- this is false, people set up their own criminal courts and their own system to handle crime and to handle contract law,
But that is creating the same distortion of the "free" market, you're just calling it something other than "government." The effect is the same.
Since people DO set up governments, what must be avoided is the gov't owning property, all property must be private, in that case there are no externalities, every single situation has to price in liability costs.
Do you understand what an externality is? It has nothing to do with public vs. private property. You can do something on your private property which imposed a cost on me. If you own a hog farm, and your pig shit stinks to high-heaven, you impose a cost on me. The smell of the pig-shit (and the corresponding decrease in my quality of life and lowering of my property value) is the externality. If there is a sufficiently robust tort system, then the non-free market prices that externality in. If there isn't (e.g. liability caps) then those externalities aren't (completely) priced in.
Additionally, even if there is a tort system in place, it is sometimes difficult to assign liability. For example, the 710 freeway corridor in Los Angeles has been shown to be a center of higher than normal asthma and other respiratory illnesses. A large amount of tractor trailer traffic use this highway to ship goods from the Port of Long Beach out to various locations. It is not feasible for residents to sue every individual trucking company (and private individuals), so this externality is not priced into the cost of shipping goods out of Long Beach. I believe in this particular case there are additional fees imposed on truckers to pick up goods at PoLB, so the government is trying to price in the cost of this externality (or put another way, they are trying to remove the externality), though there are obviously going to be difficulties with this strategy.
Let's take a step back. This is how the discussion started: Darkness404: So explain to me the harm that a corporation has in a free market. KhabaLox: Free markets do not efficiently price in externalities. roman_mir: Free markets do not have externalities. It takes a government to allow for such concepts as 'externalities'
My point was that corporations (and individuals) can cause harm (i.e. impose costs on third parties) in a free market because the free market does not price in externalities. Your statement that "free markets do not have externalities" and that governments are required for "such concepts as externalities" is patently false. An externality is "a cost or benefit that is not transmitted through prices and is incurred by a party who was not involved as either a buyer or seller of the goods or services causing the cost or benefit." A government is not required for this to happen. In fact a government (or a similar market distorting agent) is (usually) required for the externality to be removed - that is, for that cost to be priced into the price of the good or service. (I say usually required because in theory if my neighbor chooses to re-paint his house and re-landscape his yard, thus raising my property value, I could choose to help him pay for that.)
A perfectly free market has externalities. A quasi-free market also has externalities, though it has less since some of those costs are priced in through, for example, torts.
Total is 44.3% Also note that effective tax rate is somewhat lower than that because the 9.3% bracket doesn't kick in until $48k ($96k married). The 35% doesn't kick in until $380k (regardless of status).
Putting aside the tax strategy, it is still better to have a CEO's pay tied to company performance via stock options than a salary.
That depends heavily on the structure of the options package. Unless they vest sufficiently far in the future, the incentive is to take such steps to pump the stock price in the short term (say, 3-5 years), with no regard to the long term consequences (say 10+ years).
I have, on a couple of occasions, shown my 4 year old that if I don't know the answer to his question I can look it up on Google. I don't think he get's it entirely, as he thinks the "internet" is the thing that let's him watch Power Rangers on Netflix.
if I tell my son to do something and he asks why, that is encouraged and a reason is given, things are explained. I don't subject to the "because I said so" mentality of parenting. Sometimes you let them do stupid things to learn and see the consequences. If a parent can't give a good reason for why something can or can't be done, perhaps that isn't a rule that needs to be enforced.
I really try to do this to, but it is so hard.
Me: Get in the car. Child: Why? M: Because we have to go to school? C: Why? M: Because you need to learn things and play with other kids, and Daddy has to go to work? C: Why? M: Well, social development is important and I have to make money so we have a house and food to eat? C: Why? M: Why what? C: Why we need food to eat? M: If we don't eat we will die. C: Why?........
And this doesn't end. He will keep going until I either say, "I don't know" or "Just because. That's the way it is." I hate saying it, but I don't know how to break the cycle. I'm trying out other options such as, "I don't know, why do you think we will die if we don't eat?"
Yes, I know various office suites can do this, but I never see users using the feature in practice - whereas every LaTeX user I've met uses them extensively.
Perhaps because Word and LaTeX are different tools suited to different tasks.
