No, broken window fallacy is usually about destruction.
If the costs of staying local are the same as outsourcing, staying local makes it more likely that the money will come back to you sooner rather than later. That engineer is more likely to send his kids to the college, or take a few classes himself than a sales rep for Microsoft living in a different city or state.
Protectionism usually reflects the reverse railroad fallacy, and economic finding that tariffs are like a reverse railroad, they have the same effect as an increase in the cost of transportation. However nobody is suggesting a tariff so it doesn't apply.
I kind of doubt it, IPv4 hasn't proven to be a great barrier to censorship. Technologies that circumvent the censor, work better if every machine is individually addressable (proxy, tunneling...) and with increased bandwidth it shouldn't be hard to hide say a general browsing session tunneled into what looks like a video stream to censors.
I can see no rational reason for TFA calling this a "surprising lack of diversity".
Niether can I. And the other question is previously thought by whom? I was a plant science major, and all of my professors and TA's said over 250,000 known species. That this study demonstrated over 300,000 unique species, which would show that there is more actual diversity than previously thought by experts in the feild. There may be a million different scientific names in use, but as you pointed out nobody in the know actually believed there were a million different species known.
I wonder if an ipv6 implementation/protocol could/does solve this. Use the/64 prefix and have the suffix just be::any in the DNS AAAA records. When the client gets a response it will know which specific server to talk to from that point on.
It lacks attenuation. An master of his instrument and music will induce small variations in order to better blend sequences notes and harmonies together. This robot isn't even trying to do that. A robot will never do that on it's own, at best it will be able to listen to an instrument in a certain style, recursively deduce some of the rules that a master uses and implement them.
If they don't release the code, you may find yourself in the position of a device which is unsupported, and not supportable without a lengthy and expensive reverse engineering process. If a company releases code you will be assured that the device is supportable indefinitely into the future.
If it's just one tablet that you'll break before two years are up it's probably not a big deal, but if you are buying 10,000 of them for an important long-term application it makes a lot of difference. The difference between being at the mercy of the amount of energy and support a company will put into an old product, and weather the company will even be around any more, as opposed to the option of being able to provide support and update in-house if necessary
Also if you get the GPL device it's possible and even probable that someone will port the device to alternative uses so you can re purpose it if you don't need it for the original purpose.
Bludgening companies around with the GPL isn't nice, and would cost a lot of public support. The whole idea and point of the GPL was that bludgeoning people around with copyright and patents like some companies do isn't very nice. It's a way to fight fire with fire, but all being said, it's just better to avoid lighting fires that you might have to fight later in the first place.
It's like how Microsoft doesn't go after individuals that pirate windows at home or school. They mainly go after distributors and businesses because they don't want the publicity of taking grandpa Joe's house because his techie 14-year old grandnephew thought it would be nice to give him and upgrade with a pirated copy from bit-torrent. Looking the other way helps FOSS and the GPL come into the public awareness, whereas perusing a multi-billion dollar copyright suit would scare the living daylights out of vendors and manufacturers so much that they'd never touch and open source kernel and interface again.
Regardless of who maintains the website this YOU person is responsible for keeping the offer made to distribute the source code.
With a commercial distribution of unmodified code you can in theory point to someone else's sources that are on line, but if they were to go off line, then YOU would still be responsible for fulfilling the offer made.
Ya it does, thee first amendment states that "Congress shall make no law..." so as long as they try to prosecute him according to some law the first amendment applies.
Ellis III ruled that to obtain a conviction of individuals who had not worked for the government but had received information from individuals who had, prosecutors must prove that the defendant actually intended to harm the U.S. or to help an enemy.
Is harming the inner conspiracy the same as harm the U.S.? Should a very small section of moneyed and clandestine operations be considered representative of the U.S. as a whole? Shouldn't the informing of everyone of the current political state allow them to make political decisions to better reflect their own interest rather than that of an elite, entrenched and empowered subset? That's what this is really about, the inability to keep secrets means the inability to operate conspiracies.
Will they take into account their own simulation, will they a simulate the simulation on the simulation and the the simulation simulated on the simulation on the simulation.... turtles all the way down style?
