Given that the average mass of the plastic pieces is just above 5 mg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Pacific_Garbage_Patch#Density_of_neustonic_plastics), that net of yours is going to be quite finemasked... And, of course, the 15 mg per square meter isn't going to make you a very stable island.
No, it isn't, but you sure would like it to be. Organic grains tend to contain a higher amount of aflatoxin than conventionally grown grain, and aflatoxins are not the most healthy of things. I don't know whether the aflatoxin of the organic grains are worse than the pesticide in the conventionally grown grains, but then, I doubt anyone really does.
In 1995 worldwide pesticide sales were around 30 billion. Who knows what they are today?
AFAICT, in 2000 and 2001, it was about 30 billion USD. Of course, the weight used is probably much less then it was in 1995, as the new pesticides tends to be more efficient, so less is needed (of course, that also makes them more poisonous).
When you show me 10 humans whose "gut instinct" have consistently done better than the market over a decade or two, I'll stop supporting autonomous functions (and I will pay them to invest my money). Until then...
Just to strengthen your argument, excactly that have happened, in a slightly different way. When you have patented an invention, you have some time (a year, I think) to apply for patents in other countries. An inventor had invented a syringe where the needle is sucked into the syringe after use, so you avoid the risk of infecting others. None of the syringe producers were interested, the inventor couldn't afford a worldwide patent (and apparantly, there weren't a market, nobody wanted to produce it). Then, when the time limit for international patents expired, all of the manufacturers started making it, without paying the inventor a dime.
Yes, but the energy doesn't come from that, any more than the spark plug supplies the energy to run your car (unless you believe the "free energy" folks and fuel your car with water).
But I am looking at the total amount of cost inflicted on everyone, and the total benefit enjoyed by everyone. The cost and benefit are not shared by the same people, but neither are they for anything else. For example, I pay some of the cost for the benefit other people enjoy by driving cars. Now, if you want to shift the cost to the people enjoying the benfit, I would agree. So we should tax talking on a cell phone while driving?
You still fail to say what are the economic benefits. "Willingness to pay" is another thing entirely.
The benefit is that people apparantly like to be able to take calls at all times, so much that they are willing to pay more per minut of speach. It is not taxable, but in any other way, it is as much a benefit as being able to have a bigger TV, eat out more often, or hire people to clean my house is.
Anyway, they don't pay anythng extra to use their cell in a car, so this is specious.
But the higher price for cell phone use is excactly paying for being able to talk now, in stead of waiting till I reach my destination. So it is what people will pay to be able to talk while driving, in stead of waiting until they have stopped. Which makes it a good approximation of how highly people value talking while driving.
People rarely factor in the costs of being involved in an accident, they just believe they are smarter and better drivers than everyone else.
But that isn't a factor in my argument. I compare 2 costs: The benefit of being able to talk now, and the cost of more deaths (and car wrecks). The first, I approximate by looking at the added cost of talking on a cell phone, the other I approximate by looking at what people are willing to pay for their own safety.
Ahh, but you can quantify how much the people value using the phone in the car, by looking at how much people are willing to pay for talking on a cellphone, compared to a normal phone (which they would presumably have at their destination).
And those killing people negligently because of using cell phones are not going to come up with the 5 million. It's society as a whole that will pay the bills.
Yes, society as a whole has to pay, but you can say that for a lot of things. I don't drive a car, but I still pay for the fact that other people do (by having a slightly larger risk of getting killed by getting run over).
The cost of allowing cell phones included the lost lifes of others. The claculation was done on society as a whole, as in "Will the average person get more out of allowing or banning cell phone use while driving". And before you ask, the price was probably 4-5 million USD per life, which is about the price americans put on their own lifes.
Ahh, but you can quantify how much the people value using the phone in the car, by looking at how much people are willing to pay for talking on a cellphone, compared to a normal phone (which they would presumably have at their destination). Hmm, I can't find the article, but it turns out that the rational reaction is to allow people talking, as they value that more than they value the (small) decrease in the risk of getting killed. I don't like that conclusion, but I have a hard time finding reasons to reject it...
I had the opposite impression, apparantly supported by most economists: "In recent years, received wisdom among economists has been that the inflation rate has been overstated because of unmeasured improvements in quality." http://slate.com/id/2142241/
But the article I linked to points out some problem with that opinion. So apparantly, the problem is that there isn't one inflation rate, but at most one per category of products. And even that raises the question "How many Walkmans in an iPod?", which must be answered before inflation makes sense.
[...] many eminent scientists have managed to reconcile their faith with their job. Einstein, for example. I sure you'd agree that he was capable of 'thought'...
