Slashdot Mirror

$5-$10 US an hour? That seems pretty low, also for non US salary standards. In Spain, where I live, entering in recession, many unemployed people make 10 euro/hour for unqualified cleaning/brushing, while qualified black market (without paying taxes) is between 15 and 30 euro/hour.

I wish you doom-and-loom fuckers would provide some numbers when you say such things.

Poverty is decreasing and economic disparity in and of it self is not a problem.
Source

Inflation is not a global problem, so why should countries not having inflation problems make it a primary matter on the agenda?

Double-digit price rises are about to afflict two-thirds of the world's population. Sounds global enough to me.

Don't be so pessimistic. Solar power, and other renewable energies, are starting to get some real momentum. The Economist has a "special report" in the June 21st issue with tons of articles on the subject.

This the first article in the issue, and this is the one on solar power. Click on the little "next article" at the bottom of each page to go through it. I don't think a subscription is required, since I'm not logged in and I can see it.

Here's a exerpt:

The engineers clearly think they can deliver the technology. But can the technology deliver the power? A back-of-the-envelope calculation suggests that it can. Two years ago a task force put together by the governors of America's western states identified 200 gigawatts-worth of prime sites for solar-thermal power within their territory (meaning places that had enough reliable sunshine, were close to transmission lines and were not environmentally or politically sensitive). That is equivalent to 20% of America's existing electricity-generation capacity: not a bad start.

Don't be so pessimistic. Solar power, and other renewable energies, are starting to get some real momentum. The Economist has a "special report" in the June 21st issue with tons of articles on the subject.

This the first article in the issue, and this is the one on solar power. Click on the little "next article" at the bottom of each page to go through it. I don't think a subscription is required, since I'm not logged in and I can see it.

Here's a exerpt:

The engineers clearly think they can deliver the technology. But can the technology deliver the power? A back-of-the-envelope calculation suggests that it can. Two years ago a task force put together by the governors of America's western states identified 200 gigawatts-worth of prime sites for solar-thermal power within their territory (meaning places that had enough reliable sunshine, were close to transmission lines and were not environmentally or politically sensitive). That is equivalent to 20% of America's existing electricity-generation capacity: not a bad start.

Look at the post about the price of oil and how it fell from $34 to $10 and STAYED there for most of a decade.

Oh, I know. What I don't know is why you think that will happen again.

So right now, Jlarroco, are you willing to invest your retirement savings in alternative energy which requires $101 oil to be profitable?

Absolutely. Right now a large fraction of my 401K is invested in companies developing solar and wind power technologies. I'm not the only person.

However, providing a *stable* price environment that investors can count on for the next 10 years is much better once you get past the development stage.

Can you point to a single example where government price fixing has been a viable long term solution?

Why? This is a nightmare. A strong dollar is the key to high standard of living for Americans (see: The Wealth of Nations). I don't see any benefit in this country returning to the standard of living that we had at the turn of the 19th century. Manufacturing jobs suck. When the dollar is falling through the floor, it means that you can buy less imported goods, and the standard of living is dropping dramatically, as the price of everything is jumping through the roof.

The jobs america wants are the high-end, high paying jobs, not the shit that pays $10 an hour. If Americans want to make more money then they should get off of their lazy asses and:

1. Learn to read
2. Get a Bachelor's degree.
3. Learn a valuable skill that people will pay good money for.

There is no shortage of demand for doctors, lawyers, SAP developers, electrical engineers, biologists, etc. Let the Chinese pump out plastic products at $.10 an hour.

When you wake up poor, everything in the United States is owned by foreign wealth funds, and you are forced into an even greater state of slavery than you are now, you won't have anyone to blame but yourself, for supporting a corrupt monetary policy:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-9050474362583451279
http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10533866

*BASH Cures Cancer
--Great tips & ideas for anyone who regularly scripts in BASH. If you use the shell, give it a look.

And then the usual stuff:
*BBC News
*Various Economist Feeds;
*Hack-A-Day;
*The Register;
*Tranny Farm;
*xkcd, webcomic;
*Penny Arcade, webcomic;
*Ctrl-Alt-Del, webcomic;

I can't be bothered with Dilbert, since it's gone Flash.