Of course, It's a loss leader, what you sell is support and writing code upgrades, sense that programmer knows the system inside and out, he can charge a lot more for his future work on the software once it is past beta. Redhat is now a billion dollar company. Y
Fact: The definition of assault includes touching someone with intent to injure them or placing them in reasonable belief that you will do so.
Fact: Your threat prior to committing the assault indicated that your assault was an attempt to kill.
Fact: You did commit assault, by hitting me with a chair after telling me that you intended to harm me, you just don't know if it was justified.
Fact: If it's not justified, assault and assault with intent to kill are illegal.
Fact: You gave no justification in line with the definition in the law of the justification for assault when presenting the facts in your defense, so per the facts there is no justification that can be applied.
The definition of assault is an opinion. They generally read "whoever does X is guilty of Y" or "X shall be unlawful". What facts makes them unlawful? It is nothing more than the opinion of "legislatures" and someone's willingness to use violence to back it up.
The label of legality/ illegality, or that judgment is an addition to reality, not a description of it.
As to your distinction of opinion, attitude, and moor; it only makes a quantitative distinction rather than a qualitative one.
Every modern what? Every modern idiot?
You're three clicks away from a dictionary. I used the word as a noun. As a noun modern may mean "a man who is currently alive" or "any man who lived in western civilization during the age of modernity (1700-present)"
There's a difference between the lawkeepers and the lawbreakers, and that's justification.
Okay, one group came out on top and obtained impunity.This however is accidental to their actions.
The lawkeepers also try to uphold their responsibility not to make things worse, while the lawbreakers don't give a flying fuck.
To transferring 9 billion dollars to banks, and starting needless and senseless wars is caring?
It's absolutely false as you see in article 2, section 6 of the constitution. Congress is an absolute irresponsible body that may not be held to answer (legal liability) for any official action.
Yes the biggest difference comes from the PR scheme. They can't rule be mere force so they need to put on a minimum of appearances to keep people cooperating with them. However don't be fooled, it is just and appearance.
When a lawkeeper does something bad, it's a big deal to us all, makes a public stink, and we act on it.When a lawbreaker does something bad, the booking officer increments that box on the charge sheet and continues turning the crank with hardly anyone outside the perp, the cops, the court, and the victim ever knowing about it.
Again, just part of the PR. They'll publicly eat one of their own every now and then to keep up appearances.
And on top of all of this, I notice you still haven't given a factual and qualitative difference between what law-keepers and lawbreakers do. All that you've talked about is perception, and appearances and opinions and dicta. I'll even be nice and try to help you out.
To show a factual and qualitative difference between the lawbreaker and law-keeper, you need to point to some fact inherent in any act that is a crime, and absent in those acts which are not crimes. Some fact about the act that holds true irrespective and irregardless of any legal definition or opinion.
is not something you should say to a judge when you're the one in the handcuffs. It's been tried before, and all the precedents say it's not sufficient argument. You'll have to have something specific as to why what you did was illegal but its illegality is the suspect part of the equation. Preferably something based on the facts of the law and not your opinions of the law.
Do you know the difference between fact and opinion?
Fact- something that is real, certain existing.
Opinion -addition, distortion, or deletion of that reality.
Lets take a set of facts: 1, I yell "I'm going to kill you" and then 2. break a chair over your head. Those are the facts. That I assaulted you is just an opinion, an addition, that is an interpretation of those facts.
No study of the facts alone will reveal weather what I did was legal or illegal. To get that you need the addition of a legal opinion.
You go around talking about facts of law while ignoring the fact that all law is an opinion.
Factually what is a law?
Factually the law is the opinion of a group of men and women who do business as the barrel of a gun.
In a positivist framework, which is held by almost every modern, there is no factual or qualitative difference between the operation of law keepers and the operation of criminals.
If a criminal holds a gun against your head and tells you that you should do X, then that is factually the same as making a law. Now I'm not going to tell the criminal at that moment, "Well X is just you opinion", but that doesn't mean it isn't just his opinion.
A test or grade is an inadequate report of an inaccurate judgment by a biased and variable judge of the extent to which a student has attained an undefined level of mastery of an unknown proportion of an indefinite material.
