I think you're missing the point when it comes to the lead issue. I'm sure plenty of greens are trying to get lead batteries banned or replaced, it just hasn't happened yet. Maybe electronics companies need better lobbiests. Either way, while I understand your frustration, your post does give a good example of something just as aggrivating to the greens: the idea that it is pointless to protect ourselves from small things when there are big, more dangerous things. The small things are still bad! And do you really think no one is trying to protect us from the bigger things? It can't all change overnight. Other people in this thread bring up other lead-laden products, but the point is that they probably all should be either changed, or have a good way to be recycled.
As a side note, I was under the impression that part of the reason for this lead ban in solder was due to the fact that recycling or removal of the lead to keep it out of landfills was nigh impossible, unlike other lead products where the lead is easier to seperate.
There were also fear mongers 200+ years ago (Thomas Malthus, for one) telling us about the population bomb and how within one or two generations from HIS lifetime the world would be depopulated by hunger and disease and other dreadful stuff. It is all rubbish.
Currently, starvation in the world is almost entirely caused by war and politics. There is plenty of food. Now, this may not always be the case, but there is never any reason to believe that:
a.)Growth rates will remain constant or increase b.)New food production technologies won't be found c.)People can't find creative ways to deal with increases in population beyond some statisticians estimate of the earths carrying capacity.
There is also the issue of most of the numbers used by these doom and gloom predictors being of the made up variety, but even if they've done their homework it can't automatically be used as any kind of predictor.
This reminds me of an interview with Adrien Brody I saw, talking about making "The Pianist". Roman Polansky is describing what he wants him to do in a scene..."Ok, you go in that building, climb up the stairs, climb out the window, walk along the sill, then jump across to the other building and climb inside". Brody says ok...has anyone actually done this. So 70 year old Polansky goes and does everything and comes out and says "There, someone has done it, now go do it."
Your argument that the abortion solution has "little affect on your lives" is bunk. It is going to affect her waaaaaaay more than it affects you, and while unlikely there is a chance she may never really recover from it.
The fact that you wouldn't be willing to run out on her and the child is the real problem here. You shouldn't be able to force her to have an abortion, and she shouldn't be able to force you to stick around and raise or pay for the baby. If there are laws in place that require one thing or the other, then you have to keep them in mind when making your sexual decisions. It really isn't that hard.
Finally, have no idea how it works in China, but in America you can have the baby and then give it away. For some people this is a preferred solution than just having an abortion.
How many people are there that are not white or don't have irish last names? Am I supposed to believe that, even in this world where ONLY those companies are making any money, that everyone else will, instead of making their own companies for the other 99% of the population, just starve or have nothin and let these irishmen own them? It just isn't going to happen. The whole point is that they fundamentally aren't screwed, so long as there isn't something other than the market (government regulation/whatever) influencing who can and cannot make a company and sell things.
Your Kraft holdings example suffers from what many anti-libertatian arguments do - the assumption that Kraft holdings would even exist in it's present form if it wasn't for how much the governments of the world subsidised it or its industries. Perhaps it would, perhaps it would be even worse, but the point is that it has not been created by a true free market system.
A better example (to go with your original race arguments) would be major league baseball in the 1950's. As much as people liked to discriminate, and as much as they tried to keep the game "white" , eventually teams really had no choice but to start employing minority baseball players because they were good players. If they hadn't, they eventually would have been overcome by leagues that would employ these minorities, because the quality of the product is what mattered to people.
It will be remaining a Dutch auction, yes. But if it wasn't, the share price would have to come down even further from the 85-95 range for investment banks to be able to get the same kind of pop for their preferred investors. There is a decent article in The Economist here. the $135 share price had Google valued at 187 times earnings. Even with the lower price their p/e ratio is pretty absurd. They would have to go much lower get anything like the netscape IPO.
You're completely wrong. Avoiding this price spike, and avoiding the "hot IPO as a perk to their other customers", was the whole point of the dutch auction. There will be no price spike, and you or I could go buy some shares right away.
