The baker has 13 digital loaves of bread and a market of 100 buyers.
The baker begins copying the loaves and distributing them to the market, reaching a pricing point that gets all 100 buyers to buy his loaves.
You copy one loaf of bread and use it for personal consumption. Impact on the baker's market is minimal.
You copy one loaf of bread from the baker, but then begin copying more for distribution. 25 buyers who would have bought a loaf of bread from the baker then copy your copied loaf of bread. Impact to the baker's market is substantial. Baker is forced to close down. Potential new bakers are scared away from the market due to the ease with which to copy loaves of bread. Famine ensues. Wives weep, children go hungry. Everyone dies.
But seriously, your story leaves a lot out of the equation.
I'm of the mind that what we're seeing is a regrowth of the powerful families system that has dominated government throughout most of human history, but in this iteration it's "corporate aristocratic" families instead. To me, it's roughly analogous to ancient Rome - the masses have at least the illusion of say and can get some things changed if they complain loudly enough, but for the most part things are run by, or on the behalf of, the powerful, wealthy, and privileged organizations of the day. The dissolution of the traditional large and extended noble family system created something of a power vacuum for a newer social unit to exert its interests through government... instead of the Julia, the Flavia, and the Cassius families, we have the Monsanto, Koch Industries, and ExxonMobil families.
If we're thinking of the same study, I think the subject had to believe the information was true before being told it was a lie for it to have an effect. If the subject dismissed the information outright, then telling them that it was a lie afterward actually increased their attachment to the subject of the propaganda. The interesting thing is that many of the tests subjects who initially believed it, were then told it was a lie, then later completely forgot about the propaganda still had substantially negative opinions about the propaganda target. The emotional meaning of the information was retained, but the factual information was discarded.
This raises the possibility that this propaganda isn't aimed at Muslims, but at us. Since we're more likely to believe it initially even if it's false, this could be an attempt to further solidify our dislike of OBL. It could have something to do with the increasing calls for an investigation into the legality of his killing by the left.
I think he meant economic profit, which is typically more what people mean when they say profit. In that sense he's correct (if imprecise), since perfect competition causes a move to normal profit (ie no economic profit) in the long term.
And anyway, his point still stands: incumbent firms do not want competitors entering and diluting the market and lowering their profit nearer to normal.
Actually, the greater your ability to focus on one task and maintain that concentration, the greater your ability to be hypnotized. A hypnotized person is in a super-concentrated state, and the hypnotist can use this to bypass conscious filters and "teach" things to the hypnotized person that they then "remember" and carry out. People with ADHD and diminished intelligence are actually much harder to hypnotize than educated, intelligent people, so strength of will and intelligence actually makes you a better candidate for hypnotism.
What you're probably after is gullibility, which is another thing entirely.
Our only long-term policy toward North Korea is "let's hope it collapses soon and everyone flees to China so we don't have to deal with it." As far as short-term policies go, we use inducements/sanctions. Kind of like how you'd treat a child.
Republican gerrymandering happened quite flagrantly ten years ago, prompting Rove and others to talk about a permanent conservative majority. It didn't happen. Gerrymandering is good at protecting incumbents from real opposition but it's bad at assigning districts to any particular party. Don't worry so much about gerrymandering, worry about certain SC decisions.
So does convicting someone of conspiring to commit a crime that never actually took place.
You need it to be an arrestable offense so that you can prevent the implementation of the planned crime. Convicting someone for it afterwards is meant to punish and prevent them from attempting to do it again.
[The Congress shall have Power] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes;
Eliminating this would do mainly two things:
1. It would make trade within and outside the US very, very difficult. Internally it would get rid of what is basically a US Free Trade Agreement with Congress (and sometimes the Court) as the arbiter of disputes. Externally, it would allow states to set their own trade rules with foreign nations. Welcome to tariffs between states, "state trade blocs" that combine states and foreign nations against other states and foreign nations, and in general a massive spike in antagonism.
2. You like lawyers? You'd need an ungodly shit ton of them to sort through all the rules and regulations that would need to be created for states to coordinate interstate commerce. Never mind the explosion of corruption that would happen, when business/labor interests that are too small to fight on the federal level realize they only have to bribe a few of their state legislators to get what they want.
And why just stop at states? Why not allow individual counties to have total control over their commerce rules? Or maybe precincts? If people want more local control over commerce rules, then why stop at the state level?
Britain isn't that much larger than Rhode Island but has over a quarter of the population of the entire United States.
