Problem with that is that it misses the idea that there are costs associated with both actions...
1) potential cost of not taking action if global warming, for example, is real: we get global warming
2) cost of taking action, whether or not global warming is real: slowed economic growth, or perhaps contraction.
It is CRUCIAL to remember that things like the Kyoto treaty are in NO WAY costless, but instead will definitely have penalties to economic growth. Also, given that pollution (to stick with the global warming example) lessens as economies mature and technological developments occur, penalizing economic growth could have a 'double-whammy' effect of slowing economic growth causing slowing rate of improvement in greenhouse gas emissions, for example.
So, even in the 'absence of information', it does not necessarily follow that we should try to enforce drastic emissions cuts "to be on the safe side". Because if we are wrong about global warming (which you yourself admit that we may well be), we will do nothing but screw ourselves economically for decades to come.
An interesting side point: Matt Ridley (very well known evolutionary biologist) noted something in a recent Spectator article which I believe came from Lomborg --
"It is well known that meeting the Kyoto treaty on carbon-dioxide reduction will delay global warming by six years at most by 2100. Yet the annual cost of that treaty, in each year of the century, will be the same as the cost -- once -- of installing clean drinking water and sanitation for every human being on the planet. Priorities, anyone? "
I have to agree -- the so-called Green movement does very little to think about these trade-offs, and seems content to raise scare after scare. And eventually, this creates a situation where we no longer know where to spend our money. Listening to them, we may find in 50 years that we wasted so much time, money, and effort trying to fight off 30 imagined 'doomsday' problems along with the handful of real ones that we can't actually address the real problems in a meaningful way!
This argument is like saying that Ferrari is price discriminating because they are charging so much that you can't afford to buy one -- because you can't haggle them down far enough to buy.
Bullshit! They can charge whatever they want, and you can buy or not buy. Or are you going to start telling Ferrari that they can only charge what a customer is willing to pay? That would be a great way to start putting companies out of business, now wouldn't it?
True, but you forget an important thing. Revenue is not the only driver of 'bottom line'. Bottom line is profitability, which is also heavily influenced by _cost_.
This is a problem many retailers still suffer from, which Amazon appears intelligent enough to avoid -- you should attempt to maximize margin, not revenue.
Also, it is not necessarily fair to say that 'a corporation which does not maximize its profits is ripping off its shareholders'. Over what time frame are we talking, here? Again, Amazon is a good example. They could have been profitable a couple of years ago in the book business, but decided to plow a lot more money into growing the business. So they did not maximize profitability, at least in the shorter term. The tradeoff is that their long-term strategic viability (again, in the book business) is greatly increased, as is their future earnings.
The basic point here is that you appear to be oversimplifying a rather complex issue.
A major problem with the 'just do a survey' approach is that people actually don't usually have the ability to articulate what they will actually pay.
Example: do a survey of what factors drive customer satisfaction in a grocery store. If you ask them, almost every single person will say that they are price-sensitive. Which is true, but only to a degree -- and for many people, that is a small degree compared to how sensitive they are to product quality, range of selections offered, and other things.
This is why you do a price study like this -- it's the only way to get good data to inform your business decisions. A survey won't cut it; you actually have to just change prices and see if peoples' buying behavior changes.
As a side note, it is interesting to notice that there seems to be an underlying assumption most people have these days that they have some sort of right to a certain price. That's bullshit. You have the right to decide if you want to pay a price or not. And the seller has the right to decide at what price he/she will sell. The transaction is between buyer and seller, not those two plus some other guy who bought a similar product some other time.
The lesson here is that you should pay attention to what prices you're paying, if you care. And if you don't, expect that you'll probably pay more than other people will sometimes. Of course, as intelligent people, we should already expect this effect.
And, as has already been noted in this thread, you're free to walk away if you don't like the price. That is your strongest vote as a consumer.
I think you're missing the point as to how valuations work in an acquisition scenario.
The market capitalization of TWX, you correctly state, is (or was) significantly less than the amount which they are being paid by AOL.
This makes sense, though. First off, you will ALWAYS pay more than the straight market value of a company in order to acquire it. Second, and more importantly, the reason AOL bought TWX in the first place is because it's worth more to AOL than it is as a standalone!
What this means is that TWX's content, cable plant, and customer base are worth a certain amount by themselves... but when combined with AOL's customer base and assets, TWX is worth a lot more -- it's called 'synergy'. That's the reason why AOL was willing to pay such a large premium for TWX stock. And also the reason why TWX was able to hold out for such a big premium!
So I'd say AOL is pretty smart. Just think -- they don't even really need to care about the content (although it certainly gives them a lot more to sell)... the most important thing they bought from TWX was 20 million cable subscribers, and a lot of cable plant which they can use to provide internet access at much-faster-than-dialup rate!
Ironic, isn't it? AOL is buying TWX more for their broadband capability than for their content... I think that move alone is a great strategy on AOL's part.
And remember -- it's not like AOL is paying CASH for TWX... they're paying stock. And what else should you use an astronomical valuation for, other than to improve your own capabilities through things like acquisition?!? There's not much benefit in just having a big valuation -- you need to convert that into strategic advantage. Which is exactly what AOL is doing.
One more point -- this deal is so much the better for AOL as their stock drops a bit and TWX rises -- it means that they're actually paying a lot less, since this is a straight stock-swap deal. Did AOL forsee this beforehand?... I have a hunch they might have. Whether you like AOL or not, it's hard to argue that they have been as successful as they have by being stupid. Chalk up another strategic coup for Case and team.
From your comments on your parents, I would expect that you know what you're talking about when you mention 'peer review.'