There was a series of articles in ESPN magazine a few months ago talking about the development of sports internationally, and one of the pieces focused on India and their relative lack of advancement or overall skill in most olympic or professional team sports, other than cricket. It talked about various factors, from lack of infrastructure to lack of interest or social norms that emphasized non-physical competition or activities, none of which I'm really qualified to speak on. I was just wondering if there is anyone here from India or familiar with it that could say if they think this idea true or not, that India is not only "behind" atheletically but will likely stay that way despite GDP growth.
Seeing as the income tax was instituted to pay for the civil war, and was later ruled unconstitutional, I don't think its implimentation or its repeal necessarily revolved around corrupt Gilded Age politians and their wealthy friends.
You're right, you shouldn't put the baby in the room full of cyanide pills. But who's responsibility is that? THE PARENTS. The parents the parents the parents.
Say they find a way to block porn on the internet. Yay, the government, good job. Now what about people who don't want their kids reading about homosexuality? Or who don't want their kids to see pro-gun-rights information? Because it is somehow "harmful"? Should the government make a.homo TLD too?.guns? At what point does the government's responsibility for your childrens "protection" stop? When do the parents become responsible? There are a lot of horrible things in the world with or without the internet, and a lot more things that only SOME people find horrible, which is the main point here.
It's called "the quarter system". All through college I had finals in June. But school never started until the end of september, sometimes even october 1st.
I think it has a lot to do with the other people in the class as well, and how big the class is.
In a large lecture hall, I never seemed to care where I sat, and in some cases I sat wherever was available as I came in 5 minutes late.
In small classrooms with 20 or 30 desks, even if I didn't feel the need to always sit the same place, 80-90% of the class did. It was always awkward to be sitting in "someone elses" chair when they came in, even if there was no actual posession. So sitting in the same place every time is to some just the path of least resistance - if you're the only one who claimed it, you don't have to worry about the other people.
A ford focus will cost as much as people are willing to pay for it, given demand and supply. Of course this is true. The issue then is *supply*. If a car manufacturer can start making cars more cheaply, he may also find it is in his best interest to make more cars. In short, the supply curve for the market will shift based on what this company can do. If all the companies start being able to make cheaper cars, then the supply curve could potentially shift even more. For each individual firm this would be shown as a decrease in the marginal cost of producing cars.
Obviously the elasticity and slope of demand will play a large role in how much, if at all, car prices will go down, but it makes no sense for the companies to just pocket some cash if they can make more money selling a few more cars at the lower price. And if you look at the proliferation of cars in america over the last 25 years you'll see that there was no shortage of demand as prices relative to income dropped. I think there are more cars in america than people now, which was definitely not always the case.
Pretty much the only way that your scenario would come true is if someone had a total monopoly on car production, but even then a decrease in the cost of making anything almost always results in an increase in the supply. So supply and demand meet at a lower place, and price goes down. The company, however, makes more money than if they sat at the previous production. Prices perhaps end up where they make the same margin per car that they made before, but since they make 10% more cars, they make 10% more money.
I disgree - I think it depends on the console. I know a lot of people who have a modded XBOX who do not use it for software piracy, they just use it as a media player for their living room. I know no one who has a modded PS2 that uses it for anything other than pirating games. I also know quite a few more people who have modded XBOXes than modded PS2s, and I think this is completely due to the fact that the modded XBOX has a more legitimate use.
Of course, I don't know what all these people are using their XBOXes to watch/listen to, so a large percentage of it could be illegal...it's just not illegal games.
There are cases where a monopoly is considered a "natural monopoly", and is the most efficient way of investing capital. In the traditional sense a natural monopoly will have a huge initial investment cost and a tiny marginal cost of distribution. Power companies were always the classic example, requiring hugely expensive infrastructure but costing next to nothing to send the power once the infrastructure was built. There have been some arguments (that I don't buy) that software could also be a natural monopoly as distribution/reproduction is almost free once the initial development costs are completed.
