There's nothing more moral or good business about razor thin margins.
Nope, but they mean that the "free markets" work... anything other than razor thin margins signal that there's a disturbance in the market -- either actors don't have all the information they need, or something is preventing competition -- that allows for profit to emrge. Which is one way to say that good business is all about preventing the free markets from working!
Apparently it wasn't that effective, since nobody has been able to verify this "myth". The young moros may have committed in less juramentados merely due to improved conditions and infrastructure, and seeing US troops as less of an enemy.
Anyway, they were still doing it in 1940, they were doing it to japanese, the last incident was in 2011, so the habit still exists...
And apparently pighides or pork having nothing to do with getting to heaven is an absurd idea. To a Muslim, that is.
I believe it does not mean it's uptime and accessibility is 99.99999% (or better) but that since it's not private third party shenanigan, it can't go bankrupt and disappear overnight. Or be closed by FBI without warning.
If you seriously think that causing a minor inconvenience warrants beating someone to pulp, then I think you're bigger threat to society than this kid is.
For three hundred years people were able to run them furnaces without the aid of computers just fine. But after the 'puter takes over, you can't do anything without it, even if the damn thing goes south... I'd say it's not a very good design.
Yes, that's the naive version of how "free market" works. In reality, since competition is not for the benefit of the companies, they do whatever it takes to not compete. Because in fully functional "free markets", it would be practically impossible to make profit, which means that the very driving force of the innovation and manufacture will diminish the better "free markets" work. The "free markets" will fail by design, by becoming unfree and uncompetitive.
And competition is not, by definition, efficient. It's immense waste of time, effort and resources. What it produces, on the other hand, might sometimes appear to be efficiency, if look only at the winner. If you look at the whole picture, it would take some mind bending acrobatics to believe that having to write the same software for three different operating systems and three different phone platform is in any way efficient use of developers' skills, time and effort.
Many times, these denier sites all quote one study, and in the cacophony confusion arises.
I would like to add that often these sites quote a study that does not say what the site claims it says, usuallly the contrary. So always check out the study, too. If you don't know the lingo, or can follow the science, there's usually some discussion to be found handling the misquoting of the paper.
As there very seldom is "conclusive" studies in anything -- and especially so in a cross-discipline field covering physics, astronomy and biology -- you'd be better off starting with Spencer Wearth's Discovery of Global Warming, me thinks.
The life-cycle carbon footprint of different energy production is very extensively studied, and if eco-freaks don't cre about those, nuclear-freaks tend to come up with very fantastic numbers, manaking to make nuclear almost as clean as renewables by creative and fantastic accounting. For example, there's often some unknown technical magic happening when moving from high-grade uranium to low-grade uranium that requires no extra enrichment. Or by stroke of other kind of magic, we turn all uranium reactor to thorium or other unproved stuff reactors overnight.
The biggest issue, though, the nuclear is facing in this new landscape of energy production is the fact that it's rather incompatible with the renewables in the grid. Unless it scales itself down succesfully.
The problem with nuclear, without even going close to the radiation boogeyman, is that:
- it requres huge investement before nothing happens
- it takes years to construct a power plant
- it's pretty much unflexible regarding any peaks or lows in consumption
- the latest generation concrete housings' carbon foorprint takes a decade to offset
- provided the fuel mining, enrichement and transportation is almost carbon neutral
- the nuclear plants require a lot of sweet water for cooling, 24/7, and the world is running out
Oh, and nobody is willing to foot the bill, including insurance and decomissioning, so techically greenies don't really need to freak the hell out or start screaming, because mostly nuclear power is off the table due to practical issues. Which probably is why I don't know any greenies who do run around in circles. Actually, most of the greenies I know are free-market liberals. Now, *that* doesn't make any sense...
That could be because in the real world nuclear is pretty much incompatible with renewables, being so darn inflexible in every possible way. And that is the gist of all this "baseload" power generation -- it's old thinking stemming from the fact that neither (old) coal or nuclear power plants can adjust well to the demand, so you have to run them at 80-90 percent of capacity all the time, and add some way more adjustable gas generators in to the mix to take care of the peaks.
The more the almost immediately adjustable renewables take care of the power production, the less the is room for old technology in the grid, since the whoe baseload issue goes away. And this is starting to hit the luddite utilities in the Europe who refuse to take advantage of new technology...
Most of the nogotiations are, or should not be, a game, where you try to achieve advantage over the other "partners", but try an agreement that benefits boths sides, or all, sides of the agreement.
Beides, while at least telling your subjects what you are negotiating about, would not necessarily require revealinh all your cards, au contraire, public discourse may give you other leverage, or even more opportunities for bargaining.