• Dilbert - do I need to describe this?
• Explosm.com - Cyanide and Happiness comic
• Fokke & Sukke - Dutch comic. Popular daily cartoon (yes, I'm dutch and the name is intentional)
• Little Gamers - gaming comic
• Penny Arcade - gaming comic
• FAIL blog - epic fail every day

Finance & Economy

• BusinessWeek Online -- Most Popular Stories
• Calculated Risk - general blog
• The Economist - News analysis and views
• NRC | EconomieDutch newspaper, economy section

Space

• Bad Astronomy - Phil Plait's blog about astronomy and skepticism
• Chris Lintott's Universe - Astronomer, Galaxy Zoo co-founder and co-host of BBC's The Sky at Night
• NASA Astronomy Picture of the Day
• New Scientist, Space - Astronomy section of New Scientist
• Space.com - More space news...
• Starts With a Bang! - Astrophysicist Ethan Siegel, tries to answer some common but very complex astronomy questions.
• Universe Today - One of the most well known astronomy blogs

Tech

• Engadget - THE gadget blog
• Evil Mad Scientist Laboratories - making crazy electronic stuff (and drooling over niche market product catalogues)
• Gametrailers' ScrewAttack - funny gaming videos
• Kotaku - THE games blog
• Reuters Science
• Reuters Technology
• Slashdot
• The Brainy Gamer - in-depth articles about (the history of) games in general
• Tweakers.net - the dutch Slashdot

Misc

• Greggman - American gamedev'er who lived in Japan
• Jort Kelder - Dutch dandy. Ex-editor-in-chief of Quote, a magazine about entrepeneurs and the life of the nouveau rich. Co-host of the dutch Dragons Den.
• Scalzi's Whatever - Sciencefiction author.
• The Sartorialist - Fashion photographer. If you'd like to dress like a man with some class, instead of a fake tan metrosexual...look here for inspiration.

both Jaguar and Landrover

A lack of competition-boosting oversight is one reason for the poor record of the United States (and indeed for New Zealand, another unexpected laggard). Most Americans have a choice of only two broadband providers, either a telecoms or a cable operator. This virtual duopoly suits both sorts of provider, and neither has raced to offer its customers faster access. In some American states, prices have risen; in most other countries they have dropped. In theory, America's 1996 Telecoms Act obliged operators to rent out their lines to rivals; in practice, a regulatory decision and then a court ruling (in 2003 and 2004 respectively) have made it easy for operators to keep competitors out. The supposed aim of these decisions was to force new firms to build their own infrastructure, instead of piggybacking on facilities set up by older outfits. But new entrants have found it hard to join the fray. In any event, those American rulings may have been based on a faulty idea of how competition works in this area. As Taylor Reynolds, an OECD analyst, puts it, innovation usually comes in steps: newcomers first rent space on an existing network, to build up customers and income. Then they create new and better infrastructure, as and when they need it.

My personal observations here in the Detroit area are that everybody who can uses a car to get around, yet our gasoline prices are consistently above average. I lived in Bakersfield, California for a minute too, which is also an above-average car-use area with a few predestrians and cyclists on the street occasionally, but pump prices there have held continental US record highs in the past. Neither of which disprove your point.

In the US, the average gasoline prices are near the world mean.

like comparing counterfeiting money with copyright infringement... wow

That's stupid. Stop making me think you're an idiot.

No they don't. People go to bars to socialize; to meet people; to chase women; to listen to music; for a lot of other reasons. You can drink at home for a WHOLE lot cheaper than at a bar. Nobody goes to a bar to drink. You might try visiting one sometime when you're old enough.

From what I've read, most P2P downloaders are downloading because the last CD they bought had one song they liked and they don't want their hard-earned money to be stolen again by the RIAA frauds. Most of what's downloaded gets erased PDQ, and what little good stuff that's found results in a sale.

I won't say it's all dreck, just >99% of it. Kind of like the indies, who aren't suing their customers but instead posting their music on MySpace. There is only a lot more good indie music because there is a lot more indie music.

