How is it that China, and Japan before them, are able to peg their currencies? This is a question rarely discussed. The easiest and most effective way to accomplish this is by purchasing U.S. bonds, which we sell in abundance to cover our enormous debts. In effect, the politicians railing about how unfair the Chinese currency policy is actually contribute more to the problem than anyone else.
'Outsourcing' allows smaller firms to take on projects that they otherwise could not afford to do. I own a small business and at least two of my products I could never hope to bring to market if my only option was to use domestic resources. Those products make money and allow me to expand. This is not a burden on the U.S. economy; it is a positive contribution.
This is not a new concept. David W. Moore discusses something very similar in his book, The Opinion Makers
Basically, Moore argues that the purpose of polling is to measure the opinions of those who have considered an issue, not to measure 'top of mind' opinions.
One of the most interesting examples discussed in the book was a poll done leading up to the invasion of Iraq. The poll asked respondents if they felt the U.S. Government should invade Iraq, then depending on how the respondent answered, the pollster followed up with a second question that basically asked if the respondent would be disappointed if the Government performed the opposite action. I don't recall the exact breakdown, but basically if you evaluated only the first question, it appeared that around 60% of those polled wanted us to invade Iraq, but after evaluating the second question, only 28% desired us to go to war and 30% desired us not to go to war. A plurality were indifferent to the actions of the Government.
Amen to that, brother. When I was in the Navy we would go through the 'prices' of things that we would req. We attempted to work out the actual cost of the items, including delivery to our ship. We could never get any number close to what the supply system claimed was the cost of the item. I'm talking $5000 for a PCB with 25 year old components on it.
I think that's true for the people who start a petition, but if you're suggesting that when I sign a petition at some random person outside the grocery store's request that I am trying to sway the opinion of others, you're wrong.
Did you look at the documentary? Are you aware of the differences in child-birth here in the U.S. vs. the rest of the developed world? That documentary was a huge eye-opener for me, at least. I had no idea of what a midwife even is.
Well, if we're to believe anything from this documentary, the problem with high U.S. infant mortality rates is caused by the popular method of delivery.
/.tivism? Slashtivism? This is the first time I've seen the editors directly come out on the side of a political issue in the form an article on the main page.
It seems like the scientists could have been more humble in their approach and stated very clearly that in predicting earthquakes there is very low correlation between predictions and outcomes or even just refused to make such a prediction.
Doesn't the U.S. already have a law protecting journalists?
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Science is generally in a much more nascent stage than most scientists are willing to admit. Perhaps with very real repercussions from providing analyses that cannot reveal useful predictions they may alter their conclusions to reflect the true state of their knowledge.
Apple owns the IP for their products. It is their R&D money that created the market for Apple app stores. To argue that someone has a right to use that property is to argue that no property is private.
This is a different argument from the distribution discussion, but I can provide somewhat of an analogy. There are many categories of products that if not offered through Wal-Mart, over 70% of the market is unavailable to the supplier. Shouldn't Wal-Mart be required to offer all products from all suppliers in categories that it has such a high market share in? Of course not, because the Wal-Mart store is their private property, just the same as the app store is Apple's private property.
There is no difference. If I make a product and sell it to Wal-Mart, then Wal-Mart makes money by purchasing the product I make. They are paid to carry my product. Effectively, all of Wal-Mart's profits come from their vendors.
But these engineers and bloggers are some serious whiners. If Wal-Mart or Target or any large store or any store, for that matter, stops carrying some real-world product, does it make it onto slashdot? Hell no! Because that's the nature of business. Your customers can stop buying your product at any time, even when those customers are resellers. Why do these people feel that it is their God-given right to sell products through these istores or whatever?
Talk to any successful business owner about the concept of having only one customer for you business and they'll say you're stupid.
But does that work the same as NoScript to select which domains on the site the user allows? I don't like it that google-analytics is on damn near every page on the Internet. I don't need Google tracking me everywhere I go.
Slashdot Mirror
How is it that China, and Japan before them, are able to peg their currencies? This is a question rarely discussed. The easiest and most effective way to accomplish this is by purchasing U.S. bonds, which we sell in abundance to cover our enormous debts. In effect, the politicians railing about how unfair the Chinese currency policy is actually contribute more to the problem than anyone else.
'Outsourcing' allows smaller firms to take on projects that they otherwise could not afford to do. I own a small business and at least two of my products I could never hope to bring to market if my only option was to use domestic resources. Those products make money and allow me to expand. This is not a burden on the U.S. economy; it is a positive contribution.