The solution for the artists, as stated elsewhere, is to perform live, or to get a sponsor. This is how it works in, say, china, who's media piracy "problem" is at a whole other level. Obviously no one expects these people to stand on street corners for free, because their personal live performance is something that is naturally limited, and therefore much more valuable.
Services like iTunes are evidence that *someone* is willing to pay, even when there is a free option on the internet. And at.99 a song, they still seem pretty overpriced for a product with a marginal cost of almost nothing. What the fair price will turn out to be, I'm not sure, and maybe no one will be willing to pay more than $0. But factors like ease of use, ease of finding what you want, and fear of prosecution will likely make pay downloads viable, completely disregarding the "are people greedy or not" issue.
There are problems with this analysis though, as the amount of sattelites doesn't matter, what matters is the amount of transponder frequencies owned at each location.
Echostar does own more total transponder space, but the numbers are very close. And their non 105/110/119 orbital slots can't see the entire continental US, so I imagine they have to broadcast the same programming off of 61.5 and 151/148, unless they use it only for locals, which is probably likely. While there are ways to expand the usable transponder space for local channels, which is what D4S does, neither DISH or DTV are working hard to pump out more non-local channels at the moment.
Nanotechnology! Each case of Budweiser has hundreds of little drones in them that move to the other beers in the fridge and monitor them, reporting back to the "mothercase".
In the future, once Coors and Michelobe and whoever have this technology, you'll see an endless nano-war in every cooler as the beers armies try to invade and repel each other.
I completely agree. My doctor IS Budwiser, and he's kept me in tip-top *hic* shape! Hopefully this will lead to Anheiser-Busch knowing when I need another drink, and delivering it automatically.
I completely agree, though I think in many cases the girls get to play in both the main tournament and their own, girls only tournament. So then it is win-win for them.
Slashdot Mirror
I think you're missing the point when it comes to the lead issue. I'm sure plenty of greens are trying to get lead batteries banned or replaced, it just hasn't happened yet. Maybe electronics companies need better lobbiests. Either way, while I understand your frustration, your post does give a good example of something just as aggrivating to the greens: the idea that it is pointless to protect ourselves from small things when there are big, more dangerous things. The small things are still bad! And do you really think no one is trying to protect us from the bigger things? It can't all change overnight. Other people in this thread bring up other lead-laden products, but the point is that they probably all should be either changed, or have a good way to be recycled.
As a side note, I was under the impression that part of the reason for this lead ban in solder was due to the fact that recycling or removal of the lead to keep it out of landfills was nigh impossible, unlike other lead products where the lead is easier to seperate.
Easy answer: blank tiles
There were also fear mongers 200+ years ago (Thomas Malthus, for one) telling us about the population bomb and how within one or two generations from HIS lifetime the world would be depopulated by hunger and disease and other dreadful stuff. It is all rubbish.
Currently, starvation in the world is almost entirely caused by war and politics. There is plenty of food. Now, this may not always be the case, but there is never any reason to believe that:
a.)Growth rates will remain constant or increase
b.)New food production technologies won't be found
c.)People can't find creative ways to deal with increases in population beyond some statisticians estimate of the earths carrying capacity.
There is also the issue of most of the numbers used by these doom and gloom predictors being of the made up variety, but even if they've done their homework it can't automatically be used as any kind of predictor.
This reminds me of an interview with Adrien Brody I saw, talking about making "The Pianist". Roman Polansky is describing what he wants him to do in a scene..."Ok, you go in that building, climb up the stairs, climb out the window, walk along the sill, then jump across to the other building and climb inside". Brody says ok...has anyone actually done this. So 70 year old Polansky goes and does everything and comes out and says "There, someone has done it, now go do it."
Your argument that the abortion solution has "little affect on your lives" is bunk. It is going to affect her waaaaaaay more than it affects you, and while unlikely there is a chance she may never really recover from it.
The fact that you wouldn't be willing to run out on her and the child is the real problem here. You shouldn't be able to force her to have an abortion, and she shouldn't be able to force you to stick around and raise or pay for the baby. If there are laws in place that require one thing or the other, then you have to keep them in mind when making your sexual decisions. It really isn't that hard.
