sure they could. but most wont. like i said just because your neighbor could put out the fire dose not mean they will and and thus were back to square one. pay for it now or pay for it latter.
No but if our manufacturing base had not collapsed(because of cheap labor) we could have built machines to do it for almost as cheap.. and supported higher paying jobs at the same time
EHHHHH "While some of those resources are limited in some areas, that's hardly the case across the country." I hate to tell you but even us lefties disagree with you on that. Im lucky I lve near the great lakes. But due to global climate change. Fresh water likely stands to be a very very scarce resource within a few decades.
Apparently you have never heard of a deductible......... That basically is the counter point to your whole rant...its exactly what you are talking about.(as per catastrophic health insurance)...
There are both car and health insurance plans with high and low deductibles. With auto insurance you get what you pay for. However until now with health insurance you did not.
To be fair most of that was an accident. (Our diseases did the vast majority of the killing.) And you are actually completely wrong. We killed off all the native americans? Than where are all Hispanics in the world coming from? Are they magic ninjas? O no wait they are native Americans or at least their distance cousins.
they tried to kill us. but we won? Shit happens. The same thing happened with those "true blooded americans". Their ancestors moved into the area and they killed off everyone who was living there before. Its the way of the world.
except it costs us $10,000 to ship them back, and it only costs them $10 to get here... Independent of the the "right or wrong" part. That just is a loosing agreement. One that will leave the US broke. Just look at the $3,000,000,000 you conservatives spent on a cyber fence on the mexican border. Literally they have found it to be completely ineffective.
Personally Id have at least found it technologically interesting if it had worked. But it had 0% effectiveness.Let me repeat that it as ZERO PERCENT EFFECTIVE. Fighting a good fight is all well and good. But this method has been proven to be a complete failure.
Apparently you cant do math because the real equation is
1) Pay for it now
2) Pay for it later when they are dying from it.
I don't really understand why people would go for #2. It literally costs at least 1000 times more to do what you are suggesting. Here is an actual REAL example.
1) Pay for someones $10 penicillin prescription because they have an infected cut. and because they are poor
2)Pay $400,000 to amputate their leg because they put off buying the medicine because they were going to be evicted. Knowing they will never be able to pay it back.
3)Let them die from it.
Now right now i am going to call you dirt stupid if you dont consider #1 a better option than #2. Not only is it the humane thing to do, but its completely crazy stupid to wait until someone is dieing to help them out.
Heres another example for the ultra stupid. Your dumb ass neighbor has a small fire on their door step and they are not taking care of it. You dont just let it go and say they can take care of it themselves... you help them or call the police or something. If you dont do anything you bet your ass your going to pay ten fold.
I think i should clarify. The document(s) opened however the formatting would be different. Particularly for the images I saved in it. Secondly I had looked it up and there were others who had already complained about the issue and had no luck. It was not worth it to me to add to their list.
Open office and Microsoft office have significant formatting differences. Ive had 0 success loading saving a file in OO and having it look the same in Microsoft office. Additionally ive tried several builds of OO and I have again had significant problems with saving in OO and having it open the same the next day in OO...
The difference is that you have to pay more to have Microsoft office on your computer where Open office is free. Vs a kinda free IE and a free Firefox. Those are significant differences.
I apologize I probably was responding to the pomposity of someone elses post , I should not have applied it to you.
Secondly the $1~ estimate was indeed the cost of production. However the numbers Ive seen indicate that it costs around that including cost of production of the audio content, and shipping , and distributional and advertising.
About your second point. Indeed the profits may be the same. But DVDs are not competing during the same time frame as box offices. They however are competing during the same time frame as bar's or something showing the movie on the TV during happy hour. So i was comparing it to those sources of revenue.
I think maybe you should reconsider your superiority in this whole reading comprehension thing. If you re-read what I have wrote you will hopefully be able to realize at no point did I actually chastise your school. I merely offered an interesting counter question. I played the devils advocate for a moment. Some times it is fun to toss around odd ideas.
Now on the other hand I am now questioning your personal ability to comprehend what is written. As someone who was a TA just a few months ago maybe you should reconsider your qualifications as TA.