The US economy was based on farming until the middle of the 20th century. Your ignorance is astounding.

Wow, that's past ignorant and into self-delusion. Please take your Haldol.

Maybe you should educate yourself about the economics of those Danish wind farms before you continue your misguided rants? Might I highlight:

Researchers in Denmark have gone a step further and put a value on this effect. They believe that wind power shaved 1 billion kroner ($167m) off Danish electricity bills in 2005. On the other hand, Danish consumers also paid 1.4 billion kroner in subsidies for wind power.

If wind power was such a good payback, why are they PAYING 400 million Kroner to keep them running?

Solar and wind are a LONG way from being as economically viable as coal, natural gas, or nuclear. And solar and wind are HEAVILY subsidized compared to coal, natural gas, and nuclear. The DOE table above should have made that abundantly clear...

Except that Europe is slowly dying. The population on the continent is in sharp, seemingly irreversible decline.

Umm, not according to all the numbers I've seen. Last I saw both the US and Europe were growing in population, both due primarily to immigration. Got a link to back up your assertion?

Ah, the key is "immigration", if there were no immigration in Europe it's population would be declining, the replacement rate of live child births (fertility rate) is 2.1, yet the countries of Europe have a rate that's lower. In Italy, because of it's declining population a village major threatened to levy a tax on singles. Which would have the oppose effect, it would just drive them away. While it's also declining in the US, because some religious communities "multiply", it's population isn't shrink quite as fast.

And like Europe, Japan and some Asian countries also have declining populations. In China it's estimated there will be more elderly than there are workers by 2050. Actually the only places where population isn't declining is Africa and Muslim countries.

Good observation. You might also be interested in: Mao and the Art of Management:

``Where is the role model for the manager who really needs a role model most?''

Tongue-in-cheek but enlightening.

'Property rights attract private capital and, with government space programs stagnating, a lunar land rush may be just what we need to get things going again.'"

you mean "may be just what the doctor ordered". Learn to write like a hack, dammit. Read The Economist. Mix metaphors. Be vague. Why use big words like "property rights" when you can just say "ownership"? Why say "capital" when you mean "cash"? Why say "stagnating" when you can mix another metaphor in there, preferably one that has nothing to do with going to space and hurts your brain to read in one sentence with it -- how about "With government space programs left high and dry after fund cuts"? "Lunar land rush?" How about "moon craze"?

In sum: Be a hack. Be vague. Make the brain hurt. It's all right here, just remember that their examples are PRESCRIPTIONS, not, as you might think, things to avoid.

> not as long as they have the worlds largest coal seam (and they mine it open pit too)

That's why Australia's government recently announced a budget surplus ( and why their inflation is now topping 4% ).

recent research shows it is beneficial to grow algae on the grounds of a power station as it offers *absolutely free* heat and carbon dioxide, both of which when used for algaculture go from being nuisance waste products to valuable ways of accelerating the procedure.

short review here

The destruction was systematic. Shops owned by Tibetans were marked as such with traditional white scarves tied through their shutter-handles. They were spared destruction. Almost every other one was wrecked.

For hours the security forces did little. But the many Hans who live above their shops in the Tibetan quarter were quick to flee. Had they not, there might have been more casualties. (The government, plausibly, says 13 people were killed by rioters, mostly in fires.) Some of those who remained, in flats above their shops, kept the lights off to avoid detection and spoke in hushed tones lest their Mandarin dialect be heard on the streets by Tibetans. One Han teenager ran into a monastery for refuge, prostrating himself before a red-robed Tibetan abbot who agreed to give him shelter.

True, based on current exchange rates, £600 = US$1,168. No wait, $1,173...uh, $1,195. Whoops - now $1,225.

But for a Londonder, £600 today is basically the same as £600 two months ago, or from now. £600 hasn't 'gone up' for THEM, only for people wanting to use US$ to pay that £600.

This illustrates Purchasing Power Parity, a concept that is similar to foreign currency exchange, but that looks at the long-term relative purchasing power of a currency.