That does not seem to be the case from your other comments, however. Peer review isn't about what you research and whether or not you can. It's about your results. Research whatever you want; nobody is going to stop you from doing that.
What peer review says is that your 'results' need to be tested and verified independently of you... so if Mills wants to claim miracles, fine -- but nobody will believe them until others have been able to duplicate them. That weeds out the crap.
If you will argue that the 'establishment' won't fund the research, then perhaps you are right. But I support that -- we have a limited amount of research money, and we need to decide where to spend it -- I don't hear you complaining that we're not doing enough research on alien abduction, for example. Of course, this example may not be as clear-cut as that, but the point remains.
That, too, is why there are private sources for funding. Which Mills has. So how has he been harmed in his research in any way by the evil 'peer review' of which you speak? It hasn't, because he hasn't bothered to submit his work to peer review.
/rant -- I really hope that posts like the above don't give non-scientists the completely wrong impression of peer review.
That seems an obvious statement. I don't think that most of us on this thread who are taking a skeptical view of Mills and his results are saying that he shouldn't be allowed to do his research... more power to him.
What we ARE doing (pardon my speaking collectively) is taking a dim view of the fact that his claims are, thus far, completely unsubstantiated. And, understandably, sticking with science that has been proven.
Which is what needs to happen, for the system to work. If we all flocked to every new theory which promised exciting results, that would destroy the scientific system. On the other hand, if we completely disregarded every theory that wasn't 'mainstream', science would never have come to exist as we know it. But fortunately, neither of these happen all that much.
So the system seems to work just fine. So why not let it work? Why decry Anderson for being skeptical of a theory which: A) would turn physics on its head, and B) is, thusfar, utterly unsupported by evidence? Is he saying Mills should be stopped? Is anybody? No... they're saying they don't believe him. That's fine -- if he proves them wrong, so be it.
I wouldn't say that "the only evidence against the guy is that scientists don't want to believe they're wrong". I would say that the evidence against the guy is that he has thus far been unable (and/or unwilling) to allow other scientists to attempt to duplicate his results. And has provided no convincing evidence that he is RIGHT...
That's how science works, folks. You do your research, and come up with evidence that you are right -- and then your results are subjected to peer review, and duplicated by independent groups. We're not talking about 'innocent until proven guilty' legalese, here; we're talking about science, where you actually have to PROVE things. And Mills hasn't proved a damn thing.
On the other hand, there is a mountain of evidence supporting our current view of atomic structure and processes, etc. etc. And that's science -- I don't see something inherently wrong with the fact that scientists will believe what has been proven, until proven otherwise. Which is exactly what Anderson is doing.
The problem with unsupported, to-good-to-be-true claims is just that -- they are usually too good to be true. And your plea to 'give the poor guy the benefit of the doubt until there's enough proof against him to overwhelm the proof he's got' is almost laughable. He doesn't HAVE any proof. When he does, and is willing to let other scientists review his results, fine. But I'm betting that won't happen any time soon.
So, while I will be as excited as anyone if Mills has in fact found some wonderful, radical new energy source, you'll pardon me if I stick with tried-and-true, peer-reviewed, and insofar-as-possible proven science.
(quote) I don't think open source is the cure-all answer here, but I think the people running seti@home have not given thought to the fact that people running the client are the kind of people who really, really know computers. They know algorithms. They know the internet. They are smarter than the average bear. (/quote)
Unfortunately, that's not entirely correct. There are a lot of people who run SETI@home who haven't a clue what open source is, let alone the ability to code any improvements or whatever. Look at the number of people running the SETI client on Windoze boxes to see the truth of that statement... *grin* I know quite a few people who just download and run this program for the fun screensaver, and are pretty computer illiterate otherwise (at least compared to the majority of the people on this list).
Seriously, though -- the scientific concerns of this project are substantial -- experiments need control, and that means that you can't let people go running off changing their little pieces of the experiment. And to think that just because somebody can write code means that they are now a qualified experimental scientist is a bit naive -- apologies to the list; I'm sure there are quite a few good programmers who ARE experimental experts.
One final point. You are quite right to point out that it's not false positives, but false negatives that we need to worry about. Unfortunately, while we can detect and discount false positives, we will never know about the false negatives -- and if it were I running SETI, I would not be willing to risk letting some random geek hack my code in such a way that he misses the real positive by inducing some error. I personally would count such an occurence as a tragedy of cosmic proportions (pardon the pun).
Yes, people are thinking... people who seem to know a lot more about immunology than you do...
One of the major causes of actual symptoms of viral disease is your own immune system... Your body attacks and kills virally infected cells, and some non-infected cells, and releases a mess of chemicals called cytokines into your system. You ever notice that many viral illnesses feel like what we call 'the flu'?
That's because that feeling, the nausea, achy muscles, headache, fever, and fatigue are caused by your body's own response. Viral infection causes your immune system to secrete, among other things, TNF (tumor necrosis factor) and interferon. Well, guess what... when you inject a perfectly healthy person with those two cytokines, he feels classic flu symptoms. Lesson -- it's not the virus that's making you feel like shit, it's your immune system.
Please note that I'm not saying no viruses hurt you directly. But in many cases, it's your body that does the real damage to you -- the so-called 'bull in a china shop' response.
This is one reason why drugs that down-regulate the immune response are given to people who have HIV... it's not so much that HIV kills your immune system, it's that your own immune system attacks and kills itself! If you dampen the response, you slow the rate at which your body kills off your own T-cells...
The point is, there are actually a lot of incredibly smart people working on this problem... and it would be helpful if people who don't appear to actually know much about the subject would try to learn some of the facts before making rash judgements.