"Thus, the $15 DVD you can currently buy will go up in price to offset the lost revenue. " No no it wont. This is not even close to a truly competitive market. If it were prices would be a lot closer to $1 than $15. This is far far closer to an ideal monopoly than anything. In which case these firms have priced their product at "$15" to maximize their profit in that market. The market for DVDs is far far larger than the market for "public viewings". Since the market for DVDs would dwarf the market for public viewings no real consideration would be given if that law were changed. Please don't assume that your kindergarten grade understanding of economics actually makes you an authority. (Not that I am either but anywho)
"China has licensed the German technology and is actively developing a pebble bed reactor for power generation. The 10 megawatt prototype is called the HTR-10. It is a conventional helium-cooled, helium-turbine design. The program is at Tsinghua University in Beijing. The first 250-MWt plant is scheduled to begin construction in 2009 and commissioning in 2013"
German Tech.. Not China Tech
And the AP1000's that china is going to deploy en-mass. Again Western Tech (made by Westinghouse) I do have to admit my graduate work was only on a particular aspect of fusion work. But i have still seen nothing about China having a significant effort to develop in house fusion or fission power.
Not likely. There is very little fusion or fission research coming out of china that I know of. The kind of knowledge which would be required to corner the market on fusion at least takes a couple of generations to build it and integrate into your society. Most of the fusion research Ive seen has been coming out of, The US, Germany Russia,Japan and South Korea. Distinctly little (if any) has come out of China. My guess the US had commercial fusion reactors tomorrow Russia would in ~10 years and china in 30+ .
No but when you start getting into the NG/Nuclear range un-greenness of solar panels is worth noting. Particularly when dashing the dreams of some hippy.
"Laser mechanisms have a longer way to go in order to be credible fusion power plants."... They all do... As someone who has done some work with tokamaks sure we should be able to break even with energy. But honestly people have no idea when they would break even financially with other tech... If ever.
The same goes for any power generation plant. They all take decades to pay off. Personally I think we should just take the nationalized energy approach due to the high up front costs. (Its either that or give away money so private companies can do it) but ya...
What can the "crap-pad" do that cant already be done by a different device? It seems like apple made the iphone a little large or they made a tablet PC which can play iphone apps. This is not a new device at best its a product refresh..
Slashdot Mirror
sure they could. but most wont. like i said just because your neighbor could put out the fire dose not mean they will and and thus were back to square one. pay for it now or pay for it latter.
No but if our manufacturing base had not collapsed(because of cheap labor) we could have built machines to do it for almost as cheap.. and supported higher paying jobs at the same time
EHHHHH "While some of those resources are limited in some areas, that's hardly the case across the country." I hate to tell you but even us lefties disagree with you on that. Im lucky I lve near the great lakes. But due to global climate change. Fresh water likely stands to be a very very scarce resource within a few decades.
There are both car and health insurance plans with high and low deductibles. With auto insurance you get what you pay for. However until now with health insurance you did not.
Not true. That depends greatly on which state you live in. And quite frankly itd be pretty east to say its self defense... which is a good thing
To be fair most of that was an accident. (Our diseases did the vast majority of the killing.) And you are actually completely wrong. We killed off all the native americans? Than where are all Hispanics in the world coming from? Are they magic ninjas? O no wait they are native Americans or at least their distance cousins.
they tried to kill us. but we won? Shit happens. The same thing happened with those "true blooded americans". Their ancestors moved into the area and they killed off everyone who was living there before. Its the way of the world.
Personally Id have at least found it technologically interesting if it had worked. But it had 0% effectiveness.Let me repeat that it as ZERO PERCENT EFFECTIVE. Fighting a good fight is all well and good. But this method has been proven to be a complete failure.
1) Pay for it now
2) Pay for it later when they are dying from it .
I don't really understand why people would go for #2. It literally costs at least 1000 times more to do what you are suggesting. Here is an actual REAL example.
1) Pay for someones $10 penicillin prescription because they have an infected cut. and because they are poor
2)Pay $400,000 to amputate their leg because they put off buying the medicine because they were going to be evicted. Knowing they will never be able to pay it back.
3)Let them die from it.
Now right now i am going to call you dirt stupid if you dont consider #1 a better option than #2. Not only is it the humane thing to do, but its completely crazy stupid to wait until someone is dieing to help them out.