Not "how many Pounds Sterling can I buy with 1 UD$", but "how many units of ProductX can I buy with 1% of local per capita annual GDP." Theory says that goods should have identical relative prices in every market, or else there are arbitrage opportunities that people will take advantage of until the prices in all markets are the same (after accounting for transport, etc.)

What happens, however, is that identical goods are NOT priced at the same relative level after currency conversion, because a lot of short-term change in the ForEx markets is due to market movements, not underlying fundamental changes in purchasing power.

The Economist magazine publishes the 'Big Mac Index', which humorously uses the Big Mac as the good to compare relative purchasing power around the world.

So a Big Mac costs 4GBP in London, and based on the exchange rate, it looks like it costs US$8.00. But it really doesn't, because Londoners aren't paying US$, but with GBP, and the Big Mac costs the same to them that it did a year ago, even though a year ago exchange rates would have said the Big Mac costs $6.50.

Did the price of a Big Mac go up? The price of a Big Mac in the U.K. didn't go up for a Londoner, but did for a U.S. visitor. The price of a Big Mac in the U.S. didn't go up for a Floridian, but fell for a U.K. visitor. But in each case, the cost in the local currency was and is 1/10,000th of per capita income. That is purchasing power parity, and shows that shows changes in exchange rates are not the same thing as changes in relative purchasing power. On a PPP basis, U.S-U.K. currencies haven't moved against each other even close to the amount suggested by market currency exchange rates.

One word: Audiobooks. I cannot begin to explain how much I love them. The trick is to use all those times that do not require your full attention, for example walking to and from work. I do 30 minutes of solid "reading" every day just commuting. Then there's cooking dinner, cleaning the house, walking to the store, waiting at the dentist's etc.
I've only been in this habit for a year, but I regularly go through 2-5 books a month + my weekly dosis of The Economist Audio Edition, just by using those off moments. And this is in addition to the printed matter I read.

I never just sit down to listen to an audiobook though, I fall asleep instantly ;)

I'm not advocating that they sell it for a profit.

But from what I've seen so far, hackers already HAVE access to the OS, and this is where they are for it. The project is kind of a mirror of Linux, at least inasmuch as the laptop has gained a reputation for being clunky and hard to use compared to others in its niche (and you can argue that Linux itself doesn't have these problems, it certainly has this reputation.) While a proprietary OS could cripple the effort (like they can't go back ever once they start in?) I think their stubborn insistence on fully free and fully open source software has already crippled the effort, or at least weakened it far enough they may not be able to recoup operating costs at this rate. Potential doesn't deliver a finished product, even if there are millions of coders out there who could make this thing shine.

It's not as if I'm not concerned about MS too mind you, they're no saints. I think it all comes down to whether this is closer to the Bill & Melinda Gates foundation, or MS Corporation. I think even from a greedy standpoint MS could justify giving these guys totally free versions of Windows just to get people hooked on the OS. There is no reason all the same learning activities such as Pippy, the Python app couldn't run under it as well. (I got my first taste of programming in MS-DOS 5's GWBASIC, and QBASIC blew my mind with its huge help system...)

But as for Negroponte causing Bender to leave - I have no argument. I'm basically just of the opinion we should get these laptops in kids' hands the best way we can, and "They don't have any computers so they won't mind if it's a bit glitchy and unusable" doesn't sit right with my personal sense of ethics if we can easily give them better.

http://www.economist.com/science/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10472304

They do care. They have improved.

They've removed lot's of sites from the Great Firewall of China, for instance the English Wikipedia, after western politicians said that a change like that would reflect well upon China. They've let western journalists go to many places they can't normally go to. Today, many European countries (including mine, Sweden) have governmentally blessed internet blocklists that are far longer than the Chinese one.

But after the western media told the world that the Chinese people are pigs for not invading other sovereign countries randomly (Myanmar) or defending it's people from ethnic cleansing by the Tibet people against the Han-Chinese population (link goes to a report by the only western journalist who was actually there - all other reports are just quoting the exile government in India), they are quite a bit suspicious towards us and our so-called free and just media, and rightly so. Us Westeners sabotaging the path of the eternal fire, or not preventing Tibet terrorists from doing so, on it's way to Beijing as a way to get back at them for stopping ethnic cleansing isn't exactly helping matters - especially not when it's done by traveling across the world, just to beat up a girl in a wheelchair - because that's usually the best way to get sympathies.

