I'm Rich app on the iPhone, $999 for a fucking spinning digital jewel. What were you saying? You *REALLY* need to get away from your computer and go see the real world, because it's becoming painfully obvious you're not paying enough attention.
So... you really -- REALLY -- believe that if gaming companies decided to charge $1000 for their games, people would just pay it? And the companies would make a huge amount of money from that?
Ladies and Gentleman, I present proof that economics education is needed even worse than I thought.
Sheesh, the arrogance of many Slashdotters knows no bounds. I wasn't writing a term paper on supply and demand, I was giving an oversimplified view (in a 60 second post) for someone who had zero knowledge of how the world works, which is sadly too common. It was supposed to jog their brain into thinking about the truth, not give them a complete analysis of a market. Sheesh.
market forces have no control over initial prices, only what the price will trend towards. Companies could base their initial price on anything at all- greed being a significant factor.
Uh, who said anything about "initial" prices? That has no relevancy to the current discussion. And even if it did, why don't companies charge $1,000 / game, and be REALLY greedy? By your logic, market forces don't matter and people would just pay it.
If the quality of the product and the price of the alternatives are the only driving factors, then I conclude that people are unwilling to pay equal amounts for a product that has no associated baseline costs and a product whose cost is dominated by those factors.
I didn't say that were the "only" factors. Obviously, they are not the only factors. People (at this point, at least) prefer paper. Paper and electronic formats are in competition with each other, hence the reason one is cheaper than the other, because people don't perceive them as equivalent.
And this is why we need mandatory economics education for every student.
Price is not based on "greed", price is based on supply and demand. Companies charge what you are willing to pay, which is influenced by the quality of the product and the price of the alternatives.
That's why electronic books are not significantly cheaper than paper books. The price of the paper and distribution is only a baseline lowest cost, it has nothing to do with what someone is willing to pay.
No one claims that. I'll give you another analogy though. I'm gonna flip a coin. Heads or tails? Getting it right is going to be pretty much a crapshot. You can try and calculate it, but good luck with that. However, if I ask you how many heads there'll be after 1000 coins flips, and ask you for only a 95% confidence interval - what's it gonna be? And how sure would you be of your answer?
And I'll give you an analogy of climate science. Let's say I drop balls into the top of a box that bounce around on pegs. They will come out the bottom at any one of 20 slots. But I only show you 10% of where the pegs are, and the other 90% of the box is covered. The pegs are also shaped in crazy shapes. And the pegs are movable and tied together with elastic (i.e., they all interact together). Now calculate the distribution of where the balls will come out. Sure, you could model that and make a prediction, and call it statistical science. But that's a long way from modeling reality.
Here's the thing: We make simpler models of infinitely complicated systems ALL THE TIME.
Who said we didn't? But to say that the physicists who calculated the half-life of uranium was equivalently complex to climatologists modeling Earth's entire ecosystem is just absurd. Provably absurd, since we've known uranium half-life for quite some time, while climate models are still leading edge research.
The standard model is even woefully lacking (Gravity?) and as to provable, you've got to be kidding.
Again, who said that we have perfect knowledge of physics? I said no such thing. I said our level of knowledge of physics is far higher than climatology. And it is. Sorry, but it is laughably ridiculous to compare climatology to almost any field in physics. If you want to compare climatology to, say, economic theory, I'll listen to that argument.
If you think relativity, molecular theory or evolution are 'provably accurate' you're in for a hell of a shock -
Relativity is provably accurate because we can actually make a prediction and then test it. It's provably accurate until it is proven inaccurate. Unlike climate science, which is nearly impossible to prove or disprove in the real world.
It's a statistical science. But then again, so is radioactive decay. I take it, to be consistent, that you're now going to declare that we can't possibly measure half-lives of many isotopes because it relies on models.
What are you talking about? Are you saying radioactive decay is calculated by using a computer model using hundreds of poorly understood variables (with hundreds, if not thousands of "unknown unknowns"), with very little verification -- similar to climatology science?