I don't think there's downside in open trade negotaitions. Not open trade. Or, you know, open, free markets. There are many downsides to secretive, backhanding, misinforming, lying, deceiving martkets, though.
They don't have to ban them, they can ask for money to either cover urban areas with simple beacons overwhelming the "system", or even better, have a fleet of drones circling around making these things go "bong" completely randomly...
Ahum, Stephen Hsu is a theoretical physicist, the breed that seems to think that everything else in science is a subset of their discipline and thus within their realm of understanding. Which is rarely the case.
Meanwhile, the genetic researchers have already started serious discussions about the fact that since we now can fix some defects already on the embryo level, should we? If you cull them, then that discussion will be controlled by hapless physicists...
I hope you're not thinking all these authors contributed equally. They did not. I'd venture a (well educated) guess that most of them "merely" had part of the data, and provided that in exhange for a name in publication. Most probably made their undergrads to do the analysis, so they could only share the results for meta analysis, instead of the raw data. So the the undergrads got their names in, too.
Furthermore, all the authors are using the same method (GWAS) so it's only relevant to question that single method, not the smartness off all the authors put together. And it's apparent that even you don't think much of the method, since you require those that challenge it, to come up with the proof (actual genetic/biological/chemical mechanism) that the method provided a correct model of reality. And within a generous week, which, of course, is much less time that it took to churn this statistical model out of the data.
That doens't sound fair, me thinks. It'll take years of wet lab to find out if this model has any relevance to how the world ticks. Computers and undergrads are cheap, labs and professionsal are expensive, so we get a lot of statistical biology nowadays. It's not bad science per se, but it's a very limited approach, because it's (totally) data driven.
In a free market society they would have to disclose all information, of course. Otherwise the market would not work properly, because the consumers could not make well informed decision...
I may be protectionism, or it may be serious consern for quality. Or both. You do know that the luddites didn't oppose machines, but machines that produced poor quality stuff -- they were afraid that people would be fooled to buy third grade crap instead good quality products.
Too bad they were beaten, shot and hanged for it, and we have the world we have now...
If we started to assume that business is not supposed to behave the most sosiopathic and misantropist way possible, the world might become a better place.
In other words, the bottom line is no excuse for anything. Not even in business. A creepy bastard is a creepy bastard, even if it's for profit.
I a perfect, "special interest free", scenario we'd only get to accept or reject a whole preselected parliament, or senate, or whatever institute does the democracy theater in your country.
The objective of war is to impose your will on the others, not to kill people, since you can't impose anything on dead people.
You only care about body count, or spectacular victories ("let's put the fear of God to them"), when you don't know what you're imposing if anything, or to whom you're imposing it on. Then body count becomes the only measure of prgress that you can use. It's like your fighting a war either because you can, or because you don't know what else to do...
Besides, what made Red Army relatively easy picking for the Wehrmacht in 1941-42 was the very fact that it won it's two previous engagements (Khalkyn-Gol and Winter war), the first one spectacularly, which pretty much prevented any constructive critique or learning from mistakes and casualties.
Funny thing, the code, the data, the explanations, everything has been avalable for years, and yet so many of the public believe they're not. I wonder why that is?
It's like there was this massive political campaign against science. Of which you just became part of. Congratulations!
I gather the best way to 'encourage' investors to aim for long term profits, would be to simply make the tax be absurdly high (like 99.9999%) for HTC and then converge it to normal according to the time one has held a particular stock before sale. This way you can always make profit (if there's profit to be made), but even the gambler would be interested in the long term health of the general economy, and of the business in particular they have invested in.
Overnight, we'd have a stable, healthy, growing economy.
I assume BND has been collaborating with US intellicenge a lot. Now, of course, it appears that anybody in Germany having collaborated with NSA (and it's brethen) or GHCQ should be considered a traitor and be put on trial.
Really, every European Intelligence Agency should be purged from persons who advocate international cooperation. And purged such a way that several genrations of intelligence people will think twice about "exchanging information".
Of course, what remains of international terrorism will have (again) grrreat time operating globally, but trust is something we can not afford anymore.
There could be that others listened to the customers, who at the time did not think all-touchy device was an improvement -- it still isn't! -- but good ol' Steve came forth and sold the abomination to people.
For most purposes touchscreen is an inferior input device compared to almost anything. It's like using your computer only with several mice and claiming it's great experience... now, making it the only input device, one hardly can call that an advancement.
Slashdot Mirror
There's nothing more moral or good business about razor thin margins.
Nope, but they mean that the "free markets" work... anything other than razor thin margins signal that there's a disturbance in the market -- either actors don't have all the information they need, or something is preventing competition -- that allows for profit to emrge. Which is one way to say that good business is all about preventing the free markets from working!
