Fake wealth and a zero sum game are two different things. They might overlap, but they aren't the same.
A zero sum game's main characteristic is that the total sum of all points in the game never chances, so each point you gain corresponds to a loss of a point for another player. A market is never a zero sum game, even a market for shares is not. Except for some special cases where someone is forced to sell, a trade only happens if both sides are better off after the trade, which is au contraire to a zero sum game.
As for people starting with nothing then rising to great success, that certainly is possible, but those are statistical outliers. If you're going to consider people en masse then those born to disadvantaged circumstances are going to stay disadvantaged and pass it on to their children and their children's children.
I fully agree.
And for the "equal opportunity": The social mobility (which is a direct measure for the aboundance of 'from poverty to wealth' stories) in the U.S. is not higher than in the oh so socialist european countries. And in Europe, the most common from poverty to wealth story is 'has won the lottery'. So how's the "equal opportunity" going, if playing the lottery gives you better chances than hard and steady work? No, the wealth on both sides of the Atlantic creates an aristocracy, and with it an ideology to preserve the aristocracy by blaming the non-wealthy for not being wealthy and at the same time reducing the chance to overcome poverty on your own to less than random chance (e.g. lottery).
Sport weapons are still weapons. Just because you replace a real target with a symbolic one you don't change anything. A weapon is an instrument whose final purpose it is to inflict damage onto another object, be it living or not. The difference to a tool like a knife or an axe (which can be used as weapons too), is that the object, which you use a weapon on, serves no further purpose after the damage was done.
Please remember, if the ruling is uphold, it works only for the imaginary parts of the product (e.g. trademarks, copyrights, patents) and not the physical ones. As long as you don't have patented screws or copyrighted sheet metal in the object you sell, the sale might be ok.
There's a difference between not believing that P is true and believing that P is false. As far as I know, atheism refers to the second one, so it is a non-proven belief, falling into the same category as religions.
The belief that the known universe is not surrounded by a belt of yellow rubber ducks is also unproven (and if the current model of the Big Bang is correct, it will never be proven). But somehow no one calls that a religious sentiment. Most of us would rather call that common sense.
Not exactly. Because you can accept the existance of stamps and still not collect them, but you can't accept the existance of an omnipresent, omnipotent god and in the same moment not believing in him. No, the "non religious" is meant in the same way than the "not collecting" - completely refusing the necessity to collect stamps and defending your right not to collect them and also fighting the notion that you would somehow be a second class citizen for not collecting stamps.
So how about this: "Atheism is a religion in the same sense that reports about wolves not talking to girls wearing red hoods are fairytales."
The whole idea that atheism is somehow a religion is very strange to someone who grew up without religion. It feels like getting explained that not having a buckle is also an illness. I fully understand that there are people who have a buckle, but some of them get really furious if I tell them that it's possible to get rid of it.
The affirmative defense of the patent exhaustion stems from the fact that a) Monsanto explicitely allows the sale of Roundup Ready soybeans to grain elevators as commodity and b) he bought the seeds from the grain elevators als commodity seeds. So he argues that if the exhaustion doctrine does not cover this case, there is no point in even having an exhaustion doctrine in the first place:
Bowman further argues that if the right to use pat-ented seeds does not include the unlimited right to grow subsequent generations free of liability for patent in-fringement, then any exhaustion determination “is use-less.”
As science project, a group of pupils from our school designed and build a digital rotary speedometer to measure the number of rotations in a machine designed to first clean and then coat silicon wafers for the chip production. This was in the late 1980ies and a pretty impressive hand-on to the real computer science. In the overall curriculum, there was not much about computers, except it was somehow expected from pupils who had a private computer at home or access to a computer at a parent's workplace to write homework on said computer and hand in the printouts.
Helium gas is not rare in the sense of the word that we have an aboundance of Helium in our atmosphere. In fact, 5.2 ppm of our atmosphere is Helium, which is comparable for instance to the aboundance of Arsenic in the Earth's crust (5.5 ppm). The problem being, that it takes too much energy to extract the Helium from the atmosphere to be an actual resource.
