Seems odd that ticketmaster would not have have been willing to purchase them for more than that (unless of course ticketfly didn't want to go that route, and was leaving money on the table).
<<Ticketfly has an interesting origin story, the company’s co-founders sold their first startup, TicketWeb to industry leader Ticketmaster for $35 million in 2000 and then left that company in 2008 to form Ticketfly.>>
Big advertisements probably have a lot more color than the normal red-yellow-white you see from traffic. Chances are it's not quite so vivid to the naked eye, but a camera sensor with nice flat full-spectrum sensitivity can reveal all the color. You see this a lot with telescope photos; in low light our eyes mostly just pick everything in the sky as white dots, but a photograph can capture a lot more.
This is insanely great! Now, imagine if binaural audio was combined with an accelerometer sensor (in the earbud/headphone) so that when you turn your head, the sounds' origins would be adjusted in real time to reflect your new head position. This would be awesome for video games and movies.
To make this work, you would need to record the location of every sound. Easy to do for a video game (where the software knows the exact object or person emitting a sound). But it would be harder for movies, as this sounds localization data would need to be captured on set and handled during all post production work.
I did a little research and a field known as ambisonics (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ambisonics) generalizes this concept to more than 2 speakers. Now that I think about it I remember that the guy behind the xiph.org videos debunking digital audio myths lamenting that not enough research was being done on ambisonics.
If you live in a walk-up building and there is a payphone/hotspot on your block, would this actually allow you to cancel your internet and exclusively use this for your Wifi? (Article says 150ft range...)
By which you mean they already exist today? My parents got a demo ride in one at a google event earlier this year. As long as the city involved is Mountain View, the vehicles already exist.
(Google's current effort relies on extremely detailed mapping of all the roads involved, but given the continued existence of the StreetView program that approach probably scales tolerably well.)
Mountain View doesn't really qualify as a "city" in the sense of city traffic. The roads are wide and not particularly densely packed. Not to downplay the accomplishment, but it's probably a long way from being able to handle San Francisco let alone New York or London.
Taxi rate in NYC seems too low. I tried a couple of trips that I have taken dozens of times, and they have never, ever been as low as whats being calculated. I like the idea though.
So then pay by eCheck for the minimal/reasonable $2 fee. Why should you expect them to eat the ~3% fee that they incur should you choose to pay by credit card?
Exactly. Nont enought people understand that when you pay someone "$1000" with a credit card. You are actually only paying them $970. i.e. you're not paying them your full rent.
People shouldn't have to understand it; it should be baked into the cost of the product up front. Don't tell me rent is $1400 (plus some extra amount), tell me rent is $1445. Don't tell me the product is $5 (plus 6% sales tax), tell me it's $5.30.
If you want to charge me $1000, then put the price at $1030 or whatever your fees come out to. Anything else is disingenuous.
It's not though. This is a very American attitude because that's just how it's been in America. But now companies (and customers) are realizing that this is bullshit.
People want lower prices, so one way companies can lower the price is to pass the credit card fee on to the consumer, while also giving them the option of using a different payment method with a lower fee.
Personally I would always pay with cash/e-check if there was a financial incentive to do so. Offering the same price for both is just silly since the cash customers are basically subsidizing the credit card customers.
A better way to do this is by offering a "cash discount", so the stated price is never added to, only subtracted.
So why not have rent be the cost of the lowest price payment method, with an extra charge for paying with a card being the cost of the card fee minus the cost of the fee with the lowest cost option? Then there's a "free" option where you're paying the price that you were quoted, or the option to pay a convenience charge for using a card? Telling someone rent is $X when rent is actually $X + $Y is ridiculous.
And I'm not sure your point on "a very American attitude". I live in America, so... yes? When I tell someone my address, they don't look down their nose and say "that's a very American address". Of course it's American. That's where I live. Contrary to some opinions, American things aren't always automatically wrong just because they're American. I'm sure if I lived in Belgium I would pay tax and VAT and credit card processing fees and think nothing of it. But I don't live in Belgium. I'd have the same reaction if my landlord asked me to pay rent in Yen just because there was a favorable exchange rate for him.
My point is that, Americans expect paying with credit card to be the same as paying with cash. In a lot of other nations, that expectation does not exist.
And you're right- a better way to do it is to have the lowest fee added to the cost.
Companies have always realized that CC merchant fees are bullshit; but their agreements are also bullshit and some even prevented merchants from merely informing customers of the fees.
Why should it be baked in if you do not have to pay with a credit card? Rent is not $1445 because you don't have to pay that much. You would have a point if you said that rent is $1402.
You don't want all these taxes and charges mixed into the price because them people are oblivious to the fact that they are being skimmed by the government and credit card company: that there is a portion of the income that isn't for the actual product or service. ("Hidden charges are bad" principle).
The issue in credit cards is that merchants are in fact required to hide the cost: they are not allowed to charge extra for credit card transactions. Likewise, they are not allowed to give a discount for cash transactions. ("Hidden charges are bad: so banks like them!")
The apartment building may in fact be breaking the merchant agreement by applying this charge. This is a good thing; vendors should fight against that hiding.
See, if rent is $1400 and you can pay exactly $1400 by any method: credit card, check or cash, then you're being ripped off if you don't use a credit card! They are pocketing the merchant fee that they would have had to pay on the credit transaction. Why would you care, it's $1400 to you either way, right? Wrong: if you use credit, you "earn" points. If you have a credit card that earns 2% of purchase prices in points, you get 28 points, and if these points can be be converted 1:1 for dollars in some way (like buying an airline ticket), that's 28 bucks! So it's like you're really paying $1372 for your rent, and getting a $28 kickback. The building coughs up a merchant fee, and some of that is kicked back to you in the form of points. Doesn't that person paying by check look like a complete sucker now, if the amount is the same for all methods of payment?
The card user is effectively getting a discounted rent, and supporting the leeching credit card company too, which gets a cut of the discount. Why should the building support that? If rent is $1400, it is not fair that someone pays only $1372, after getting a $28 kickback in points, which comes out of a $50 fee that the building has to pay. The building is robbed of operating income, which means that the rents are higher than what they should be.
Now vendors of goods like credit cards and pay the fees, and comply with the rules of hiding the fees, and not offering cash discounts. Why? Because credit cards encourage rampant consumerism. They bring in business.
The apartment building doesn't need this argument: you owe rent and that's it.
Interestingly, the IRS in the US evidently allows taxes to be paid by credit card. But there is a charge:
The same arguments apply: without a charge, you'd be getting a tax break, analogous to the rent break. The government is not a store; it does not need to attract "customers" to pay taxes.
