If the sole point was to win auctions, then this "bid $99 Billion" strategy would be a winner. I would very much like to know that you are using this strategy to win auctions where I am selling goods.
Most people care about buying things at a price that is less than what the thing is worth to them. It would be stupid to pay more for things than they are worth.
The "secret bid" auction works because a person bids exactly what the item is worth to the bidder. The bidder is guarenteed to either get the item for less than the bid (which is a win for the buyer), or not get the item because someone else wanted it more (which is a win for the seller).
Here's an example: I was at an auction earlier in the spring. One of the items in the auction was a nice load of lumber. Me (and two friends; it was a big load) got together, and decided on the maximum we were willing to pay for the lumber: $375. I could have gone to a retail lumber store and gotten a very similar load of lumber for $450 to $500. Which strategy would work better, bidding $375 or bidding $99,000,000,000?
It depends on whether "winning" the auction was more important to me than saving money. Someone else actually bid $575. I would not feel like a winner paying $575 for that load of lumber.
Sometimes markets need regulation to stay free. The whole point is to be able to tell when they do and when they don't. Regulated markets have their own sets of inefficiencies.
Externalities are a whole category of market inefficiencies.
Barriers to entry constraining supply are another. When it's the government erecting the barriers to entry, on behalf of the entrenched providers, the people suffer.
And the problem with unfree markets is that they generally do not produce the optimal amount. Many unfree markets feature producers that manage to artificially constrain supply, thereby driving up the price and their profits, hurting consumers.
If this is a federal crime, then it gives authority to the Federal Department of Justice and (ultimately) the US Attorneys the ability to choose to prosecute incidents of Caller-ID spoofing as federal crimes. Noone can forsee that power being misused by Republicans to attempt to ensure a permanent Republican majority, or to manufacture claims of Voter Fraud.
There's a difference between accidentally changing the climate on the earth as a side-effect of using fossil fuels, vs. intentionally changing the climate by dropping comets onto the planet.
I think we're still 20-50 years away from just being able to get people to Mars and back, and 100 years away from being able to do things like move comets and asteroids and direct them where we want them. And at that point, our fossil-fuel fueled lifestyles may have been scaled back so far that any kind of industrial activities in space become politically and economically impossible.
The solar wind will blow away the atmosphere. The question becomes "can we replace the atmosphere fast enough?" If the dissipation losses from the solar wind could be replaced by a comet every millenium or so, the problem can be solved. If it takes ten comets a year, then we'd run out of comets pretty quickly...
Before we can have any long-duration space missions, or colonies on the moon or mars, we need to understand how to build self-contained ecosystems that produce enough food and oxygen, and scrub out CO2, for the human crew. Biosphere 2 is the right idea, only it needs to be done with more science, more engineering, and less PR.
Factories on earth emit "greenhouse gasses" i.e. CO2, because they can easily import carbon-containing fuels and oxygen from the atmosphere, and burn them to provide energy and CO2. Since the fuel and the oxygen would need to be imported from off-planet, why bother with the factory? Just import CO2, perhaps from comets (dry ice?)...
Microsoft isn't allowed to violate anti-trust laws. Because if they do violate the laws, they won't get caught. If they get caught, they'll offer to promise to settle by never doing it again. If the settlement offer is accepted, Microsoft knows they can ignore the terms of the settlement and get away with it.
And now Windows is a monopoly. So Microsoft is threatened by an emerging new technology, the inter-tubes. And funny new software called a browser. So Microsoft levereges their existing monopoly on Windows and crushes the upstart browser company. But that's illegal, and they got caught. And convicted. So Microsoft helps to install a new Department of Justice, and the new Department of Justice agrees to a settlement of the anti-trust conviction that is but a slap on the wrist. A promise to never, ever, ever, and I really mean it this time leverage their Windows monopoly to crush an innovative Web Browser and Web Server Software company whose name begins with "N" and ends with "e" and is headquartered in Silicon Valley.
Because, boy oh boy, if they violate that settlement, absolutely nothing of consequence will happen to them while they contine to collect monopoly rents on Operating System, Office Suite, and Web Browser software.
The speed of sound was never an impossible "barrier" to cross; bullets did it all the time. That's why the X-1 has the shape it does; it was modelled after a.50 caliber bullet.