I have no experience with LaTeX, and only use Word for the simplest of documents, but it seems to me that LaTeX excels at creating academic or scientific papers at the cost of a slow learning curve, whereas Word excels at creating simpler documents with some basic features (such as TOCs). It doesn't sound practical to migrate an entire company to LaTeX if the majority of their use cases are memos and letters (perhaps the Bid Manager writing RFP responses would benefit from LaTeX, but if the rest of the organization supporting him is writing their portions in Word, well....). Likewise, it doesn't sound practical to have the Physics department at MIT or the CERN guys use Word.
It's not about one being better than the other, it's about using the right tool for the write job.
So we should teach children to challenge authority. How wonderful!
This is a valid point, but the Parent takes it a bit too far. It's not a binary proposition, where the kid will either reject all authority and guidance of parents and teachers, or blindly accept everything they say as gospel. As a parent of a 4 and 3 year old, I know how important it is to instill a deep sense of respect for authority. But at the same time, if a person is to learn they have to be able to challenge assumptions and ask their parents and teachers hard questions. I don't know everything, and some things I tell my kids may be wrong. I want them to use their brain and critical thinking skills to take what I or their teachers are telling them, digest and deconstruct it, and examine it for truth, not just accept it as fact. If they get used to accepting what their teachers tell them as fact, then they will do the same when a Democrat politician tells them that we need to pump more money into failing schools, or a Republican politician tells them that we need to deregulate banks.
It's not an easy row to hoe. It's a delicate balance, and the emphasis (I think) should be on respect and adherence to authority in the earlier years, with a shift to more challenging stance in later years. I want my kid to be the one sent home with a note from his physics teach that he is disrespectful because he came up with a cogent argument on why Pluto should be considered a planet.
You're shilling, but you're not completely full of shit.*
my Microsoft email client tells me who is sitting at their desk right now
I find that useful, but at my job it appears to be tied to Lync. Co-workers who don't use Lync appear offline. But perhaps other installs of Exchange provide the same functionality.
has one click-desktop sharing, conferencing, file sharing, tasks, goals, sales tasks, decisions, votes, and still works when i have little or no internet.
OK, this sounds like bullshit. How do I with one-click do any of those things? And how do I share my desktop when I have not internet?
It is a cockpit for daily work and efficiency.
Maybe, but meh. So I use my inbox to as a to-do list, big whoop.
When my laptop gets toasted, I have zero data loss and I get it all back as it was with 1-click,
Really? How? Office doesn't force me to save on the network, or even on SharePoint**. And I'm not aware of any Office backup solution that has one click restore. Where is this feature.
and while windows is being reinstalled I still have access to almost everything over any browser/smartphone.
I can't edit word docs or spreadsheets effectively on a smartphone. I use Office 2010, not Google Docs, so I can't access my files through a browser.
Did I mention that all my Russian, Greek, Arabic and Chinese mails all render properly?
This may be true. I know it handles all the accents in French well enough. I don't read any of those other languages, so not a big selling point for me at least.
Sure I can install 15 pieces of software to do that, but not throughout the entire organisation. MS-Office is installed & enterprise-licensed in 1 click, and with another click synchronized from the server.
Again with the one-click claim. Now, the intranet-based upgrade from 2007 to 2010 was one click I believe, but every time I've installed MS software (and most other software) there's always been multiple clicks. And this is how it should be. Not everyone person should have exactly the same install.
*I take it back. You are full of shit. Only the first thing you mention is useful and mostly true, and (at least in my experience) comes from a non-Office product.
**Don't get me started on SP. IT was supposed to upgrade our site to 2010 and none of the files or permissions came over. Perhaps not a flaw of SP, but I have my suspicions.
Sure there should. There are legitimate reasons for security and privacy related to government proceedings. A grand jury session during which the existence of an active undercover operation (or where classified documents are discussed) should not necessarily be broadcast to the public. This is not to say that there shouldn't be proper checks and balances, with non-invested third parties auditing and/or overseeing such processes, but to make the argument that every Grand Jury should be 100% public is a bit naive.
Agreed. There were reasons that Scorsese shot Raging Bull in B&W, and that Nolan used both B&W and color for Memento. The same can be said for The Wizard of Oz. And more recently, The Artist eschewed sound for artistic reasons. On the flip side of the coin, Cameron delayed making Avatar until he could develop the technology to do it the way he wanted.