What you've done is another favorite anti-evolution tactic, an attempt to declare a particular field of research insufficiently "sciencey", that somehow its tools inadequate or prone to bias, while ignoring that similar tools are used in all other sorts of research.
And what you've done is a favorite religious tactic, which is dismissing anyone as a heretic who dares to question "the authorities", while not even understanding your own authorities at all.
If you think climatology is as solid as physics, chemistry or evolution, then you are simply ignorant of how they all work. In fact, don't take my word for it. Go ask a climatologist research if they think their theories and models are as provably accurate as, say, relativity theory, molecular theory or evolutionary theory. I refuse to believe there is one out there that is so dishonest that they would say their level of knowledge is on par with physicists or chemists.
Are you seriously stating that ALL climate information and ALL source code, prior to climategate, was freely available at all times, and the freedom of information requests were just for information that was already freely available?
I wouldn't, for instance, have the vaguest idea what to do with the raw data coming out of CERN, would you? Meaningful scrutiny comes from people with the skills to scrutinize.
And there are numerous other people who either do have the skills, or might be motivated to learn to get the skills. Would you also say that because not everyone would understand the latest theory in particle physics, therefore, the research should only be available to "certain people" who have been approved by the physics elite? What's the difference between particle physics and climate research? Could it be that one is more "real science" than the other?
one of the fears of scientists in this case is that you'll get a whole bunch of people who don't really have the skills to interpret the data making wild declarations, or possibly worse, people who do know how to interpret the data overstating or inventing problems with sufficiently clever arguments to fool layman.
Hmm, science through obscurity. Interesting notion of knowledge you have.
This is what has happened in the anti-evolution movement, where a few reasonably skilled anti-evolution types like Michael Behe have in fact used their skills to create bogus arguments that sound scientific.
The anti-evolution people are that way because their ancient book tells them to be that way. It's about religion, not science. Evolution is an absolute fact with a mountain of evidence behind it.
Climate research is not even remotely close to Biology/Evolution as a science. Most (though not all) of climate research is based on computer models, which is very shaky evidence at this stage of our technology. Unfortunately, climatology is somewhere between science and religion right now, because it's highly politicized.
Disclosure of the full dataset that is available doesn't get you much, because the model (the programs) is so complicated. So you have something that is unintelligible to anyone that isn't working on it. That is a large part of what the whole "climategate" furor was over. The data wasn't released because it was impenetratable and obtuse, when it was relased it was found to be impenetratable and obtuse - and very, very hard to understand in the "right" way.
Which is exactly why I don't trust computer models as "evidence" of anything. If it's that complex and difficult to understand, then bugs in the model become a significant probability. If they want people to trust their models, then they need to use STANDARD modeling software that has been thoroughly peer-reviewed, and any published results have to be absolutely reproducible using the published dataset.
To me, the most shocking thing in Climategate was that not only was the data not published, but the source code to the model wasn't published, either. That is simply an unacceptable way to do science.
Well, they're not going to say, "we lied", but news retractions are fairly common. A high profile case was CBS news retracting Dan Rather's statements. You can google numerous other examples, large and small.
Even on smart phones, Opera Mini is useful sometimes if you need low bandwidth usage. But it's never intended to be a replacement browser for phones that already have a better browser.
So you're saying it sucks as a browser, and it's unfair to review it as a browser, because it's not intended to be a good browser? What? Exactly on what basis should it be reviewed?
It's a browser. If I'm reading a review of a browser, then I expect to read a review about how good it is as a browser. If it sucks, then it sucks.
I don't think most normal people had that association. I think a few people had it, made a few immature blog postings about it, and it became fashionable for "everyone" to say that they "immediately" had that association. But it's just stupid that out of the numerous meanings of "pad", the seemingly ONLY definition now in people's minds is feminine pads, as though the word has never had a different meaning.
I'm sorry, but if the word "pad", a perfectly reasonable word, immediately brings to mind menstruation, then there's something wrong with you, not with the word.
Sheesh, forget your drama queen pills this morning?
There is nothing terrible about this decision, because this decision has nothing to do with net neutrality. It was a decision about whether a government agency has carte blanche to do whatever the hell it wants without any congressional oversight, much less voter oversight.
