Now as to the price of books, maybe you don't know but french books cost on average less than american ones.
Citation needed.
And considering the US is a much larger market, a free market WHAT does that really tell you ?
It tells me nothing because even if what you claim is true (and you haven't proven that) there is insufficient information to draw conclusions regarding why that might be the case. Could be subsidies, could be exchange rates (the Euro is strong relative to the dollar and a lot of books are published in the US which would make them cheaper in Europe), could be some other structural advantage. No conclusions can be drawn without more information.
The French have a vibrant cultural market.
And yet we see the French constantly having to pass laws to "protect" their culture from the outside. I see McDonalds opening in France but I don't exactly see French bistros dotting the countryside of the US. The French should be justifiably proud of their culture and what it produces but sometimes they forget that sometimes people should decide for themselves what they want their culture to be.
Especially when it comes to books. They love books, they love reading, and they buy a lot of books. Much more on average than americans.
Again, citation needed but their supposed love of books has little to do with whether price supports should be used to subsidize small, inefficient bookstores. If French customers like the experience of browsing in such stores and are willing to pay more for the experience then such stores should have little difficulty surviving because they are not competing on price. But if they ARE competing on price then all this law does is subsidize a business that customers really aren't willing to pay for. Either way price floors are not a good idea.
Imagine a future were only Amazon or Apple can distribute/sell books. It would be a nightmare.
It is also a strawman argument. That is deeply unlikely to ever come to pass. The market will certainly change but change doesn't have to be bad. Right now you have a smallish number of large publishers who control the sale and price of most books. Amazon and others are taking the power and profits from the publishers but as an end consumer I'm simply trading one large oligopoly for another. What we really want is some way for readers to buy directly from authors without any middleman and in theory the internet provides a way to completely circumvent Amazon and publishers altogether when they don't provide extra value.
Yes, competition is good for the consumer, which is why France wants to protect competition in the marketplace
Price floors do not protect competition. They prevent competition. Price floors are a subsidy to inefficient businesses. They make it impossible to compete on price and do so at the expense of the end consumer. Price supports subsidize unnecessary and inefficient middlemen.
The idea was to prevent supermarkets and larger booksellers from competing on price and driving smaller shops out of business.
Which is in effect a subsidy to small inefficient book shops paid for by customers. It's a bit of a mystery here how the end customer is benefiting from this. I enjoy small local book shops as much as anyone here but in the cold light of day they are businesses just like Amazon and if they aren't providing enough extra value to customers to attract their business then they should go out of business just like any other inefficient business. A bookstore is a middleman between the author and the reader and the product they are selling is a commodity. If the experience of going to a physical bookstore isn't sufficient for me to be willing to pay extra for it then I don't see why I should have to pay higher prices for something I don't need or want.
With apologies to Tony Stark I have been described as many things but sentimental is not among them. Sometimes the old way of doing things is not worth saving.
A smart watch should be a compact portable sensor package with a minimal display. Think a fitbit but MUCH more capable. Data logging versions of accelerometer, thermometer, barometer, chronometer, lightmeter, altimeter, hygrometer, GPS, voice logging, etc. Basically anything that ends in the word *meter. Should be able to interact with a smartphone or PC but not be dependent on it. Should have an API to allow applications and other devices to do interesting and custom things with it. Should be waterproof and have a waterproof data cabling (or wireless) system to allow other devices to interact with it. Battery life needs to be substantial. >72 hours at absolute minimum but really more like a week. Some storage and the ability to play music similar to an ipod. Any display should be minimal and energy efficient but more user friendly than your typical wristwatch. Think something like an ipod nano most likely.
Use cases? Anywhere you would want to record such data but don't need/want the bulk and energy drain of a smartphone screen. Exercise, hiking, research, boating, diving, etc. I don't wear a watch but I could see tons of uses for a compact wearable sensor package. Such a device could both be worn and mounted to various objects to useful purposes.
I read a few years back about how Bezos had then-recently hired designers to redo the website since its design seems like an over-crowded holdover from the '90s, before disregarding their ideas entirely...
In all likelihood we should thank our lucky stars he did. There are Designers and then there are "designers". "Designers" unfortunately seem to value aesthetics well above all else, including usability. They are art school grads without any particular skill with engineering or and they appear to have slept through usability training. The interfaces I'm seeing lately tend to hide functionality that should not be hidden even when that makes it less pretty. I don't care if an interface is ugly if it maximizes functionality and ease of use. Form should always follow function.
There are excellent Designers out there but like truly good Programmers they are a relatively rare bird. Even at companies like Apple where they have a reputation for good design you can see many examples of varying skill levels between the Designers and the "designers".
Sure, that's cool. Have you? Or are you taking it on faith?
Boy did you miss the point. The point is that I COULD. That is hugely different than simply taking what someone else said as the final word without questioning. What makes processes like science or open source software so powerful is not that I have to check everything myself to trust it. What makes them powerful is that I always have the opportunity to check for myself. If you cannot see the difference then there is not much I can help you with here.
BS. Most of religion centers on claims about the right way to live - perhaps to have a happy life, or a successful community, or so on.