The Wright brothers knew that powered, heavier-than-air flight was possible; birds did it all the time.
The only "failure of imagination" was in Bush Administration officials. When George or Dick or Condi said "noone could have imagined that terrorists would fly airplanes into buildings", they were demonstrating their own incompetence. That very scenario was planned for and defended against at the 1996 Atlanta Olympics, the 2000 Athens Olympics, and various G7/G8 Summits.
And let's not forget the government's reaction to "bin Laden determined to attack America", "OK, you've covered your ass". Now there's a failure of imagination.
Many progressives wanted the Bush Administration to capture and try Osama bin Laden for the crimes he committed. The Bush Administration, after 9/11, and after Tora Bora, said that getting bin Laden wasn't that important. Yes, bin Laden is what you say he is. Yes, the Bush Administration didn't care.
That he wasn't a serious threat any more. And then the Bush Administration started the war they wanted to fight, and kicked off events that have killed half a million Iraqis. That's pretty scumfuckerisious.
In fact, we (Truman) blew one up specifically to show the Japanese what we were capable of
Check your facts. Nuclear explosion #1: trinity test site, New Mexico, top secret. Nuclear explosion #2: Hiroshima. #3: Nagasaki. Then came the test shots. The extent to which they were directed at the Soviet Union and China is debatable.
OS/2 was also important to Microsoft as a way to beat Lotus 1-2-3, the dominant spreadsheet at the time. MS developed the Windows version of Excel while it was developing Windows, and publically spreading the line that OS/2 was the way to go. Lotus put their efforts into the OS/2 version of 1-2-3. When MS revealed Windows, Excel was ready to go, and 1-2-3 wasn't.
Al Gore did see the value of public computer networks long before the vast majority of politicians, and played a significant role in the internet becoming what it is today.
So demonstrate the bias. Wild claims of "there could be bias" without actually pointing out the bias are worthless.
Why don't you think that human activity is a determining factor in the atmospheric CO2 levels?
Who are the scientists that say we need more study before taking action? How many of them are not getting paid by fossil fuel industries (e.g. coal, oil, and natural gas) or fossil fuel consuming industries (e.g. automobiles, electric power)?
I agree that this idea is old. I am becoming less convinced that this is a bad idea.
Given that (a) such a preventative virus locks the door behind itself, i.e. closes the security holes that it uses to propagate, and (b) the existance of said security holes, and exploitation of them by those with nefarious purposes, then much of the argument against a preventative virus go away. Yes, you are using resources without permission, but see the legal concept of "hazardous nuisence"; others were using the resources without permission, and actively causing harm.
Re:Here's how it works from another perspective
on
How Image Spam Works
·
· Score: 1
We should however pass legislation against companies who ads or information appear in spam messages.
Which would make sending out spam with a competitor's name in it the thing to do.
In manhattan, you don't have 2 decent dependable vehicles. You have tens of thousands of taxis and subway cars and busses that will take you where you need to go. If they don't go there, or the cost of the driver would get expensive, you rent a car. And give it back when you're done, so you don't need to pay for parking or worry about it being vandalized, or repairs.
540 cubic feet of air ones are quite good.... One of these will store about 1Kwh and is about 3' tall and 1' diameter.
Ummm, 3' tall and 1' diameter is (scribbling furiously) less than 3 cubic feet. 6 feet tall and 3.4 feet in diameter is 54 cubic feet, so you'd need 10 of them...
24 KWh of electricity. Since you're efficiency is 64%, so you're using 1.64 KWh at 20 cents per to replace 1 KWh at 30 cents per. The net is more like 3 cents/KWh. * 24 KWh, means you save 72 cents per day * 365 days in a year, and you're saving $262.80 per year. The $40,000 cost, invested in a savings account paying 2% per year generates $800 per year.
I'll let someone else calculate how much hot water and cold air the "waste" sides of running this system would actually generate.
What the newspaper article fails to report is what the "flat rate" charge is for electricity. It says customers going for the solar rebate have to have the time-based charges for electricity: 25 to 30 cents per kilowatt hour 10 am to ? pm, and 18 to 20 cents at night. But what is the charge that they were paying? Doesn't say.
Why isn't the electric utility installing large solar panels to generate electricity during peak hours? Because that takes more money than burning fossil fuels in power plants? They could get creative e.g. leaing rooftop space from homeowners.