Please, get a clue. Anyone with a brain does NOT WANT GOVERNMENT AGENCIES HAVING UNLIMITED POWER, even if they do things you like. They next decision might be something you don't like, and you won't have any way to stop them.
If you want net neutrality, then fine, get the government to pass a law. That's the way we do things in a representative democracy. We do NOT want government by executive order.
Example: If it sais Unix on the CV, I might ask what the difference is about SystemV and BSD. Not a trick question but probably something they cant answer.
That's a really lousy question. I've been using Unix-variants every day for 20+ years, and I probably could've told you 20 years ago the differences, but these days I have too much other stuff clogging my brain. That information is just not relevant to today's world where if you want something done, you look at the manual for this variant and see how to do it. That's just historical trivia.
The fundamental problem here is that you don't understand what mathematics actually is. And you don't understand what machines actually are. And you don't understand the relationship between the two. You throw out all these concepts as though you're spouting some fundamental truth that no one else understands, yet you completely miss the intrinsic truths of your own points, much less my points.
Well, congratulations. You've defeated me. I bow to the impenetrable granite of your skull.
I'm not sure why I'm bothering though. Like flat-earthers, you will never be convinced no matter how many citations I give, or no matter how many scientists and mathematicians explain that you are wrong.
Sheesh! Learn the difference between mathematical analysis of process, and mathematical abstraction. ALL MECHANICAL PROCESSES, INCLUDING SOFTWARE, ARE SUBJECT TO MATHEMATICS. That doesn't mean that they ARE mathematics. Mathematics is a tool of ANALYSIS.
Good God, what do you think mathematics is USED FOR? Do you really think that because I can apply a formula to levers, that means that levers are a mathematical abstraction?
Basically, you are telling me that because software can be analyzed by mathematics, therefore, is IS mathematics. Sorry, but you are Just Plain Wrong. You don't understand what mathematics is.
This is absurd, of all the ways to argue for software patents, you guys choose "software isn't math"? Something that is considered to be a mathematical truth? That is just setting yourself up to look like an inbred illiterate, on the same level as flatearthers or Kansas schoolboard members.
Sheesh. I'm sorry, but you have no idea what math is, or what software is.
Math is an abstraction, it doesn't exist in any real sense. It is simply a statement of truth, like 1 + 1 = 2.
Software is a MACHINE. It's an organized system of steps, just like any other machine. Instead of levers and gears, you have ifs and formulas. Instead of a motor turning the machine, you have a program counter. Instead of blue prints, you have a source listing. The whole point of software is AUTOMATION. Just like mechanical machines. It performs a task over a period of time.
Mathematics does not do anything, it simply IS. It's completely abstract. You can't "execute" a mathematical formula.
Man, I haven't seen someone so arrogantly and pompously wrong on Slashdot in quite some time.
This is really a bad idea. The nose is actually one of the few parts of the body that grows (and changes) your entire life. Never mind swelling from colds, etc.
you want just plain silly the computer models they use are different from the ones in use by the weather dept. The weather Dept is only good for about 3 days ahead. If our current setups are good for just days in advance why do they think that their models are accurate over thousands of years?
Playing devil's advocate...
Apples and oranges. Predicting local weather 3 days in advance is like throwing a coin and predicting whether it's going to land heads up or tails up by calculating the air stress on the coin, factoring in the landing zone, and all other factors. That's difficult and inaccurate. Predicting weather a thousand years from now is like throwing a million coins and predicting how many heads, how many tails, (roughly 50/50) and what shape the pile is going to be (roughly a circular mound). That's easy and predictable.
Of course, climates are much more complex than a pile of coins, so even the thousand year model is undeterministically complex.
I have to say, it's this specific reason that makes me wary of anthropogenic climate change. A lot of the evidence is based on computer models, and anyone who has programmed computers knows how difficult it is to get anything computer related right. The most shocking thing about "climategate" to me wasn't the content of the emails, it was the fact that the computer models used were NOT openly available to all, and were not published with the research papers. And when you combine that with the insane complexity of the climate and the limitations of our computers, I can't help but feel that computer models are a blunt, crude tool at best, and at worst a tool of misinformation (even if the wielders have "good intentions").
