The article writer is using the false assumption that all this spending is a zero sum game
Granted, over time spending is not a zero-sum game. But at one particular instance there is a fixed amount of disposable income, making purchasing decisions a zero-sum game. A person can spend all their disposable income on movies, or all on games, but not both. Of course they'll divide it up according to their perceived utility. But because music is easily available for free we can't really tell a person's preference for it (the utility it grants) or whether it's greater than rivals.
For a course on nuclear power, we had to analyse the lifecycle cost of a nuclear plant. The operating costs are about half of the capital costs. Decommissioning was taken as a capital cost in this context, which it at least behaves a lot like. The decommissioning has a low cost in the context raising capital for the project because it happens 30 years or so after the initial investment, so it is heavily discounted, leaving a very small contribution.
Let me see if I can dig out the spreadsheet for this...here we go. The capital costs came to 67% of the electricity generation cost (p/kWh) and the rest was taken up with operation and maintenance, including fuel purchase and waste disposal. The cost we calculated was 2.62p/kWh total, excluding the profit (cost of capital). If you ignore the initial capital investment then the cost is only about 0.8p/kWh.
Minor quibble; risk=outcome weighting*probability of outcome.
I'm pretty sure you understand this, but there may be others who don't.
E.g. there's a one in ten chance of losing $100, there's a 1/100 chance of losing $1000. Your total risk is your expected outcome, which is (0.1*$100)+(0.01*1000)=$20. So if you can make $40 profit (say) with estimated risk of $20 then you expect to profit (expected income>risk).
Ok, what the hell. The title; "The 'Robinson Method' a really simple way to have trustworthy elections".
Fine. Did you see how long it took to explain? And I thought STV was difficult to explain! Anything that requires 4000+ words to explain is either not simple or badly explained. I suspect in this case it's a little from column a and a little from column b.
If you take the ratio of the average of the first two numbers of food wastage to the last one, calculated with the whole US population, you can back calculate to get an order-of-magnitude guess of what proportion they say are facing hunger, which works out at just over 10%, so I suspect they used the 15% qualifying for food stamps.
Way to stereotype me into two extreme ends of the US political spectrum when I'm not even a Yank. I am a liberal (classical/European), I also believe in the necessity of nuclear power. There is nothing contradictory about this at all. Note that France is something like 80% nuclear powered, hardly your flag-bearing conservative nation (though not liberal in the sense that I am). So I don't believe there's anything wrong with Iran wanting to build nuke power plants. I can also understand their worries about sovereignty, given the way the world has treated Iran in the past. And the fact that you think Iran is a major threat to Europe at the moment is touching but at least demonstrates that you must be American, with that kind of grasp of geography.
Finally, you may think that Europe is inept and complaisant, but that's rich coming from a power which still won't even talk to Iran out of a prolonged ideological hissy-fit. We even came damn close to a solution until your Bush regime blocked it.
Incidentally, if you think there's still time to prevent the Iranians getting the brainpower, education and the research together then you obviously don't know how many have trained in top European and American universities.
For a better idea of Iran than you'll get from the Fox channel I suggest the Economist, the BBC's excellent series on Iran and the West of the same name and, god forbid, some Iranians.
This is a different thing. In England the view is that if someone sues you you're entitled to defend yourself and shouldn't incur any costs from doing so legitimately. So if you win, the other side pays all your costs. Don't think it even has to be asked for, though it probably comes down in the judgment.
Also, last time I checked Cali was not, alas, part of the UK.
I think the basic advice still stands. You're not a lawyer. Don't talk to the authorities until you have one, or you'll just end up incriminating yourself. There is no conceivable way opening your trap without a lawyer could help you.
p.s. Isn't Bittorrent (e.g.) making an unauthorised copy anyway? It's not like the data is transferred to your PC; it's copied there.
Er, this isn't actually a troll. Denial ain't just a river in Egypt. Last.fm told its parent company, who then told. Hence "I didn't tell on you...my mom did".
I think that this is only true in America and a few other countries. Under English law the loser pays the winner's fees. Not sure what happens if the loser merely drops the case though.
Of course they're not quite Michael Moore in that they're more concerned with exposing wrongdoing than endless self-promotion.
Many people have been ousted this year thanks to Guido and the Torygraph, on both sides of the House. The Private Eye and Ian Hislop in particular in his spot on Have I Got News For You are good at keeping the great and *cough* good *cough* uncomfortable. And the mainstream press aren't too bad either, with the Grauniad and Torygraph keeping Governments of right and left respectively on their toes most of the time, with the Independent taking the occasional pot-shot at anyone. The Times is a Murdochian waste of space though.
I agree with every criticism of Word you make, an can add a few of my own (any Word document longer than 40 pages=broken). That doesn't make your post any less of a flamebait. How can whether you use TeX or not affect the quality of your science?
Slashdot Mirror
The article writer is using the false assumption that all this spending is a zero sum game
Granted, over time spending is not a zero-sum game. But at one particular instance there is a fixed amount of disposable income, making purchasing decisions a zero-sum game. A person can spend all their disposable income on movies, or all on games, but not both. Of course they'll divide it up according to their perceived utility. But because music is easily available for free we can't really tell a person's preference for it (the utility it grants) or whether it's greater than rivals.
HAhahaha. Ha ha ha. HA. No.
You may be thinking of Iceland.
