Redundancy is a good thing (it is the reason why NASA partners with Ustream) copyright law, DMCA and "trusted partner" censorship are bad things (i.e., net negative, dead weight loss on society). Hence, news.
From the concisely written rules, it seems that he funded 9 physicists, for life, to seed the potential pool of Selection Committee (aka Jedi High Counsel of Physics) members. There will be 2 annual prizes in future years, the Fundamental Physics Prize (US$3,000,000) and the New Horizons in Physics Prize (US$100,000). The New Horizons in Physics Prizes are targeted at promising junior researchers. So it seems that he's thought about the marginal utility per additional dollar of prize money and made a reasonable (thought probably not optimal) decision.
Water shortages are often functions of poor pricing and market design. Read http://www.aguanomics.com/ for details and real solutions. Infrastructure costs money, regulations (price caps) prevent better pricing preventing financing for more infrastructure. Moving people is potentially more costly than moving water to people.
Betamax was not universally better. It had higher quality, shorter recording ability. People wanted longer recording times. Maybe Betamax could have improved to allow for longer recordings, but people didn't want to wait and choose lesser quality longer recording media.
If you haven't checked out BuddyCloud.com (or BuddyCloud.org for their wiki), you may be interested. They seem to be on to something. However, they are obviously up against a the large network effect hurdle. Also, it is not exactly turnkey to set up your own server. But it is interesting.
Traffic deaths are a much bigger problem, and yet there is never, ever, a call to ban motor vehicles because of this.
It seems that Traffic deaths are approximately twice as common in the USA as firearm related deaths. But there is a clearer trade off for the traffic fatalities, which is daily convenience and long term commitment to lifestyles that are dependent on driving daily. I think that explains the apparent disproportion in calls to fix each problem.
Effectively managing the mentally ill... would reduce the number of deaths cause by crazy people hearing voices.
Doing something effective about drunk drivers... will reduce the number of traffic fatalities and injuries, a lot.
These appear to be arguments that beg the question. Some might categorize them as tautologies. If effective is measured by the desired result, then of course effective actions will have the desired result.
Notice that I am not saying stupid shit like, "Cars are to easy to get. We need laws that will keep them out of the hands of everyone but law enforcement. Blah, blah, blah" It's not the cars, just like it's not the guns.
Why would being around a law-abiding citizen who has a gun scare you? Maybe it's because I grew up around guns and people who owned them but seeing a pistol on someone's belt doesn't bother me at all.
I think you are exactly right that it is the relative cultural norm that would define your reaction. For example, if you saw a landscaping crew in the USA all "armed" with machetes, you might be nervous or uncomfortably surprised. However, in places like Costa Rica, only tourist would be surprised, as it is a normal tool for clearing brush there.
You seem to have a well reasoned response that I largely agree with. However, your opinion about banning semi-automatic firearms seems to promote limitation to firearms of the barrel loaded variety. Is my admittedly poor knowledge of firearm nomenclature misleading me?
an average of 90 people will die in traffic "accidents". can we... do something meaningful about mental illness? Or drunk drivers?
Perhaps you would like to make some sort of argument that these things are some how related or that there is something that can be done about mental illness or drunk drivers that could have a material effect on fatal traffic accidents.
Your post is even more confusing to me. It seems do logically inconsistent, I don't know where to begin. I hope this is due to some combination of my reading skills and your ability to articulate your ideas concisely.
How would this situation be handled in those studies. (If you have links, please post; I couldn't find any in searching online):
If I inherited $100 Million at age 18 and stuck it in investment securities that returned 4% per year for 40 years, I spent about 0.2% ($200,000 in first year) per year. I now have $444.5 Million.
I suspect it would be handled as follows: Only $100 Million was from inheritance. I made $344.5 Million on my own.
Where are you getting a 76% failure rate from hardware?
Medical devises can be recalled for reasons other than hardware failure.
76% would be the ratio of recalls not due to Software failures to total failures (though Mcmonkey points out that the 24% reported is not found in the underlying report).
A failure rate would be the ratio of the number of failures to total deployments or uses of medical devices.
Slashdot Mirror
"three Pacific [states]"
I think your count is off.
"Nor do we watch sports super stars driving to the stadium."
I wouldn't be so sure of that.
True Scotsman - no such entity.
Redundancy is a good thing (it is the reason why NASA partners with Ustream) copyright law, DMCA and "trusted partner" censorship are bad things (i.e., net negative, dead weight loss on society). Hence, news.
Dave Winer swears by his World Outline Tools. See: http://poets.worldoutline.org/
From the concisely written rules, it seems that he funded 9 physicists, for life, to seed the potential pool of Selection Committee (aka Jedi High Counsel of Physics) members. There will be 2 annual prizes in future years, the Fundamental Physics Prize (US$3,000,000) and the New Horizons in Physics Prize (US$100,000). The New Horizons in Physics Prizes are targeted at promising junior researchers. So it seems that he's thought about the marginal utility per additional dollar of prize money and made a reasonable (thought probably not optimal) decision.