I'm willing to accept that human activity is causing significant climate change, but don't use computer models to prove it to me. By all means, use computer models to gather clues about what to test. But computer models are manufactured evidence that can be made to say anything. Anyone using computer models to argue that seismic shifts in human culture are needed should be taken out and flogged until their real agenda is admitted. No one with any clue about computers would argue that they are infallible oracles of truth (or even infallible controllers of accelerator pedals).
Take the health care debate, for example. It would cost exactly $0 to pass laws that says "Insurance companies cannot deny you for a preexisting condition". But that doesn't give the government control over the industry, instead they want to spend $800 billion to be an insurance company. Regulation is fine. Involvement is not.
So, what you're saying is that it takes $0 to put insurance companies out of business and lead us directly to government-provided healthcare?
Passing that law basically says no one healthy has to buy insurance until they have a reason to use it. Then they can promptly drop it once they get healthy again. Why not? Why keep insurance when you can get it anytime you want?
While I hate the idea of denying coverage to people, there are only two ways to do the insurance market. Either have the current system of denying coverage, or require / force everyone to be part of the system.
then by your definition it is time to bust up google as currently there is only 1 strong player in search advertising and that is google, everyone else is insignificant at the moment, they either join up to compete or continue to fade into obscurity.
I wouldn't be quite ready yet to bust up Google, since I think it's at least possible for other search players to gain some marketshare, but a few more years of dominance, and I could see forcing Google to split into three identical search companies with the same technology (none of which would get the name "Google"), and then let them compete against each other.
Hope and change... meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
I can't imagine any scenario where this benefits the market. I lean heavily toward free market economics, but one area where the government *must* exercise control is in creating more competition, not less.
I think if I were king, I'd pass a law that any market must have at least 3 or 4 strong players, otherwise it's monopoly bustin' time.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm Rich app on the iPhone, $999 for a fucking spinning digital jewel. What were you saying? You *REALLY* need to get away from your computer and go see the real world, because it's becoming painfully obvious you're not paying enough attention.
So... you really -- REALLY -- believe that if gaming companies decided to charge $1000 for their games, people would just pay it? And the companies would make a huge amount of money from that?
Ladies and Gentleman, I present proof that economics education is needed even worse than I thought.
Sheesh, the arrogance of many Slashdotters knows no bounds. I wasn't writing a term paper on supply and demand, I was giving an oversimplified view (in a 60 second post) for someone who had zero knowledge of how the world works, which is sadly too common. It was supposed to jog their brain into thinking about the truth, not give them a complete analysis of a market. Sheesh.
market forces have no control over initial prices, only what the price will trend towards. Companies could base their initial price on anything at all- greed being a significant factor.
Uh, who said anything about "initial" prices? That has no relevancy to the current discussion. And even if it did, why don't companies charge $1,000 / game, and be REALLY greedy? By your logic, market forces don't matter and people would just pay it.
If the quality of the product and the price of the alternatives are the only driving factors, then I conclude that people are unwilling to pay equal amounts for a product that has no associated baseline costs and a product whose cost is dominated by those factors.
I didn't say that were the "only" factors. Obviously, they are not the only factors. People (at this point, at least) prefer paper. Paper and electronic formats are in competition with each other, hence the reason one is cheaper than the other, because people don't perceive them as equivalent.
And this is why we need mandatory economics education for every student.
Price is not based on "greed", price is based on supply and demand. Companies charge what you are willing to pay, which is influenced by the quality of the product and the price of the alternatives.
That's why electronic books are not significantly cheaper than paper books. The price of the paper and distribution is only a baseline lowest cost, it has nothing to do with what someone is willing to pay.
No one claims that. I'll give you another analogy though. I'm gonna flip a coin. Heads or tails? Getting it right is going to be pretty much a crapshot. You can try and calculate it, but good luck with that. However, if I ask you how many heads there'll be after 1000 coins flips, and ask you for only a 95% confidence interval - what's it gonna be? And how sure would you be of your answer?
