What jumps out at me are the increasing disparities. In 1810, the income disparity is somewhere around a factor of 10. In 2009, it is well over 100. In 1810, the difference between the lowest and highest life expectancy is about 15 years. In 2009 it is around 35 years.
The creditors don't have any claims now, so the company can do whatever it wants. The terms of the arrangement will dictate what happens if the company goes under. If the arrangement effectively cedes control of the domain name (in practice or in fact), then the domain name was a priori not a valuable asset. If someone is a creditor now, and they don't like that, they should get out while the gettin' is good.
Of course there are resource limits. "Unlimited growth" is a reasonable thing to talk about *now* because of two facts, below. So, yes, we're limited in our physical resources, but until we are using them maximally efficiently, there's lots of room for economic growth. It may be debatable how long we have until we start to hit physical limits, but it is very likely not this year, nor 10 years from now, nor even 30 years from now. (Look up world population in Wikipedia for projections.)
1. Economic activity is proportional to population size (usually). So as long as the world's population keeps growing, the economy can keep growing. (And as an aside, I have always interpreted economists' talk about growth to mean: "keeping up with the population". Doing so makes all the talk about growth seem more reasonable.)
2. Economic activity, and hence growth, is not only a measure the use of resources, but a measure of the efficiency with which we use those resources. We have lots of room for increased efficiency. One real-world example is the vast underutilization of a vast portion of the world's population.
You can even have economic growth without any increase in physical resource usage. Here's a toy example. Suppose you lived in a world with zero population growth, and one in which every person renewably grew their own food and renewably built their own shelter, with no other economic activity. Now imagine this community discovered music (and at the same time money!). There is lots of room for economic growth as people learn to entertain themselves and others, and as they get better and better at it, and people are willing to pay more to hear the better performers. Then one of the really good performers realizes that it'd better if he pays some bad performer to take over the job of growing his food and building/maintaining his shelter, and the bad performer realizes she's better at that than making music. More growth. So you have lots and lots of room for economic growth even if people are only shuffling around into jobs at which they are getting better in lieu of jobs they're not so good at.
The energy is taken from the vortices, but it's not free or otherwise lost energy. Without the cylinders in the water, the vortices would not exist. The cylinders induce them, thus converting the forward flow of the water into a form that can be harvested.
So you are not harvesting energy that would be lost energy; you are harvesting the energy of the flow.
and the money in your savings account would never lose value.
Don't equate money with currency. Money is a way to measure value, and value is set by the market. (Or in its most simple form, the value of something is simply what two parties to a transaction agree it is.)
If you want to fix the value of money by tying it to gold, then yes your savings account would never lose value, but your purchasing power would be affected by drastic inflation or deflation.
Moreover, without an efficient mechanism for inflation, economic growth would be stifled. If I start a new business/create new value, where does the aggregate money come from to represent that new value? By inflation.
Your understanding of economics is flawed, or else you would not hold these views about what the gold standard does.
that's true only as long as they choose to keep their end of the DDA. If, on a whim, they decide not to hold to that, then, on a whim, they can kill your app.
The capability exists, so the risk of abuse is there.
Your employer basically just admitted to you that they're trying to deceive and mislead the customer.
To paraphrase B.F. Skinner: the behavior you get is the behavior you reward.
It's not so easy to lay blame here. The only reason this question comes up is that consumers have actually factored the version number into their decision making. It's not really so slimy to conform to their ill-conceived preconceptions.
A marketer's job (and a product manager is 1/2 marketer) is to get your product in front of a customer. After that, it's the engineer's job to keep it there. If your customers will only buy a product with sexy models on the cover (e.g. underwear), or sexy numbers (e.g. software) regardless of the objective fitness for the intended purpose (comfort on your hiney, etc.), then it is the stupid behavior of your customers that is forcing your hand.
My favorite example is up-selling ("do you want fries?", "do you want a muffin with your coffee?" Even the post office does it.). Stores *only* do it because there exist people who say yes, and not enough people who boycott the offending store. The behavior you get is the behavior you reward. You may not like up-selling, but you can't solely blame the retailers who do it.
I think this is the way to go. But not just games. Give him a working program that does anything of interest to him. Then when he says, "hey, can we make it do [this]", you are much closer to positive feedback, because you have a working framework.
The challenge is giving him perspective on how hard [this] can be, and help him choose mods that can be done quickly at his skill level.
Slashdot Mirror
This? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gumstix aka http://www.gumstix.com/ All models appear to have SD card readers.