Actually, a reliable 'suicide gene' is vitally important to survival. An integral part of the mammalian immune defense system against viruses is programmed cell death. Certain aspects of viral invasion of a cell can cause the cell to kill itself -- taking the virus along with it.
Of course, in the fascinating world of viral evolution, many viruses have managed to evolve mechanisms that trick out or bypass this particular defense system, but nevertheless, it's still a pretty slick defensive mechanism.
There's really no need to get nationalist here, as far as I can see.
First off, Britain is not really terribly socialist. But that's really neither here nor there. What's really more relevant is your list of inventions, and how you seem to have missed my point.
Yes, the computer, the steam engine, anesthetics, and many other useful inventions have come out of Britain. But that was effectively prehistoric as far as the current pace of technological advance, particularly with regard to microcomputers, which is what we're talking about, right!?!
The computer may have been invented in Britain. But where is all the current activity taking place? In this 'rampant capitalist' country. Where are Intel, AMD, Sun, and for that matter, Cicso, Lucent, and other companies where the current rash of improvements and innovations being made? Smack-dab in the middle of the a capitalist economy!
Of course, you're right, Linux was not created in the US... but where is its creator currently employed? You guessed it... here in this evil capitalist empire... (/sarcasm)
It is only in a successful capitalist free market like that in the United States where we have this fascinating ecology of technological companies and opportunities, because it is in an environment like this that people have easy access to talent (note the massive influx of technology talent from elsewhere to the US) and capital (look at the sheer amount of venture capital in the markets right now). Most of the interesting stuff that's taking place is taking place here.
That was my point. This ecology of tech companies flourishes because of the freedom of the market. The marketing and such that you appear to disdain so greatly is part of that ecology. So far, it's been a really successful environment... so don't whine about the parts you don't like unless you're prepared to do without the parts you do.
Also, out of curiousity, I guess you're a big fan of intellectual property law, then, eh? I personally feel that people should be free to innovate on other's ideas... I think that can only augment discovery and useful invention. But I guess you'd just call that 'stolen technology, acquired ideas, and blatant copying'...
By that logic, only Britain should have computers, steam engines, jets, anesthetics, etc., right? They thought of it first!
Well, it's also necessary to think short-term... long-term progress is all well and good, but if you don't fight the short-term fight, you won't be around for the long term.
Sounds like you're saying tactics aren't important, so long as strategy is sound. I don't think that's the case.
Also, a price war is almost NEVER beneficial to the manufacturers -- what does it do? It drives down prices, reducing margins. Intel doesn't LIKE price wars... but they are a necessary evil for them. Intel can better withstand giving away margin than some upstart competitor (I know, I know, AMD has been around for a while, but you get my drift, I think).
Finally, I'm chuckling slightly at reading that you think Intel hasn't invested heavily in development and refining production. Last I heard they had some of the most advanced and efficient processes in the world. Which is one of the reasons that they can fight and survive a price war, as you've eluded to.
The bottom line is, whether we like it philosophically or not, this is capitalism, folks. Companies compete with each other. If they break the law, then punish them. But until you can prove that Intel has done that, then don't bother standing around whining about evil corporations... the only reason that we have all of the cool technologies that we get to play with today is because of capitalism and the free market. So accept the package, folks, or move to a nice socialist country.
I would definitely agree that you're not the best person to argue this on a logical basis.:P
The biosphere is not alive! Are you just saying that any system with interacting parts is alive? A colloidal suspension like a cup of coffee? A traffic flow? Aren't we getting just a little too Zen here for rational argument?
Seriously, though, I must take issue with your 'by degrading the life within the biosphere, you endanger the biosphere' crap. The biosphere itself places no value on life. Indeed, countless billions of organisms are REQUIRED to die in order for there to even be a biosphere. You only exist as a human today because innumerable organisms before you died without reproducing as much as your ancestors did -- it's called evolution. Death is an integral part of life.
So please don't try to argue that everything must be kept alive as long as possible, because there is something inherently good and/or right about life. There is no fundamental reason why one MUST 'respect all life', as you seem to be saying -- other than the all-too-common 'God says so' argument.
You're right! PRINCETON has a right to not hire Singer if it believes that his values are directly opposed to the mission of the University.
BUT -- they do NOT. In fact, the trustees of the University deliberately hired Singer because, in doing so, they support the mission of the University -- to both facilitate and engage in enlightened academic debate. That is why they continue to support him, and will do so in the future.
Moreover, it is precisely for this reason that the Chair of the Board of Trustees at Princeton released last week a letter stating their disappointment that Steve Forbes ('70) had publicly called for Princeton to dismiss Singer. First, as a trustee, Forbes had had a say in Singer's hiring, but had not opposed it. It was only once he entered the presidential campaign race that he spoke up. Second, his desire to dismiss Singer merely because of Singer's ethical views, regardless of his excellent academic reputation, was cited by Forbes' fellow trustees as a failure of Forbes in his most basic responsibility to the University as a trustee -- to promote academic freedom.
So wail all you want about how you disagree with Singer. I don't know that I agree with him myself. But his credentials, and now a contract with Princeton, give him the right to be there, and to say what he wants to say. And again, I agree with your point -- Princeton has every right to remove him if they so choose. But Not Yet Dead and other groups who oppose Singer have no right to make the actual decision as to whether or not he has a job at Princeton.