Finally, have no idea how it works in China, but in America you can have the baby and then give it away. For some people this is a preferred solution than just having an abortion.
Or perhaps "Don't blame me, I voted for Gore - twice!"
Really what matters is what level computer would I need at the beatdown.
How many people are there that are not white or don't have irish last names? Am I supposed to believe that, even in this world where ONLY those companies are making any money, that everyone else will, instead of making their own companies for the other 99% of the population, just starve or have nothin and let these irishmen own them? It just isn't going to happen. The whole point is that they fundamentally aren't screwed, so long as there isn't something other than the market (government regulation/whatever) influencing who can and cannot make a company and sell things.
Your Kraft holdings example suffers from what many anti-libertatian arguments do - the assumption that Kraft holdings would even exist in it's present form if it wasn't for how much the governments of the world subsidised it or its industries. Perhaps it would, perhaps it would be even worse, but the point is that it has not been created by a true free market system.
A better example (to go with your original race arguments) would be major league baseball in the 1950's. As much as people liked to discriminate, and as much as they tried to keep the game "white" , eventually teams really had no choice but to start employing minority baseball players because they were good players. If they hadn't, they eventually would have been overcome by leagues that would employ these minorities, because the quality of the product is what mattered to people.
It will be remaining a Dutch auction, yes. But if it wasn't, the share price would have to come down even further from the 85-95 range for investment banks to be able to get the same kind of pop for their preferred investors. There is a decent article in The Economist here. the $135 share price had Google valued at 187 times earnings. Even with the lower price their p/e ratio is pretty absurd. They would have to go much lower get anything like the netscape IPO.
You're completely wrong. Avoiding this price spike, and avoiding the "hot IPO as a perk to their other customers", was the whole point of the dutch auction. There will be no price spike, and you or I could go buy some shares right away.
There was a series of articles in ESPN magazine a few months ago talking about the development of sports internationally, and one of the pieces focused on India and their relative lack of advancement or overall skill in most olympic or professional team sports, other than cricket. It talked about various factors, from lack of infrastructure to lack of interest or social norms that emphasized non-physical competition or activities, none of which I'm really qualified to speak on. I was just wondering if there is anyone here from India or familiar with it that could say if they think this idea true or not, that India is not only "behind" atheletically but will likely stay that way despite GDP growth.
Seeing as the income tax was instituted to pay for the civil war, and was later ruled unconstitutional, I don't think its implimentation or its repeal necessarily revolved around corrupt Gilded Age politians and their wealthy friends.
You're right, you shouldn't put the baby in the room full of cyanide pills. But who's responsibility is that? THE PARENTS. The parents the parents the parents.
.homo TLD too? .guns? At what point does the government's responsibility for your childrens "protection" stop? When do the parents become responsible? There are a lot of horrible things in the world with or without the internet, and a lot more things that only SOME people find horrible, which is the main point here.
Say they find a way to block porn on the internet. Yay, the government, good job. Now what about people who don't want their kids reading about homosexuality? Or who don't want their kids to see pro-gun-rights information? Because it is somehow "harmful"? Should the government make a
It's called "the quarter system". All through college I had finals in June. But school never started until the end of september, sometimes even october 1st.
I think it has a lot to do with the other people in the class as well, and how big the class is.
In a large lecture hall, I never seemed to care where I sat, and in some cases I sat wherever was available as I came in 5 minutes late.
In small classrooms with 20 or 30 desks, even if I didn't feel the need to always sit the same place, 80-90% of the class did. It was always awkward to be sitting in "someone elses" chair when they came in, even if there was no actual posession. So sitting in the same place every time is to some just the path of least resistance - if you're the only one who claimed it, you don't have to worry about the other people.
uh, wouldnt that just be metal gear solid?