I like the map as it gives me an overview of the next few turns. And I use it to judge which off-ramp is the right one, the one I need makes a 180 degree turn, so it must be that one. The directions is good enough for this, but I like to be sure.
The thing about the wavelength is that light can't differentiate anything smaller than the wavelength (or half the wavelength, i can't recall), but it can interact with something smaller. So, if two of these were closer than the wavelength, you can't selectively shine light on one, but you can hit both. Actually, that might be a feature, if you send in one photon, and activate one of two which are closer than the wavelength, their activation will be entangled. But I have no idea whether they plan to use that.
Often the 800 mg is prescribed to people the Dr. knows will be taking ibuprofen over the long term (chronic headaches, PMS, surgery) so they take fewer pills and don't OD on the 200 mg tablets (many high does of ibuprofen are very hard on your liver and can cause failure faster than alcohol)
It is? I was under the impression that paracetamol was hard on the liver, and ibuprofen and acetyl salicylic acid were hard on the stomach. Of course, that might depend on the dose.
Nono, it's just an example of the fact that the principle aim of any institution becomes the existence of the organisation. It doesn't start that way, but it slowly creeps to that point. I mean, we ARE trying to do good, right? So it must be good that we exist. So keeping us around must be good. So we're going to do what we can to keep us around. Now, what to do if you win, that is, reach whatever the goals of the organisation was? Well, we're just gonna have to expand that definition, right? Because, you know, keeping us around IS good, so us shutting down would be bad.
Slashdot Mirror
Given that the average mass of the plastic pieces is just above 5 mg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Pacific_Garbage_Patch#Density_of_neustonic_plastics), that net of yours is going to be quite finemasked... And, of course, the 15 mg per square meter isn't going to make you a very stable island.
There is a difference between "no nutritional difference" and "no health benefits"
Yes, good thing the researchers caught that and tested for both:
There is little difference in nutritional value and no evidence of any extra health benefits from eating organic produce, UK researchers found.'
The world is not black and white.
No, it isn't, but you sure would like it to be. Organic grains tend to contain a higher amount of aflatoxin than conventionally grown grain, and aflatoxins are not the most healthy of things. I don't know whether the aflatoxin of the organic grains are worse than the pesticide in the conventionally grown grains, but then, I doubt anyone really does.
In 1995 worldwide pesticide sales were around 30 billion. Who knows what they are today?
AFAICT, in 2000 and 2001, it was about 30 billion USD. Of course, the weight used is probably much less then it was in 1995, as the new pesticides tends to be more efficient, so less is needed (of course, that also makes them more poisonous).
Hey, great, so, by being able to check a solution, it is possible to find a solution? I think you just showed that P=NP.
To copy or imitate, especially a person; of a program or device to imitate another program or device
So, wouldn't the case be, at WINE functionally is an emulator, but technically, it isn't?
That kind of semantics quickly gets really hairy, and english is not my primary language, so I might be wrong...
When you show me 10 humans whose "gut instinct" have consistently done better than the market over a decade or two, I'll stop supporting autonomous functions (and I will pay them to invest my money). Until then...
Just to strengthen your argument, excactly that have happened, in a slightly different way. When you have patented an invention, you have some time (a year, I think) to apply for patents in other countries. An inventor had invented a syringe where the needle is sucked into the syringe after use, so you avoid the risk of infecting others. None of the syringe producers were interested, the inventor couldn't afford a worldwide patent (and apparantly, there weren't a market, nobody wanted to produce it). Then, when the time limit for international patents expired, all of the manufacturers started making it, without paying the inventor a dime.
the price was probably 4-5 million USD per life,.
That's the COST. What are the BENEFITS?
And now:
I am looking at the total amount of cost inflicted on everyone
No, you're not.
So it is the cost, but it is not the cost... Hmm, I don't quite think I follow.
Yes, but the energy doesn't come from that, any more than the spark plug supplies the energy to run your car (unless you believe the "free energy" folks and fuel your car with water).
But I am looking at the total amount of cost inflicted on everyone, and the total benefit enjoyed by everyone. The cost and benefit are not shared by the same people, but neither are they for anything else. For example, I pay some of the cost for the benefit other people enjoy by driving cars. Now, if you want to shift the cost to the people enjoying the benfit, I would agree. So we should tax talking on a cell phone while driving?
You still fail to say what are the economic benefits. "Willingness to pay" is another thing entirely.
The benefit is that people apparantly like to be able to take calls at all times, so much that they are willing to pay more per minut of speach. It is not taxable, but in any other way, it is as much a benefit as being able to have a bigger TV, eat out more often, or hire people to clean my house is.