Have you tried to calculate current inflation with the pre-clinton CPI method? It's consistently a higher rate by 5% or more, and even the pre-clinton method is cheating a little. The main salvation is mechanization which has made just about everything cheaper to produce in absolute terms. (material and labor inputs)
" R&D is about 10% of the amount made on the sale of drugs. "
False.
"The marketing of drugs can be upwards of 50% sometimes more "
not on new drugs. older drugs that aren't patents see 50% of their total costs in marketing. That's because the cost of manufacturing has dropped for the drug, and the RnD costs have been depreciated. It's harder to make money froma drug with an expired patent, that's why they have a larger push.
They money the companies get from the government, for the vast large part, is so they will produce drugs they make little to know money producing, like vaccines.
The RnD for Drugs and the RnD for 'tech' is vastly different. It's far FAR more expensive for drug companies. The exception being that medical devices are about the same in RnD has Drugs. When was the last time a mp3 manufacture had to have the plays go through a series of animal test? Develop a new molecule?.
And software RnD is DIRT CHEAP compared to any other RnD.
All RnD is NOT tax deductible.
Regulatory approval can constitute up to 80% of the cost of bringing a drug to market. Drug companies are a little weird because they aren't just drug companies, but drug effectiveness research companies. This creates a huge conflict of interest. The same people who want to sell the drugs are the same people designing the studies to try to prove that they work. The solution is to find a way to separate the two. Have insurance companies and doctors or a separate agency be responsible for making sure that drugs prescribed are safe and effective, and just let drug companies worry about the best process to make a particular drug in bulk.
Slashdot Mirror
Isn't is interesting that M$ prices their software right below the point where it would benefit most companies not to keep using it?
No, broken window fallacy is usually about destruction. If the costs of staying local are the same as outsourcing, staying local makes it more likely that the money will come back to you sooner rather than later. That engineer is more likely to send his kids to the college, or take a few classes himself than a sales rep for Microsoft living in a different city or state. Protectionism usually reflects the reverse railroad fallacy, and economic finding that tariffs are like a reverse railroad, they have the same effect as an increase in the cost of transportation. However nobody is suggesting a tariff so it doesn't apply.
I kind of doubt it, IPv4 hasn't proven to be a great barrier to censorship. Technologies that circumvent the censor, work better if every machine is individually addressable (proxy, tunneling...) and with increased bandwidth it shouldn't be hard to hide say a general browsing session tunneled into what looks like a video stream to censors.
I can see no rational reason for TFA calling this a "surprising lack of diversity".
Niether can I. And the other question is previously thought by whom? I was a plant science major, and all of my professors and TA's said over 250,000 known species. That this study demonstrated over 300,000 unique species, which would show that there is more actual diversity than previously thought by experts in the feild. There may be a million different scientific names in use, but as you pointed out nobody in the know actually believed there were a million different species known.
I wonder if an ipv6 implementation/protocol could/does solve this. Use the /64 prefix and have the suffix just be ::any in the DNS AAAA records. When the client gets a response it will know which specific server to talk to from that point on.
It lacks attenuation. An master of his instrument and music will induce small variations in order to better blend sequences notes and harmonies together. This robot isn't even trying to do that. A robot will never do that on it's own, at best it will be able to listen to an instrument in a certain style, recursively deduce some of the rules that a master uses and implement them.
Source? Testing?
Of course Kodak is going to claim Kodak is the most X, but I'm somewhat critical of self tests
150,000 dollar times even a modest 250,000 devices sold.... 37 Billion dollars.
If they don't release the code, you may find yourself in the position of a device which is unsupported, and not supportable without a lengthy and expensive reverse engineering process. If a company releases code you will be assured that the device is supportable indefinitely into the future.
If it's just one tablet that you'll break before two years are up it's probably not a big deal, but if you are buying 10,000 of them for an important long-term application it makes a lot of difference. The difference between being at the mercy of the amount of energy and support a company will put into an old product, and weather the company will even be around any more, as opposed to the option of being able to provide support and update in-house if necessary
Also if you get the GPL device it's possible and even probable that someone will port the device to alternative uses so you can re purpose it if you don't need it for the original purpose.