Indeed, as an alumnus, I am proud that the alma mater has the guts to stand up for its principles... academic freedom and enlightened discourse. I just wish that the public would take the opportunity to make the discourse a little more enlightened. This is where I sway toward agreeing with JonKatz's point (shudder) -- it's extremely difficult to have an intelligent conversation when people are throwing around words like 'Nazi', and 'monster'. Even harder when they start throwing around knives, and then bombs -- we have pro-lifers in the US to thank for that, in addition to more commonly recognized hate groups.
But NOT each newborn could be either! There are some born with just ZERO likelihood of developing at all. And you picked about the most irrelevant example possible with ADD -- nobody's saying that we should euthanize children with ADD! We're talking about extremely messed up infants, here -- like those born with half a brain, or missing a valve in the heart. Infants who will not develop into rational beings.
I'm sure I'll see some of the obvious responses to my argument -- that is, the 'slippery slope'. how can we even consider killing infants who are born with crippling congenital defects, yadda yadda, that will lead some day to killing every infant which is born with red hair, yadda yadda.
The problem with that argument is the reason that nobody should be comfortable using it... because ANYTHING can be portrayed as a slippery slope. So we obviously shouldn't have any laws at all, because that could eventually lead to a police state. Et cetera.
So please try to come up with something better than that...
Of course it's not wrong for people to voice their opinions! But that's not really what we're talking about, at least in the case of Singer. Here, people who disagree with him want him removed from office and buried so that his views cannot be heard.
I certainly don't expect everyone to agree with what Singer espouses... I am not sure that I do, myself. But I vehemently opposed those groups who want to make sure that nobody can even hear what the man has to say because THEY disagree with him.
I never said that IBM, Microsoft, or whoever don't file patents. Their patents tend to make SENSE, though. Like if IBM invents a new kind of drive that can store information 10 times more densely than any existing drives. That's an actual product that they created that they patented.
This patent, however, appears to be much less, however. First, these people haven't created anything. They seem to have just said 'Gee, we should patent this here idea we have.' Regardless of the fact that literally thousands of other people probably had the same idea. Regardless of the fact that it is merely an _idea_, not a thing. I can come up with a lot of shit that will probably be invented and come into widespread use someday, but that doesn't give me any right to be able to claim such future devices as my own, especially since I haven't created anything!
The point of my post about IBM and other successful companies is that they don't NEED the patents to succeed. What is driving IBM's success right now? -- E-business! They have convinced the world that they are the owners of the e-business space... and they didn't go to the USPO and say, 'hey, we want you to give us exclusive rights to the concept of conducting business and commerce via the Internet', now, did they? They are successful because they have realized where the market was going, and they positioned themselves (or, more properly, are in the process of positioning themselves) to offer the right services to reap the benefits.
I'm not a huge fan of patents, but I can see the benefit to protecting the rights of the creator of a beneficial thing. This particular case of trying to patent an entire industry, however, appears to be blatant misuse of the system. THAT'S what I have a problem with.
They innovated how? Are they marketing a digital audio download and playback device? Did they actually create a device? That is still unclear to me, but it doesn't seem to be the case...
I agree with part of what you said. If you see something that others don't, certainly build a business around it. Why the hell do you think you have to have a patent, though? If your idea is any good, and if it serves a real need, then why do you need the artificial monopoly of a patent?
After all, business designs are arguably what makes a company successful or not. Look at GE, Coke, IBM, Microsoft. Has Microsoft patented the concept of an OS? Has IBM patented e-business? No! These companies have been successful because they understand a need (which you said, cyberfox), and then designed their businesses around it. Not because they said, hey, US Government, we want you to grant us a monopoly on a thing, so that we are the only ones who can use/supply it. This type of thing, by the way, is called a free market. It's supposedly what our economy is built on... although the more and more frequent incursions upon it these days make one wonder.
Yeah, well, so what?!? Biotech companies are patenting GENES for chrissake! If we're going to be granting patents for things invented by natural evolution, then why not patent biological processes?
Bottom line is, it's ridiculous to be granting patents for ideas that people have. Patents, if we are forced to have them at all, should be for devices. Actual, specific devices.
Of course, I think that the whole concept of patents is worthless -- it only serves to create artificial monopolies in every industry, and impedes the most direct and cost-efficient use of technology. But there is literally trillions of dollars invested in intellectual property, so don't expect to see it going away any time soon.
Perhaps once economic globalization has truly and fully taken place, though... then we just need a few countries who don't recognize intellectual property rights, and the whole system will collapse. We can't embargo or sanction trade with countries who we depend upon for goods.
By the way, it's not just in your opinion that the time to convergence estimate from the mitochondrial DNA research is unreliable. Statistical analysis of the results shows that the actual convergence could be anywhere from 200k to over 800k years ago! Of course, this number is from a paper I read three years ago, but I haven't seen anything better since.
Back on topic, I don't see why all the furor about miti-chloreans (or whatever) and mitochondria... I think that people are jumping to conclusions here. There's no reason to think that mitochondria are in all of the alien races, for example... there's not really an evolutionary necessity for them to exist (arguably, anyway). In fact, there are organisms on earth that don't have them! So they're not in 'every living thing', as Qui-Gon says.
And besides, the whole fsking point of Star Wars is that it doesn't have to make scientific sense! That's why it's "a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away", instead of being a future Earth-based society! So why bring your Earth-based preconcieved scientific notions to the film?
Slashdot Mirror
Problem with that is that it misses the idea that there are costs associated with both actions ...
1) potential cost of not taking action if global warming, for example, is real: we get global warming
2) cost of taking action, whether or not global warming is real: slowed economic growth, or perhaps contraction.