Religions are based on nothing of the sort. Most religions are a philosophical interpretations of collection of fables detailing things that cannot be proven to reassure and generally to gain power over those who are insecure and afraid. All that nonsense about the "right way to live" is simply trying to put a digestible coating on a pile of unprovable nonsense. Telling people "god said to do it" is much easier to explain than actually making a rational argument about why killing other people is a bad idea.
Very testable claims.
Really? Prove to me that Jesus actually rose from the dead. Prove to me that there was a garden of Eden. Prove to me that Jesus or Mohammed actually said any of the things they are reputed to have said. Prove to me that there is a diety of any sort. The bible, the koran, etc upon which the major religions are based are based on nothing testable at all. They are stories told to prey upon vulnerable people's insecurities so that others may gain influence and power. Organized religion gives "answers" that cannot possibly be true or proven or known.
Only in quantum mechanics do I feel I'm still taking too much on faith, as the math there is just so much damn work to even understand the most basic results.
So because you are inadequate to the task of understanding quantum mechanics it becomes faith? Perhaps you feel the need to drag things you don't understand down to your level so you don't feel so bad about yourself. The observations are there to be made and whether you understand them or not is irrelevant to their existence. You not understanding doesn't make it faith. It simply means you don't know and there is no shame in admitting that.
Again, you have a very narrow view of religion. I suspect you've spent as little time studying religion as you have studying science
You know nothing of my background so you can keep your insults to yourself. I've plenty of background in both - enough that I find your assertion rather bemusing.
I have no patience for those who blindly follow religious dogma out of insecurity and then try to drag rational discourse down to the same level. If you want to believe in absurd things you have no basis for then by all means have at it. But don't expect me to follow along or condone your lunacy for even a moment.
The fact that you COULD observe it, doesn't mean you actually will.
Which is irrelevant. Nobody has time to observe everything themselves. If it becomes important that I confirm it for myself then I will take the time and effort to do so.
Thus, until you actually observe it yourself, your knowledge of reality is still coming through faith.
Wrong. Trust is not the same thing as faith. I trust that which I have the ability to confirm even if only in theory. I trust the scientific process because I have copious evidence that (in general) it works AND I always have the option of confirming for myself if needed. There is no need for me to try to confirm every scientific observation myself. There is no need for BLIND faith either because I always have the option to confirm the observation should I feel the need.
I very much doubt that many could afford a telescope that could see Titan, and so their knowledge will never rise above a simple belief that the scientist knows better than he does and he is not deceptive.
No one needs to buy a telescope to see Titan because you can simply borrow one. Any local astronomy club almost assuredly has one you can use. And even if you did need to buy one, such a telescope is not very expensive. I have one sitting 30 feet from me as I type this which isn't terribly powerful or well maintained.
I might add that the criteria of 'duplication' in many of the most advanced areas of physics are close to impossible for all but a very select few.
As long as the results can be duplicated independently by more than one group then we are good. Some observations are more difficult than others but they remain observations rather than blind faith. Your argument is a strawman.
But anything you just believe because the "smart people" say it's so? That's religious faith, plain and simple.
Wrong. There is one HUGE and critical difference. I can at any time I wish attempt to duplicate the experiment of the scientist. With religion there is no possibility of confirming the assertions of religious "wise men" because they are making claims that cannot be falsified. For example I haven't actually gotten out a telescope to confirm the existence of the moon Titan around Saturn even though plenty of scientists assure me it is there. However I can actually do so any time I wish. That is not religion, it is simply pragmatism. I don't have time to confirm everything for myself but I'm willing to lend more credence to observations I can replicate myself if I so choose.
Religion is taking something on blind faith that cannot be confirmed with observation. That is enormously different than trusting to a scientist who is describing his observations.
You misunderstand what a sunken cost is and why it matters. How much we have already spent has NO bearing on whether we should continue to spend more. That money is gone and it isn't coming back. It doesn't matter AT ALL that the project isn't finished. All financing decisions are made for projects that haven't completed yet. It's not different if it is research or if it is manufacturing a product or digging for ore. The payoff for all of these activities is uncertain. Research is more uncertain than many other activities but the basic process of deciding whether to continue to invest in research is identical.
Almost all (rational) financing decisions for any project are made on a forward looking probabilistic basis. We estimate the cost and benefits of the project and we guess at the probability of success given what we know. If the project is a failure or probable failure based on *currently known* information, then you do not continue to spend on it. If the prospects are such that there remains a reasonable chance of success in the future then you continue to invest. In either case what happened in the past is irrelevant to the decision to continue to invest more.
Think of it a bit like playing a hand of poker. You do not have perfect information about what will happen so you bet based on what you know and the probabilities of a positive outcome. Your decision to stay in a hand should in no way be influenced by what you have already bet. If the odds are against you then it makes sense to get out and cut your loses. If the odds are in your favor then it makes sense to stay in the hand. Either way the information that determines how you play the hand isn't dependent on what you've already bet.
I'm an accountant with a degree in finance. Doing this sort of analysis is part of what I do for a living.
Were you trying to imply narcotics trade or something like that?