Bludgening companies around with the GPL isn't nice, and would cost a lot of public support. The whole idea and point of the GPL was that bludgeoning people around with copyright and patents like some companies do isn't very nice. It's a way to fight fire with fire, but all being said, it's just better to avoid lighting fires that you might have to fight later in the first place.
It's like how Microsoft doesn't go after individuals that pirate windows at home or school. They mainly go after distributors and businesses because they don't want the publicity of taking grandpa Joe's house because his techie 14-year old grandnephew thought it would be nice to give him and upgrade with a pirated copy from bit-torrent. Looking the other way helps FOSS and the GPL come into the public awareness, whereas perusing a multi-billion dollar copyright suit would scare the living daylights out of vendors and manufacturers so much that they'd never touch and open source kernel and interface again.
Regardless of who maintains the website this YOU person is responsible for keeping the offer made to distribute the source code. With a commercial distribution of unmodified code you can in theory point to someone else's sources that are on line, but if they were to go off line, then YOU would still be responsible for fulfilling the offer made.
Ya it does, thee first amendment states that "Congress shall make no law..." so as long as they try to prosecute him according to some law the first amendment applies.
Ellis III ruled that to obtain a conviction of individuals who had not worked for the government but had received information from individuals who had, prosecutors must prove that the defendant actually intended to harm the U.S. or to help an enemy.
Is harming the inner conspiracy the same as harm the U.S.? Should a very small section of moneyed and clandestine operations be considered representative of the U.S. as a whole? Shouldn't the informing of everyone of the current political state allow them to make political decisions to better reflect their own interest rather than that of an elite, entrenched and empowered subset? That's what this is really about, the inability to keep secrets means the inability to operate conspiracies.
Will they take into account their own simulation, will they a simulate the simulation on the simulation and the the simulation simulated on the simulation on the simulation.... turtles all the way down style?
Liberware? Humaneware?
For closed software: Bend-over-and take-it-Ware?
Of course, It's a loss leader, what you sell is support and writing code upgrades, sense that programmer knows the system inside and out, he can charge a lot more for his future work on the software once it is past beta. Redhat is now a billion dollar company. Y
-Year of the Linux e-reader
-Year of the Linux home router
Comming soon
-Year of the Linux microwave (2015)
-Year of the Linux Swiss Army knife (2019)
Splice into a fiber optic main and and start a mesh network.
Must be a conspiracy from the human extinction movement.
dd-WRT has an option to support it. It's mainly an issue of firmware rather than hardware, especially for any router that uses linux in it's firmware.
Fact: The definition of assault includes touching someone with intent to injure them or placing them in reasonable belief that you will do so. Fact: Your threat prior to committing the assault indicated that your assault was an attempt to kill. Fact: You did commit assault, by hitting me with a chair after telling me that you intended to harm me, you just don't know if it was justified. Fact: If it's not justified, assault and assault with intent to kill are illegal. Fact: You gave no justification in line with the definition in the law of the justification for assault when presenting the facts in your defense, so per the facts there is no justification that can be applied.
The definition of assault is an opinion. They generally read "whoever does X is guilty of Y" or "X shall be unlawful". What facts makes them unlawful? It is nothing more than the opinion of "legislatures" and someone's willingness to use violence to back it up.
The label of legality/ illegality, or that judgment is an addition to reality, not a description of it.
As to your distinction of opinion, attitude, and moor; it only makes a quantitative distinction rather than a qualitative one.
Every modern what? Every modern idiot?
You're three clicks away from a dictionary. I used the word as a noun. As a noun modern may mean "a man who is currently alive" or "any man who lived in western civilization during the age of modernity (1700-present)"
There's a difference between the lawkeepers and the lawbreakers, and that's justification.
Okay, one group came out on top and obtained impunity.This however is accidental to their actions.
The lawkeepers also try to uphold their responsibility not to make things worse, while the lawbreakers don't give a flying fuck.
To transferring 9 billion dollars to banks, and starting needless and senseless wars is caring? It's absolutely false as you see in article 2, section 6 of the constitution. Congress is an absolute irresponsible body that may not be held to answer (legal liability) for any official action. Yes the biggest difference comes from the PR scheme. They can't rule be mere force so they need to put on a minimum of appearances to keep people cooperating with them. However don't be fooled, it is just and appearance.