What jumps out at me are the increasing disparities. In 1810, the income disparity is somewhere around a factor of 10. In 2009, it is well over 100. In 1810, the difference between the lowest and highest life expectancy is about 15 years. In 2009 it is around 35 years.
The creditors don't have any claims now, so the company can do whatever it wants. The terms of the arrangement will dictate what happens if the company goes under. If the arrangement effectively cedes control of the domain name (in practice or in fact), then the domain name was a priori not a valuable asset. If someone is a creditor now, and they don't like that, they should get out while the gettin' is good.
Of course there are resource limits. "Unlimited growth" is a reasonable thing to talk about *now* because of two facts, below. So, yes, we're limited in our physical resources, but until we are using them maximally efficiently, there's lots of room for economic growth. It may be debatable how long we have until we start to hit physical limits, but it is very likely not this year, nor 10 years from now, nor even 30 years from now. (Look up world population in Wikipedia for projections.)
1. Economic activity is proportional to population size (usually). So as long as the world's population keeps growing, the economy can keep growing. (And as an aside, I have always interpreted economists' talk about growth to mean: "keeping up with the population". Doing so makes all the talk about growth seem more reasonable.)
2. Economic activity, and hence growth, is not only a measure the use of resources, but a measure of the efficiency with which we use those resources. We have lots of room for increased efficiency. One real-world example is the vast underutilization of a vast portion of the world's population.
You can even have economic growth without any increase in physical resource usage. Here's a toy example. Suppose you lived in a world with zero population growth, and one in which every person renewably grew their own food and renewably built their own shelter, with no other economic activity. Now imagine this community discovered music (and at the same time money!). There is lots of room for economic growth as people learn to entertain themselves and others, and as they get better and better at it, and people are willing to pay more to hear the better performers. Then one of the really good performers realizes that it'd better if he pays some bad performer to take over the job of growing his food and building/maintaining his shelter, and the bad performer realizes she's better at that than making music. More growth. So you have lots and lots of room for economic growth even if people are only shuffling around into jobs at which they are getting better in lieu of jobs they're not so good at.
The energy is taken from the vortices, but it's not free or otherwise lost energy. Without the cylinders in the water, the vortices would not exist. The cylinders induce them, thus converting the forward flow of the water into a form that can be harvested.
So you are not harvesting energy that would be lost energy; you are harvesting the energy of the flow.
Please follow the law, De Morgan's Law.
Ich bin es leid, Menschen daÃY einfÃltigfehlersuchenbaumfolgendenaffen sind.
Should be "Mir tut es leid, daÃY Menschen ...", but the rest is right on the money.
and the money in your savings account would never lose value.
Don't equate money with currency. Money is a way to measure value, and value is set by the market. (Or in its most simple form, the value of something is simply what two parties to a transaction agree it is.)
If you want to fix the value of money by tying it to gold, then yes your savings account would never lose value, but your purchasing power would be affected by drastic inflation or deflation.
Moreover, without an efficient mechanism for inflation, economic growth would be stifled. If I start a new business/create new value, where does the aggregate money come from to represent that new value? By inflation.
Your understanding of economics is flawed, or else you would not hold these views about what the gold standard does.
that's true only as long as they choose to keep their end of the DDA. If, on a whim, they decide not to hold to that, then, on a whim, they can kill your app. The capability exists, so the risk of abuse is there.
Your employer basically just admitted to you that they're trying to deceive and mislead the customer.
To paraphrase B.F. Skinner: the behavior you get is the behavior you reward.
It's not so easy to lay blame here. The only reason this question comes up is that consumers have actually factored the version number into their decision making. It's not really so slimy to conform to their ill-conceived preconceptions.
A marketer's job (and a product manager is 1/2 marketer) is to get your product in front of a customer. After that, it's the engineer's job to keep it there. If your customers will only buy a product with sexy models on the cover (e.g. underwear), or sexy numbers (e.g. software) regardless of the objective fitness for the intended purpose (comfort on your hiney, etc.), then it is the stupid behavior of your customers that is forcing your hand.
My favorite example is up-selling ("do you want fries?", "do you want a muffin with your coffee?" Even the post office does it.). Stores *only* do it because there exist people who say yes, and not enough people who boycott the offending store. The behavior you get is the behavior you reward. You may not like up-selling, but you can't solely blame the retailers who do it.
I think this is the way to go. But not just games. Give him a working program that does anything of interest to him. Then when he says, "hey, can we make it do [this]", you are much closer to positive feedback, because you have a working framework. The challenge is giving him perspective on how hard [this] can be, and help him choose mods that can be done quickly at his skill level.