Because enjoyment from eating isn't a function of quantity consumed per unit time. Whereas enjoyment of explosions is a function of energy release per unit time.
Now obviously there are other factors, but that didn't come close to reaching the point at which there's enough bang per unit time to make more time better than more bang.
Stop selling them bonds and require trade be done in RMBs instead of USDs and there can be no manipulation. Oh wait, you guys like that side of the deal.
The price of oil right now is based purely on the highest rate that the customer is willing to bear, and has little to nothing to do with availability.
That sounds exactly like the market determining the price. of course you charge as much as the market will bear - you'd be an idiot not to.
Especially when you are selling something of fixed supply.
You have X barrels of oil available to be pumped out of the ground, as supply dwindles price will rise so you want to sell as little as possible now and as much as possible later at higher prices.
Except of course there's always the risk of governments nationalizing you if you don't supply enough. And of someone else buying you out for cheap if you don't make enough profits in the short term. And of an alternative energy source being developed and lowering the price of oil.
So charging as much as you can before the government intervenes seems like the sweet spot. All the other players have the same criteria.
Sure one player could undercut and make short term profits but they'll lose out in the long term when they have less oil left to sell at much higher prices. So it wouldn't be a rational move free market wise.
if alternative energy sources pick up steam you charge less - not to try and kill them (though that's a bonus) but because now the future value of your oil is less so you want to sell more of it now.
For a market dominated by huge suppliers who enter into open collusion (OPEC, for example) it doesn't seem to be all that far off what you would expect in a free market.
65k is the current limit. However, there are some exclusions to that limit so 20k additional visas can be granted to those who got a masters (or higher) degree from a US university. And US Universities have free reign and they can use h1b visas without them counting against the limit.
You can't blame the 2007 Democrats either. It's been a time bomb, who it blows up on is essentially random. I guess that group might have been worse at kicking the can down the road than the previous groups (though more likely the problem got big enough that kicking stopped working).
You don't have to like the guy and can think he's just austrian nutter, but http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LfascZSTU4o is from 2006, so before those Democrats took over. Seems unlikely those Democrats just fluked making his predictions turn out true rather than the problem actually already existing.
It seems to agree with what I said, lots of serious injuries (including head injuries). Which is completely different than repetitive seemingly minor head injuries that result in long term brain damage.
Not that there's suspicion that it was a pay off for getting him a transplant he wouldn't have otherwise got.
Of course it doesn't mean that was actually the case but apparently someone other than the submitter is investigating the matter implying there's some suspicion.
Sure, and I didn't comment on the risks versus benefits of playing a given sport so that is completely irrelevant.
But since you've dragged it there.
If you happen to think that football has a high enough risk of brain injury that it is exceptionally dangerous for almost everyone so you let them play? If so, then how is that different than your "parental guidance".
Except that the point wasn't about serious instant inury - breaking your leg when falling from a pyramid, etc.
It was about brain injuries from repeated concussions (and sure cheerleading has head injuries, but it doesn't have them at the frequency of football). .
Of course not, that's how capitalism is supposed to work (doesn't mean it works in practice al the time of course).
HDD prices are now higher providing an incentive for another player to enter the market with manufacturing outside that geographic area (or one of the existing players to bring up some manufacturing there).
Higher prices make is economically feasible especially considering the payoff bonus of that region gets flooded again.
easiest and easier, sure, but those are relative terms which say nothing about any sort of absolute difficulty.
For example: It is easier to put a man on the moon and return him safely to earth than to put a man on mercury and return him safely to earth. That does not say either is easy.
Question 7 was the easiest question in the exam. That says nothing about whether the exam (or even just question 7) would be called easy or not.
You know directly observing the object rather than observing an effect caused by it.
Though I was wrong - further away is better for that - the star washing out effect is as big as you would expect so close is bad. of course indirect observation is how we find most of them and closer is better for that.
Big planets near the star are the easiest to detect.
Near the star means short orbital period and so the thing we are observing is happening more often (planet moving between us and the star, the star moving due to the gravity of the planet, phases of the planet changing the observed brightness of the star, etc). Bigger means the effect itself is larger.
If you are observing the planet directly, then bigger means easier to see. And closer to the start means brighter (though also more drowned our by the star itself) and thus also easier to see.
Do you know what an analogy is? You've heard they break down right? And that they aren't supposed to be *exactly* equivalent? The idea is to take something that shows the parts that are important to the point you are trying to make and discards the unimporant parts.