And I'll give you an analogy of climate science. Let's say I drop balls into the top of a box that bounce around on pegs. They will come out the bottom at any one of 20 slots. But I only show you 10% of where the pegs are, and the other 90% of the box is covered. The pegs are also shaped in crazy shapes. And the pegs are movable and tied together with elastic (i.e., they all interact together). Now calculate the distribution of where the balls will come out. Sure, you could model that and make a prediction, and call it statistical science. But that's a long way from modeling reality.
Here's the thing: We make simpler models of infinitely complicated systems ALL THE TIME.
Who said we didn't? But to say that the physicists who calculated the half-life of uranium was equivalently complex to climatologists modeling Earth's entire ecosystem is just absurd. Provably absurd, since we've known uranium half-life for quite some time, while climate models are still leading edge research.
The standard model is even woefully lacking (Gravity?) and as to provable, you've got to be kidding.
Again, who said that we have perfect knowledge of physics? I said no such thing. I said our level of knowledge of physics is far higher than climatology. And it is. Sorry, but it is laughably ridiculous to compare climatology to almost any field in physics. If you want to compare climatology to, say, economic theory, I'll listen to that argument.
If you think relativity, molecular theory or evolution are 'provably accurate' you're in for a hell of a shock -
Relativity is provably accurate because we can actually make a prediction and then test it. It's provably accurate until it is proven inaccurate. Unlike climate science, which is nearly impossible to prove or disprove in the real world.
It's a statistical science. But then again, so is radioactive decay. I take it, to be consistent, that you're now going to declare that we can't possibly measure half-lives of many isotopes because it relies on models.
What are you talking about? Are you saying radioactive decay is calculated by using a computer model using hundreds of poorly understood variables (with hundreds, if not thousands of "unknown unknowns"), with very little verification -- similar to climatology science?
What you've done is another favorite anti-evolution tactic, an attempt to declare a particular field of research insufficiently "sciencey", that somehow its tools inadequate or prone to bias, while ignoring that similar tools are used in all other sorts of research.
And what you've done is a favorite religious tactic, which is dismissing anyone as a heretic who dares to question "the authorities", while not even understanding your own authorities at all.
If you think climatology is as solid as physics, chemistry or evolution, then you are simply ignorant of how they all work. In fact, don't take my word for it. Go ask a climatologist research if they think their theories and models are as provably accurate as, say, relativity theory, molecular theory or evolutionary theory. I refuse to believe there is one out there that is so dishonest that they would say their level of knowledge is on par with physicists or chemists.
Really this is getting pathetic.
Are you seriously stating that ALL climate information and ALL source code, prior to climategate, was freely available at all times, and the freedom of information requests were just for information that was already freely available?
I wouldn't, for instance, have the vaguest idea what to do with the raw data coming out of CERN, would you? Meaningful scrutiny comes from people with the skills to scrutinize.
And there are numerous other people who either do have the skills, or might be motivated to learn to get the skills. Would you also say that because not everyone would understand the latest theory in particle physics, therefore, the research should only be available to "certain people" who have been approved by the physics elite? What's the difference between particle physics and climate research? Could it be that one is more "real science" than the other?
one of the fears of scientists in this case is that you'll get a whole bunch of people who don't really have the skills to interpret the data making wild declarations, or possibly worse, people who do know how to interpret the data overstating or inventing problems with sufficiently clever arguments to fool layman.
Hmm, science through obscurity. Interesting notion of knowledge you have.
This is what has happened in the anti-evolution movement, where a few reasonably skilled anti-evolution types like Michael Behe have in fact used their skills to create bogus arguments that sound scientific.
The anti-evolution people are that way because their ancient book tells them to be that way. It's about religion, not science. Evolution is an absolute fact with a mountain of evidence behind it.
Climate research is not even remotely close to Biology/Evolution as a science. Most (though not all) of climate research is based on computer models, which is very shaky evidence at this stage of our technology. Unfortunately, climatology is somewhere between science and religion right now, because it's highly politicized.