For a course on nuclear power, we had to analyse the lifecycle cost of a nuclear plant. The operating costs are about half of the capital costs. Decommissioning was taken as a capital cost in this context, which it at least behaves a lot like. The decommissioning has a low cost in the context raising capital for the project because it happens 30 years or so after the initial investment, so it is heavily discounted, leaving a very small contribution.
Let me see if I can dig out the spreadsheet for this...here we go. The capital costs came to 67% of the electricity generation cost (p/kWh) and the rest was taken up with operation and maintenance, including fuel purchase and waste disposal. The cost we calculated was 2.62p/kWh total, excluding the profit (cost of capital). If you ignore the initial capital investment then the cost is only about 0.8p/kWh.
Congressionor is a pretty bad-ass-sounding title
Maybe, but it's only one step away from Congressionator.
Minor quibble; risk=outcome weighting*probability of outcome.
I'm pretty sure you understand this, but there may be others who don't.
E.g. there's a one in ten chance of losing $100, there's a 1/100 chance of losing $1000. Your total risk is your expected outcome, which is (0.1*$100)+(0.01*1000)=$20. So if you can make $40 profit (say) with estimated risk of $20 then you expect to profit (expected income>risk).
Try Secunia PSI, it's pretty good for checking you're running patched software.
Ok, what the hell. The title; "The 'Robinson Method' a really simple way to have trustworthy elections".
Fine. Did you see how long it took to explain? And I thought STV was difficult to explain! Anything that requires 4000+ words to explain is either not simple or badly explained. I suspect in this case it's a little from column a and a little from column b.
We pay 15%. And that's after a cut from 17.5%.
If you take the ratio of the average of the first two numbers of food wastage to the last one, calculated with the whole US population, you can back calculate to get an order-of-magnitude guess of what proportion they say are facing hunger, which works out at just over 10%, so I suspect they used the 15% qualifying for food stamps.
Over here in London I'd say that a top-of-the-line Blackberry is more of a status symbol than the iPhone.
The most likely scenario for seeing its effect would be... starting up a game, exiting, then starting the same game over again.
Ah, I see you've been playing Empire too!
On the other hand, levels in DBZ are a fantastic way to explain the concept of hyperinflation to someone.
Way to stereotype me into two extreme ends of the US political spectrum when I'm not even a Yank. I am a liberal (classical/European), I also believe in the necessity of nuclear power. There is nothing contradictory about this at all. Note that France is something like 80% nuclear powered, hardly your flag-bearing conservative nation (though not liberal in the sense that I am). So I don't believe there's anything wrong with Iran wanting to build nuke power plants. I can also understand their worries about sovereignty, given the way the world has treated Iran in the past. And the fact that you think Iran is a major threat to Europe at the moment is touching but at least demonstrates that you must be American, with that kind of grasp of geography.
Finally, you may think that Europe is inept and complaisant, but that's rich coming from a power which still won't even talk to Iran out of a prolonged ideological hissy-fit. We even came damn close to a solution until your Bush regime blocked it.
Incidentally, if you think there's still time to prevent the Iranians getting the brainpower, education and the research together then you obviously don't know how many have trained in top European and American universities.
For a better idea of Iran than you'll get from the Fox channel I suggest the Economist, the BBC's excellent series on Iran and the West of the same name and, god forbid, some Iranians.
This is a different thing. In England the view is that if someone sues you you're entitled to defend yourself and shouldn't incur any costs from doing so legitimately. So if you win, the other side pays all your costs. Don't think it even has to be asked for, though it probably comes down in the judgment.
Also, last time I checked Cali was not, alas, part of the UK.
I think Iraq rather than Iran.
We still don't really know what Iran are up to. Or is that what you meant?
I think the basic advice still stands. You're not a lawyer. Don't talk to the authorities until you have one, or you'll just end up incriminating yourself. There is no conceivable way opening your trap without a lawyer could help you.
p.s. Isn't Bittorrent (e.g.) making an unauthorised copy anyway? It's not like the data is transferred to your PC; it's copied there.
Stop buying CDs and movies.
Slow down there Jimmy! Stop buying major-label CDs and records. Consider it an opportunity to explore the wonderful independent scene.
Well, it does because Last.fm is not owned by an RIAA company. Last.fm was bought by CBS, not Columbia Records.
Er, this isn't actually a troll. Denial ain't just a river in Egypt. Last.fm told its parent company, who then told. Hence "I didn't tell on you...my mom did".
This post makes sense and is relevant.
I found Spotify's library disappointingly small.
I think that this is only true in America and a few other countries. Under English law the loser pays the winner's fees. Not sure what happens if the loser merely drops the case though.
I have to say. I've avoided playing WoW or EVE for more or less the same reason I've avoided heroin.
We have some.
Of course they're not quite Michael Moore in that they're more concerned with exposing wrongdoing than endless self-promotion.
Many people have been ousted this year thanks to Guido and the Torygraph, on both sides of the House. The Private Eye and Ian Hislop in particular in his spot on Have I Got News For You are good at keeping the great and *cough* good *cough* uncomfortable. And the mainstream press aren't too bad either, with the Grauniad and Torygraph keeping Governments of right and left respectively on their toes most of the time, with the Independent taking the occasional pot-shot at anyone. The Times is a Murdochian waste of space though.
Last time I checked somethink like 88% of we Europeans weren't French.
I agree with every criticism of Word you make, an can add a few of my own (any Word document longer than 40 pages=broken). That doesn't make your post any less of a flamebait. How can whether you use TeX or not affect the quality of your science?