1-7 football team bringing such pride to the university.
Meantime, in military news, the world's most advanced military jet, the F-35 joint strike fighter, under development seemingly for the last 400 years at a cost of billions upon billions of dollars, may fall victim to budget cutting by Congress. I don't believe it, though. Considering the United States can already pretty much overwhelm any competing military force the sheer unnecessariness of the F-35 makes it the perfect emblem of today's misplaced priorities. I'll take a dozen!
Let me start over.
Necessity is the mother of invention. LACK of necessity, though, births newsworthy nonsense. No less than three of today's front-page stories in the New York Times revolved around things less necessary than mackerel-sized biking shorts.
For starters, senators ranging from the once-respectable John McCain to the I-once-thought-reasonable Susan Collins continue to wax apoplectic over UN Ambassador Susan Rice's "gaffes" in the wake of the terrorist attack on the US consulate in Benghazi. The fact that these "gaffes," shared on several Sunday morning news programs, consisted of intelligence-approved talking points--talking points initially requested by a congressman, no less!--makes no difference to these watchdogs of American safety, who are convinced--convinced, I say!--that Rice's performance in this matter makes her an utterly unacceptable candidate for Secretary of State, which is why they have made clear that they are unlikely to support her for nomination to this position for which she has not, in fact, been nominated!
Well, pre-emptive nominee-bashing is never out of style. Let's see what else is in the news.
Ah, the University of Tennessee has fired its head football coach, Derek "Say-This-Name-With-a-Straight-Face" Dooley. Fair enough. The team has staggered to a disappointing 1-7 record, and the university has to fire the coach since it can't fire the players (but just wait 'til they see their P.E. grades!). Here's the thing, though: Dooley has a contract, so the university must pay him about $5 million for the privilege of being fired! Throw in money owed to his coaching staff, who will likely also be let go, and the total amount the school will shell out comes to about $18 million. In case you're wondering where the money will come from, well, don't worry: It's going to be taken from money earmarked for scholarships--academic scholarships, by the way, not athletic scholarships--'cause, you know, why would UT cut funding for the athletic department, what with its dysfunctional 1-7 football team bringing such pride to the university.
Meantime, in military news, the world's most advanced military jet, the F-35 joint strike fighter, under development seemingly for the last 400 years at a cost of billions upon billions of dollars, may fall victim to budget cutting by Congress. I don't believe it, though. Considering the United States can already pretty much overwhelm any competing military force the sheer unnecessariness of the F-35 makes it the perfect emblem of today's misplaced priorities. I'll take a dozen!
Wednesday, November 28, 2012
Halfway Educational
Today I learned about the "51% Law," a California state law which requires school districts to spend at least 50% of their budgets on instruction (strictly speaking, it's the 50% Law, but we want to be on the safe side). My first thought: That's all? My second thought: This is a PROBLEM for some school districts?
Including mine, apparently.
To be fair, some of the things schools provide--like counselors and tutors, for example--which seem directly related to student success and even, in the case of tutors at least, instruction-related, don't "count" towards this 50% threshold. Still, though, it raises questions. I hate to provide fodder for right-wing critics, but the fact that this law exists would seem to open schools up to a reasonable query: What the hell are they spending money on?!?
To which, of course, there are any number of reasonable answers. In addition to the aforementioned counselors and tutors, there are admissions personnel, librarians, secretaries, lab technicians, etc., etc., etc. And while it's reasonable that a school spend at least half its budget on direct instructional services, we should also recognize that no college could function without substantial contributions from these "ancillary" personnel.
It does make one wonder, though, in this age of rampant privatization, and the ongoing Randian celebration of all-things-capitalist, about the ratio of instruction to "other" at for-profit educational providers. I hope that some kind of 50% Law is keeping these folks honest as well.
Including mine, apparently.
To be fair, some of the things schools provide--like counselors and tutors, for example--which seem directly related to student success and even, in the case of tutors at least, instruction-related, don't "count" towards this 50% threshold. Still, though, it raises questions. I hate to provide fodder for right-wing critics, but the fact that this law exists would seem to open schools up to a reasonable query: What the hell are they spending money on?!?