To make matters worse, I know the largest Swedish newspapers publish Photoshop jobs (publishing photos of a large group of Chinese polices - but failing to include the even larger group of angry activists next to them) and pure lies (pictures of Nepalese officials treating activists badly, and claiming that they're Chinese) as proof of how evil the Chinese government is.

After this, I have no problems seeing why one would try to limit the access for one's people to these lies - the only thing it would result in is civil war, something that is never good, and would hurt the Chinese process towards giving the people a decent standard of living, freedom of speech, and, eventually, democracy.

The Economist's esteemed style guide doesn't agree.

There can be no real ambiguity here. It's a question of style. I say: why be complicated when you can be simple?

If you like cool graphs, you might enjoy this Economist article.

Summary: "A good graphic can tell a story, bring a lump to the throat, even change policies. Here are three of history's best."

Even for those in poor countries that export foods, the developed world has so many tarrifs and subsidies that they are still not able to benefit from it (USA and EU, take a bow).

Don't believe me? Fine. Last week's Economist had their leader article on exactly this topic. Go and read it. The Economist is an economic liberal, you will find them promoting trade and economic prosperity. They know far more about this issue than either you or me.

here is the article from the economist that describes the issue with the possible merits of religion and science of religion as it stands:
http://www.economist.com/science/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10875666

The Economist ran a Christmas article about 'beauty and success' (http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10311266), reporting the real, quantifiable inequalities in society that unfairly penalise the unfair.

As one of the plug-uglies that live in the UK, where we're promised equality of opportunity on a weekly basis, I've been consistently miffed by the the government's failure to address this kind of discrimination.

However, if this really is the dawn of a truly objective metric for ugliness, then I'm all in favour. No longer will there be a reason for the government to refuse to determine fairer tax rates, employment contracts, healthcare provision and pension terms for those who lack the facial symmetry of our richer peers, and it should be trivial to calculate them in the data-acquisition phase of our much-heralded Identity Register.

Given that the world is already grossly overpopulated and rapidly becoming more so,

I said the thick would inherit the Earth, didn't I? Scotland, where I live, has been below replacement rate for generations. So has Italy. So what? 'Growing less fast' does not mean 'not growing', it means 'still growing disastrously fast but not as fast as last year'.

Given that the world is already grossly overpopulated and rapidly becoming more so,

An article along the same lines by The Economist.
Discusses article ordering types for Digg.com

Just because I'm curious : where does it say that (not that it changes anything about the meaning of the bible if it does indeed say that, but I'm curious nonetheless) ?

Besides, religion isn't irrational : this article gives a few hints on why (note : if you know a bit of stuff about the differences between religions you'll find that while the arguments presented are not about one single religion, they do exclude a lot of religions, in short the article makes a lot of sense when interpreted to a christian context, and specifically compares this christian(-oriented*) belief system to atheism, it states that atheist societies exist for about 20 years while christian communities generally survive for 150 years, with a number of them being older than any reliable records (about 200 years that is))

* -oriented because of 2 facts :
1) some members of other religions are "cryptochristian", ie they believe and practice the principles of christianity, even when in direct contradiction with their stated religion
2) some christians ... (I'm sure you can fill this in, this seems to be a smaller group though)

But will you ever be even-handed?

Have you ever considered becoming an economist?

If you want some schadenfreude check out these articles where that same proclivity for cheating cost the government billions due to tax deductions from faked business receipts.

The sad thing for China is that unless this culture changes, it's going to be a very long time before products of any kind coming from there will be accepted by the rest of the world with the same kind of lax inspection standards ones from the West enjoy. Thus, on a per-capita basis, China will never catch up.

You reap the whirlwind....

Seriously, can noone else see this game as a hilariously ironic commentary on China's futile attempts to lower pollution in order to have blue skies for the Olympics?