Apparently it wasn't that effective, since nobody has been able to verify this "myth". The young moros may have committed in less juramentados merely due to improved conditions and infrastructure, and seeing US troops as less of an enemy.
Anyway, they were still doing it in 1940, they were doing it to japanese, the last incident was in 2011, so the habit still exists...
And apparently pighides or pork having nothing to do with getting to heaven is an absurd idea. To a Muslim, that is.
I believe it does not mean it's uptime and accessibility is 99.99999% (or better) but that since it's not private third party shenanigan, it can't go bankrupt and disappear overnight. Or be closed by FBI without warning.
If you seriously think that causing a minor inconvenience warrants beating someone to pulp, then I think you're bigger threat to society than this kid is.
For three hundred years people were able to run them furnaces without the aid of computers just fine. But after the 'puter takes over, you can't do anything without it, even if the damn thing goes south... I'd say it's not a very good design.
Yes, that's the naive version of how "free market" works. In reality, since competition is not for the benefit of the companies, they do whatever it takes to not compete. Because in fully functional "free markets", it would be practically impossible to make profit, which means that the very driving force of the innovation and manufacture will diminish the better "free markets" work. The "free markets" will fail by design, by becoming unfree and uncompetitive.
And competition is not, by definition, efficient. It's immense waste of time, effort and resources. What it produces, on the other hand, might sometimes appear to be efficiency, if look only at the winner. If you look at the whole picture, it would take some mind bending acrobatics to believe that having to write the same software for three different operating systems and three different phone platform is in any way efficient use of developers' skills, time and effort.
Many times, these denier sites all quote one study, and in the cacophony confusion arises.
I would like to add that often these sites quote a study that does not say what the site claims it says, usuallly the contrary. So always check out the study, too. If you don't know the lingo, or can follow the science, there's usually some discussion to be found handling the misquoting of the paper.
As there very seldom is "conclusive" studies in anything -- and especially so in a cross-discipline field covering physics, astronomy and biology -- you'd be better off starting with Spencer Wearth's Discovery of Global Warming, me thinks.
The life-cycle carbon footprint of different energy production is very extensively studied, and if eco-freaks don't cre about those, nuclear-freaks tend to come up with very fantastic numbers, manaking to make nuclear almost as clean as renewables by creative and fantastic accounting. For example, there's often some unknown technical magic happening when moving from high-grade uranium to low-grade uranium that requires no extra enrichment. Or by stroke of other kind of magic, we turn all uranium reactor to thorium or other unproved stuff reactors overnight. The biggest issue, though, the nuclear is facing in this new landscape of energy production is the fact that it's rather incompatible with the renewables in the grid. Unless it scales itself down succesfully.
The problem with nuclear, without even going close to the radiation boogeyman, is that:
- it requres huge investement before nothing happens
- it takes years to construct a power plant
- it's pretty much unflexible regarding any peaks or lows in consumption
- the latest generation concrete housings' carbon foorprint takes a decade to offset
- provided the fuel mining, enrichement and transportation is almost carbon neutral
- the nuclear plants require a lot of sweet water for cooling, 24/7, and the world is running out
Oh, and nobody is willing to foot the bill, including insurance and decomissioning, so techically greenies don't really need to freak the hell out or start screaming, because mostly nuclear power is off the table due to practical issues. Which probably is why I don't know any greenies who do run around in circles. Actually, most of the greenies I know are free-market liberals. Now, *that* doesn't make any sense...
That could be because in the real world nuclear is pretty much incompatible with renewables, being so darn inflexible in every possible way. And that is the gist of all this "baseload" power generation -- it's old thinking stemming from the fact that neither (old) coal or nuclear power plants can adjust well to the demand, so you have to run them at 80-90 percent of capacity all the time, and add some way more adjustable gas generators in to the mix to take care of the peaks.
The more the almost immediately adjustable renewables take care of the power production, the less the is room for old technology in the grid, since the whoe baseload issue goes away. And this is starting to hit the luddite utilities in the Europe who refuse to take advantage of new technology...
Most of the nogotiations are, or should not be, a game, where you try to achieve advantage over the other "partners", but try an agreement that benefits boths sides, or all, sides of the agreement.
Beides, while at least telling your subjects what you are negotiating about, would not necessarily require revealinh all your cards, au contraire, public discourse may give you other leverage, or even more opportunities for bargaining.
I don't think there's downside in open trade negotaitions. Not open trade. Or, you know, open, free markets. There are many downsides to secretive, backhanding, misinforming, lying, deceiving martkets, though.