That is merely one of the possible options. There are countries where you cannot legally do certain activities that have nothing to do with narcotics trafficking. For instance in some countries it is illegal to exchange the local currency for dollars because the government is trying to control the money supply. I said they were doing something illegal and that can mean many things.
That's my backhanded way of saying you are wrong. In place such as Argentina, there can be a lot of risk in exchanging dollars under one of the "cambio" signs, and the fees can be quite stiff.
So they ARE doing something illegal and I was right.
I do hope that the congress critters redirect at least some of the funds towards US based non-tokamak alternatives which have struggled to get funding in light of the giant sucking sound that is ITER.
Which "alternatives" are worthy of greater funding? (credible alternatives mind you) I think fusion research is hugely important but its unclear to me what worthy research is being starved of funds by ITER. If an idea has real merit it typically doesn't have too much difficulty getting funded so I find it surprising that you think there is some worthwhile project that would obviously work if only it had more money. That's the sales pitch a scam usually makes.
Assume that the remaining members of ITER are successful before they are bled dry. Do you honestly think that any commercial venture will exclude customers in non-ITER countries?
Customers? No. But being a customer isn't where the biggest economic benefit lies. A successful project would have a lot of technology that would be controlled by those who contributed. Like any investment, the biggest rewards usually go the the folks who were involved at the earliest stages and stuck with it.
Better that the US pay a premium on each reactor built (assuming that someday ever happens) than to continue to pour money down a hole today.
I disagree. Iit is unclear if ITER is a money pit but let's assume for the moment that it is not. In those circumstances it is definitely NOT better that the US pay a premium for the technology. The premiums that would be paid would be enormous. On the other hand if ITER is simply a research project with the usual unclear future benefits, then it still makes sense to invest as long as the money is available to do so, which it is if we want it to be. The only cases where it clearly makes sense to get out is if it is obviously a dead end, if there is a clearly better alternative or if we simply cannot afford it. Neither of those are clearly true here. We might have other priorities for the money but the US certainly can afford it and it isn't at all clear if the research is a dead end. Might be but that case does not appear to be at all conclusive.
Besides, I'd rather pour money into a dead end fusion project and hope for some spinoff benefits than buy yet another aircraft carrier that we really don't need.
"This was part of ongoing research companies do to test different products, and that was what it was," Sandberg said. "It was poorly communicated. And for that communication we apologize. We never meant to upset you."
This is identical to saying "I don't know what we did that upset you but whatever it was I apologize". They don't get it. It basically means that they are going to continue treating their users as insects to be experimented upon and lack the moral compass to understand why what they did was wrong. The fact that they ran an experiment is fine in principle but HOW you do it matters. We insist that academic researchers run their psychology experiments by a review board and when necessary get informed consent. It's not a hard thing to do and we do it for very good reasons. Facebook has not presented any plausible reason we should hold them to a different standard.
I'm very glad I do not have a facebook account and at this point I doubt I ever will. This is simply not a company I care to be involved with any closer than I have to be.
Seems a little odd to have gone this far and then bow out.
Depends on what you believe the prospects of the project to be. If you think that ITER may result in some worthwhile advances at some point then you are right that it would be odd to bow out now. However if you are less sure then any money spent to this point is a sunk cost and further investment would just be throwing good money after bad. The fallacy most people tend to make is "well I've spent so much already I have to see it through" which is not rational. The money has already been spent so the only question worth asking is whether future expenditures will get the result you want for a price tag you can live with. How much has already been spent is irrelevant. The money is gone and cannot be recovered regardless of the future prospects of the project. Any future investment in the project needs to be done on a forward looking basis.
Personally I don't really know enough about ITER to really make an informed judgement about whether it is sensible research project or not. However I suspect more good will come out of it than from buying a few more bombers even if the project ultimately fails so I'd say get the money out of the defense department's budget. We spend too much on the military as it is.
On the other hand, if you shut down the coal plant, and use the PV panels to generate the same amount of electricity, you've saved all 10 units.
Except we aren't going to shut down the coal plants any time soon and we do not presently have the ability to use PV panels to replace it. There is NO energy scenario for the next 40 years which does not involve substantial amounts of burning fossil fuels, including coal. Even if we reduce the amount of coal used and thus reduce CO2 emissions, why would we not reduce them further (even if only a little) by other means if those means are economically viable? Your point is valid theoretically but it's a bit of a strawman.
There's no point at removing a small amount of CO2 if you continue to add 10 times the amount somewhere else.
Sure there is. It keeps you from adding 11 times the CO2. Granted you could accomplish more by getting rid of whatever is adding the CO2 but that doesn't make this a futile endeavor. Furthermore if we eventually are going to need CO2 scrubbing technology to survive then we may as well get busy developing it now. This strikes me as the sort of technology we don't want to start thinking about after climate change gets out of hand.
Seriously, I love hearing that. Not everybody deserves to be a Bitcoin early adopter.
"Deserves"? How precious that you think yourself so clever. You go ahead and put your money on the bitcoin roulette wheel. I'm going to put mine in investments that actually do something productive and are a lot more predictable as well. Maybe you'll get lucky and exchange rates will move in your favor... but I doubt it. Your odds are better in Vegas frankly.