It is CRUCIAL to remember that things like the Kyoto treaty are in NO WAY costless, but instead will definitely have penalties to economic growth. Also, given that pollution (to stick with the global warming example) lessens as economies mature and technological developments occur, penalizing economic growth could have a 'double-whammy' effect of slowing economic growth causing slowing rate of improvement in greenhouse gas emissions, for example.
So, even in the 'absence of information', it does not necessarily follow that we should try to enforce drastic emissions cuts "to be on the safe side". Because if we are wrong about global warming (which you yourself admit that we may well be), we will do nothing but screw ourselves economically for decades to come.
An interesting side point: Matt Ridley (very well known evolutionary biologist) noted something in a recent Spectator article which I believe came from Lomborg --
"It is well known that meeting the Kyoto treaty on carbon-dioxide reduction will delay global warming by six years at most by 2100. Yet the annual cost of that treaty, in each year of the century, will be the same as the cost -- once -- of installing clean drinking water and sanitation for every human being on the planet. Priorities, anyone? "
I have to agree -- the so-called Green movement does very little to think about these trade-offs, and seems content to raise scare after scare. And eventually, this creates a situation where we no longer know where to spend our money. Listening to them, we may find in 50 years that we wasted so much time, money, and effort trying to fight off 30 imagined 'doomsday' problems along with the handful of real ones that we can't actually address the real problems in a meaningful way!
Sure it is! You don't have to buy!
This argument is like saying that Ferrari is price discriminating because they are charging so much that you can't afford to buy one -- because you can't haggle them down far enough to buy.
Bullshit! They can charge whatever they want, and you can buy or not buy. Or are you going to start telling Ferrari that they can only charge what a customer is willing to pay? That would be a great way to start putting companies out of business, now wouldn't it?
True, but you forget an important thing. Revenue is not the only driver of 'bottom line'. Bottom line is profitability, which is also heavily influenced by _cost_.
This is a problem many retailers still suffer from, which Amazon appears intelligent enough to avoid -- you should attempt to maximize margin, not revenue.
Also, it is not necessarily fair to say that 'a corporation which does not maximize its profits is ripping off its shareholders'. Over what time frame are we talking, here? Again, Amazon is a good example. They could have been profitable a couple of years ago in the book business, but decided to plow a lot more money into growing the business. So they did not maximize profitability, at least in the shorter term. The tradeoff is that their long-term strategic viability (again, in the book business) is greatly increased, as is their future earnings.
The basic point here is that you appear to be oversimplifying a rather complex issue.
A major problem with the 'just do a survey' approach is that people actually don't usually have the ability to articulate what they will actually pay.
Example: do a survey of what factors drive customer satisfaction in a grocery store. If you ask them, almost every single person will say that they are price-sensitive. Which is true, but only to a degree -- and for many people, that is a small degree compared to how sensitive they are to product quality, range of selections offered, and other things.
This is why you do a price study like this -- it's the only way to get good data to inform your business decisions. A survey won't cut it; you actually have to just change prices and see if peoples' buying behavior changes.
As a side note, it is interesting to notice that there seems to be an underlying assumption most people have these days that they have some sort of right to a certain price. That's bullshit. You have the right to decide if you want to pay a price or not. And the seller has the right to decide at what price he/she will sell. The transaction is between buyer and seller, not those two plus some other guy who bought a similar product some other time.
The lesson here is that you should pay attention to what prices you're paying, if you care. And if you don't, expect that you'll probably pay more than other people will sometimes. Of course, as intelligent people, we should already expect this effect.
And, as has already been noted in this thread, you're free to walk away if you don't like the price. That is your strongest vote as a consumer.
I think you're missing the point as to how valuations work in an acquisition scenario.
... but when combined with AOL's customer base and assets, TWX is worth a lot more -- it's called 'synergy'. That's the reason why AOL was willing to pay such a large premium for TWX stock. And also the reason why TWX was able to hold out for such a big premium!
... the most important thing they bought from TWX was 20 million cable subscribers, and a lot of cable plant which they can use to provide internet access at much-faster-than-dialup rate!
... I think that move alone is a great strategy on AOL's part.
... they're paying stock. And what else should you use an astronomical valuation for, other than to improve your own capabilities through things like acquisition?!? There's not much benefit in just having a big valuation -- you need to convert that into strategic advantage. Which is exactly what AOL is doing.
... I have a hunch they might have. Whether you like AOL or not, it's hard to argue that they have been as successful as they have by being stupid. Chalk up another strategic coup for Case and team.
The market capitalization of TWX, you correctly state, is (or was) significantly less than the amount which they are being paid by AOL.
This makes sense, though. First off, you will ALWAYS pay more than the straight market value of a company in order to acquire it. Second, and more importantly, the reason AOL bought TWX in the first place is because it's worth more to AOL than it is as a standalone!
What this means is that TWX's content, cable plant, and customer base are worth a certain amount by themselves
So I'd say AOL is pretty smart. Just think -- they don't even really need to care about the content (although it certainly gives them a lot more to sell)
Ironic, isn't it? AOL is buying TWX more for their broadband capability than for their content
And remember -- it's not like AOL is paying CASH for TWX
One more point -- this deal is so much the better for AOL as their stock drops a bit and TWX rises -- it means that they're actually paying a lot less, since this is a straight stock-swap deal. Did AOL forsee this beforehand?
From your comments on your parents, I would expect that you know what you're talking about when you mention 'peer review.'
... so if Mills wants to claim miracles, fine -- but nobody will believe them until others have been able to duplicate them. That weeds out the crap.
That does not seem to be the case from your other comments, however. Peer review isn't about what you research and whether or not you can. It's about your results. Research whatever you want; nobody is going to stop you from doing that.