Not to be picky, but Britain is a little over 80,000 square miles in area, while Rhode Island is around 1,200 square miles. Not even in the same ballpark.
It's not that simple. If the USA did print enough dollars to repay the debt to China, then it would seriously inflate the dollar.
It would, but only if they put that money into circulation. Inflation is really a measure of the amount of a currency in circulation, not the amount of a currency that exists. If the US government printed a trillion dollars then buried it in a hole in Texas inflation wouldn't tick up one bit. That's the reason why we've seen "big spending" over the last few years but no real increase in inflation.
It would also affect the purchasing power of the average American, meaning that the cost of all imported goods would go up (in dollar terms), not just those from China. Anticipation of the last step is why a lot of large companies are trying hard to build markets in the EU, India and Russia - they don't want to be hit when Americans can't afford their products anymore.
Inflation would definitely do that, but I'd say the real reason large companies are trying to build markets in EU, India, Russia, Brazil, etc is because they want bigger markets and more profit, not necessarily because they expect Americans to not be able to afford anything. And in actuality that may be good for us; our exports would be dirt cheap relative to the rest of the world so we'd start actually exporting something for a change.
So, you're saying that if we insert money at the top, it benefits the guys at the bottom because high level executives and such create lots of jobs directly from their personal income?
Why, of course they do! They create such high paying careers as: gardener, pool boy, cleaning lady, house cook, babysitter, nanny, and personal shopper, among others! And as we all know, these skilled positions come with great benefits and perks that provide more than enough to raise a family on! And when they're done hiring workers, they can invest the excess in assets that yield high returns and further create jobs like extra homes, the market, and companies that deal in derivatives!
But in all seriousness, the real reason is because business owners and executives don't want to compete for the money. If you gave it to the people on the bottom, they could choose which company to do business with and their choice would generate market competition. It's pure corporate laziness; they accuse the poor of just wanting a handout, when they want the same thing.
Restless leg syndrome is definitely a real thing. My dad has had it for close to a decade due to complications from chemotherapy (nerve damage), and although he's able to control it somewhat, he unfortunately has to turn to medication more often than not. I'm not sure how common it is for people who didn't undergo chemo, though.
Do you not understand the idea that normally diverse interests can align on a particular issue? We get the idea that some corporations support net neutrality and some oppose it, but to imply that supporters are being led around all glassy-eyed and used purely for the ends of these corporations is a little simplistic. On this particular issue, supporters agree with some powerful corporations. On others, not so much.
Is everyone who doesn't agree with you a useful idiot?
True, but it's a little like cycling the profit that a new business division produces back into that division so it can continue to grow and outcompete the market. Any company would love to have an asset like that.
Do you believe that the current environmental "stasis" (however incredibly brief it is, by any measure of geologic time) is somehow "good" and any deviation from this stasis is "bad"?
In terms of "good" being suitable for human life and "bad" being unsuitable? Yes. In much the same way that calm weather is "good", but a hurricane is "bad".
Do you believe that climate is static, consistent and invariable? (There are mountains of data to refute this).
Of course not, but that isn't the issue here.
Do you believe that changes in climate are inherently "bad"?
Changes in climate are "bad" when they cause suffering to human life. If you're trying to raise a discussion on the question of evil, then this isn't the place to do it. You know full well the issue isn't the inherent qualities that make something "good" and "bad".
Do you believe that it is possible to differentiate between man-made climatic shifts and naturally occurring climatic shifts? How?
In much the same way as someone would determine if my case of botulism poisoning was caused by someone putting it in my food or by infection of a puncture wound. You know, like research.
Do you believe that a man-made influence on the environment is "worse" than a naturally occurring climatic shift? Why?
Do you believe that a man drinking himself to death is worse than a man dying of natural causes? Most of us would say yes, it is worse. Not all of us can have a Meursault-like level of detachment.
Do you subscribe the puritanical view of causation whereby actions and causations which are man-made, are by definition 'evil'?
Again, is this really the conversation we are having? Is a debate about the question of evil going to refute empirical evidence?
Slashdot Mirror
The baker has 13 digital loaves of bread and a market of 100 buyers.
The baker begins copying the loaves and distributing them to the market, reaching a pricing point that gets all 100 buyers to buy his loaves.
You copy one loaf of bread and use it for personal consumption. Impact on the baker's market is minimal.