The order to spy was signed by a judge. Who are you to overrule the order signed by a judge? And the judge didn't know that Kim Dotcom was an newzealandean citizen, making spying on him illegal. And somewhere in the chain of command this crucial bit of information was overlooked. It might be by accident. So who is liable now?
It's the same with corporations. Basicly, if you act on behalf of someone else, be it a person or an institution, it's the other one who is liable. The guy who did the actual spying on Kim Dotcom is thus not personally liable, only the institution, that gave him the order to spy. If the cable guy breaks your antique Ming vase from the late 14th century, it's the cable company you go for the $1 mio in damage. It's then up to the corporation or the institution to go back to the actual person screwing up and slap his wrist.
Whereas I was at the time just arrived on the greek island of Sifnos, booked into the hotel room and zapping through the TV to look for watchable channels. So I got hooked at the picture of the burning first WTC tower and trying to make sense of the commentary in the off. Then a few minutes later I saw the second plane coming in from the right side of the TV screen and hitting the second tower. It took a while for the commentors to actually notice the event and then the speculation started if this was an actual terrorist attack.
Fermentation has nothing to do with adding single cell organisms to a substrate. "Fermentation is the process of extracting energy from the oxidation of organic compounds, such as carbohydrates, using an endogenous electron acceptor, which is usually an organic compound." (As Wikipedia puts it). Processing milk with fennet is also called fermentation, and the result is fermented milk.
But yes, I have run into people who wanted to make traffic worse to discourage car use (likening it to curing diabetes by giving the diabetic more sugar).
That's not true. Every measure that makes traffic more easy lowers the cost to transport something. This in turn increases the traffic, because now more transportation makes economic sense. Only if the transportation costs are high again because of the increased traffic causing more traffic jams the increase in traffic stops.
You could interpret this as "every turnpike increases traffic until it jams". From this point of view, people who want to increase traffic costs by making traffic worse have a point - it probably will lower the sheer amount of traffic and thus lowers the traffic externalities.
I doubt that. Social networks which don't warrant anonymity (e.g. Facebook) prove to have the same rude audience as totally anonymous sites. My hypothesis is that it's a) the larger audience. Especially male persons seem to be more aggressive if the audience is larger (yes, there are extensive studies about that, if needed I might be able to google up a citation). People who are totally nice and gentle in 1-1 situations become total jerks if many people are watching. The Internet is as an audience second only to the Super Bowl and the Soccer World Championship. b) the decoupled reaction of the audience. Face to face the reaction starts while you are still acting, and you start to adapt while not even finishing your sentence. A lot of overreaching rudeness is thus dampened before it can be acted out. In not fully real time conversations as chats, the reaction already comes late, and via email, on message boards and profile based social sites, it can be hours until the reaction is there. Until then your own rudeness rules supreme because no social control can be exercised on you.
So no, anonymity is not the problem. Size of audience and delayed social control is.
I seriously doubt that's true, as cheese comes from latin "caseus" and means "sour" or "fermented";)
(Yes, I know, there are some specialities that are called cheese without being made from fermented milk, as the south german "Fleischkäse" ("meat cheese"), but in this case it's still not allowed to market it as cheese, but only as "meat cheese" to indicate, that it is in fact not a cheese. It's the same with the dragon fly, which is neither a dragon nor a fly, but an anisopterum.)
No, the EU actually forbid calling products cheese that are not made from fermented milk. There was an issue with so called analog cheese (a mixture of vegetable oil and proteines), which is no longer allowed to be marketed as cheese.
The customer is entitled to the 2 years warranty anyway, even without paying the 1 year extension. So selling it something for money he is entitled anyway is fraud.
Slashdot Mirror
Fake wealth and a zero sum game are two different things. They might overlap, but they aren't the same.
A zero sum game's main characteristic is that the total sum of all points in the game never chances, so each point you gain corresponds to a loss of a point for another player. A market is never a zero sum game, even a market for shares is not. Except for some special cases where someone is forced to sell, a trade only happens if both sides are better off after the trade, which is au contraire to a zero sum game.