What peer review says is that your 'results' need to be tested and verified independently of you
If you will argue that the 'establishment' won't fund the research, then perhaps you are right. But I support that -- we have a limited amount of research money, and we need to decide where to spend it -- I don't hear you complaining that we're not doing enough research on alien abduction, for example. Of course, this example may not be as clear-cut as that, but the point remains.
That, too, is why there are private sources for funding. Which Mills has. So how has he been harmed in his research in any way by the evil 'peer review' of which you speak? It hasn't, because he hasn't bothered to submit his work to peer review.
/rant -- I really hope that posts like the above don't give non-scientists the completely wrong impression of peer review.
Who said we shouldn't allow both to coexist?!?
... more power to him.
... they're saying they don't believe him. That's fine -- if he proves them wrong, so be it.
That seems an obvious statement. I don't think that most of us on this thread who are taking a skeptical view of Mills and his results are saying that he shouldn't be allowed to do his research
What we ARE doing (pardon my speaking collectively) is taking a dim view of the fact that his claims are, thus far, completely unsubstantiated. And, understandably, sticking with science that has been proven.
Which is what needs to happen, for the system to work. If we all flocked to every new theory which promised exciting results, that would destroy the scientific system. On the other hand, if we completely disregarded every theory that wasn't 'mainstream', science would never have come to exist as we know it. But fortunately, neither of these happen all that much.
So the system seems to work just fine. So why not let it work? Why decry Anderson for being skeptical of a theory which:
A) would turn physics on its head, and
B) is, thusfar, utterly unsupported by evidence?
Is he saying Mills should be stopped? Is anybody? No
Until then, though, we'll wait for the evidence.
I wouldn't say that "the only evidence against the guy is that scientists don't want to believe they're wrong". I would say that the evidence against the guy is that he has thus far been unable (and/or unwilling) to allow other scientists to attempt to duplicate his results. And has provided no convincing evidence that he is RIGHT...
That's how science works, folks. You do your research, and come up with evidence that you are right -- and then your results are subjected to peer review, and duplicated by independent groups. We're not talking about 'innocent until proven guilty' legalese, here; we're talking about science, where you actually have to PROVE things. And Mills hasn't proved a damn thing.
On the other hand, there is a mountain of evidence supporting our current view of atomic structure and processes, etc. etc. And that's science -- I don't see something inherently wrong with the fact that scientists will believe what has been proven, until proven otherwise. Which is exactly what Anderson is doing.
The problem with unsupported, to-good-to-be-true claims is just that -- they are usually too good to be true. And your plea to 'give the poor guy the benefit of the doubt until there's enough proof against him to overwhelm the proof he's got' is almost laughable. He doesn't HAVE any proof. When he does, and is willing to let other scientists review his results, fine. But I'm betting that won't happen any time soon.
So, while I will be as excited as anyone if Mills has in fact found some wonderful, radical new energy source, you'll pardon me if I stick with tried-and-true, peer-reviewed, and insofar-as-possible proven science.
(quote)
... *grin* I know quite a few people who just download and run this program for the fun screensaver, and are pretty computer illiterate otherwise (at least compared to the majority of the people on this list).
I don't think open source is the cure-all answer here, but I think the people running seti@home have not given thought to the fact that people running the client are the kind of people who really, really know computers. They know algorithms. They know the internet. They are smarter than the average bear.
(/quote)
Unfortunately, that's not entirely correct. There are a lot of people who run SETI@home who haven't a clue what open source is, let alone the ability to code any improvements or whatever. Look at the number of people running the SETI client on Windoze boxes to see the truth of that statement
Seriously, though -- the scientific concerns of this project are substantial -- experiments need control, and that means that you can't let people go running off changing their little pieces of the experiment. And to think that just because somebody can write code means that they are now a qualified experimental scientist is a bit naive -- apologies to the list; I'm sure there are quite a few good programmers who ARE experimental experts.
One final point. You are quite right to point out that it's not false positives, but false negatives that we need to worry about. Unfortunately, while we can detect and discount false positives, we will never know about the false negatives -- and if it were I running SETI, I would not be willing to risk letting some random geek hack my code in such a way that he misses the real positive by inducing some error. I personally would count such an occurence as a tragedy of cosmic proportions (pardon the pun).
Ohmygod! Stop the presses!
A science fiction movie was *gasp* unrealistic!!!!
Why must people be so fsking uptight? What's wrong with just relaxing and enjoying the damn movie?!?
Yes, people are thinking ... people who seem to know a lot more about immunology than you do ...
... when you inject a perfectly healthy person with those two cytokines, he feels classic flu symptoms. Lesson -- it's not the virus that's making you feel like shit, it's your immune system.
... it's not so much that HIV kills your immune system, it's that your own immune system attacks and kills itself! If you dampen the response, you slow the rate at which your body kills off your own T-cells ...
... and it would be helpful if people who don't appear to actually know much about the subject would try to learn some of the facts before making rash judgements.
One of the major causes of actual symptoms of viral disease is your own immune system... Your body attacks and kills virally infected cells, and some non-infected cells, and releases a mess of chemicals called cytokines into your system. You ever notice that many viral illnesses feel like what we call 'the flu'?
That's because that feeling, the nausea, achy muscles, headache, fever, and fatigue are caused by your body's own response. Viral infection causes your immune system to secrete, among other things, TNF (tumor necrosis factor) and interferon. Well, guess what
Please note that I'm not saying no viruses hurt you directly. But in many cases, it's your body that does the real damage to you -- the so-called 'bull in a china shop' response.