When a lawkeeper does something bad, it's a big deal to us all, makes a public stink, and we act on it.When a lawbreaker does something bad, the booking officer increments that box on the charge sheet and continues turning the crank with hardly anyone outside the perp, the cops, the court, and the victim ever knowing about it.
Again, just part of the PR. They'll publicly eat one of their own every now and then to keep up appearances.
And on top of all of this, I notice you still haven't given a factual and qualitative difference between what law-keepers and lawbreakers do. All that you've talked about is perception, and appearances and opinions and dicta. I'll even be nice and try to help you out.
To show a factual and qualitative difference between the lawbreaker and law-keeper, you need to point to some fact inherent in any act that is a crime, and absent in those acts which are not crimes. Some fact about the act that holds true irrespective and irregardless of any legal definition or opinion.
Yes, as I said, currency. We don't have one.
It's all paper for paper unfortunately.
legal/ legal is just an opinion.
is not something you should say to a judge when you're the one in the handcuffs. It's been tried before, and all the precedents say it's not sufficient argument. You'll have to have something specific as to why what you did was illegal but its illegality is the suspect part of the equation. Preferably something based on the facts of the law and not your opinions of the law.
Do you know the difference between fact and opinion?
Fact- something that is real, certain existing.
Opinion -addition, distortion, or deletion of that reality.
Lets take a set of facts: 1, I yell "I'm going to kill you" and then 2. break a chair over your head. Those are the facts. That I assaulted you is just an opinion, an addition, that is an interpretation of those facts. No study of the facts alone will reveal weather what I did was legal or illegal. To get that you need the addition of a legal opinion.
You go around talking about facts of law while ignoring the fact that all law is an opinion. Factually what is a law? Factually the law is the opinion of a group of men and women who do business as the barrel of a gun. In a positivist framework, which is held by almost every modern, there is no factual or qualitative difference between the operation of law keepers and the operation of criminals. If a criminal holds a gun against your head and tells you that you should do X, then that is factually the same as making a law. Now I'm not going to tell the criminal at that moment, "Well X is just you opinion", but that doesn't mean it isn't just his opinion.
A test or grade is an inadequate report of an inaccurate judgment by a biased and variable judge of the extent to which a student has attained an undefined level of mastery of an unknown proportion of an indefinite material.
Have you tried to calculate current inflation with the pre-clinton CPI method? It's consistently a higher rate by 5% or more, and even the pre-clinton method is cheating a little. The main salvation is mechanization which has made just about everything cheaper to produce in absolute terms. (material and labor inputs)
Illegal/ legal is just an opinion. If X doesn't harm any specific person, then It's nobodies business if I do X.
" R&D is about 10% of the amount made on the sale of drugs. "
False.
"The marketing of drugs can be upwards of 50% sometimes more " not on new drugs. older drugs that aren't patents see 50% of their total costs in marketing. That's because the cost of manufacturing has dropped for the drug, and the RnD costs have been depreciated. It's harder to make money froma drug with an expired patent, that's why they have a larger push.
They money the companies get from the government, for the vast large part, is so they will produce drugs they make little to know money producing, like vaccines.
The RnD for Drugs and the RnD for 'tech' is vastly different. It's far FAR more expensive for drug companies. The exception being that medical devices are about the same in RnD has Drugs. When was the last time a mp3 manufacture had to have the plays go through a series of animal test? Develop a new molecule?.
And software RnD is DIRT CHEAP compared to any other RnD.
All RnD is NOT tax deductible.
Regulatory approval can constitute up to 80% of the cost of bringing a drug to market. Drug companies are a little weird because they aren't just drug companies, but drug effectiveness research companies. This creates a huge conflict of interest. The same people who want to sell the drugs are the same people designing the studies to try to prove that they work. The solution is to find a way to separate the two. Have insurance companies and doctors or a separate agency be responsible for making sure that drugs prescribed are safe and effective, and just let drug companies worry about the best process to make a particular drug in bulk.