As for people starting with nothing then rising to great success, that certainly is possible, but those are statistical outliers. If you're going to consider people en masse then those born to disadvantaged circumstances are going to stay disadvantaged and pass it on to their children and their children's children.
I fully agree.
And for the "equal opportunity": The social mobility (which is a direct measure for the aboundance of 'from poverty to wealth' stories) in the U.S. is not higher than in the oh so socialist european countries. And in Europe, the most common from poverty to wealth story is 'has won the lottery'. So how's the "equal opportunity" going, if playing the lottery gives you better chances than hard and steady work?
No, the wealth on both sides of the Atlantic creates an aristocracy, and with it an ideology to preserve the aristocracy by blaming the non-wealthy for not being wealthy and at the same time reducing the chance to overcome poverty on your own to less than random chance (e.g. lottery).
No, it's not a zero sum game, because both the type and amount of shares traded and the amount of money invested in shares change all the time.
But it is still anonymous in that sense that it works without identifying you to any human.
Sport weapons are still weapons. Just because you replace a real target with a symbolic one you don't change anything. A weapon is an instrument whose final purpose it is to inflict damage onto another object, be it living or not. The difference to a tool like a knife or an axe (which can be used as weapons too), is that the object, which you use a weapon on, serves no further purpose after the damage was done.
Please remember, if the ruling is uphold, it works only for the imaginary parts of the product (e.g. trademarks, copyrights, patents) and not the physical ones. As long as you don't have patented screws or copyrighted sheet metal in the object you sell, the sale might be ok.
There's a difference between not believing that P is true and believing that P is false. As far as I know, atheism refers to the second one, so it is a non-proven belief, falling into the same category as religions.
The belief that the known universe is not surrounded by a belt of yellow rubber ducks is also unproven (and if the current model of the Big Bang is correct, it will never be proven). But somehow no one calls that a religious sentiment. Most of us would rather call that common sense.
Not exactly. Because you can accept the existance of stamps and still not collect them, but you can't accept the existance of an omnipresent, omnipotent god and in the same moment not believing in him.
No, the "non religious" is meant in the same way than the "not collecting" - completely refusing the necessity to collect stamps and defending your right not to collect them and also fighting the notion that you would somehow be a second class citizen for not collecting stamps.
So how about this: "Atheism is a religion in the same sense that reports about wolves not talking to girls wearing red hoods are fairytales."
The whole idea that atheism is somehow a religion is very strange to someone who grew up without religion. It feels like getting explained that not having a buckle is also an illness. I fully understand that there are people who have a buckle, but some of them get really furious if I tell them that it's possible to get rid of it.
The affirmative defense of the patent exhaustion stems from the fact that a) Monsanto explicitely allows the sale of Roundup Ready soybeans to grain elevators as commodity and b) he bought the seeds from the grain elevators als commodity seeds. So he argues that if the exhaustion doctrine does not cover this case, there is no point in even having an exhaustion doctrine in the first place:
Bowman further argues that if the right to use pat-ented seeds does not include the unlimited right to grow subsequent generations free of liability for patent in-fringement, then any exhaustion determination “is use-less.”
(quoting the CAFC opinion)
(yes, atheism is a religion...a belief based only on faith that there is no God or that there is a God...both are equally faith-based beliefs)
To which is the standard reply: "Atheism is a religion in the same sense that not collecting stamps is a hobby."
This would be an "cruel and unusual punishment" and thus not allowed. If done anyway, it would amount to grievous bodily harm.
As science project, a group of pupils from our school designed and build a digital rotary speedometer to measure the number of rotations in a machine designed to first clean and then coat silicon wafers for the chip production. This was in the late 1980ies and a pretty impressive hand-on to the real computer science.
In the overall curriculum, there was not much about computers, except it was somehow expected from pupils who had a private computer at home or access to a computer at a parent's workplace to write homework on said computer and hand in the printouts.
Helium gas is not rare in the sense of the word that we have an aboundance of Helium in our atmosphere. In fact, 5.2 ppm of our atmosphere is Helium, which is comparable for instance to the aboundance of Arsenic in the Earth's crust (5.5 ppm). The problem being, that it takes too much energy to extract the Helium from the atmosphere to be an actual resource.