They don't have to ban them, they can ask for money to either cover urban areas with simple beacons overwhelming the "system", or even better, have a fleet of drones circling around making these things go "bong" completely randomly...
Ahum, Stephen Hsu is a theoretical physicist, the breed that seems to think that everything else in science is a subset of their discipline and thus within their realm of understanding. Which is rarely the case.
Meanwhile, the genetic researchers have already started serious discussions about the fact that since we now can fix some defects already on the embryo level, should we? If you cull them, then that discussion will be controlled by hapless physicists...
Talk about name dropping...:-)
I hope you're not thinking all these authors contributed equally. They did not. I'd venture a (well educated) guess that most of them "merely" had part of the data, and provided that in exhange for a name in publication. Most probably made their undergrads to do the analysis, so they could only share the results for meta analysis, instead of the raw data. So the the undergrads got their names in, too.
Furthermore, all the authors are using the same method (GWAS) so it's only relevant to question that single method, not the smartness off all the authors put together. And it's apparent that even you don't think much of the method, since you require those that challenge it, to come up with the proof (actual genetic/biological/chemical mechanism) that the method provided a correct model of reality. And within a generous week, which, of course, is much less time that it took to churn this statistical model out of the data.
That doens't sound fair, me thinks. It'll take years of wet lab to find out if this model has any relevance to how the world ticks. Computers and undergrads are cheap, labs and professionsal are expensive, so we get a lot of statistical biology nowadays. It's not bad science per se, but it's a very limited approach, because it's (totally) data driven.
In a free market society they would have to disclose all information, of course. Otherwise the market would not work properly, because the consumers could not make well informed decision...
I may be protectionism, or it may be serious consern for quality. Or both. You do know that the luddites didn't oppose machines, but machines that produced poor quality stuff -- they were afraid that people would be fooled to buy third grade crap instead good quality products.
Too bad they were beaten, shot and hanged for it, and we have the world we have now...
If we started to assume that business is not supposed to behave the most sosiopathic and misantropist way possible, the world might become a better place.
In other words, the bottom line is no excuse for anything. Not even in business. A creepy bastard is a creepy bastard, even if it's for profit.
I a perfect, "special interest free", scenario we'd only get to accept or reject a whole preselected parliament, or senate, or whatever institute does the democracy theater in your country.
The objective of war is to impose your will on the others, not to kill people, since you can't impose anything on dead people.
You only care about body count, or spectacular victories ("let's put the fear of God to them"), when you don't know what you're imposing if anything, or to whom you're imposing it on. Then body count becomes the only measure of prgress that you can use. It's like your fighting a war either because you can, or because you don't know what else to do...
Besides, what made Red Army relatively easy picking for the Wehrmacht in 1941-42 was the very fact that it won it's two previous engagements (Khalkyn-Gol and Winter war), the first one spectacularly, which pretty much prevented any constructive critique or learning from mistakes and casualties.
It could be that the point of capital punishment is to tell people that at times it is OK to kill a person that has offended you...
No, wait...
Amusingly enough, "corporation" comes from latin word meaning a "group of people"... so where's the difference?
That was his point, don't you think? ... and many, many more.
Wasting 30 seconds searching would have given you http://simplex.giss.nasa.gov/s..., or http://www.cesm.ucar.edu/model... or http://www.mi.uni-hamburg.de/S...
Funny thing, the code, the data, the explanations, everything has been avalable for years, and yet so many of the public believe they're not. I wonder why that is?
It's like there was this massive political campaign against science. Of which you just became part of. Congratulations!
I gather the best way to 'encourage' investors to aim for long term profits, would be to simply make the tax be absurdly high (like 99.9999%) for HTC and then converge it to normal according to the time one has held a particular stock before sale. This way you can always make profit (if there's profit to be made), but even the gambler would be interested in the long term health of the general economy, and of the business in particular they have invested in.
Overnight, we'd have a stable, healthy, growing economy.
I assume BND has been collaborating with US intellicenge a lot. Now, of course, it appears that anybody in Germany having collaborated with NSA (and it's brethen) or GHCQ should be considered a traitor and be put on trial.
Really, every European Intelligence Agency should be purged from persons who advocate international cooperation. And purged such a way that several genrations of intelligence people will think twice about "exchanging information".
Of course, what remains of international terrorism will have (again) grrreat time operating globally, but trust is something we can not afford anymore.
There could be that others listened to the customers, who at the time did not think all-touchy device was an improvement -- it still isn't! -- but good ol' Steve came forth and sold the abomination to people.
For most purposes touchscreen is an inferior input device compared to almost anything. It's like using your computer only with several mice and claiming it's great experience... now, making it the only input device, one hardly can call that an advancement.