You copy one loaf of bread from the baker, but then begin copying more for distribution. 25 buyers who would have bought a loaf of bread from the baker then copy your copied loaf of bread. Impact to the baker's market is substantial. Baker is forced to close down. Potential new bakers are scared away from the market due to the ease with which to copy loaves of bread. Famine ensues. Wives weep, children go hungry. Everyone dies.
But seriously, your story leaves a lot out of the equation.
I'm of the mind that what we're seeing is a regrowth of the powerful families system that has dominated government throughout most of human history, but in this iteration it's "corporate aristocratic" families instead. To me, it's roughly analogous to ancient Rome - the masses have at least the illusion of say and can get some things changed if they complain loudly enough, but for the most part things are run by, or on the behalf of, the powerful, wealthy, and privileged organizations of the day. The dissolution of the traditional large and extended noble family system created something of a power vacuum for a newer social unit to exert its interests through government... instead of the Julia, the Flavia, and the Cassius families, we have the Monsanto, Koch Industries, and ExxonMobil families.
If we're thinking of the same study, I think the subject had to believe the information was true before being told it was a lie for it to have an effect. If the subject dismissed the information outright, then telling them that it was a lie afterward actually increased their attachment to the subject of the propaganda. The interesting thing is that many of the tests subjects who initially believed it, were then told it was a lie, then later completely forgot about the propaganda still had substantially negative opinions about the propaganda target. The emotional meaning of the information was retained, but the factual information was discarded.
This raises the possibility that this propaganda isn't aimed at Muslims, but at us. Since we're more likely to believe it initially even if it's false, this could be an attempt to further solidify our dislike of OBL. It could have something to do with the increasing calls for an investigation into the legality of his killing by the left.
I think he meant economic profit, which is typically more what people mean when they say profit. In that sense he's correct (if imprecise), since perfect competition causes a move to normal profit (ie no economic profit) in the long term.
And anyway, his point still stands: incumbent firms do not want competitors entering and diluting the market and lowering their profit nearer to normal.
"a 'suspicious bump' in there data"
Sigh.
Women would be unable to become pregnant? On the contrary, it sounds like space is a GREAT place to have sex.
I'm not at all confident you know what you're talking about.
Actually, the greater your ability to focus on one task and maintain that concentration, the greater your ability to be hypnotized. A hypnotized person is in a super-concentrated state, and the hypnotist can use this to bypass conscious filters and "teach" things to the hypnotized person that they then "remember" and carry out. People with ADHD and diminished intelligence are actually much harder to hypnotize than educated, intelligent people, so strength of will and intelligence actually makes you a better candidate for hypnotism.
What you're probably after is gullibility, which is another thing entirely.
Our only long-term policy toward North Korea is "let's hope it collapses soon and everyone flees to China so we don't have to deal with it." As far as short-term policies go, we use inducements/sanctions. Kind of like how you'd treat a child.
First I've heard of someone equating ignorance with "worldviews".
Welcome to Earth. Unfortunately it happens quite often here.
Republican gerrymandering happened quite flagrantly ten years ago, prompting Rove and others to talk about a permanent conservative majority. It didn't happen. Gerrymandering is good at protecting incumbents from real opposition but it's bad at assigning districts to any particular party. Don't worry so much about gerrymandering, worry about certain SC decisions.
So does convicting someone of conspiring to commit a crime that never actually took place.
You need it to be an arrestable offense so that you can prevent the implementation of the planned crime. Convicting someone for it afterwards is meant to punish and prevent them from attempting to do it again.
[The Congress shall have Power] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes;
Eliminating this would do mainly two things:
1. It would make trade within and outside the US very, very difficult. Internally it would get rid of what is basically a US Free Trade Agreement with Congress (and sometimes the Court) as the arbiter of disputes. Externally, it would allow states to set their own trade rules with foreign nations. Welcome to tariffs between states, "state trade blocs" that combine states and foreign nations against other states and foreign nations, and in general a massive spike in antagonism.
2. You like lawyers? You'd need an ungodly shit ton of them to sort through all the rules and regulations that would need to be created for states to coordinate interstate commerce. Never mind the explosion of corruption that would happen, when business/labor interests that are too small to fight on the federal level realize they only have to bribe a few of their state legislators to get what they want.
And why just stop at states? Why not allow individual counties to have total control over their commerce rules? Or maybe precincts? If people want more local control over commerce rules, then why stop at the state level?
Britain isn't that much larger than Rhode Island but has over a quarter of the population of the entire United States.
Not to be picky, but Britain is a little over 80,000 square miles in area, while Rhode Island is around 1,200 square miles. Not even in the same ballpark.
