The point is it isn't such an example since there was statement or implication of involvement in the decision making process - it was a post about getting to look at the pretty pictures.
And apparently the AC thinks that letting people do that will be the end of the world.
Lead is poisonous and sticks around for long after the initial painter is gone. It's an environmental concern which can affect people other than the one deciding what to paint with - and hence there's an externality which free markets tend to not do wonderfully at.
Seat belts are more debatable. Almost argument for requiring seat belts applies to requiring people to eat healthy food in reasonable portions. But ER loads and so on that make the cost shared a little.
But which type of light bulb to use? Price energy to reflect what it "costs" if you want people to use more energy efficient light bulbs.
Increasing spending increases the national deficit - it's not like people are going to buy locally produced stuff when there's cheaper stuff from China sitting on the shelf.
How do crooked bankers get propped up by something that is unquestionably bad for the economy? Sure the traders/exchanges/etc for carbon credit trading will like it. And some industries will like it (solar power, batteries, etc). But generic crooked bankers?
They want the economy to be growing as fast as possible, since that's how you make a fortune as a banker and it hides the crookedness too. It also helps when the government bails you out when it all comes tumbing down, but that's another issue.
""" If I enter a city, zip code or county on the homepage, do the results show a list of broadband providers for the entire city, zip code or county? No, the website will display the broadband providers that reported offering service in the census block in the center of the city, zip code or county. If you are looking for a summary of the broadband characteristics for larger areas, try using the Analysis section of the website. """
So you do that and now there are less resources for some other commander and so his men die instead. Since you subverted the rational decision making process there were more total deaths since resources were not allocated optimally. Congratulations you killed bunch of Americans because you know best.
Actually why bother with the government at all? You're the commander the soldiers follow your orders - just a quick overthrow of the elected government and you can just allocate the resources as you see fit - this if clearly a good thing, since you know best.
And chess grandmasters have amazingly recall of chess board positions - well until you construct a board position which isn't possible in chess, then they revert to the recall of everyone else.
You would expect a "great conductor" to have both great recall of music and great ability to hear when one note in an entire orchestra is off. It could be that they have some unique brain feature, or more likely they've unconsciously trained themselves over years.
And it's always great to answer a logical point with not just an anecdote but anecdotal hearsay, heck it's probably a few levels deep since your professor is unlikely to have been at the rehearsal himself.
There's a big difference between a well trained mind and a true photographic memory. Some people just remember *everything*. It's not something they train themselves to do, or use a technique, it's something physically different about their brain that makes it work that way.
Do you have any evidence for your claim? Or is it in the same category as this one:
Some people have telekenesis, it's not something they train themselves to do, or use a technique, it's something physically different about their brain that makes it work that way.
As I mentioned in the post you obviously didn't bother reading, being born in the US does not mean you are US citizen you can rock up at a consulate and renounce it very easily.
Oh except that the the actual competition isn't limited to US Citizens. The form says "citizen or legal permanent resident of the United States", it's impossible to be a legal permanent resident and be born in the United States - well OK not impossible, but in practice they're never giving you a residency visa...
My son's city of birth isn't in the US, and yet he is a US citizen.
Terry Gilliam (of Monty Python fame, though this is slashdot that likely doesn't need mentioning) was born in the US but is not a US citizen.
Thus city of birth doesn't help prove US citizenship or lack of US citizenship - it is completely orthogonal and hence a useless piece of information (assuming you want to know not just guess).
A simple checkbox asking "Are you a US Citizen or Legal Resident" seems much easier - the parents are filling out the form anyway right?
I wasn't talking about "dot com" style stocks, I was talking about companies in general. I own some stocks and I don't feel bad for paying prices for them which values the company at a (over unity) multiple of their yearly profits. None of them are tech stocks though, well actually one* of them is on the NASDAQ does that count?
* XTXI which I bought a bunch of in December 2008 (and still have some of), in order to collect dividends which is my traditional boring investment strategy. Of course after years of like clock work dividends they paid one more and then skipped 6 quarters - Warren Buffet I am not!
I think that a company can still be a good investment even though it is not perfectly optimal in its resource allocation.
I'm also not placing some arbitrary restriction on the definition of "overpaid". It merely means "paying more than the thing is worth". I overpaid for coffee yesterday, that doesn't mean I've doomed my finances to destruction it just means I paid 50c more than I needed to. Overpaying the CEO doesn't mean paying him so much is "affects the value of the company", it means paying $10 more than what I think his services are worth.
I'll be the first to admit I'm crap at economics but in my simple world I use simple math. If the yearly profit you can expect from a business is N, where does the valuation as 20xN come from? What's worth 19xN? The brand? Fixed assets? Potential for expansion? We're talking figures that (on paper) are starting to approach a trillion. Come, now.
