Dawkin's "Selfish Gene" has some really interesting ideas revolving around this point. For example, in a society of all fighters, the one individual who flees has an advantage since fighting is risky (pre modern medicine) and all the fighters end up sick from gangrene and other maladies. In a society of all fleeing, the one fighter has an advantage since he will get all the goodies by chasing the others away. So there is a stable mixture of the two strategies that is the natural equilibrium point, any society with a different mix of strategies either moves towards the equilibrium point or disintegrates.
Typically the cartel is the state government which won't allow new providers to open in an area without an elaborate dance to 'prove need' to some committee.
One example of this breakage you are talking about. In most US states a new MRI clinic (or other medical service) cannot open without permission from the state. There is some committee which decides if there is enough demand in the area to justify opening a new provider. (Who do you think this cozy arrangement benefits? It isn't the general public, surely) This is done under the lunatic delusion that more availability and competition would cause prices to rise.
Go read some of the old time newspapers, this isn't a new phenomenon. There has never been 'real journalism'. Human nature is just like this. "No lions for the last five minutes" doesn't get our attention but "Lion in the area!" does. "news" funded by advertising sells our attention, so it always tends towards the angle that will gain attention.
I believe what they are saying with the comparison is that there is zero chance of al Qaida or some other "Islamist" bogeyman becoming more of a threat to the United States than pulling off an occasional lightning strike. Invading multiple countries, killing hundreds of thousands of innocent people, sowing the seeds of future conflict, and printing trillions of dollars to pay for it is an appalling overreaction to a unique event. This was understood in the USA as recently as the 1970s when we didn't invade South America over the actions of a few criminal groups.
bogeyman (bmæn)
—n , pl -men
a person, real or imaginary, used as a threat, esp to children
Collins English Dictionary - Complete & Unabridged 10th Edition
An entirely appropriate use of the term in this case
Insurance isn't to allow people who engage in risky behaviour to transfer their costs to others.
An excellent point. This reminds me of an article I read some years ago complaining about how insurance companies raised premiums on drivers who got tickets. One example in the article was a woman who was ticketed for driving 45 mph in the snow in a residential zone. She complained that she was a safe driver who had never had an accident. I thought, lady you were going 45 mph in the snow in a residential zone. You aren't a safe driver, just a lucky one. (now to be fair it didn't mention the specifics and maybe it was safe in this instance, the article didn't provide such details)
The drawback I see is that the potential liability could be so high that most people could never save that much. How much do you need in the savings before you drive? This disparity is of course what insurance is for, supposedly. Or, what if you pay out and the account is empty? Do you stop driving? The smart thing might be to pool accounts with family and friends....uh oh we just invented insurance again.
How can cutting the premiums of safe drivers work in practice? Isn't the idea of insurance that the premiums of those who don't file claims is what pays for the claims of others? If they cut all the premiums of the safe drivers, where is the money for the claims of the unsafe going to come from? My guesses: they are not paying out many claims since they just drop unsafe drivers, or perhaps they will simply recoup the money by raising the premiums of any driver who files a claim. In the latter case at least, your 'insurance' is perhaps no more useful than a credit card.
Periods of instability and hundred-year-old industries and economies adjusting to some large change is pretty much par for the course. History is full of things changing and pulling the rug out from under the established order. For example, when Venice lost its dominant position in the trade routes into Europe from the east. Quite a shock when a lot of their riches started evaporating, but they survived.
Google told the same 'they don't have direct access to our servers' lie, come on people let's start seeing some vulgar rants directed at the "Do No Evil" gang. To be fair it isn't a lie, they didn't have direct access. Instead Google/FB just set it up so they could get anything they wanted without having 'direct' access.
churn a hell of a lot of money through the world economy
This is an (implied) false dichotomy. It is not as if, without advertising in this way, economic activity would just disappear. The money would simply get spent on other things that people decide that they want. An economy is essential, yes, but no business model/music label/Wall Street bank is required for that.
They've said quite a few times that the TSA isn't there to find bombs, they are there to make it too risky to try smuggling a bomb. Suicide bombers are a scarce resource and it is too risky to send them into the TSA's purview where there is a 20% chance of getting caught.
Well, at least, this is what they said after they failed to find any bombs.
This is why I would support a national health care system over the ugliness we have in the USA now. Our healthcare is pasted with layer after layer of regulation and bureaucracy and each doctor needs a dozen assistants to keep track of it all. Now, I don't want to start a discussion here about it, but I support completely free market health care. I mention this just to illustrate how awful the US 'system' is,since I would prefer socialized medicine over what we have now.
Slashdot Mirror
The Soviet union, Communist China, Socialist India, and so on all managed to demonstrate government failure without Republicans obstructing them.
in order to known how to secure industrial control systems, we need to know what actually happened
False, we don't need to know everything bad that ever happened in order to secure a system.
Dawkin's "Selfish Gene" has some really interesting ideas revolving around this point. For example, in a society of all fighters, the one individual who flees has an advantage since fighting is risky (pre modern medicine) and all the fighters end up sick from gangrene and other maladies. In a society of all fleeing, the one fighter has an advantage since he will get all the goodies by chasing the others away. So there is a stable mixture of the two strategies that is the natural equilibrium point, any society with a different mix of strategies either moves towards the equilibrium point or disintegrates.