I know a couple folks who don't have the option of using US dollars thanks to their governments. They are doing a substantial amount of business in bitcoin instead.
In other words that is a backhanded way of saying they are doing something illegal. I've been all over the world including to places where they don't allow free exchange of the local currency into dollars (like China). It is NEVER a problem to do business in dollars. In fact in places where the local currency is a bit shaky (like Vietnam) they actually generally prefer to do business in dollars.
Bitcoin frees people from trying to operate in a modern market economy with weak currencies.
No it does not. A currency that is "weak" is a relative valuation of exchange compared with other currencies. Weak does not (necessarily) equal bad. A "weak" currency benefits exporters and hurts importers. China has purposely been keeping their currency weak for some time now to facilitate their manufacturing exports. Whether bitcoin is "strong" or "weak" depends entirely on what you are comparing it with. (Never mind the fact that bitcoin is ridiculously volatile which doesn't help either) Furthermore unless you plan to actually hold bitcoins instead of using them as a fancy money order spending little time holding them, the relative strength of bitcoin as a currency is irrelevant.
With the help of Vaurum and this newly purchased bitcoin, we expect to be able to create new services that can provide liquidity and confidence to markets that have been hamstrung by weak currencies.
What a load of malarkey. Bitcoin is no where near stable enough nor widely accepted enough to serve this function.
Of course, no one is totally secure in holding their own country’s currency.
I'll take my chances with the US dollar thanks. I trust it FAR more than I do bitcoin.
A distinction without much of a difference these days. I can pipe my TiVO or my laptop through either a TV or a monitor with basically the same results and using the same HDMI cable. The screen resolution is identical (1920x1080) either way.
And burn-in is an issue if you have a plasma TV
Not if you turn it off when you aren't watching it.
I find the problem happens when you're watching Netflix and the show ends and you are off doing something else
Either you are watching Netflix or you are off doing something else. You cannot be doing both. If you are doing something else, turn the TV off if it cannot do it without you. Not seeing anything in your argument I feel inclined to sympathize with. There is no excuse for any TV sold in the last 10+ years to not have reliable power saving equipment. There also is no real excuse for people being lazy about turning it off when they aren't using it.
No not really. Reliable power save capability should be a built in feature of every TV sold. In fact it should be a mandatory feature. This is the very definition of low hanging fruit when it comes to conservation of energy.
The devices outputting screensavers can't turn off the screen in most cases, that's why.
Sounds like a problem with the TV, not the device. I know some people (like me) have old TVs but there really is no excuse for any TV sold in the last 15 years to not have the ability to power off the screen. I understand what you are saying but I'm not terribly sympathetic to the "plight" of those who leave their TV on when they aren't watching it.
I would ask why we still have screen savers. Turning off the monitor automatically after a period of inactivity to save power I understand. Having it still draw power to put pretty images on the screen when you aren't using it is a pointless exercise. Screen burn-in is not a big problem these days, particularly if you have the monitor/tv turn off when not in active use.
"invaded" is not the same as "invading". Moreover, there are legal limits on what they can do.
"Legal limits"? Hah! You've never been anywhere near a war zone have you. You go ahead and try to preach legal niceties to someone with a gun pointed at you. Let me know how that works out for you.
IIRC, civilians are only legally authorized to fight until their army shows up, and which point they can either enlist and wear a uniform or lay down arms.
You go ahead an keep believing such naive nonsense. In the real world people go ahead and fight or flee. Nobody gives a shit about what is "authorized" during a war.
I paid $55 for my Guess brand watch with heavy stainless band FOURTEEN years ago. It has lasted longer than ANY other piece of tech i own with 2 battery changes.
If we are going to brag about our tech I own a pocket watch that is older than anyone reading this that still works and keeps good time. I own several wrist watches that are older than 95% of the people reading this too and most of them don't need any batteries. Watches of the mechanical and electromechanical kind are amazing bits of tech. I don't carry any of them with me on a regular basis however because doing so is a pointless exercise 99.9999% of the time. The only time I carry a watch is when I'm hiking far enough away from civilization that my phone no longer makes sense or if I'm doing some very specific fitness activities where size and weight matter greatly.
A good Chronometer is still a valuable and necessary tool in the Information Age.
That doesn't mean it has to come in wristwatch form. I guarantee my smartphone is a lot more useful and keeps more accurate time besides. If you wear a wristwatch it either means you are showing off your money or you have a fetish about knowing what time it is.
Get over your 'its like buggy whips' mentality.
I will when you convince me that wearing a wristwatch daily is anything but an anachronism. They're cool in the same way that a steam powered bicycle is cool. Awesome but not practical in today's world.
And I seriously doubt smart watches will ever look classy.
See I think watches either look anachronistic or make you look like a showoff in most cases. There are a few niche use cases for wearing one but I really don't see the point most of the time. If the watch is expensive enough to be bling (read Rolex) then it isn't really for function - it's jewelry. Whatever function it serves is incidental to its real function of showing off. If the watch is cheap enough to be practical for uses other than showing then there no longer is a point to wearing it most of the time.
Slashdot Mirror
Now as to the price of books, maybe you don't know but french books cost on average less than american ones.