Of course this: http://www.economist.com/world/international/displaystory.cfm?story_id=8874472Economist article seems to not be loading right now, but they even have a blue sky monitoring scale which counts days without brutal amounts of smog, and are trying to figure out if they can somehow control the weather.

Indeed. DVD sales in 2007 were down from 2006, and DVDs are where all the margin on motion pictures is. The theatrical distribution is really sortof a loss leader to promote the DVD and follow-on media, like DVD, television and video games (an industry which outstrips the film industry in revenues, I might add).

I'm happy that slashdot continues to have some sort of respect for the intellect of the reader. I'm pretty sure that everybody here made the mental connection to Italy, and if they didn't, they should be reading Geography 101 instead of slashdot. Espicially with the "Google Translate" link. And the original document in Italian.

Crafications such as 'London, England' are only necessary when it is likely that the reader could be confused. Hence there is no need to write 'Beijing, China', for example

The "dumbing down" of American media isn't really apparent until you compare similar publications from the US to their closest British counterparts. Compare Newsweek or Time Magazine to The Economist or The New York Times to The Guardian. And this isn't just my opinion, it has been validated in studies of the matter.

But the Pentagon worries about what would happen if America came up against a major power, a "near-peer" rival (as it calls China and Russia), able to intercept space assets with missiles and "space mines", or to disable them with lasers and electronic jammers. "There are a lot of vulnerabilities," admits an American general, "There are backups, but our space architecture is very fragile."

The precise nature of these weaknesses is a well-guarded secret. But wargames simulating a future conflict over Taiwan often end up with the "Red Force" (China) either defeating the "Blue Force" (America) or inflicting grievous losses on it by launching an early attack in space, perhaps by setting off one or more nuclear explosions above the atmosphere. "I have played Red and had a wonderful time," says the general, "It is pretty easy to disrupt Blue. We should not expect an enemy to play by established norms in space. They will play dirty pool."

From The Economist's coverage:

The writers made other concessions too: they for instance dropped their demand for a higher share of money from DVDs. They also gave up trying to get reality television and animation covered by union terms.

HTH. HAND.

did you ever come across any philosophers/schools of thought that exemplify the kinds of stances you are developing?

Wow, great question. The short answer is "not exactly".

One place to start would be the British newsweekly The Economist. I've been reading them for ages now, and I'm sure I've soaked up a lot from them.

Aside from being an excellent way to get your news, they believe in free markets not for their own sake, but as a tool to make the world a better place. Some American progressives mistake them as a conservative outfit, but that's wrong. They're economically pretty conservative, and socially very liberal. From an American perspective, that can be confusing. Mainly, they're data-focused pragmatists.

As far as using markets as tools, it's worth checking out the way a lot of greens have come to embrace them. A green pal tells me that they were anathema 15 or 20 years ago, but now they're pretty popular. She recommended Natural Capitalism as a good place to start.

If it's more a question of how capitalism can avoid being evil, take a look at Let My People Go Surfing: The Education of a Reluctant Businessman. It's a memoir from the founder of Patagonia, and it's an enjoyable and inspiring read. It's the spiritual opposite of the grinchy Randite tone, but the guy is still a smashing success who started from zero, just like their heroes.

Hope that helps!

Because trying to get people to abstain from sex just doesn't work.

http://www.economist.com/science/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9831189
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/13/AR2007041301003.html
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18136717/
http://thegodcomplex.blogspot.com/2007/12/abstinence-only-education-does-not-work.html

See here: http://www.economist.com/business/PrinterFriendly.cfm?story_id=10534566

"IN 2006 EMI, the world's fourth-biggest recorded-music company, invited some teenagers into its headquarters in London to talk to its top managers about their listening habits. At the end of the session the EMI bosses thanked them for their comments and told them to help themselves to a big pile of CDs sitting on a table. But none of the teens took any of the CDs, even though they were free. "That was the moment we realised the game was completely up," says a person who was there."

I forgot to link the article: http://www.economist.com/world/britain/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10534235

As I said I am sorry if I sound to American, but I tend to beleave in a free market echonomy, with its ups and downs.