This is not a problem with market-based solutions. It is a problem with a certain segment of our politicians waging a "war on coal". As to "why drug companies don't make new antibiotics", well that would be an interesting theory, if it were true that they do not actually do so. The main reason that it appears that drug companies don't make new antibiotics is because all of the "easy" ones have already been developed.
Surely, speculators didn't drive up the price of a commodity right before the storm hit?
Yes, it would have been much better for DEMAND to drive up prices right after the storm hit so that consumers would be unable to see the price rise coming and reduce their reliance on natural gas and suppliers would be unable to increase production to meet (and profit from) the increased demand (perhaps by rerouting from other areas which would not need the natural gas as desperately). Yes, that would be much better. ?s
I believe that Facebook is well out of the "fad" stage. At this point, I believe that the most likely reason that Facebook may fail is because I am not sure that they have a long term sustainable business model. That is I am not sure they have a way to generate sufficient revenue to keep the company running in the long term. However, I think that they fill a niche in the market that is not filled by anything else.
Myspace was launched in 2003, Facebook was launched in 2004. So, we are overdue for Facebook's successor to be launched if Facebook is going to go the way of Myspace.
While I can certainly see Facebook fading away, the problem with the Princeton study is that an essential assumption was that since Facebook is the successor to Myspace the data regarding Myspace's rise and fall can be extrapolated to Facebook (using the resemblance of Myspace's rise and fall to certain other phenomena). The problem with this assumption is that Myspace's fall was a result of Facebook existing as its successor. Currently there is no "successor" to Facebook which fills the same niche as Facebook, Myspace, and Friendster filled.
I am not arguing that Facebook will not fall in the same way that Myspace did. I am just arguing that we do not have the data to make the case. Accurately predicting the fall of Facebook is a matter of "art", not of science and most of those doing so are expressing an opinion based on a WAG (and perhaps on what they hope will happen). Myspace and Friendster were fads. Facebook started as a fad, Myspace and Friendster faded away when they lost their novelty and were replaced by the next fad. However, Facebook has survived past the fad stage. I will repeat that just because Facebook has survived past the fad stage that does not mean that it will last.
The problem with a large number of police officers is that such a large number of the people they interact with as part of their job are criminals that they begin to assume that everyone they interact with who arouses their suspicion is a criminal and they treat them as such.
The Constitution makes no distinction between a "traditional journalist" and anybody else. When the Constitution refers to "freedom of the press", it is not talking about news media, or journalists. It is literally talking about printing presses. Just because journalists have told us that it applies to them and only to them does not mean that was what the Framers were referring to.
The problem is that there are a significant number of people who will start campaigning to put an end to LWOP as soon as the death penalty is abolished.
Actually, they came up with the new term, "developing world", because the old terms were less informative, and to some degree obsolete. "third world country" was one of three categories. "First world countries" were those like the U.S. and most of Western Europe. "Second world countries" were part of the Soviet bloc (primarily those in parts of the Soviet bloc in Europe, although others may have been included). And that is why the terms are obsolete, there is no Soviet bloc any longer and the term "second world country" has lost all meaning.
Dividing the world netween "developed nations" and "developing nations" may be incomplete, but it is more informative than "third world nations".
You are correct that he should not have brought the Fed's stimulus into this discussion and probably not Solyndra or PPACA (at least not the way in which he did). However, the point to note is that the media have already spent more time covering the bridge closing than it has the IRS targeting Obama political opponents (both in slow walking applications for non-profit status and starting audits against those who have spoken out about problems with PPACA), or on the Fast & Furious gun running by the BATF to Mexican drug cartels.
Who exactly is going to educate these executives? The people being talked about in this article generally outrank in the corporate hierarchy the people who teach everybody else to maintain information security, on pain of being fired.
Actually, there is an interesting related statistic, when you adjust for children raised in single parent households, black and white crime rates essentially equalize.
I do not know what Karmashock's "solution" to crime is (although I will agree with his comment that you don't really solve crime, you merely reduce it), however, the answer to excessive crime is to increase the "cost" of committing crime. The most efficient way to increase the cost of crime is for a significant fraction of non-criminals to be armed so as to protect themselves from criminals. I read an article that summed this up not to long ago. It told the story of a man who had recently shot an intruder in his home. For several years before he obtained the gun and then shot an intruder his house was broken into frequently, in the several years since he shot the intruder, his house has not been broken into once. The article also mentioned that crime in his neighborhood is down as well. That is how you "solve" crime, by making people feel that the potential negative consequences of committing crime outweigh the potential positive consequences.