Slashdot Mirror
If the sole point was to win auctions, then this "bid $99 Billion" strategy would be a winner. I would very much like to know that you are using this strategy to win auctions where I am selling goods.
Most people care about buying things at a price that is less than what the thing is worth to them. It would be stupid to pay more for things than they are worth.
The "secret bid" auction works because a person bids exactly what the item is worth to the bidder. The bidder is guarenteed to either get the item for less than the bid (which is a win for the buyer), or not get the item because someone else wanted it more (which is a win for the seller).
Here's an example: I was at an auction earlier in the spring. One of the items in the auction was a nice load of lumber. Me (and two friends; it was a big load) got together, and decided on the maximum we were willing to pay for the lumber: $375. I could have gone to a retail lumber store and gotten a very similar load of lumber for $450 to $500. Which strategy would work better, bidding $375 or bidding $99,000,000,000?
It depends on whether "winning" the auction was more important to me than saving money. Someone else actually bid $575. I would not feel like a winner paying $575 for that load of lumber.
But these automated warriors don't have a hemispheric head with a horizontal eye-stalk.
The people of Alaska could expect "value" back for their taxes. But they're getting far more value back from the rest of us taxpayers than they send.
Sometimes markets need regulation to stay free. The whole point is to be able to tell when they do and when they don't. Regulated markets have their own sets of inefficiencies.
Externalities are a whole category of market inefficiencies.
Barriers to entry constraining supply are another. When it's the government erecting the barriers to entry, on behalf of the entrenched providers, the people suffer.
And the problem with unfree markets is that they generally do not produce the optimal amount. Many unfree markets feature producers that manage to artificially constrain supply, thereby driving up the price and their profits, hurting consumers.
If this is a federal crime, then it gives authority to the Federal Department of Justice and (ultimately) the US Attorneys the ability to choose to prosecute incidents of Caller-ID spoofing as federal crimes. Noone can forsee that power being misused by Republicans to attempt to ensure a permanent Republican majority, or to manufacture claims of Voter Fraud.
"Noone can forsee"....
There's a difference between accidentally changing the climate on the earth as a side-effect of using fossil fuels, vs. intentionally changing the climate by dropping comets onto the planet.
I think we're still 20-50 years away from just being able to get people to Mars and back, and 100 years away from being able to do things like move comets and asteroids and direct them where we want them. And at that point, our fossil-fuel fueled lifestyles may have been scaled back so far that any kind of industrial activities in space become politically and economically impossible.
The solar wind will blow away the atmosphere. The question becomes "can we replace the atmosphere fast enough?" If the dissipation losses from the solar wind could be replaced by a comet every millenium or so, the problem can be solved. If it takes ten comets a year, then we'd run out of comets pretty quickly...
Agreed, BioSphere 2 didn't work out that well.
Before we can have any long-duration space missions, or colonies on the moon or mars, we need to understand how to build self-contained ecosystems that produce enough food and oxygen, and scrub out CO2, for the human crew. Biosphere 2 is the right idea, only it needs to be done with more science, more engineering, and less PR.
Factories on earth emit "greenhouse gasses" i.e. CO2, because they can easily import carbon-containing fuels and oxygen from the atmosphere, and burn them to provide energy and CO2. Since the fuel and the oxygen would need to be imported from off-planet, why bother with the factory? Just import CO2, perhaps from comets (dry ice?)...
Microsoft isn't allowed to violate anti-trust laws. Because if they do violate the laws, they won't get caught. If they get caught, they'll offer to promise to settle by never doing it again. If the settlement offer is accepted, Microsoft knows they can ignore the terms of the settlement and get away with it.
And now Windows is a monopoly. So Microsoft is threatened by an emerging new technology, the inter-tubes. And funny new software called a browser. So Microsoft levereges their existing monopoly on Windows and crushes the upstart browser company. But that's illegal, and they got caught. And convicted. So Microsoft helps to install a new Department of Justice, and the new Department of Justice agrees to a settlement of the anti-trust conviction that is but a slap on the wrist. A promise to never, ever, ever, and I really mean it this time leverage their Windows monopoly to crush an innovative Web Browser and Web Server Software company whose name begins with "N" and ends with "e" and is headquartered in Silicon Valley.