Heres another example for the ultra stupid. Your dumb ass neighbor has a small fire on their door step and they are not taking care of it. You dont just let it go and say they can take care of it themselves... you help them or call the police or something. If you dont do anything you bet your ass your going to pay ten fold.
No because he still argues for the same things. Just for other people to have to face the consequences of their actions..not his own actions.
I think i should clarify. The document(s) opened however the formatting would be different. Particularly for the images I saved in it. Secondly I had looked it up and there were others who had already complained about the issue and had no luck. It was not worth it to me to add to their list.
Open office and Microsoft office have significant formatting differences. Ive had 0 success loading saving a file in OO and having it look the same in Microsoft office. Additionally ive tried several builds of OO and I have again had significant problems with saving in OO and having it open the same the next day in OO...
The difference is that you have to pay more to have Microsoft office on your computer where Open office is free. Vs a kinda free IE and a free Firefox. Those are significant differences.
I apologize I probably was responding to the pomposity of someone elses post , I should not have applied it to you. Secondly the $1~ estimate was indeed the cost of production. However the numbers Ive seen indicate that it costs around that including cost of production of the audio content, and shipping , and distributional and advertising. About your second point. Indeed the profits may be the same. But DVDs are not competing during the same time frame as box offices. They however are competing during the same time frame as bar's or something showing the movie on the TV during happy hour. So i was comparing it to those sources of revenue.
I think maybe you should reconsider your superiority in this whole reading comprehension thing. If you re-read what I have wrote you will hopefully be able to realize at no point did I actually chastise your school. I merely offered an interesting counter question. I played the devils advocate for a moment. Some times it is fun to toss around odd ideas. Now on the other hand I am now questioning your personal ability to comprehend what is written. As someone who was a TA just a few months ago maybe you should reconsider your qualifications as TA.
Get your lawyer friend to explain things to you a bit better as "Otherwise everything NFL must be Public domain." is simply completely not true.
"Thus, the $15 DVD you can currently buy will go up in price to offset the lost revenue. " No no it wont. This is not even close to a truly competitive market. If it were prices would be a lot closer to $1 than $15. This is far far closer to an ideal monopoly than anything. In which case these firms have priced their product at "$15" to maximize their profit in that market. The market for DVDs is far far larger than the market for "public viewings". Since the market for DVDs would dwarf the market for public viewings no real consideration would be given if that law were changed. Please don't assume that your kindergarten grade understanding of economics actually makes you an authority. (Not that I am either but anywho)
"China has licensed the German technology and is actively developing a pebble bed reactor for power generation. The 10 megawatt prototype is called the HTR-10. It is a conventional helium-cooled, helium-turbine design. The program is at Tsinghua University in Beijing. The first 250-MWt plant is scheduled to begin construction in 2009 and commissioning in 2013"
German Tech.. Not China Tech And the AP1000's that china is going to deploy en-mass. Again Western Tech (made by Westinghouse) I do have to admit my graduate work was only on a particular aspect of fusion work. But i have still seen nothing about China having a significant effort to develop in house fusion or fission power.
Not likely. There is very little fusion or fission research coming out of china that I know of. The kind of knowledge which would be required to corner the market on fusion at least takes a couple of generations to build it and integrate into your society. Most of the fusion research Ive seen has been coming out of, The US, Germany Russia,Japan and South Korea. Distinctly little (if any) has come out of China. My guess the US had commercial fusion reactors tomorrow Russia would in ~10 years and china in 30+ .
Did anyone every stop to consider that language is evolving and that it is the traditional grammar which is failing to keep up with modern society?
No but when you start getting into the NG/Nuclear range un-greenness of solar panels is worth noting. Particularly when dashing the dreams of some hippy.
This is an example of people using science to the fullest of our ability. Times like this make me proud to be a member of the human race
"Laser mechanisms have a longer way to go in order to be credible fusion power plants." ... They all do... As someone who has done some work with tokamaks sure we should be able to break even with energy. But honestly people have no idea when they would break even financially with other tech... If ever.
The same goes for any power generation plant. They all take decades to pay off. Personally I think we should just take the nationalized energy approach due to the high up front costs. (Its either that or give away money so private companies can do it) but ya...
What can the "crap-pad" do that cant already be done by a different device? It seems like apple made the iphone a little large or they made a tablet PC which can play iphone apps. This is not a new device at best its a product refresh..