Except of course that the business does not actually use the trademark. Which suggests that it created its name for the purpose of giving it an excuse to register as a trademark the name used by Pinterest in the U.S..
If you do not understand what you are investing in, you should not be investing in it. There may be special cases where someone is willing to throw some spare cash at a project they do not fully understand because they would really like to see the outcome which the project is promising. However, in that latter case, the person should certainly understand that there is a significant risk that those running the project are confidence men and value the potential results enough to take that risk.
The problem with these SEC regulations is that the types of projects which are often crowdsourced are best accomplished by people who have little to no ability to put together a business plan. In addition, the types of things which it is wise to invest in through crowdsourcing are things which you invest in because you want to see them happen, not because you want to make money off of the investment. If you are investing in crowdsource projects in order to make money, you are doing it wrong (this does not mean that you cannot make money off of such projects, just that it is the wrong avenue if that is your goal).
This is the important point, making sure that you keep your insurance company informed about atypical things that you want them to cover and confirming that those things are covered under your policy. In the case of the topic under discussion, if they are asking you if your house is monitored by an external company and you say "Yes", than your security monitoring had better be by an external company (even if that external company is one you incorporated for that purpose).
As the Anonymous Coward pointed out, it is unlikely that they will spread this in anywhere near that scale. Pennsylvania, for example, uses somewhere on the order of 200,000 gallons of brine in a winter. Wisconsin is a larger state than Pennsylvania and I believe they experience more snow than Pennsylvania, on the other hand, Pennsylvania has more miles of road than Wisconsin. Altogether, I would be surprised if Wisconsin used 500,000 gallons, even if they expand this program to the entire state.
I was taught, back when I worked retail, that studies showed that people influence the buying behaviors of, on average, 250 other people. I doubt this has changed by a large number, but 250 lost customers per dissatisfied customer is a pretty steep price to pay. This is especially true when the positive publicity in a situation like this probably exceeds any value you could spend on advertizing.
No, but you seem to be saying is that bureaucrats are capable of determining what is art and culture and thus funding it. Have you seen any of Uwe Boll's movies? They exist because the German government decided to subsidize art and culture.
When was the last time someone who did not graduate from one of the Institut d'études politiques elected Prime Minister? Or for that matter who did not graduate from Institut d'Études Politiques de Paris?
I will enter the fray here. If the only reason it is made is because some bureaucrat decided it was "culturally relevant", it isn't culture, it is propaganda. Culture is that which people produce and take part in because they enjoy it. Now, people may make money off of producing culture, but if that money has to be forcibly taken from someone else (as opposed to that someone else voluntarily giving it to the producer) than the result is not culture. Any "culture" which is produced using tax dollars is propaganda.
You say that you would prefer to sample "a little culture from places like France, than to be forced to watch another idiot action movie out of Hollywierd." Well, you are free to do so, by spending your own money to do so. That is what freedom of choice is. The question you need to ask yourself is this, why should someone else be forced to pay for that to be produced? The reason that cultural diversity disappeared, to whatever extent it actually has, is because people stopped being willing to support the local culture and chose instead to take part in the stuff produced by Hollywood. The solution to that is NOT to use tax dollars to support the production of "culture" which no one is willing to pay for themselves. The solution is for people to start paying for some of that local culture. It may not have the production quality of Hollywood movies to start with, but if is something that people find to be good, that will change over time, either because people are willing to pay for it, or because people are willing to invest in it with no expectation of a monetary return on investment.
Actually, the "subsidies" that oil companies get are mostly tax breaks that EVERY company gets. Most of the remaining "subsidies" fall into three groups: Money spent to fill the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, tax breaks received by farmers for the fuel they use to run farm vehicles, and Low-Income Home Energy Assistance. Which of these do you want to cut?
If we are going to discuss cutting oil company "subsidies", let us discuss the specific subsidies and the relative merits, or lack there of, of those subsidies. We need to be aware of who, besides the oil companies, may benefit from these subsidies and what effect these subsidies may, or may not, have on the behavior of various organizations (including the oil companies). All too often, we have this discussion about generic "subsidies to the oil companies." We need to discuss specifics. I agree that federal spending must be reduced, but all too often when I bring up some specific program, I am told, "You can't do that" by people who turn around and say we should cut spending in the generic area which that spending is part of.
Well, yes, it would probably smell pretty bad if they were to spread this on the roads in the summertime. However, as an Anonymous Coward pointed out, they don't have much of a problem with ice on the roads in the summer in Milwaukee. In addition, it is unlikely that the brine they spread on the roads during the winter will still be there by the time the weather gets warm enough to cause a smell problem.