Let's say you a goose that lays golden eggs. It happens to lay $10,000 worth of them each year. Would you sell that goose to me for $10,000?
Unless you really needed cash right *now* (and couldn't borrow for some reason) you would be very foolish to do so. Take the "five years from now scenario", if you sell you have $10,000 from the goose at the end of 5 years. If you don't sell you have $50,000 from the goose at the end of 5 years. So how much would you sell the goose for? Does $200,000 seem reasonable?
There are lots of ways to value a company. The simplest is probably return on investment. If the company is valued at 20x profits then it is paying a 5% return. Whether that's good or bad depends on the current inflation and interest rate numbers and of course the risk of the company not making those profits.
Having value. The claim isn't that every single house is has value but that most do. Just because there are some cars that have no value doesn't mean we don't call cars valuable.
You realise that they are knocking houses down because the supply of them is such that they are worth less than the loans which were taken out to build them.
Let me say that again, to emphasise the insanity. They are knocking houses down.
Despite all the poverty and homelessness, despite the trailer parks. Because for capitalism to function, supply must never meet demand. It is only by destroying perfectly good housing that the supply can be reduced, the remaining stock can be made more valuable and people can go back to their wage slavery in order to pay the mortgage.
You have a citation for this right? For houses being knocked down just because they are now worth less than the loan taken out to build them but which are "perfectly good".
Not because they are a safety hazard due to neglect. Not because they are partially complete and knocking them down is cheaper than finishing the construction. Not because they are so damaged that value of the land minus the cost of knocking is down is higher than the expected value of the house minus the cost of repairs. Not because the city owns them and the cost of providing city services to the house is higher than the value of the house. Not because the cost of maintaining the house for the as long as it is expected it will take to sell it is higher than the expected sale price plus the cost of demolition.
Maybe you should try reading the law in question. Especially the part of it that does in fact delegate the power to create exceptions to the Library of Congress.
That's a different form of subsidized. Clearly what is being referred to with respect to games consoles is selling the console at a loss. after taking into account any third party payments
Whereas the "value added" crap on a PC doesn't mean they sold it at a loss, it just means a party other than the customer of the PC itself paid some of the cost.
Only people who watch Fox News would have that opinion, and this example won't show them otherwise given the numerous previous examples (which were even more dissonant with the believe given they were the ACLU defending white christians from government attempts to stop their free exercise of religion/speech) haven't done so.
Slashdot Mirror
shift-[click delete in the context menu] then.
The point is it isn't such an example since there was statement or implication of involvement in the decision making process - it was a post about getting to look at the pretty pictures.
And apparently the AC thinks that letting people do that will be the end of the world.
Lead is poisonous and sticks around for long after the initial painter is gone. It's an environmental concern which can affect people other than the one deciding what to paint with - and hence there's an externality which free markets tend to not do wonderfully at.
Seat belts are more debatable. Almost argument for requiring seat belts applies to requiring people to eat healthy food in reasonable portions. But ER loads and so on that make the cost shared a little.
But which type of light bulb to use? Price energy to reflect what it "costs" if you want people to use more energy efficient light bulbs.
Increasing spending increases the national deficit - it's not like people are going to buy locally produced stuff when there's cheaper stuff from China sitting on the shelf.
How do crooked bankers get propped up by something that is unquestionably bad for the economy? Sure the traders/exchanges/etc for carbon credit trading will like it. And some industries will like it (solar power, batteries, etc). But generic crooked bankers?
They want the economy to be growing as fast as possible, since that's how you make a fortune as a banker and it hides the crookedness too. It also helps when the government bails you out when it all comes tumbing down, but that's another issue.
"""
If I enter a city, zip code or county on the homepage, do the results show a list of broadband providers for the entire city, zip code or county?
No, the website will display the broadband providers that reported offering service in the census block in the center of the city, zip code or county. If you are looking for a summary of the broadband characteristics for larger areas, try using the Analysis section of the website.
"""
They just got lucky, my zip also gives a block sized area mapped, and yes that block is in the zip code but it's not the entire zip code.
So you do that and now there are less resources for some other commander and so his men die instead. Since you subverted the rational decision making process there were more total deaths since resources were not allocated optimally. Congratulations you killed bunch of Americans because you know best.
Actually why bother with the government at all? You're the commander the soldiers follow your orders - just a quick overthrow of the elected government and you can just allocate the resources as you see fit - this if clearly a good thing, since you know best.
And chess grandmasters have amazingly recall of chess board positions - well until you construct a board position which isn't possible in chess, then they revert to the recall of everyone else.
You would expect a "great conductor" to have both great recall of music and great ability to hear when one note in an entire orchestra is off. It could be that they have some unique brain feature, or more likely they've unconsciously trained themselves over years.