Because, boy oh boy, if they violate that settlement, absolutely nothing of consequence will happen to them while they contine to collect monopoly rents on Operating System, Office Suite, and Web Browser software.
The speed of sound was never an impossible "barrier" to cross; bullets did it all the time. That's why the X-1 has the shape it does; it was modelled after a .50 caliber bullet.
The Wright brothers knew that powered, heavier-than-air flight was possible; birds did it all the time.
I don't know where you are from, but it would be hard to find a 1/2 ton car in the USA. A mid-sized sedan is 3200 lbs, or over 1 1/2 tons.
Bovine Fertilizer. There's plenty of arms in Iraq. Plenty of violence, too.
And I don't see martial law in the United Kingdom, France, Germany, or Canada where there is much stricter regulation of handguns.
The only "failure of imagination" was in Bush Administration officials. When George or Dick or Condi said "noone could have imagined that terrorists would fly airplanes into buildings", they were demonstrating their own incompetence. That very scenario was planned for and defended against at the 1996 Atlanta Olympics, the 2000 Athens Olympics, and various G7/G8 Summits.
And let's not forget the government's reaction to "bin Laden determined to attack America", "OK, you've covered your ass". Now there's a failure of imagination.
Many progressives wanted the Bush Administration to capture and try Osama bin Laden for the crimes he committed. The Bush Administration, after 9/11, and after Tora Bora, said that getting bin Laden wasn't that important. Yes, bin Laden is what you say he is. Yes, the Bush Administration didn't care.
That he wasn't a serious threat any more. And then the Bush Administration started the war they wanted to fight, and kicked off events that have killed half a million Iraqis. That's pretty scumfuckerisious.
OS/2 was also important to Microsoft as a way to beat Lotus 1-2-3, the dominant spreadsheet at the time. MS developed the Windows version of Excel while it was developing Windows, and publically spreading the line that OS/2 was the way to go. Lotus put their efforts into the OS/2 version of 1-2-3. When MS revealed Windows, Excel was ready to go, and 1-2-3 wasn't.
Al Gore did see the value of public computer networks long before the vast majority of politicians, and played a significant role in the internet becoming what it is today.
Google "Cerf Gore" and click "I'm feeling lucky"
So demonstrate the bias. Wild claims of "there could be bias" without actually pointing out the bias are worthless.
Why don't you think that human activity is a determining factor in the atmospheric CO2 levels?
Who are the scientists that say we need more study before taking action? How many of them are not getting paid by fossil fuel industries (e.g. coal, oil, and natural gas) or fossil fuel consuming industries (e.g. automobiles, electric power)?
I agree that this idea is old. I am becoming less convinced that this is a bad idea.
Given that (a) such a preventative virus locks the door behind itself, i.e. closes the security holes that it uses to propagate, and (b) the existance of said security holes, and exploitation of them by those with nefarious purposes, then much of the argument against a preventative virus go away. Yes, you are using resources without permission, but see the legal concept of "hazardous nuisence"; others were using the resources without permission, and actively causing harm.
In manhattan, you don't have 2 decent dependable vehicles. You have tens of thousands of taxis and subway cars and busses that will take you where you need to go. If they don't go there, or the cost of the driver would get expensive, you rent a car. And give it back when you're done, so you don't need to pay for parking or worry about it being vandalized, or repairs.
24 KWh of electricity. Since you're efficiency is 64%, so you're using 1.64 KWh at 20 cents per to replace 1 KWh at 30 cents per. The net is more like 3 cents/KWh. * 24 KWh, means you save 72 cents per day * 365 days in a year, and you're saving $262.80 per year. The $40,000 cost, invested in a savings account paying 2% per year generates $800 per year.
I'll let someone else calculate how much hot water and cold air the "waste" sides of running this system would actually generate.
I don't know.
What the newspaper article fails to report is what the "flat rate" charge is for electricity. It says customers going for the solar rebate have to have the time-based charges for electricity: 25 to 30 cents per kilowatt hour 10 am to ? pm, and 18 to 20 cents at night. But what is the charge that they were paying? Doesn't say.
Why isn't the electric utility installing large solar panels to generate electricity during peak hours? Because that takes more money than burning fossil fuels in power plants? They could get creative e.g. leaing rooftop space from homeowners.