Disclosure of the full dataset that is available doesn't get you much, because the model (the programs) is so complicated. So you have something that is unintelligible to anyone that isn't working on it. That is a large part of what the whole "climategate" furor was over. The data wasn't released because it was impenetratable and obtuse, when it was relased it was found to be impenetratable and obtuse - and very, very hard to understand in the "right" way.
Which is exactly why I don't trust computer models as "evidence" of anything. If it's that complex and difficult to understand, then bugs in the model become a significant probability. If they want people to trust their models, then they need to use STANDARD modeling software that has been thoroughly peer-reviewed, and any published results have to be absolutely reproducible using the published dataset.
To me, the most shocking thing in Climategate was that not only was the data not published, but the source code to the model wasn't published, either. That is simply an unacceptable way to do science.
Well, they're not going to say, "we lied", but news retractions are fairly common. A high profile case was CBS news retracting Dan Rather's statements. You can google numerous other examples, large and small.
Even on smart phones, Opera Mini is useful sometimes if you need low bandwidth usage. But it's never intended to be a replacement browser for phones that already have a better browser.
So you're saying it sucks as a browser, and it's unfair to review it as a browser, because it's not intended to be a good browser? What? Exactly on what basis should it be reviewed?
It's a browser. If I'm reading a review of a browser, then I expect to read a review about how good it is as a browser. If it sucks, then it sucks.
I don't think most normal people had that association. I think a few people had it, made a few immature blog postings about it, and it became fashionable for "everyone" to say that they "immediately" had that association. But it's just stupid that out of the numerous meanings of "pad", the seemingly ONLY definition now in people's minds is feminine pads, as though the word has never had a different meaning.
I'm sorry, but if the word "pad", a perfectly reasonable word, immediately brings to mind menstruation, then there's something wrong with you, not with the word.
Sheesh, forget your drama queen pills this morning?
There is nothing terrible about this decision, because this decision has nothing to do with net neutrality. It was a decision about whether a government agency has carte blanche to do whatever the hell it wants without any congressional oversight, much less voter oversight.
Please, get a clue. Anyone with a brain does NOT WANT GOVERNMENT AGENCIES HAVING UNLIMITED POWER, even if they do things you like. They next decision might be something you don't like, and you won't have any way to stop them.
If you want net neutrality, then fine, get the government to pass a law. That's the way we do things in a representative democracy. We do NOT want government by executive order.
Example: If it sais Unix on the CV, I might ask what the difference is about SystemV and BSD. Not a trick question but probably something they cant answer.
That's a really lousy question. I've been using Unix-variants every day for 20+ years, and I probably could've told you 20 years ago the differences, but these days I have too much other stuff clogging my brain. That information is just not relevant to today's world where if you want something done, you look at the manual for this variant and see how to do it. That's just historical trivia.
The fundamental problem here is that you don't understand what mathematics actually is. And you don't understand what machines actually are. And you don't understand the relationship between the two. You throw out all these concepts as though you're spouting some fundamental truth that no one else understands, yet you completely miss the intrinsic truths of your own points, much less my points.
Well, congratulations. You've defeated me. I bow to the impenetrable granite of your skull.
I'm not sure why I'm bothering though. Like flat-earthers, you will never be convinced no matter how many citations I give, or no matter how many scientists and mathematicians explain that you are wrong.
On the contrary, it's even more amazing how completely wrong YOU are.
Sheesh! Learn the difference between mathematical analysis of process, and mathematical abstraction. ALL MECHANICAL PROCESSES, INCLUDING SOFTWARE, ARE SUBJECT TO MATHEMATICS. That doesn't mean that they ARE mathematics. Mathematics is a tool of ANALYSIS.
Good God, what do you think mathematics is USED FOR? Do you really think that because I can apply a formula to levers, that means that levers are a mathematical abstraction?
Basically, you are telling me that because software can be analyzed by mathematics, therefore, is IS mathematics. Sorry, but you are Just Plain Wrong. You don't understand what mathematics is.