A ford focus will cost as much as people are willing to pay for it, given demand and supply. Of course this is true. The issue then is *supply*. If a car manufacturer can start making cars more cheaply, he may also find it is in his best interest to make more cars. In short, the supply curve for the market will shift based on what this company can do. If all the companies start being able to make cheaper cars, then the supply curve could potentially shift even more. For each individual firm this would be shown as a decrease in the marginal cost of producing cars.
Obviously the elasticity and slope of demand will play a large role in how much, if at all, car prices will go down, but it makes no sense for the companies to just pocket some cash if they can make more money selling a few more cars at the lower price. And if you look at the proliferation of cars in america over the last 25 years you'll see that there was no shortage of demand as prices relative to income dropped. I think there are more cars in america than people now, which was definitely not always the case.
Pretty much the only way that your scenario would come true is if someone had a total monopoly on car production, but even then a decrease in the cost of making anything almost always results in an increase in the supply. So supply and demand meet at a lower place, and price goes down. The company, however, makes more money than if they sat at the previous production. Prices perhaps end up where they make the same margin per car that they made before, but since they make 10% more cars, they make 10% more money.
I disgree - I think it depends on the console. I know a lot of people who have a modded XBOX who do not use it for software piracy, they just use it as a media player for their living room. I know no one who has a modded PS2 that uses it for anything other than pirating games. I also know quite a few more people who have modded XBOXes than modded PS2s, and I think this is completely due to the fact that the modded XBOX has a more legitimate use.
Of course, I don't know what all these people are using their XBOXes to watch/listen to, so a large percentage of it could be illegal...it's just not illegal games.
There are cases where a monopoly is considered a "natural monopoly", and is the most efficient way of investing capital. In the traditional sense a natural monopoly will have a huge initial investment cost and a tiny marginal cost of distribution. Power companies were always the classic example, requiring hugely expensive infrastructure but costing next to nothing to send the power once the infrastructure was built. There have been some arguments (that I don't buy) that software could also be a natural monopoly as distribution/reproduction is almost free once the initial development costs are completed.
The solution for the artists, as stated elsewhere, is to perform live, or to get a sponsor. This is how it works in, say, china, who's media piracy "problem" is at a whole other level. Obviously no one expects these people to stand on street corners for free, because their personal live performance is something that is naturally limited, and therefore much more valuable.
.99 a song, they still seem pretty overpriced for a product with a marginal cost of almost nothing. What the fair price will turn out to be, I'm not sure, and maybe no one will be willing to pay more than $0. But factors like ease of use, ease of finding what you want, and fear of prosecution will likely make pay downloads viable, completely disregarding the "are people greedy or not" issue.
Services like iTunes are evidence that *someone* is willing to pay, even when there is a free option on the internet. And at
Disclaimer: I work for directv.
D7S has been delayed and hasn't launched yet.
There are problems with this analysis though, as the amount of sattelites doesn't matter, what matters is the amount of transponder frequencies owned at each location.
Echostar does own more total transponder space, but the numbers are very close. And their non 105/110/119 orbital slots can't see the entire continental US, so I imagine they have to broadcast the same programming off of 61.5 and 151/148, unless they use it only for locals, which is probably likely. While there are ways to expand the usable transponder space for local channels, which is what D4S does, neither DISH or DTV are working hard to pump out more non-local channels at the moment.
Nanotechnology! Each case of Budweiser has hundreds of little drones in them that move to the other beers in the fridge and monitor them, reporting back to the "mothercase".
In the future, once Coors and Michelobe and whoever have this technology, you'll see an endless nano-war in every cooler as the beers armies try to invade and repel each other.
I completely agree. My doctor IS Budwiser, and he's kept me in tip-top *hic* shape! Hopefully this will lead to Anheiser-Busch knowing when I need another drink, and delivering it automatically.
You're missing a few things.
Liable is illegal because...
Slander is illegal because...
yelling fire in a crowded theater is illegal because...
As far as freedom of speech is concerned, we do draw the line. I won't argue that the reason is simple.
I completely agree, though I think in many cases the girls get to play in both the main tournament and their own, girls only tournament. So then it is win-win for them.