In this case the pros and cons of internet access and whether it should be restricted or given free reign is not what I was commenting on.
What I was commenting on was the implication that using access controls and "being a parent" are mutually exclusive.
You can both be a parent and place actual barriers to whataver the actions you are trying to avoid are.
You can both explain and teach why they shouldn't play with the pesticide and also lock the door to the shed it is stored in. Those are not mutually exclusive actions. Doing one does not mean you don't do the other. If you put a lock on the shed door is does not imply you are not also going to "parent".
You can both teach and explain and supervise their internet access and also have software that restricts that access. Asking about said software does not imply you are going to not "parent".
Whether I agree on the choices of what is good and bad for a child doesn't seem very relevant to the more general point.
Sure if you assume an analogy is restricted to exactly the situation in TFS and not just a common example that hopefully everyone knows the details of already.
Do you think a 7-8 years old is still stopped by a "child safe" lid? 'Cause if s/he not, I do hope that you taught her about the dangers but that age - or else store them where they cannot be accessed.
So the advice only applies to 7-8 year old? That seems rather pointlessly specific.
And obviously dangers would be taught too - well before 7 years old. I didn't say not to parent - I said why is a backup system such a terrible idea.
I mentioned child proof lids and storing our of reach, I wasn't trying to be exhaustive for the non-parenting skill methods.
I'm yet to see a "Parental control" software that does not fail. Have you ever seen one?
I'm yet to see a parenting skills that don't fail. I guess we shouldn't use parenting either then?
Do you also suggest I remove all the "child safe" lids on the various poisonous things in the house? And store them in places the kids can access? Just use my parenting skills to watch their every waking moment, rather than having backup devices for the times my parenting skills might fail me?
Slashdot Mirror
Because enjoyment from eating isn't a function of quantity consumed per unit time. Whereas enjoyment of explosions is a function of energy release per unit time.
Now obviously there are other factors, but that didn't come close to reaching the point at which there's enough bang per unit time to make more time better than more bang.
FIreworks displays always run too long, that one sounds like it would have been great.
You could set them off over a period of 15 days, or 15 hours, or 15 minutes, or 15 seconds. How does is not get better as the time reduces?
Yeah people who don't complain when something benefits them, what a bunch of idiots!
Stop selling them bonds and require trade be done in RMBs instead of USDs and there can be no manipulation. Oh wait, you guys like that side of the deal.
That sounds exactly like the market determining the price. of course you charge as much as the market will bear - you'd be an idiot not to.
Especially when you are selling something of fixed supply.
You have X barrels of oil available to be pumped out of the ground, as supply dwindles price will rise so you want to sell as little as possible now and as much as possible later at higher prices.
Except of course there's always the risk of governments nationalizing you if you don't supply enough. And of someone else buying you out for cheap if you don't make enough profits in the short term. And of an alternative energy source being developed and lowering the price of oil.
So charging as much as you can before the government intervenes seems like the sweet spot. All the other players have the same criteria.
Sure one player could undercut and make short term profits but they'll lose out in the long term when they have less oil left to sell at much higher prices. So it wouldn't be a rational move free market wise.
if alternative energy sources pick up steam you charge less - not to try and kill them (though that's a bonus) but because now the future value of your oil is less so you want to sell more of it now.
For a market dominated by huge suppliers who enter into open collusion (OPEC, for example) it doesn't seem to be all that far off what you would expect in a free market.
No, it was 30% (assuming you mean the CPI).
Of course I'm not sure how you got 40% from $2.00->$3.75
No, you are just an idiot.
65k is the current limit. However, there are some exclusions to that limit so 20k additional visas can be granted to those who got a masters (or higher) degree from a US university. And US Universities have free reign and they can use h1b visas without them counting against the limit.
http://www.travel.state.gov/pdf/FY2011NIVWorkloadbyVisaCategory.pdf makes it pretty obvious to anyone who isn't a moron that more than 65k are issued.
You can't blame the 2007 Democrats either. It's been a time bomb, who it blows up on is essentially random. I guess that group might have been worse at kicking the can down the road than the previous groups (though more likely the problem got big enough that kicking stopped working).
You don't have to like the guy and can think he's just austrian nutter, but http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LfascZSTU4o is from 2006, so before those Democrats took over. Seems unlikely those Democrats just fluked making his predictions turn out true rather than the problem actually already existing.
Because banks never go broke, right?