Citation needed.
And considering the US is a much larger market, a free market WHAT does that really tell you ?
It tells me nothing because even if what you claim is true (and you haven't proven that) there is insufficient information to draw conclusions regarding why that might be the case. Could be subsidies, could be exchange rates (the Euro is strong relative to the dollar and a lot of books are published in the US which would make them cheaper in Europe), could be some other structural advantage. No conclusions can be drawn without more information.
The French have a vibrant cultural market.
And yet we see the French constantly having to pass laws to "protect" their culture from the outside. I see McDonalds opening in France but I don't exactly see French bistros dotting the countryside of the US. The French should be justifiably proud of their culture and what it produces but sometimes they forget that sometimes people should decide for themselves what they want their culture to be.
Especially when it comes to books. They love books, they love reading, and they buy a lot of books. Much more on average than americans.
Again, citation needed but their supposed love of books has little to do with whether price supports should be used to subsidize small, inefficient bookstores. If French customers like the experience of browsing in such stores and are willing to pay more for the experience then such stores should have little difficulty surviving because they are not competing on price. But if they ARE competing on price then all this law does is subsidize a business that customers really aren't willing to pay for. Either way price floors are not a good idea.
Imagine a future were only Amazon or Apple can distribute/sell books. It would be a nightmare.
It is also a strawman argument. That is deeply unlikely to ever come to pass. The market will certainly change but change doesn't have to be bad. Right now you have a smallish number of large publishers who control the sale and price of most books. Amazon and others are taking the power and profits from the publishers but as an end consumer I'm simply trading one large oligopoly for another. What we really want is some way for readers to buy directly from authors without any middleman and in theory the internet provides a way to completely circumvent Amazon and publishers altogether when they don't provide extra value.
Yes, competition is good for the consumer, which is why France wants to protect competition in the marketplace
Price floors do not protect competition. They prevent competition. Price floors are a subsidy to inefficient businesses. They make it impossible to compete on price and do so at the expense of the end consumer. Price supports subsidize unnecessary and inefficient middlemen.
The idea was to prevent supermarkets and larger booksellers from competing on price and driving smaller shops out of business.
Which is in effect a subsidy to small inefficient book shops paid for by customers. It's a bit of a mystery here how the end customer is benefiting from this. I enjoy small local book shops as much as anyone here but in the cold light of day they are businesses just like Amazon and if they aren't providing enough extra value to customers to attract their business then they should go out of business just like any other inefficient business. A bookstore is a middleman between the author and the reader and the product they are selling is a commodity. If the experience of going to a physical bookstore isn't sufficient for me to be willing to pay extra for it then I don't see why I should have to pay higher prices for something I don't need or want.
With apologies to Tony Stark I have been described as many things but sentimental is not among them. Sometimes the old way of doing things is not worth saving.
A smart watch should be a compact portable sensor package with a minimal display. Think a fitbit but MUCH more capable. Data logging versions of accelerometer, thermometer, barometer, chronometer, lightmeter, altimeter, hygrometer, GPS, voice logging, etc. Basically anything that ends in the word *meter. Should be able to interact with a smartphone or PC but not be dependent on it. Should have an API to allow applications and other devices to do interesting and custom things with it. Should be waterproof and have a waterproof data cabling (or wireless) system to allow other devices to interact with it. Battery life needs to be substantial. >72 hours at absolute minimum but really more like a week. Some storage and the ability to play music similar to an ipod. Any display should be minimal and energy efficient but more user friendly than your typical wristwatch. Think something like an ipod nano most likely.
Use cases? Anywhere you would want to record such data but don't need/want the bulk and energy drain of a smartphone screen. Exercise, hiking, research, boating, diving, etc. I don't wear a watch but I could see tons of uses for a compact wearable sensor package. Such a device could both be worn and mounted to various objects to useful purposes.
I read a few years back about how Bezos had then-recently hired designers to redo the website since its design seems like an over-crowded holdover from the '90s, before disregarding their ideas entirely...
In all likelihood we should thank our lucky stars he did. There are Designers and then there are "designers". "Designers" unfortunately seem to value aesthetics well above all else, including usability. They are art school grads without any particular skill with engineering or and they appear to have slept through usability training. The interfaces I'm seeing lately tend to hide functionality that should not be hidden even when that makes it less pretty. I don't care if an interface is ugly if it maximizes functionality and ease of use. Form should always follow function.
There are excellent Designers out there but like truly good Programmers they are a relatively rare bird. Even at companies like Apple where they have a reputation for good design you can see many examples of varying skill levels between the Designers and the "designers".
Sure, that's cool. Have you? Or are you taking it on faith?
Boy did you miss the point. The point is that I COULD. That is hugely different than simply taking what someone else said as the final word without questioning. What makes processes like science or open source software so powerful is not that I have to check everything myself to trust it. What makes them powerful is that I always have the opportunity to check for myself. If you cannot see the difference then there is not much I can help you with here.
BS. Most of religion centers on claims about the right way to live - perhaps to have a happy life, or a successful community, or so on.