Slashdot Mirror
This is not a problem with market-based solutions. It is a problem with a certain segment of our politicians waging a "war on coal". As to "why drug companies don't make new antibiotics", well that would be an interesting theory, if it were true that they do not actually do so. The main reason that it appears that drug companies don't make new antibiotics is because all of the "easy" ones have already been developed.
Surely, speculators didn't drive up the price of a commodity right before the storm hit?
Yes, it would have been much better for DEMAND to drive up prices right after the storm hit so that consumers would be unable to see the price rise coming and reduce their reliance on natural gas and suppliers would be unable to increase production to meet (and profit from) the increased demand (perhaps by rerouting from other areas which would not need the natural gas as desperately). Yes, that would be much better. ?s
I believe that Facebook is well out of the "fad" stage. At this point, I believe that the most likely reason that Facebook may fail is because I am not sure that they have a long term sustainable business model. That is I am not sure they have a way to generate sufficient revenue to keep the company running in the long term. However, I think that they fill a niche in the market that is not filled by anything else.
Myspace was launched in 2003, Facebook was launched in 2004. So, we are overdue for Facebook's successor to be launched if Facebook is going to go the way of Myspace.
While I can certainly see Facebook fading away, the problem with the Princeton study is that an essential assumption was that since Facebook is the successor to Myspace the data regarding Myspace's rise and fall can be extrapolated to Facebook (using the resemblance of Myspace's rise and fall to certain other phenomena). The problem with this assumption is that Myspace's fall was a result of Facebook existing as its successor. Currently there is no "successor" to Facebook which fills the same niche as Facebook, Myspace, and Friendster filled.
I am not arguing that Facebook will not fall in the same way that Myspace did. I am just arguing that we do not have the data to make the case. Accurately predicting the fall of Facebook is a matter of "art", not of science and most of those doing so are expressing an opinion based on a WAG (and perhaps on what they hope will happen). Myspace and Friendster were fads. Facebook started as a fad, Myspace and Friendster faded away when they lost their novelty and were replaced by the next fad. However, Facebook has survived past the fad stage. I will repeat that just because Facebook has survived past the fad stage that does not mean that it will last.
The problem with a large number of police officers is that such a large number of the people they interact with as part of their job are criminals that they begin to assume that everyone they interact with who arouses their suspicion is a criminal and they treat them as such.
The Constitution makes no distinction between a "traditional journalist" and anybody else. When the Constitution refers to "freedom of the press", it is not talking about news media, or journalists. It is literally talking about printing presses. Just because journalists have told us that it applies to them and only to them does not mean that was what the Framers were referring to.
The problem is that there are a significant number of people who will start campaigning to put an end to LWOP as soon as the death penalty is abolished.
Actually, they came up with the new term, "developing world", because the old terms were less informative, and to some degree obsolete. "third world country" was one of three categories. "First world countries" were those like the U.S. and most of Western Europe. "Second world countries" were part of the Soviet bloc (primarily those in parts of the Soviet bloc in Europe, although others may have been included). And that is why the terms are obsolete, there is no Soviet bloc any longer and the term "second world country" has lost all meaning.
Dividing the world netween "developed nations" and "developing nations" may be incomplete, but it is more informative than "third world nations".
You are correct that he should not have brought the Fed's stimulus into this discussion and probably not Solyndra or PPACA (at least not the way in which he did). However, the point to note is that the media have already spent more time covering the bridge closing than it has the IRS targeting Obama political opponents (both in slow walking applications for non-profit status and starting audits against those who have spoken out about problems with PPACA), or on the Fast & Furious gun running by the BATF to Mexican drug cartels.
Who exactly is going to educate these executives? The people being talked about in this article generally outrank in the corporate hierarchy the people who teach everybody else to maintain information security, on pain of being fired.
Actually, there is an interesting related statistic, when you adjust for children raised in single parent households, black and white crime rates essentially equalize.
I do not know what Karmashock's "solution" to crime is (although I will agree with his comment that you don't really solve crime, you merely reduce it), however, the answer to excessive crime is to increase the "cost" of committing crime. The most efficient way to increase the cost of crime is for a significant fraction of non-criminals to be armed so as to protect themselves from criminals. I read an article that summed this up not to long ago. It told the story of a man who had recently shot an intruder in his home. For several years before he obtained the gun and then shot an intruder his house was broken into frequently, in the several years since he shot the intruder, his house has not been broken into once. The article also mentioned that crime in his neighborhood is down as well. That is how you "solve" crime, by making people feel that the potential negative consequences of committing crime outweigh the potential positive consequences.
Except of course that the business does not actually use the trademark. Which suggests that it created its name for the purpose of giving it an excuse to register as a trademark the name used by Pinterest in the U.S..