Depends. What's their political affiliation?
It's not that simple. If the USA did print enough dollars to repay the debt to China, then it would seriously inflate the dollar.
It would, but only if they put that money into circulation. Inflation is really a measure of the amount of a currency in circulation, not the amount of a currency that exists. If the US government printed a trillion dollars then buried it in a hole in Texas inflation wouldn't tick up one bit. That's the reason why we've seen "big spending" over the last few years but no real increase in inflation.
It would also affect the purchasing power of the average American, meaning that the cost of all imported goods would go up (in dollar terms), not just those from China. Anticipation of the last step is why a lot of large companies are trying hard to build markets in the EU, India and Russia - they don't want to be hit when Americans can't afford their products anymore.
Inflation would definitely do that, but I'd say the real reason large companies are trying to build markets in EU, India, Russia, Brazil, etc is because they want bigger markets and more profit, not necessarily because they expect Americans to not be able to afford anything. And in actuality that may be good for us; our exports would be dirt cheap relative to the rest of the world so we'd start actually exporting something for a change.
So, you're saying that if we insert money at the top, it benefits the guys at the bottom because high level executives and such create lots of jobs directly from their personal income?
Why, of course they do! They create such high paying careers as: gardener, pool boy, cleaning lady, house cook, babysitter, nanny, and personal shopper, among others! And as we all know, these skilled positions come with great benefits and perks that provide more than enough to raise a family on! And when they're done hiring workers, they can invest the excess in assets that yield high returns and further create jobs like extra homes, the market, and companies that deal in derivatives!
But in all seriousness, the real reason is because business owners and executives don't want to compete for the money. If you gave it to the people on the bottom, they could choose which company to do business with and their choice would generate market competition. It's pure corporate laziness; they accuse the poor of just wanting a handout, when they want the same thing.
Restless leg syndrome is definitely a real thing. My dad has had it for close to a decade due to complications from chemotherapy (nerve damage), and although he's able to control it somewhat, he unfortunately has to turn to medication more often than not. I'm not sure how common it is for people who didn't undergo chemo, though.
Do you not understand the idea that normally diverse interests can align on a particular issue? We get the idea that some corporations support net neutrality and some oppose it, but to imply that supporters are being led around all glassy-eyed and used purely for the ends of these corporations is a little simplistic. On this particular issue, supporters agree with some powerful corporations. On others, not so much.
Is everyone who doesn't agree with you a useful idiot?
True, but it's a little like cycling the profit that a new business division produces back into that division so it can continue to grow and outcompete the market. Any company would love to have an asset like that.
You have to remember though that the original Xbox was essentially...
There's essentially no question...
Essentially, Xbox was loosing...
So essentially, essentially is an essential word... =D
'After all, many people think anyone technical is a whiz kid or brainiac on any topic.'
Obviously, they've never visited slashdot.
Do you believe that the current environmental "stasis" (however incredibly brief it is, by any measure of geologic time) is somehow "good" and any deviation from this stasis is "bad"?
In terms of "good" being suitable for human life and "bad" being unsuitable? Yes. In much the same way that calm weather is "good", but a hurricane is "bad".
Do you believe that climate is static, consistent and invariable? (There are mountains of data to refute this).
Of course not, but that isn't the issue here.
Do you believe that changes in climate are inherently "bad"?
Changes in climate are "bad" when they cause suffering to human life. If you're trying to raise a discussion on the question of evil, then this isn't the place to do it. You know full well the issue isn't the inherent qualities that make something "good" and "bad".
Do you believe that it is possible to differentiate between man-made climatic shifts and naturally occurring climatic shifts? How?
In much the same way as someone would determine if my case of botulism poisoning was caused by someone putting it in my food or by infection of a puncture wound. You know, like research.
Do you believe that a man-made influence on the environment is "worse" than a naturally occurring climatic shift? Why?
Do you believe that a man drinking himself to death is worse than a man dying of natural causes? Most of us would say yes, it is worse. Not all of us can have a Meursault-like level of detachment.
Do you subscribe the puritanical view of causation whereby actions and causations which are man-made, are by definition 'evil'?
Again, is this really the conversation we are having? Is a debate about the question of evil going to refute empirical evidence?
In the future, we'll do the trick with sulfur hexafluoride instead.
At least until enough kids suffocate.
"Quick! Stand on your head and breathe out!!! HURRY!!"
Guess it still holds true that you can post any study you want, and slashdotters will never read it but still comment on it authoritatively anyway.