To which, of course, there are any number of reasonable answers. In addition to the aforementioned counselors and tutors, there are admissions personnel, librarians, secretaries, lab technicians, etc., etc., etc. And while it's reasonable that a school spend at least half its budget on direct instructional services, we should also recognize that no college could function without substantial contributions from these "ancillary" personnel.
It does make one wonder, though, in this age of rampant privatization, and the ongoing Randian celebration of all-things-capitalist, about the ratio of instruction to "other" at for-profit educational providers. I hope that some kind of 50% Law is keeping these folks honest as well.
Tuesday, November 27, 2012
Multitudes
OK, look, I know I just did this whole spiel the other day about writer's block and whether it's better to write something even when one has nothing to say or just to skip a day at the risk of losing what few followers I have. So I feel kind of bad about taking this time to tell you that I am not writing a "real" post this evening. Do I contradict myself? Then I contradict myself! I am large! I contain multitudes! And a fair amount of undigested pie! But that's another story.
At any rate, I'm not posting NOT because I have nothing to say, but rather because I have no time in which to say it. Believe me, I have LOTS to say about. . . .well, you'll just have to wait and see. Suffice to say, though, that a certain Cate Blanchett is going to have a LOT of explaining to do!
'Til tomorrow!
At any rate, I'm not posting NOT because I have nothing to say, but rather because I have no time in which to say it. Believe me, I have LOTS to say about. . . .well, you'll just have to wait and see. Suffice to say, though, that a certain Cate Blanchett is going to have a LOT of explaining to do!
'Til tomorrow!
Monday, November 26, 2012
Oooh, Shiny
Something about standing in line makes people willing to watch anything. Probably the fact that they're standing in line.
I have occasion, periodically, to go to a pharmacy located in a Kaiser Permanente Medical Center. I usually go after work, late afternoon, and the overhead television is invariably tuned to a local PBS station showing children's programming. Obviously, this is meant to entertain all the kids, except there never ARE any. Kids, that is. Nevertheless, the queueing masses always stare transfixed at the adventures of Daniel Striped Tiger or the Cat in the Hat (who today was dressed as a manatee for some reason that I was unable to ascertain--I'm usually listening to my iPod, and the closed-captioning leaves much to be desired).
I'm glad to see Daniel Striped Tiger getting work, though. I was worried about him. After Mr. Rogers' death, many of his co-stars struggled to land new jobs. Sure, Anna Platypus landed a position at the Consumer Affairs Bureau, and Donkey Hodie had some minor success as a monologist, but Prince Tuesday had to move back in with his parents, and the less said about Purple Panda, the better
.
Where was I? Oh yeah.
People never complain. People never ask that the channel be changed. Presumably, such a request would constitute an admission of defeat--an acknowledgment that one will be forced to wait long enough to make it worthwhile to watch something one would want to watch.
But NOT watching doesn't seem to be an option, either. Little though I may care about the continuing adventures of Elmo or Curious George, I cannot look away. I guess people never outgrow the ability to be transfixed by the shiny or the colorful. No wonder this country is going to Hell.
I have occasion, periodically, to go to a pharmacy located in a Kaiser Permanente Medical Center. I usually go after work, late afternoon, and the overhead television is invariably tuned to a local PBS station showing children's programming. Obviously, this is meant to entertain all the kids, except there never ARE any. Kids, that is. Nevertheless, the queueing masses always stare transfixed at the adventures of Daniel Striped Tiger or the Cat in the Hat (who today was dressed as a manatee for some reason that I was unable to ascertain--I'm usually listening to my iPod, and the closed-captioning leaves much to be desired).
I'm glad to see Daniel Striped Tiger getting work, though. I was worried about him. After Mr. Rogers' death, many of his co-stars struggled to land new jobs. Sure, Anna Platypus landed a position at the Consumer Affairs Bureau, and Donkey Hodie had some minor success as a monologist, but Prince Tuesday had to move back in with his parents, and the less said about Purple Panda, the better
.
Where was I? Oh yeah.