Religions are based on nothing of the sort. Most religions are a philosophical interpretations of collection of fables detailing things that cannot be proven to reassure and generally to gain power over those who are insecure and afraid. All that nonsense about the "right way to live" is simply trying to put a digestible coating on a pile of unprovable nonsense. Telling people "god said to do it" is much easier to explain than actually making a rational argument about why killing other people is a bad idea.
Very testable claims.
Really? Prove to me that Jesus actually rose from the dead. Prove to me that there was a garden of Eden. Prove to me that Jesus or Mohammed actually said any of the things they are reputed to have said. Prove to me that there is a diety of any sort. The bible, the koran, etc upon which the major religions are based are based on nothing testable at all. They are stories told to prey upon vulnerable people's insecurities so that others may gain influence and power. Organized religion gives "answers" that cannot possibly be true or proven or known.
Only in quantum mechanics do I feel I'm still taking too much on faith, as the math there is just so much damn work to even understand the most basic results.
So because you are inadequate to the task of understanding quantum mechanics it becomes faith? Perhaps you feel the need to drag things you don't understand down to your level so you don't feel so bad about yourself. The observations are there to be made and whether you understand them or not is irrelevant to their existence. You not understanding doesn't make it faith. It simply means you don't know and there is no shame in admitting that.
Again, you have a very narrow view of religion. I suspect you've spent as little time studying religion as you have studying science
You know nothing of my background so you can keep your insults to yourself. I've plenty of background in both - enough that I find your assertion rather bemusing.
I have no patience for those who blindly follow religious dogma out of insecurity and then try to drag rational discourse down to the same level. If you want to believe in absurd things you have no basis for then by all means have at it. But don't expect me to follow along or condone your lunacy for even a moment.
The fact that you COULD observe it, doesn't mean you actually will.
Which is irrelevant. Nobody has time to observe everything themselves. If it becomes important that I confirm it for myself then I will take the time and effort to do so.
Thus, until you actually observe it yourself, your knowledge of reality is still coming through faith.
Wrong. Trust is not the same thing as faith. I trust that which I have the ability to confirm even if only in theory. I trust the scientific process because I have copious evidence that (in general) it works AND I always have the option of confirming for myself if needed. There is no need for me to try to confirm every scientific observation myself. There is no need for BLIND faith either because I always have the option to confirm the observation should I feel the need.
I very much doubt that many could afford a telescope that could see Titan, and so their knowledge will never rise above a simple belief that the scientist knows better than he does and he is not deceptive.
No one needs to buy a telescope to see Titan because you can simply borrow one. Any local astronomy club almost assuredly has one you can use. And even if you did need to buy one, such a telescope is not very expensive. I have one sitting 30 feet from me as I type this which isn't terribly powerful or well maintained.
I might add that the criteria of 'duplication' in many of the most advanced areas of physics are close to impossible for all but a very select few.
As long as the results can be duplicated independently by more than one group then we are good. Some observations are more difficult than others but they remain observations rather than blind faith. Your argument is a strawman.
But anything you just believe because the "smart people" say it's so? That's religious faith, plain and simple.
Wrong. There is one HUGE and critical difference. I can at any time I wish attempt to duplicate the experiment of the scientist. With religion there is no possibility of confirming the assertions of religious "wise men" because they are making claims that cannot be falsified. For example I haven't actually gotten out a telescope to confirm the existence of the moon Titan around Saturn even though plenty of scientists assure me it is there. However I can actually do so any time I wish. That is not religion, it is simply pragmatism. I don't have time to confirm everything for myself but I'm willing to lend more credence to observations I can replicate myself if I so choose.
Religion is taking something on blind faith that cannot be confirmed with observation. That is enormously different than trusting to a scientist who is describing his observations.
You misunderstand what a sunken cost is and why it matters. How much we have already spent has NO bearing on whether we should continue to spend more. That money is gone and it isn't coming back. It doesn't matter AT ALL that the project isn't finished. All financing decisions are made for projects that haven't completed yet. It's not different if it is research or if it is manufacturing a product or digging for ore. The payoff for all of these activities is uncertain. Research is more uncertain than many other activities but the basic process of deciding whether to continue to invest in research is identical.
Almost all (rational) financing decisions for any project are made on a forward looking probabilistic basis. We estimate the cost and benefits of the project and we guess at the probability of success given what we know. If the project is a failure or probable failure based on *currently known* information, then you do not continue to spend on it. If the prospects are such that there remains a reasonable chance of success in the future then you continue to invest. In either case what happened in the past is irrelevant to the decision to continue to invest more.
Think of it a bit like playing a hand of poker. You do not have perfect information about what will happen so you bet based on what you know and the probabilities of a positive outcome. Your decision to stay in a hand should in no way be influenced by what you have already bet. If the odds are against you then it makes sense to get out and cut your loses. If the odds are in your favor then it makes sense to stay in the hand. Either way the information that determines how you play the hand isn't dependent on what you've already bet.
I'm an accountant with a degree in finance. Doing this sort of analysis is part of what I do for a living.
Were you trying to imply narcotics trade or something like that?
That is merely one of the possible options. There are countries where you cannot legally do certain activities that have nothing to do with narcotics trafficking. For instance in some countries it is illegal to exchange the local currency for dollars because the government is trying to control the money supply. I said they were doing something illegal and that can mean many things.