If you do not understand what you are investing in, you should not be investing in it. There may be special cases where someone is willing to throw some spare cash at a project they do not fully understand because they would really like to see the outcome which the project is promising. However, in that latter case, the person should certainly understand that there is a significant risk that those running the project are confidence men and value the potential results enough to take that risk.
The problem with these SEC regulations is that the types of projects which are often crowdsourced are best accomplished by people who have little to no ability to put together a business plan. In addition, the types of things which it is wise to invest in through crowdsourcing are things which you invest in because you want to see them happen, not because you want to make money off of the investment. If you are investing in crowdsource projects in order to make money, you are doing it wrong (this does not mean that you cannot make money off of such projects, just that it is the wrong avenue if that is your goal).
This is the important point, making sure that you keep your insurance company informed about atypical things that you want them to cover and confirming that those things are covered under your policy. In the case of the topic under discussion, if they are asking you if your house is monitored by an external company and you say "Yes", than your security monitoring had better be by an external company (even if that external company is one you incorporated for that purpose).
That was actually one of the sources I looked at to make sure I got my facts straight.
Hence the words "on average" in my post.
As the Anonymous Coward pointed out, it is unlikely that they will spread this in anywhere near that scale. Pennsylvania, for example, uses somewhere on the order of 200,000 gallons of brine in a winter. Wisconsin is a larger state than Pennsylvania and I believe they experience more snow than Pennsylvania, on the other hand, Pennsylvania has more miles of road than Wisconsin. Altogether, I would be surprised if Wisconsin used 500,000 gallons, even if they expand this program to the entire state.
I was taught, back when I worked retail, that studies showed that people influence the buying behaviors of, on average, 250 other people. I doubt this has changed by a large number, but 250 lost customers per dissatisfied customer is a pretty steep price to pay. This is especially true when the positive publicity in a situation like this probably exceeds any value you could spend on advertizing.
No, but you seem to be saying is that bureaucrats are capable of determining what is art and culture and thus funding it. Have you seen any of Uwe Boll's movies? They exist because the German government decided to subsidize art and culture.
When was the last time someone who did not graduate from one of the Institut d'études politiques elected Prime Minister? Or for that matter who did not graduate from Institut d'Études Politiques de Paris?
I will enter the fray here. If the only reason it is made is because some bureaucrat decided it was "culturally relevant", it isn't culture, it is propaganda. Culture is that which people produce and take part in because they enjoy it. Now, people may make money off of producing culture, but if that money has to be forcibly taken from someone else (as opposed to that someone else voluntarily giving it to the producer) than the result is not culture. Any "culture" which is produced using tax dollars is propaganda.
You say that you would prefer to sample "a little culture from places like France, than to be forced to watch another idiot action movie out of Hollywierd." Well, you are free to do so, by spending your own money to do so. That is what freedom of choice is. The question you need to ask yourself is this, why should someone else be forced to pay for that to be produced? The reason that cultural diversity disappeared, to whatever extent it actually has, is because people stopped being willing to support the local culture and chose instead to take part in the stuff produced by Hollywood. The solution to that is NOT to use tax dollars to support the production of "culture" which no one is willing to pay for themselves. The solution is for people to start paying for some of that local culture. It may not have the production quality of Hollywood movies to start with, but if is something that people find to be good, that will change over time, either because people are willing to pay for it, or because people are willing to invest in it with no expectation of a monetary return on investment.
Actually, the "subsidies" that oil companies get are mostly tax breaks that EVERY company gets. Most of the remaining "subsidies" fall into three groups: Money spent to fill the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, tax breaks received by farmers for the fuel they use to run farm vehicles, and Low-Income Home Energy Assistance. Which of these do you want to cut?
If we are going to discuss cutting oil company "subsidies", let us discuss the specific subsidies and the relative merits, or lack there of, of those subsidies. We need to be aware of who, besides the oil companies, may benefit from these subsidies and what effect these subsidies may, or may not, have on the behavior of various organizations (including the oil companies). All too often, we have this discussion about generic "subsidies to the oil companies." We need to discuss specifics. I agree that federal spending must be reduced, but all too often when I bring up some specific program, I am told, "You can't do that" by people who turn around and say we should cut spending in the generic area which that spending is part of.
Well, yes, it would probably smell pretty bad if they were to spread this on the roads in the summertime. However, as an Anonymous Coward pointed out, they don't have much of a problem with ice on the roads in the summer in Milwaukee. In addition, it is unlikely that the brine they spread on the roads during the winter will still be there by the time the weather gets warm enough to cause a smell problem.