Typically the cartel is the state government which won't allow new providers to open in an area without an elaborate dance to 'prove need' to some committee.
One example of this breakage you are talking about. In most US states a new MRI clinic (or other medical service) cannot open without permission from the state. There is some committee which decides if there is enough demand in the area to justify opening a new provider. (Who do you think this cozy arrangement benefits? It isn't the general public, surely) This is done under the lunatic delusion that more availability and competition would cause prices to rise.
Do they specify the amount of the change? Maybe only .00001 meters, but hey they did something.
Go read some of the old time newspapers, this isn't a new phenomenon. There has never been 'real journalism'. Human nature is just like this. "No lions for the last five minutes" doesn't get our attention but "Lion in the area!" does. "news" funded by advertising sells our attention, so it always tends towards the angle that will gain attention.
I believe what they are saying with the comparison is that there is zero chance of al Qaida or some other "Islamist" bogeyman becoming more of a threat to the United States than pulling off an occasional lightning strike. Invading multiple countries, killing hundreds of thousands of innocent people, sowing the seeds of future conflict, and printing trillions of dollars to pay for it is an appalling overreaction to a unique event. This was understood in the USA as recently as the 1970s when we didn't invade South America over the actions of a few criminal groups.
'Kill' isn't the only possible outcome. How many maimings are caused by lightning v. "terrorism"?
bogeyman (bmæn) —n , pl -men a person, real or imaginary, used as a threat, esp to children Collins English Dictionary - Complete & Unabridged 10th Edition
An entirely appropriate use of the term in this case
Insurance isn't to allow people who engage in risky behaviour to transfer their costs to others.
An excellent point. This reminds me of an article I read some years ago complaining about how insurance companies raised premiums on drivers who got tickets. One example in the article was a woman who was ticketed for driving 45 mph in the snow in a residential zone. She complained that she was a safe driver who had never had an accident. I thought, lady you were going 45 mph in the snow in a residential zone. You aren't a safe driver, just a lucky one. (now to be fair it didn't mention the specifics and maybe it was safe in this instance, the article didn't provide such details)
The drawback I see is that the potential liability could be so high that most people could never save that much. How much do you need in the savings before you drive? This disparity is of course what insurance is for, supposedly. Or, what if you pay out and the account is empty? Do you stop driving? The smart thing might be to pool accounts with family and friends....uh oh we just invented insurance again.
How can cutting the premiums of safe drivers work in practice? Isn't the idea of insurance that the premiums of those who don't file claims is what pays for the claims of others? If they cut all the premiums of the safe drivers, where is the money for the claims of the unsafe going to come from? My guesses: they are not paying out many claims since they just drop unsafe drivers, or perhaps they will simply recoup the money by raising the premiums of any driver who files a claim. In the latter case at least, your 'insurance' is perhaps no more useful than a credit card.
Pretty much the same sort of proof Thomas Jefferson used in his writings to confirm his belief that something was wrong with the climate.
No mods, but this made me chuckle. Kudos!
Most people think they have good ideas about how to run things. These aren't wannabe tyrants
When the 'good idea' is to force millions of people to do something they don't want to do, you are a wannabe tyrant. The motivations aren't relevant.
Periods of instability and hundred-year-old industries and economies adjusting to some large change is pretty much par for the course. History is full of things changing and pulling the rug out from under the established order. For example, when Venice lost its dominant position in the trade routes into Europe from the east. Quite a shock when a lot of their riches started evaporating, but they survived.
Google told the same 'they don't have direct access to our servers' lie, come on people let's start seeing some vulgar rants directed at the "Do No Evil" gang. To be fair it isn't a lie, they didn't have direct access. Instead Google/FB just set it up so they could get anything they wanted without having 'direct' access.
Mars, here we come! God help you.
I've just been informed that corviditis is a real problem and shouldn't be mocked.
I had the same thought. When was the last time someone had to fight off a crow infection? They are too big to fit in my bloodstream anyway.
Of course you are correct, original source article was entitled "American crows as carriers of vancomycin-resistant enterococci with vanA gene"
churn a hell of a lot of money through the world economy
This is an (implied) false dichotomy. It is not as if, without advertising in this way, economic activity would just disappear. The money would simply get spent on other things that people decide that they want. An economy is essential, yes, but no business model/music label/Wall Street bank is required for that.
They've said quite a few times that the TSA isn't there to find bombs, they are there to make it too risky to try smuggling a bomb. Suicide bombers are a scarce resource and it is too risky to send them into the TSA's purview where there is a 20% chance of getting caught. Well, at least, this is what they said after they failed to find any bombs.
Well the odds of there being TWO bombs on the plane are astronomical, so I always bring a bomb on the plane with me.
This is why I would support a national health care system over the ugliness we have in the USA now. Our healthcare is pasted with layer after layer of regulation and bureaucracy and each doctor needs a dozen assistants to keep track of it all. Now, I don't want to start a discussion here about it, but I support completely free market health care. I mention this just to illustrate how awful the US 'system' is,since I would prefer socialized medicine over what we have now.