(http://fundamentalphysicsprize.org/rules.html)
(http://fundamentalphysicsprize.org/about.html)
"How can I get in on this action?" as in, i want some of that money too!
* Anyone can nominate a candidate online;
* All submissions must be completed by a third party.
(http://fundamentalphysicsprize.org/rules.html)
However:
The opening of online nominations for Fundamental Physics Prize will be announced soon.
(http://fundamentalphysicsprize.org/nominations.html)
Water shortages are often functions of poor pricing and market design. Read http://www.aguanomics.com/ for details and real solutions. Infrastructure costs money, regulations (price caps) prevent better pricing preventing financing for more infrastructure. Moving people is potentially more costly than moving water to people.
This seems to be the most appropriate answer here.
The House has passed over 200 bills designed to help the economy
That is an extraordinary claim.
"private concerns have taken that protocol"
What protocol? You mean the one developed by the government?
You should write down the definition of Jubilee and put it in the container.
Betamax was not universally better. It had higher quality, shorter recording ability. People wanted longer recording times. Maybe Betamax could have improved to allow for longer recordings, but people didn't want to wait and choose lesser quality longer recording media.
If you haven't checked out BuddyCloud.com (or BuddyCloud.org for their wiki), you may be interested. They seem to be on to something. However, they are obviously up against a the large network effect hurdle. Also, it is not exactly turnkey to set up your own server. But it is interesting.
...for the bonus money.
Actually, I'm making the arguments that:
I'll go with you on this one.
Traffic deaths are a much bigger problem, and yet there is never, ever, a call to ban motor vehicles because of this.
It seems that Traffic deaths are approximately twice as common in the USA as firearm related deaths. But there is a clearer trade off for the traffic fatalities, which is daily convenience and long term commitment to lifestyles that are dependent on driving daily. I think that explains the apparent disproportion in calls to fix each problem.
Effectively managing the mentally ill ... would reduce the number of deaths cause by crazy people hearing voices.
Doing something effective about drunk drivers ... will reduce the number of traffic fatalities and injuries, a lot.
These appear to be arguments that beg the question. Some might categorize them as tautologies. If effective is measured by the desired result, then of course effective actions will have the desired result.
Notice that I am not saying stupid shit like, "Cars are to easy to get. We need laws that will keep them out of the hands of everyone but law enforcement. Blah, blah, blah" It's not the cars, just like it's not the guns.
Noted.
I think the yahoo and google connection was clearly stated.
Why would being around a law-abiding citizen who has a gun scare you? Maybe it's because I grew up around guns and people who owned them but seeing a pistol on someone's belt doesn't bother me at all.
I think you are exactly right that it is the relative cultural norm that would define your reaction. For example, if you saw a landscaping crew in the USA all "armed" with machetes, you might be nervous or uncomfortably surprised. However, in places like Costa Rica, only tourist would be surprised, as it is a normal tool for clearing brush there.
This does not, of course, imply that right-wing nutjobbery makes you more likely to be a mass murderer.
I submit that nutjobbery of any sort is correlated with way with mass murdering as a result of causality.
You seem to have a well reasoned response that I largely agree with. However, your opinion about banning semi-automatic firearms seems to promote limitation to firearms of the barrel loaded variety. Is my admittedly poor knowledge of firearm nomenclature misleading me?
an average of 90 people will die in traffic "accidents". can we ... do something meaningful about mental illness? Or drunk drivers?
Perhaps you would like to make some sort of argument that these things are some how related or that there is something that can be done about mental illness or drunk drivers that could have a material effect on fatal traffic accidents.
Your post is even more confusing to me. It seems do logically inconsistent, I don't know where to begin. I hope this is due to some combination of my reading skills and your ability to articulate your ideas concisely.
I'm not sure what you mean by that. His only choice is to play or give it away.
How would this situation be handled in those studies. (If you have links, please post; I couldn't find any in searching online):
If I inherited $100 Million at age 18 and stuck it in investment securities that returned 4% per year for 40 years, I spent about 0.2% ($200,000 in first year) per year. I now have $444.5 Million.
I suspect it would be handled as follows:
Only $100 Million was from inheritance. I made $344.5 Million on my own.
Where are you getting a 76% failure rate from hardware?
Medical devises can be recalled for reasons other than hardware failure.
76% would be the ratio of recalls not due to Software failures to total failures (though Mcmonkey points out that the 24% reported is not found in the underlying report).
A failure rate would be the ratio of the number of failures to total deployments or uses of medical devices.