The order to spy was signed by a judge. Who are you to overrule the order signed by a judge? And the judge didn't know that Kim Dotcom was an newzealandean citizen, making spying on him illegal. And somewhere in the chain of command this crucial bit of information was overlooked. It might be by accident. So who is liable now?
It's the same with corporations. Basicly, if you act on behalf of someone else, be it a person or an institution, it's the other one who is liable. The guy who did the actual spying on Kim Dotcom is thus not personally liable, only the institution, that gave him the order to spy. If the cable guy breaks your antique Ming vase from the late 14th century, it's the cable company you go for the $1 mio in damage. It's then up to the corporation or the institution to go back to the actual person screwing up and slap his wrist.
Whereas I was at the time just arrived on the greek island of Sifnos, booked into the hotel room and zapping through the TV to look for watchable channels. So I got hooked at the picture of the burning first WTC tower and trying to make sense of the commentary in the off. Then a few minutes later I saw the second plane coming in from the right side of the TV screen and hitting the second tower. It took a while for the commentors to actually notice the event and then the speculation started if this was an actual terrorist attack.
No, seriously, go look it up.
Fermentation has nothing to do with adding single cell organisms to a substrate. "Fermentation is the process of extracting energy from the oxidation of organic compounds, such as carbohydrates, using an endogenous electron acceptor, which is usually an organic compound." (As Wikipedia puts it). Processing milk with fennet is also called fermentation, and the result is fermented milk.
But yes, I have run into people who wanted to make traffic worse to discourage car use (likening it to curing diabetes by giving the diabetic more sugar).
That's not true. Every measure that makes traffic more easy lowers the cost to transport something. This in turn increases the traffic, because now more transportation makes economic sense. Only if the transportation costs are high again because of the increased traffic causing more traffic jams the increase in traffic stops.
You could interpret this as "every turnpike increases traffic until it jams". From this point of view, people who want to increase traffic costs by making traffic worse have a point - it probably will lower the sheer amount of traffic and thus lowers the traffic externalities.
I doubt that. Social networks which don't warrant anonymity (e.g. Facebook) prove to have the same rude audience as totally anonymous sites. My hypothesis is that it's
a) the larger audience. Especially male persons seem to be more aggressive if the audience is larger (yes, there are extensive studies about that, if needed I might be able to google up a citation). People who are totally nice and gentle in 1-1 situations become total jerks if many people are watching. The Internet is as an audience second only to the Super Bowl and the Soccer World Championship.
b) the decoupled reaction of the audience. Face to face the reaction starts while you are still acting, and you start to adapt while not even finishing your sentence. A lot of overreaching rudeness is thus dampened before it can be acted out. In not fully real time conversations as chats, the reaction already comes late, and via email, on message boards and profile based social sites, it can be hours until the reaction is there. Until then your own rudeness rules supreme because no social control can be exercised on you.
So no, anonymity is not the problem. Size of audience and delayed social control is.
There are two stories, one is The Last Answer and the other The Last Question. Both are by Isaac Asimov.
I seriously doubt that's true, as cheese comes from latin "caseus" and means "sour" or "fermented" ;)
(Yes, I know, there are some specialities that are called cheese without being made from fermented milk, as the south german "Fleischkäse" ("meat cheese"), but in this case it's still not allowed to market it as cheese, but only as "meat cheese" to indicate, that it is in fact not a cheese. It's the same with the dragon fly, which is neither a dragon nor a fly, but an anisopterum.)
Those electronics be better not sold by a EU located vendor. Alternatively the vendor stocks three times the items he actually sells for spares.
No, the EU actually forbid calling products cheese that are not made from fermented milk. There was an issue with so called analog cheese (a mixture of vegetable oil and proteines), which is no longer allowed to be marketed as cheese.
It is. It's fraud.
The customer is entitled to the 2 years warranty anyway, even without paying the 1 year extension. So selling it something for money he is entitled anyway is fraud.
You didn't read the article thoroughly. He went to the police. Twice. And you don't know who the IT genius guy knows at the local ISPs.