That's my backhanded way of saying you are wrong. In place such as Argentina, there can be a lot of risk in exchanging dollars under one of the "cambio" signs, and the fees can be quite stiff.
So they ARE doing something illegal and I was right.
I do hope that the congress critters redirect at least some of the funds towards US based non-tokamak alternatives which have struggled to get funding in light of the giant sucking sound that is ITER.
Which "alternatives" are worthy of greater funding? (credible alternatives mind you) I think fusion research is hugely important but its unclear to me what worthy research is being starved of funds by ITER. If an idea has real merit it typically doesn't have too much difficulty getting funded so I find it surprising that you think there is some worthwhile project that would obviously work if only it had more money. That's the sales pitch a scam usually makes.
Assume that the remaining members of ITER are successful before they are bled dry. Do you honestly think that any commercial venture will exclude customers in non-ITER countries?
Customers? No. But being a customer isn't where the biggest economic benefit lies. A successful project would have a lot of technology that would be controlled by those who contributed. Like any investment, the biggest rewards usually go the the folks who were involved at the earliest stages and stuck with it.
Better that the US pay a premium on each reactor built (assuming that someday ever happens) than to continue to pour money down a hole today.
I disagree. Iit is unclear if ITER is a money pit but let's assume for the moment that it is not. In those circumstances it is definitely NOT better that the US pay a premium for the technology. The premiums that would be paid would be enormous. On the other hand if ITER is simply a research project with the usual unclear future benefits, then it still makes sense to invest as long as the money is available to do so, which it is if we want it to be. The only cases where it clearly makes sense to get out is if it is obviously a dead end, if there is a clearly better alternative or if we simply cannot afford it. Neither of those are clearly true here. We might have other priorities for the money but the US certainly can afford it and it isn't at all clear if the research is a dead end. Might be but that case does not appear to be at all conclusive.
Besides, I'd rather pour money into a dead end fusion project and hope for some spinoff benefits than buy yet another aircraft carrier that we really don't need.
"This was part of ongoing research companies do to test different products, and that was what it was," Sandberg said. "It was poorly communicated. And for that communication we apologize. We never meant to upset you."
This is identical to saying "I don't know what we did that upset you but whatever it was I apologize". They don't get it. It basically means that they are going to continue treating their users as insects to be experimented upon and lack the moral compass to understand why what they did was wrong. The fact that they ran an experiment is fine in principle but HOW you do it matters. We insist that academic researchers run their psychology experiments by a review board and when necessary get informed consent. It's not a hard thing to do and we do it for very good reasons. Facebook has not presented any plausible reason we should hold them to a different standard.
I'm very glad I do not have a facebook account and at this point I doubt I ever will. This is simply not a company I care to be involved with any closer than I have to be.
Seems a little odd to have gone this far and then bow out.
Depends on what you believe the prospects of the project to be. If you think that ITER may result in some worthwhile advances at some point then you are right that it would be odd to bow out now. However if you are less sure then any money spent to this point is a sunk cost and further investment would just be throwing good money after bad. The fallacy most people tend to make is "well I've spent so much already I have to see it through" which is not rational. The money has already been spent so the only question worth asking is whether future expenditures will get the result you want for a price tag you can live with. How much has already been spent is irrelevant. The money is gone and cannot be recovered regardless of the future prospects of the project. Any future investment in the project needs to be done on a forward looking basis.
Personally I don't really know enough about ITER to really make an informed judgement about whether it is sensible research project or not. However I suspect more good will come out of it than from buying a few more bombers even if the project ultimately fails so I'd say get the money out of the defense department's budget. We spend too much on the military as it is.
Yes, but who owns the patents?
Probably Monsanto...
On the other hand, if you shut down the coal plant, and use the PV panels to generate the same amount of electricity, you've saved all 10 units.
Except we aren't going to shut down the coal plants any time soon and we do not presently have the ability to use PV panels to replace it. There is NO energy scenario for the next 40 years which does not involve substantial amounts of burning fossil fuels, including coal. Even if we reduce the amount of coal used and thus reduce CO2 emissions, why would we not reduce them further (even if only a little) by other means if those means are economically viable? Your point is valid theoretically but it's a bit of a strawman.
There's no point at removing a small amount of CO2 if you continue to add 10 times the amount somewhere else.
Sure there is. It keeps you from adding 11 times the CO2. Granted you could accomplish more by getting rid of whatever is adding the CO2 but that doesn't make this a futile endeavor. Furthermore if we eventually are going to need CO2 scrubbing technology to survive then we may as well get busy developing it now. This strikes me as the sort of technology we don't want to start thinking about after climate change gets out of hand.
Seriously, I love hearing that. Not everybody deserves to be a Bitcoin early adopter.
"Deserves"? How precious that you think yourself so clever. You go ahead and put your money on the bitcoin roulette wheel. I'm going to put mine in investments that actually do something productive and are a lot more predictable as well. Maybe you'll get lucky and exchange rates will move in your favor... but I doubt it. Your odds are better in Vegas frankly.