Completely riskless, never in all of history has a depositor lost their money
It seems to agree with what I said, lots of serious injuries (including head injuries). Which is completely different than repetitive seemingly minor head injuries that result in long term brain damage.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siberian_pipeline_sabotage - also espionage, not war.
And the Afghan government didn't have involvement with 9/11. They had involvement with not handing over a person the US wanted.
Which isn't exactly a new idea - both stealing secrets and sabotage.
The magic of editing fixes that.
Seriously? That's what you get from that summary?
Not that there's suspicion that it was a pay off for getting him a transplant he wouldn't have otherwise got.
Of course it doesn't mean that was actually the case but apparently someone other than the submitter is investigating the matter implying there's some suspicion.
Sure, and I didn't comment on the risks versus benefits of playing a given sport so that is completely irrelevant.
But since you've dragged it there.
If you happen to think that football has a high enough risk of brain injury that it is exceptionally dangerous for almost everyone so you let them play? If so, then how is that different than your "parental guidance".
I'm a citizen and I don't have a work authorization card let alone carry one.
I also don't have a drivers license because I haven't driven in a decade (which I guess makes me not a real American, but there you go).
Except that the point wasn't about serious instant inury - breaking your leg when falling from a pyramid, etc.
It was about brain injuries from repeated concussions (and sure cheerleading has head injuries, but it doesn't have them at the frequency of football).
.
Of course not, that's how capitalism is supposed to work (doesn't mean it works in practice al the time of course).
HDD prices are now higher providing an incentive for another player to enter the market with manufacturing outside that geographic area (or one of the existing players to bring up some manufacturing there).
Higher prices make is economically feasible especially considering the payoff bonus of that region gets flooded again.
Which is a word I didn't use.
easiest and easier, sure, but those are relative terms which say nothing about any sort of absolute difficulty.
For example:
It is easier to put a man on the moon and return him safely to earth than to put a man on mercury and return him safely to earth. That does not say either is easy.
Question 7 was the easiest question in the exam. That says nothing about whether the exam (or even just question 7) would be called easy or not.
The normal interpretation of seen: http://www.eso.org/public/images/eso0842b/
You know directly observing the object rather than observing an effect caused by it.
Though I was wrong - further away is better for that - the star washing out effect is as big as you would expect so close is bad. of course indirect observation is how we find most of them and closer is better for that.
Big planets near the star are the easiest to detect.
Near the star means short orbital period and so the thing we are observing is happening more often (planet moving between us and the star, the star moving due to the gravity of the planet, phases of the planet changing the observed brightness of the star, etc). Bigger means the effect itself is larger.
If you are observing the planet directly, then bigger means easier to see. And closer to the start means brighter (though also more drowned our by the star itself) and thus also easier to see.
I didn't say any of that.
Do you know what an analogy is? You've heard they break down right? And that they aren't supposed to be *exactly* equivalent? The idea is to take something that shows the parts that are important to the point you are trying to make and discards the unimporant parts.
In this case the pros and cons of internet access and whether it should be restricted or given free reign is not what I was commenting on.
What I was commenting on was the implication that using access controls and "being a parent" are mutually exclusive.
You can both be a parent and place actual barriers to whataver the actions you are trying to avoid are.
You can both explain and teach why they shouldn't play with the pesticide and also lock the door to the shed it is stored in. Those are not mutually exclusive actions. Doing one does not mean you don't do the other. If you put a lock on the shed door is does not imply you are not also going to "parent".
You can both teach and explain and supervise their internet access and also have software that restricts that access. Asking about said software does not imply you are going to not "parent".
Whether I agree on the choices of what is good and bad for a child doesn't seem very relevant to the more general point.
Sure if you assume an analogy is restricted to exactly the situation in TFS and not just a common example that hopefully everyone knows the details of already.
So the advice only applies to 7-8 year old? That seems rather pointlessly specific.
And obviously dangers would be taught too - well before 7 years old. I didn't say not to parent - I said why is a backup system such a terrible idea.
I mentioned child proof lids and storing our of reach, I wasn't trying to be exhaustive for the non-parenting skill methods.
I'm yet to see a parenting skills that don't fail. I guess we shouldn't use parenting either then?
Do you also suggest I remove all the "child safe" lids on the various poisonous things in the house? And store them in places the kids can access? Just use my parenting skills to watch their every waking moment, rather than having backup devices for the times my parenting skills might fail me?