This is absurd, of all the ways to argue for software patents, you guys choose "software isn't math"? Something that is considered to be a mathematical truth? That is just setting yourself up to look like an inbred illiterate, on the same level as flatearthers or Kansas schoolboard members.
Sheesh. I'm sorry, but you have no idea what math is, or what software is.
Math is an abstraction, it doesn't exist in any real sense. It is simply a statement of truth, like 1 + 1 = 2.
Software is a MACHINE. It's an organized system of steps, just like any other machine. Instead of levers and gears, you have ifs and formulas. Instead of a motor turning the machine, you have a program counter. Instead of blue prints, you have a source listing. The whole point of software is AUTOMATION. Just like mechanical machines. It performs a task over a period of time.
Mathematics does not do anything, it simply IS. It's completely abstract. You can't "execute" a mathematical formula.
Man, I haven't seen someone so arrogantly and pompously wrong on Slashdot in quite some time.
This is really a bad idea. The nose is actually one of the few parts of the body that grows (and changes) your entire life. Never mind swelling from colds, etc.
you want just plain silly the computer models they use are different from the ones in use by the weather dept. The weather Dept is only good for about 3 days ahead. If our current setups are good for just days in advance why do they think that their models are accurate over thousands of years?
Playing devil's advocate...
Apples and oranges. Predicting local weather 3 days in advance is like throwing a coin and predicting whether it's going to land heads up or tails up by calculating the air stress on the coin, factoring in the landing zone, and all other factors. That's difficult and inaccurate. Predicting weather a thousand years from now is like throwing a million coins and predicting how many heads, how many tails, (roughly 50/50) and what shape the pile is going to be (roughly a circular mound). That's easy and predictable.
Of course, climates are much more complex than a pile of coins, so even the thousand year model is undeterministically complex.
I have to say, it's this specific reason that makes me wary of anthropogenic climate change. A lot of the evidence is based on computer models, and anyone who has programmed computers knows how difficult it is to get anything computer related right. The most shocking thing about "climategate" to me wasn't the content of the emails, it was the fact that the computer models used were NOT openly available to all, and were not published with the research papers. And when you combine that with the insane complexity of the climate and the limitations of our computers, I can't help but feel that computer models are a blunt, crude tool at best, and at worst a tool of misinformation (even if the wielders have "good intentions").
I'm willing to accept that human activity is causing significant climate change, but don't use computer models to prove it to me. By all means, use computer models to gather clues about what to test. But computer models are manufactured evidence that can be made to say anything. Anyone using computer models to argue that seismic shifts in human culture are needed should be taken out and flogged until their real agenda is admitted. No one with any clue about computers would argue that they are infallible oracles of truth (or even infallible controllers of accelerator pedals).
Take the health care debate, for example. It would cost exactly $0 to pass laws that says "Insurance companies cannot deny you for a preexisting condition". But that doesn't give the government control over the industry, instead they want to spend $800 billion to be an insurance company. Regulation is fine. Involvement is not.
So, what you're saying is that it takes $0 to put insurance companies out of business and lead us directly to government-provided healthcare?
Passing that law basically says no one healthy has to buy insurance until they have a reason to use it. Then they can promptly drop it once they get healthy again. Why not? Why keep insurance when you can get it anytime you want?
While I hate the idea of denying coverage to people, there are only two ways to do the insurance market. Either have the current system of denying coverage, or require / force everyone to be part of the system.
then by your definition it is time to bust up google as currently there is only 1 strong player in search advertising and that is google, everyone else is insignificant at the moment, they either join up to compete or continue to fade into obscurity.
I wouldn't be quite ready yet to bust up Google, since I think it's at least possible for other search players to gain some marketshare, but a few more years of dominance, and I could see forcing Google to split into three identical search companies with the same technology (none of which would get the name "Google"), and then let them compete against each other.
Hope and change... meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
I can't imagine any scenario where this benefits the market. I lean heavily toward free market economics, but one area where the government *must* exercise control is in creating more competition, not less.
I think if I were king, I'd pass a law that any market must have at least 3 or 4 strong players, otherwise it's monopoly bustin' time.