This is one reason why drugs that down-regulate the immune response are given to people who have HIV
The point is, there are actually a lot of incredibly smart people working on this problem
(/sermon)
Actually, a reliable 'suicide gene' is vitally important to survival. An integral part of the mammalian immune defense system against viruses is programmed cell death. Certain aspects of viral invasion of a cell can cause the cell to kill itself -- taking the virus along with it.
Of course, in the fascinating world of viral evolution, many viruses have managed to evolve mechanisms that trick out or bypass this particular defense system, but nevertheless, it's still a pretty slick defensive mechanism.
cheers,
There's really no need to get nationalist here, as far as I can see.
... but where is its creator currently employed? You guessed it ... here in this evil capitalist empire ... (/sarcasm)
... so don't whine about the parts you don't like unless you're prepared to do without the parts you do.
... I think that can only augment discovery and useful invention. But I guess you'd just call that 'stolen technology, acquired ideas, and blatant copying'...
First off, Britain is not really terribly socialist. But that's really neither here nor there. What's really more relevant is your list of inventions, and how you seem to have missed my point.
Yes, the computer, the steam engine, anesthetics, and many other useful inventions have come out of Britain. But that was effectively prehistoric as far as the current pace of technological advance, particularly with regard to microcomputers, which is what we're talking about, right!?!
The computer may have been invented in Britain. But where is all the current activity taking place? In this 'rampant capitalist' country. Where are Intel, AMD, Sun, and for that matter, Cicso, Lucent, and other companies where the current rash of improvements and innovations being made? Smack-dab in the middle of the a capitalist economy!
Of course, you're right, Linux was not created in the US
It is only in a successful capitalist free market like that in the United States where we have this fascinating ecology of technological companies and opportunities, because it is in an environment like this that people have easy access to talent (note the massive influx of technology talent from elsewhere to the US) and capital (look at the sheer amount of venture capital in the markets right now). Most of the interesting stuff that's taking place is taking place here.
That was my point. This ecology of tech companies flourishes because of the freedom of the market. The marketing and such that you appear to disdain so greatly is part of that ecology. So far, it's been a really successful environment
Also, out of curiousity, I guess you're a big fan of intellectual property law, then, eh? I personally feel that people should be free to innovate on other's ideas
By that logic, only Britain should have computers, steam engines, jets, anesthetics, etc., right? They thought of it first!
Well, it's also necessary to think short-term ... long-term progress is all well and good, but if you don't fight the short-term fight, you won't be around for the long term.
... but they are a necessary evil for them. Intel can better withstand giving away margin than some upstart competitor (I know, I know, AMD has been around for a while, but you get my drift, I think).
... the only reason that we have all of the cool technologies that we get to play with today is because of capitalism and the free market. So accept the package, folks, or move to a nice socialist country.
Sounds like you're saying tactics aren't important, so long as strategy is sound. I don't think that's the case.
Also, a price war is almost NEVER beneficial to the manufacturers -- what does it do? It drives down prices, reducing margins. Intel doesn't LIKE price wars
Finally, I'm chuckling slightly at reading that you think Intel hasn't invested heavily in development and refining production. Last I heard they had some of the most advanced and efficient processes in the world. Which is one of the reasons that they can fight and survive a price war, as you've eluded to.
The bottom line is, whether we like it philosophically or not, this is capitalism, folks. Companies compete with each other. If they break the law, then punish them. But until you can prove that Intel has done that, then don't bother standing around whining about evil corporations
Do you think that that has anything to do with my muscles, in _this_ place?
Do you think that's air you're breathing?
Hmmm...
Why not just go for dual 1100's?
*grin*
Why is it that our only 'unifying experiences as a culture' have to come from watching TV?
Shows a pretty depressing worldview, methinks.
*shrug*
I would definitely agree that you're not the best person to argue this on a logical basis. :P
The biosphere is not alive! Are you just saying that any system with interacting parts is alive? A colloidal suspension like a cup of coffee? A traffic flow? Aren't we getting just a little too Zen here for rational argument?
Seriously, though, I must take issue with your 'by degrading the life within the biosphere, you endanger the biosphere' crap. The biosphere itself places no value on life. Indeed, countless billions of organisms are REQUIRED to die in order for there to even be a biosphere. You only exist as a human today because innumerable organisms before you died without reproducing as much as your ancestors did -- it's called evolution. Death is an integral part of life.
So please don't try to argue that everything must be kept alive as long as possible, because there is something inherently good and/or right about life. There is no fundamental reason why one MUST 'respect all life', as you seem to be saying -- other than the all-too-common 'God says so' argument.
You're right! PRINCETON has a right to not hire Singer if it believes that his values are directly opposed to the mission of the University.
... academic freedom and enlightened discourse. I just wish that the public would take the opportunity to make the discourse a little more enlightened. This is where I sway toward agreeing with JonKatz's point (shudder) -- it's extremely difficult to have an intelligent conversation when people are throwing around words like 'Nazi', and 'monster'. Even harder when they start throwing around knives, and then bombs -- we have pro-lifers in the US to thank for that, in addition to more commonly recognized hate groups.
BUT -- they do NOT. In fact, the trustees of the University deliberately hired Singer because, in doing so, they support the mission of the University -- to both facilitate and engage in enlightened academic debate. That is why they continue to support him, and will do so in the future.
Moreover, it is precisely for this reason that the Chair of the Board of Trustees at Princeton released last week a letter stating their disappointment that Steve Forbes ('70) had publicly called for Princeton to dismiss Singer. First, as a trustee, Forbes had had a say in Singer's hiring, but had not opposed it. It was only once he entered the presidential campaign race that he spoke up. Second, his desire to dismiss Singer merely because of Singer's ethical views, regardless of his excellent academic reputation, was cited by Forbes' fellow trustees as a failure of Forbes in his most basic responsibility to the University as a trustee -- to promote academic freedom.