Anyway, they don't pay anythng extra to use their cell in a car, so this is specious.
But the higher price for cell phone use is excactly paying for being able to talk now, in stead of waiting till I reach my destination. So it is what people will pay to be able to talk while driving, in stead of waiting until they have stopped. Which makes it a good approximation of how highly people value talking while driving.
People rarely factor in the costs of being involved in an accident, they just believe they are smarter and better drivers than everyone else.
But that isn't a factor in my argument. I compare 2 costs: The benefit of being able to talk now, and the cost of more deaths (and car wrecks). The first, I approximate by looking at the added cost of talking on a cell phone, the other I approximate by looking at what people are willing to pay for their own safety.
Well, there are two exceptions - inputs of concrete, whose manufacture necessarily emits CO2, in the reduction of CaCO3 -> CaO + CO2
Doesn't it reuptake the CO2 during curing? So the only CO2 emition is for heating the CaCO3?
No, the sun gets its energy from fusion, so that would be the strong nuclear force.
That's the COST. What are the BENEFITS?
From my OP:
Ahh, but you can quantify how much the people value using the phone in the car, by looking at how much people are willing to pay for talking on a cellphone, compared to a normal phone (which they would presumably have at their destination).
And those killing people negligently because of using cell phones are not going to come up with the 5 million. It's society as a whole that will pay the bills.
Yes, society as a whole has to pay, but you can say that for a lot of things. I don't drive a car, but I still pay for the fact that other people do (by having a slightly larger risk of getting killed by getting run over).
The cost of allowing cell phones included the lost lifes of others. The claculation was done on society as a whole, as in "Will the average person get more out of allowing or banning cell phone use while driving". And before you ask, the price was probably 4-5 million USD per life, which is about the price americans put on their own lifes.
Ahh, but you can quantify how much the people value using the phone in the car, by looking at how much people are willing to pay for talking on a cellphone, compared to a normal phone (which they would presumably have at their destination). Hmm, I can't find the article, but it turns out that the rational reaction is to allow people talking, as they value that more than they value the (small) decrease in the risk of getting killed. I don't like that conclusion, but I have a hard time finding reasons to reject it...
http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1308785&cid=28760379 There you go.
I thought it was the huge amount of seafood they consumed thinning the blood... Oh well
I had the opposite impression, apparantly supported by most economists: "In recent years, received wisdom among economists has been that the inflation rate has been overstated because of unmeasured improvements in quality." http://slate.com/id/2142241/
But the article I linked to points out some problem with that opinion. So apparantly, the problem is that there isn't one inflation rate, but at most one per category of products. And even that raises the question "How many Walkmans in an iPod?", which must be answered before inflation makes sense.
[...] many eminent scientists have managed to reconcile their faith with their job. Einstein, for example. I sure you'd agree that he was capable of 'thought'...
Could we please put this myth to rest now? Einstein wasn't religious, at least not in a form most people would label as such:
"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal god and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."
There a plenty of religious scientists out there, they are capable of thought, why not use one of them as an example?
I like the map as it gives me an overview of the next few turns. And I use it to judge which off-ramp is the right one, the one I need makes a 180 degree turn, so it must be that one. The directions is good enough for this, but I like to be sure.
The thing about the wavelength is that light can't differentiate anything smaller than the wavelength (or half the wavelength, i can't recall), but it can interact with something smaller. So, if two of these were closer than the wavelength, you can't selectively shine light on one, but you can hit both. Actually, that might be a feature, if you send in one photon, and activate one of two which are closer than the wavelength, their activation will be entangled. But I have no idea whether they plan to use that.
Oh, a mod point, a mod point, my kingdom for a mod point.
Thank you for actually being a sane voice in this discussion. It is sorely needed.
Often the 800 mg is prescribed to people the Dr. knows will be taking ibuprofen over the long term (chronic headaches, PMS, surgery) so they take fewer pills and don't OD on the 200 mg tablets (many high does of ibuprofen are very hard on your liver and can cause failure faster than alcohol)
It is? I was under the impression that paracetamol was hard on the liver, and ibuprofen and acetyl salicylic acid were hard on the stomach. Of course, that might depend on the dose.
Nono, it's just an example of the fact that the principle aim of any institution becomes the existence of the organisation. It doesn't start that way, but it slowly creeps to that point. I mean, we ARE trying to do good, right? So it must be good that we exist. So keeping us around must be good. So we're going to do what we can to keep us around. Now, what to do if you win, that is, reach whatever the goals of the organisation was? Well, we're just gonna have to expand that definition, right? Because, you know, keeping us around IS good, so us shutting down would be bad.