And it's always great to answer a logical point with not just an anecdote but anecdotal hearsay, heck it's probably a few levels deep since your professor is unlikely to have been at the rehearsal himself.
Do you have any evidence for your claim? Or is it in the same category as this one:
Some people have telekenesis, it's not something they train themselves to do, or use a technique, it's something physically different about their brain that makes it work that way.
As I mentioned in the post you obviously didn't bother reading, being born in the US does not mean you are US citizen you can rock up at a consulate and renounce it very easily.
Oh except that the the actual competition isn't limited to US Citizens. The form says "citizen or legal permanent resident of the United States", it's impossible to be a legal permanent resident and be born in the United States - well OK not impossible, but in practice they're never giving you a residency visa...
Except you don't know which ones are right, surely? And I hope there isn't a "is this guess correct" oracle available...
My son's city of birth isn't in the US, and yet he is a US citizen.
Terry Gilliam (of Monty Python fame, though this is slashdot that likely doesn't need mentioning) was born in the US but is not a US citizen.
Thus city of birth doesn't help prove US citizenship or lack of US citizenship - it is completely orthogonal and hence a useless piece of information (assuming you want to know not just guess).
A simple checkbox asking "Are you a US Citizen or Legal Resident" seems much easier - the parents are filling out the form anyway right?
Nothing was blocked based on content, so that seems a tad pointless.
I wasn't talking about "dot com" style stocks, I was talking about companies in general. I own some stocks and I don't feel bad for paying prices for them which values the company at a (over unity) multiple of their yearly profits. None of them are tech stocks though, well actually one* of them is on the NASDAQ does that count?
* XTXI which I bought a bunch of in December 2008 (and still have some of), in order to collect dividends which is my traditional boring investment strategy. Of course after years of like clock work dividends they paid one more and then skipped 6 quarters - Warren Buffet I am not!
The price of gold could also triple next week.
But thanks for ignoring the point and picking on the parts of fairy tale that are unsurprisingly not realistic.
No we don't agree.
I think that a company can still be a good investment even though it is not perfectly optimal in its resource allocation.
I'm also not placing some arbitrary restriction on the definition of "overpaid". It merely means "paying more than the thing is worth". I overpaid for coffee yesterday, that doesn't mean I've doomed my finances to destruction it just means I paid 50c more than I needed to. Overpaying the CEO doesn't mean paying him so much is "affects the value of the company", it means paying $10 more than what I think his services are worth.
Let's say you a goose that lays golden eggs. It happens to lay $10,000 worth of them each year. Would you sell that goose to me for $10,000?
Unless you really needed cash right *now* (and couldn't borrow for some reason) you would be very foolish to do so. Take the "five years from now scenario", if you sell you have $10,000 from the goose at the end of 5 years. If you don't sell you have $50,000 from the goose at the end of 5 years. So how much would you sell the goose for? Does $200,000 seem reasonable?
There are lots of ways to value a company. The simplest is probably return on investment. If the company is valued at 20x profits then it is paying a 5% return. Whether that's good or bad depends on the current inflation and interest rate numbers and of course the risk of the company not making those profits.
Having value. The claim isn't that every single house is has value but that most do. Just because there are some cars that have no value doesn't mean we don't call cars valuable.
You have a citation for this right? For houses being knocked down just because they are now worth less than the loan taken out to build them but which are "perfectly good".
Not because they are a safety hazard due to neglect. Not because they are partially complete and knocking them down is cheaper than finishing the construction. Not because they are so damaged that value of the land minus the cost of knocking is down is higher than the expected value of the house minus the cost of repairs. Not because the city owns them and the cost of providing city services to the house is higher than the value of the house. Not because the cost of maintaining the house for the as long as it is expected it will take to sell it is higher than the expected sale price plus the cost of demolition.
And the kids aren't used to the fact that sometimes it gets dark early and other times it gets dark late by that time?
Are their parents idiots?
Maybe you should try reading the law in question. Especially the part of it that does in fact delegate the power to create exceptions to the Library of Congress.
That's a different form of subsidized. Clearly what is being referred to with respect to games consoles is selling the console at a loss. after taking into account any third party payments
Whereas the "value added" crap on a PC doesn't mean they sold it at a loss, it just means a party other than the customer of the PC itself paid some of the cost.
And the corner store is propped up by laws that make shoplifting a crime.
So now if you have that job you aren't allowed to leave facebook once you've joined it?
Only people who watch Fox News would have that opinion, and this example won't show them otherwise given the numerous previous examples (which were even more dissonant with the believe given they were the ACLU defending white christians from government attempts to stop their free exercise of religion/speech) haven't done so.