I know a couple folks who don't have the option of using US dollars thanks to their governments. They are doing a substantial amount of business in bitcoin instead.
In other words that is a backhanded way of saying they are doing something illegal. I've been all over the world including to places where they don't allow free exchange of the local currency into dollars (like China). It is NEVER a problem to do business in dollars. In fact in places where the local currency is a bit shaky (like Vietnam) they actually generally prefer to do business in dollars.
Bitcoin frees people from trying to operate in a modern market economy with weak currencies.
No it does not. A currency that is "weak" is a relative valuation of exchange compared with other currencies. Weak does not (necessarily) equal bad. A "weak" currency benefits exporters and hurts importers. China has purposely been keeping their currency weak for some time now to facilitate their manufacturing exports. Whether bitcoin is "strong" or "weak" depends entirely on what you are comparing it with. (Never mind the fact that bitcoin is ridiculously volatile which doesn't help either) Furthermore unless you plan to actually hold bitcoins instead of using them as a fancy money order spending little time holding them, the relative strength of bitcoin as a currency is irrelevant.
With the help of Vaurum and this newly purchased bitcoin, we expect to be able to create new services that can provide liquidity and confidence to markets that have been hamstrung by weak currencies.
What a load of malarkey. Bitcoin is no where near stable enough nor widely accepted enough to serve this function.
Of course, no one is totally secure in holding their own country’s currency.
I'll take my chances with the US dollar thanks. I trust it FAR more than I do bitcoin.
This isn't a monitor, it's a TV.
A distinction without much of a difference these days. I can pipe my TiVO or my laptop through either a TV or a monitor with basically the same results and using the same HDMI cable. The screen resolution is identical (1920x1080) either way.
And burn-in is an issue if you have a plasma TV
Not if you turn it off when you aren't watching it.
I find the problem happens when you're watching Netflix and the show ends and you are off doing something else
Either you are watching Netflix or you are off doing something else. You cannot be doing both. If you are doing something else, turn the TV off if it cannot do it without you. Not seeing anything in your argument I feel inclined to sympathize with. There is no excuse for any TV sold in the last 10+ years to not have reliable power saving equipment. There also is no real excuse for people being lazy about turning it off when they aren't using it.
Isn't it obvious?
No not really. Reliable power save capability should be a built in feature of every TV sold. In fact it should be a mandatory feature. This is the very definition of low hanging fruit when it comes to conservation of energy.
The devices outputting screensavers can't turn off the screen in most cases, that's why.
Sounds like a problem with the TV, not the device. I know some people (like me) have old TVs but there really is no excuse for any TV sold in the last 15 years to not have the ability to power off the screen. I understand what you are saying but I'm not terribly sympathetic to the "plight" of those who leave their TV on when they aren't watching it.
Why do we still have these antiquated data caps?
I would ask why we still have screen savers. Turning off the monitor automatically after a period of inactivity to save power I understand. Having it still draw power to put pretty images on the screen when you aren't using it is a pointless exercise. Screen burn-in is not a big problem these days, particularly if you have the monitor/tv turn off when not in active use.
"invaded" is not the same as "invading". Moreover, there are legal limits on what they can do.
"Legal limits"? Hah! You've never been anywhere near a war zone have you. You go ahead and try to preach legal niceties to someone with a gun pointed at you. Let me know how that works out for you.
IIRC, civilians are only legally authorized to fight until their army shows up, and which point they can either enlist and wear a uniform or lay down arms.
You go ahead an keep believing such naive nonsense. In the real world people go ahead and fight or flee. Nobody gives a shit about what is "authorized" during a war.
I paid $55 for my Guess brand watch with heavy stainless band FOURTEEN years ago. It has lasted longer than ANY other piece of tech i own with 2 battery changes.
If we are going to brag about our tech I own a pocket watch that is older than anyone reading this that still works and keeps good time. I own several wrist watches that are older than 95% of the people reading this too and most of them don't need any batteries. Watches of the mechanical and electromechanical kind are amazing bits of tech. I don't carry any of them with me on a regular basis however because doing so is a pointless exercise 99.9999% of the time. The only time I carry a watch is when I'm hiking far enough away from civilization that my phone no longer makes sense or if I'm doing some very specific fitness activities where size and weight matter greatly.
A good Chronometer is still a valuable and necessary tool in the Information Age.
That doesn't mean it has to come in wristwatch form. I guarantee my smartphone is a lot more useful and keeps more accurate time besides. If you wear a wristwatch it either means you are showing off your money or you have a fetish about knowing what time it is.
Get over your 'its like buggy whips' mentality.
I will when you convince me that wearing a wristwatch daily is anything but an anachronism. They're cool in the same way that a steam powered bicycle is cool. Awesome but not practical in today's world.
And I seriously doubt smart watches will ever look classy.
See I think watches either look anachronistic or make you look like a showoff in most cases. There are a few niche use cases for wearing one but I really don't see the point most of the time. If the watch is expensive enough to be bling (read Rolex) then it isn't really for function - it's jewelry. Whatever function it serves is incidental to its real function of showing off. If the watch is cheap enough to be practical for uses other than showing then there no longer is a point to wearing it most of the time.