This is not a new concept. David W. Moore discusses something very similar in his book, The Opinion Makers
Basically, Moore argues that the purpose of polling is to measure the opinions of those who have considered an issue, not to measure 'top of mind' opinions.
One of the most interesting examples discussed in the book was a poll done leading up to the invasion of Iraq. The poll asked respondents if they felt the U.S. Government should invade Iraq, then depending on how the respondent answered, the pollster followed up with a second question that basically asked if the respondent would be disappointed if the Government performed the opposite action. I don't recall the exact breakdown, but basically if you evaluated only the first question, it appeared that around 60% of those polled wanted us to invade Iraq, but after evaluating the second question, only 28% desired us to go to war and 30% desired us not to go to war. A plurality were indifferent to the actions of the Government.
Amen to that, brother. When I was in the Navy we would go through the 'prices' of things that we would req. We attempted to work out the actual cost of the items, including delivery to our ship. We could never get any number close to what the supply system claimed was the cost of the item. I'm talking $5000 for a PCB with 25 year old components on it.
My understanding is that caucusing is only done in the primaries. If it's left up to state commissions, why is SCOTUS ruling on this?
I think that's true for the people who start a petition, but if you're suggesting that when I sign a petition at some random person outside the grocery store's request that I am trying to sway the opinion of others, you're wrong.
Really? I can go down to my county courthouse and get a record of how everyone voted in the last election? I'm pretty sure that's not correct...
Who checks IDs on absentee ballots? By your logic, shouldn't those votes be made public record?
Shouldn't the same be true about voting?
Did you look at the documentary? Are you aware of the differences in child-birth here in the U.S. vs. the rest of the developed world? That documentary was a huge eye-opener for me, at least. I had no idea of what a midwife even is.
Well, if we're to believe anything from this documentary, the problem with high U.S. infant mortality rates is caused by the popular method of delivery.
/.tivism? Slashtivism? This is the first time I've seen the editors directly come out on the side of a political issue in the form an article on the main page.
It seems like the scientists could have been more humble in their approach and stated very clearly that in predicting earthquakes there is very low correlation between predictions and outcomes or even just refused to make such a prediction.
Doesn't the U.S. already have a law protecting journalists?
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Science is generally in a much more nascent stage than most scientists are willing to admit. Perhaps with very real repercussions from providing analyses that cannot reveal useful predictions they may alter their conclusions to reflect the true state of their knowledge.
I believe the first artificial intelligence will awaken in botnet.
Without a doubt, the best 'racing' game I've played, and I don't normally go for racing games.
I played the Blur demo, which was nice, but it didn't have all the different game modes that Rush had.
A P.R. move in the right direction is nothing more than a head-fake, resulting in a score for the other side.
Because our federal court system is a paradigm of integrity and obedience to the rule of law.
For the last week or two I've frequently received three robocalls a day. I'd say this law's effectiveness is on par with the hands-free laws.
Apple has to compete with every other content delivery option. Pbpbpbpttt.
...judges seem to have a presumption in favor of police, so its an uphill battle regardless.
Do you think that's because they're former prosecutors?
Apple owns the IP for their products. It is their R&D money that created the market for Apple app stores. To argue that someone has a right to use that property is to argue that no property is private.
This is a different argument from the distribution discussion, but I can provide somewhat of an analogy. There are many categories of products that if not offered through Wal-Mart, over 70% of the market is unavailable to the supplier. Shouldn't Wal-Mart be required to offer all products from all suppliers in categories that it has such a high market share in? Of course not, because the Wal-Mart store is their private property, just the same as the app store is Apple's private property.
There is no difference. If I make a product and sell it to Wal-Mart, then Wal-Mart makes money by purchasing the product I make. They are paid to carry my product. Effectively, all of Wal-Mart's profits come from their vendors.
But these engineers and bloggers are some serious whiners. If Wal-Mart or Target or any large store or any store, for that matter, stops carrying some real-world product, does it make it onto slashdot? Hell no! Because that's the nature of business. Your customers can stop buying your product at any time, even when those customers are resellers. Why do these people feel that it is their God-given right to sell products through these istores or whatever?
Talk to any successful business owner about the concept of having only one customer for you business and they'll say you're stupid.
But does that work the same as NoScript to select which domains on the site the user allows? I don't like it that google-analytics is on damn near every page on the Internet. I don't need Google tracking me everywhere I go.