People never complain. People never ask that the channel be changed. Presumably, such a request would constitute an admission of defeat--an acknowledgment that one will be forced to wait long enough to make it worthwhile to watch something one would want to watch.
But NOT watching doesn't seem to be an option, either. Little though I may care about the continuing adventures of Elmo or Curious George, I cannot look away. I guess people never outgrow the ability to be transfixed by the shiny or the colorful. No wonder this country is going to Hell.
Sunday, November 25, 2012
Ruminations on Writer's Block
DOS chastised me today for a recent spate of "non-posts": those days when it's all I can do to muster the will to post a "Sorry" or a link to a video of kittens playing with ducklings. His advice: If I have nothing to write about, just don't write. Let a day go by. See if anyone notices. And, if anyone DOES complain, plead ignorant indignation: "What do you mean, no post? I certainly wrote something. If my post didn't show up on your internet, take it up with your service provider! And, no, I will NOT supply a back issue!"
Believe me, I've considered it. What stops me, frankly, is fear. Inertia beckons. Succumb to laziness once, what's to stop one from succumbing again? Harper Lee took a day off after finishing To Kill a Mockingbird; now, fifty-plus years later, we're still waiting for Mockingbird's Revenge!
I don't call what I've "got" writer's block: I've always thought that a somewhat precious notion. Self-indulgent writers trying to dignify laziness with pseudo-psychological diagnoses. I always tell my students--and I stand by this--that, if they have nothing to write about, then they're not paying attention. There are any number of potential topics: One need only pick a newspaper or magazine article at random and riff for a couple of hundred words. If someone said, "Hey, Solipsist, give me 500 words on '[INSERT TOPIC HERE],'" I know I could fulfill the order. (Quantity, not quality, guaranteed.)
The problem is more writer's apathy. I don't care enough about any topic to expend energy on it, a feeling compounded by a sense that I have nothing new to add. What insight do I have to offer on the latest turmoil in the Middle East or Notre Dame's chances in the BCS Championship? Gloating over Republican misery, while enjoyable, gets old, too.
These things are cyclical. Tomorrow or the next day--or a week and a half from now--I will see something in the paper or experience something at work that will stir my creative juices. Just as I go through extended dry periods, I also experience weeks where virtually everything provides a trove of blogworthy material. But if I don't force myself to plow through the fallow periods, I won't be ready to go when the floodgates open.
So, DOS, take the good with the bad with the pointless. Even a Hall-of-Famer gets a base hit only about thirty percent of the time. That doesn't stop him from taking every at bat.
Believe me, I've considered it. What stops me, frankly, is fear. Inertia beckons. Succumb to laziness once, what's to stop one from succumbing again? Harper Lee took a day off after finishing To Kill a Mockingbird; now, fifty-plus years later, we're still waiting for Mockingbird's Revenge!
I don't call what I've "got" writer's block: I've always thought that a somewhat precious notion. Self-indulgent writers trying to dignify laziness with pseudo-psychological diagnoses. I always tell my students--and I stand by this--that, if they have nothing to write about, then they're not paying attention. There are any number of potential topics: One need only pick a newspaper or magazine article at random and riff for a couple of hundred words. If someone said, "Hey, Solipsist, give me 500 words on '[INSERT TOPIC HERE],'" I know I could fulfill the order. (Quantity, not quality, guaranteed.)
The problem is more writer's apathy. I don't care enough about any topic to expend energy on it, a feeling compounded by a sense that I have nothing new to add. What insight do I have to offer on the latest turmoil in the Middle East or Notre Dame's chances in the BCS Championship? Gloating over Republican misery, while enjoyable, gets old, too.
These things are cyclical. Tomorrow or the next day--or a week and a half from now--I will see something in the paper or experience something at work that will stir my creative juices. Just as I go through extended dry periods, I also experience weeks where virtually everything provides a trove of blogworthy material. But if I don't force myself to plow through the fallow periods, I won't be ready to go when the floodgates open.
So, DOS, take the good with the bad with the pointless. Even a Hall-of-Famer gets a base hit only about thirty percent of the time. That doesn't stop him from taking every at bat.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)