So wail all you want about how you disagree with Singer. I don't know that I agree with him myself. But his credentials, and now a contract with Princeton, give him the right to be there, and to say what he wants to say. And again, I agree with your point -- Princeton has every right to remove him if they so choose. But Not Yet Dead and other groups who oppose Singer have no right to make the actual decision as to whether or not he has a job at Princeton.
Indeed, as an alumnus, I am proud that the alma mater has the guts to stand up for its principles
But NOT each newborn could be either! There are some born with just ZERO likelihood of developing at all. And you picked about the most irrelevant example possible with ADD -- nobody's saying that we should euthanize children with ADD! We're talking about extremely messed up infants, here -- like those born with half a brain, or missing a valve in the heart. Infants who will not develop into rational beings.
... because ANYTHING can be portrayed as a slippery slope. So we obviously shouldn't have any laws at all, because that could eventually lead to a police state. Et cetera.
I'm sure I'll see some of the obvious responses to my argument -- that is, the 'slippery slope'. how can we even consider killing infants who are born with crippling congenital defects, yadda yadda, that will lead some day to killing every infant which is born with red hair, yadda yadda.
The problem with that argument is the reason that nobody should be comfortable using it
So please try to come up with something better than that...
Of course it's not wrong for people to voice their opinions! But that's not really what we're talking about, at least in the case of Singer. Here, people who disagree with him want him removed from office and buried so that his views cannot be heard.
... I am not sure that I do, myself. But I vehemently opposed those groups who want to make sure that nobody can even hear what the man has to say because THEY disagree with him.
I certainly don't expect everyone to agree with what Singer espouses
I never said that IBM, Microsoft, or whoever don't file patents. Their patents tend to make SENSE, though. Like if IBM invents a new kind of drive that can store information 10 times more densely than any existing drives. That's an actual product that they created that they patented.
... and they didn't go to the USPO and say, 'hey, we want you to give us exclusive rights to the concept of conducting business and commerce via the Internet', now, did they? They are successful because they have realized where the market was going, and they positioned themselves (or, more properly, are in the process of positioning themselves) to offer the right services to reap the benefits.
This patent, however, appears to be much less, however. First, these people haven't created anything. They seem to have just said 'Gee, we should patent this here idea we have.' Regardless of the fact that literally thousands of other people probably had the same idea. Regardless of the fact that it is merely an _idea_, not a thing. I can come up with a lot of shit that will probably be invented and come into widespread use someday, but that doesn't give me any right to be able to claim such future devices as my own, especially since I haven't created anything!
The point of my post about IBM and other successful companies is that they don't NEED the patents to succeed. What is driving IBM's success right now? -- E-business! They have convinced the world that they are the owners of the e-business space
I'm not a huge fan of patents, but I can see the benefit to protecting the rights of the creator of a beneficial thing. This particular case of trying to patent an entire industry, however, appears to be blatant misuse of the system. THAT'S what I have a problem with.
They innovated how? Are they marketing a digital audio download and playback device? Did they actually create a device? That is still unclear to me, but it doesn't seem to be the case...
... although the more and more frequent incursions upon it these days make one wonder.
I agree with part of what you said. If you see something that others don't, certainly build a business around it. Why the hell do you think you have to have a patent, though? If your idea is any good, and if it serves a real need, then why do you need the artificial monopoly of a patent?
After all, business designs are arguably what makes a company successful or not. Look at GE, Coke, IBM, Microsoft. Has Microsoft patented the concept of an OS? Has IBM patented e-business? No! These companies have been successful because they understand a need (which you said, cyberfox), and then designed their businesses around it. Not because they said, hey, US Government, we want you to grant us a monopoly on a thing, so that we are the only ones who can use/supply it. This type of thing, by the way, is called a free market. It's supposedly what our economy is built on
Yeah, well, so what?!? Biotech companies are patenting GENES for chrissake! If we're going to be granting patents for things invented by natural evolution, then why not patent biological processes?
... then we just need a few countries who don't recognize intellectual property rights, and the whole system will collapse. We can't embargo or sanction trade with countries who we depend upon for goods.
Bottom line is, it's ridiculous to be granting patents for ideas that people have. Patents, if we are forced to have them at all, should be for devices. Actual, specific devices.
Of course, I think that the whole concept of patents is worthless -- it only serves to create artificial monopolies in every industry, and impedes the most direct and cost-efficient use of technology. But there is literally trillions of dollars invested in intellectual property, so don't expect to see it going away any time soon.
Perhaps once economic globalization has truly and fully taken place, though
Overall, an excellent synopsis of mitochondria.
... I think that people are jumping to conclusions here. There's no reason to think that mitochondria are in all of the alien races, for example ... there's not really an evolutionary necessity for them to exist (arguably, anyway). In fact, there are organisms on earth that don't have them! So they're not in 'every living thing', as Qui-Gon says.
By the way, it's not just in your opinion that the time to convergence estimate from the mitochondrial DNA research is unreliable. Statistical analysis of the results shows that the actual convergence could be anywhere from 200k to over 800k years ago! Of course, this number is from a paper I read three years ago, but I haven't seen anything better since.
Back on topic, I don't see why all the furor about miti-chloreans (or whatever) and mitochondria
And besides, the whole fsking point of Star Wars is that it doesn't have to make scientific sense! That's why it's "a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away", instead of being a future Earth-based society! So why bring your Earth-based preconcieved scientific notions to the film?