I don't think there is any objective reason not to embrace an evolution to 48 fps. Cost and revenue numbers will dictate how fast this occurs. 48fps projectors should be able to play 24 fps sources (at the very worst, they will print each frame twice), so a director who wants to preserve the "imperfections" of that format can still do so. As long as you don't lose the ability to do what you can do today, there is no reason not to have the option to do something different tomorrow.
The wording is interesting. They are not saying its an error, they are just saying it was sent to an unintended receiver.
In other words: "Yes, we spy on you. But it wasn't our intention your friends know".
I think it's clear that what they meant by that comment is that the 3rd party is not who you, the user, intended to receive the message. However, what's interesting to me is that this can happen at all. I'm not an engineer by any stretch, and perhaps I'm being too paranoid, but isn't it conceivable that the bug might not be that it's sending the IM to an some 3rd party on your contact list, but rather it's sending it to that 3rd party instead of to some log file on Skype's servers, or worse yet, some NSA repository?
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, I don't disagree with your larger point. I just thought the 48 figure sounded high (for income tax).
Regarding Schedule P, I knew there was a reason I didn't become a tax accountant. That stuff is confusing.
Fair points. I inferred too much into "top tax bracket."
Shouldn't be hard to argue that Hansen is acting as an agent of the government, given that the LEOs are sitting in the production truck.
Ummm... at least that's what I've heard.
- this is false, people set up their own criminal courts and their own system to handle crime and to handle contract law,
But that is creating the same distortion of the "free" market, you're just calling it something other than "government." The effect is the same.
Since people DO set up governments, what must be avoided is the gov't owning property, all property must be private, in that case there are no externalities, every single situation has to price in liability costs.
Do you understand what an externality is? It has nothing to do with public vs. private property. You can do something on your private property which imposed a cost on me. If you own a hog farm, and your pig shit stinks to high-heaven, you impose a cost on me. The smell of the pig-shit (and the corresponding decrease in my quality of life and lowering of my property value) is the externality. If there is a sufficiently robust tort system, then the non-free market prices that externality in. If there isn't (e.g. liability caps) then those externalities aren't (completely) priced in.
Additionally, even if there is a tort system in place, it is sometimes difficult to assign liability. For example, the 710 freeway corridor in Los Angeles has been shown to be a center of higher than normal asthma and other respiratory illnesses. A large amount of tractor trailer traffic use this highway to ship goods from the Port of Long Beach out to various locations. It is not feasible for residents to sue every individual trucking company (and private individuals), so this externality is not priced into the cost of shipping goods out of Long Beach. I believe in this particular case there are additional fees imposed on truckers to pick up goods at PoLB, so the government is trying to price in the cost of this externality (or put another way, they are trying to remove the externality), though there are obviously going to be difficulties with this strategy.
Let's take a step back. This is how the discussion started:
Darkness404: So explain to me the harm that a corporation has in a free market.
KhabaLox: Free markets do not efficiently price in externalities.
roman_mir: Free markets do not have externalities. It takes a government to allow for such concepts as 'externalities'
My point was that corporations (and individuals) can cause harm (i.e. impose costs on third parties) in a free market because the free market does not price in externalities. Your statement that "free markets do not have externalities" and that governments are required for "such concepts as externalities" is patently false. An externality is "a cost or benefit that is not transmitted through prices and is incurred by a party who was not involved as either a buyer or seller of the goods or services causing the cost or benefit." A government is not required for this to happen. In fact a government (or a similar market distorting agent) is (usually) required for the externality to be removed - that is, for that cost to be priced into the price of the good or service. (I say usually required because in theory if my neighbor chooses to re-paint his house and re-landscape his yard, thus raising my property value, I could choose to help him pay for that.)
A perfectly free market has externalities. A quasi-free market also has externalities, though it has less since some of those costs are priced in through, for example, torts.
For someone living in California, the top tax bracket is 48.3% for salaried income.
Top rate in CA is 9.3% - https://www.ftb.ca.gov/forms/2011_California_Tax_Rates_and_Exemptions.shtml
Federal rate is 35% - http://www.moneychimp.com/features/tax_brackets.htm
Total is 44.3% Also note that effective tax rate is somewhat lower than that because the 9.3% bracket doesn't kick in until $48k ($96k married). The 35% doesn't kick in until $380k (regardless of status).
Putting aside the tax strategy, it is still better to have a CEO's pay tied to company performance via stock options than a salary.
That depends heavily on the structure of the options package. Unless they vest sufficiently far in the future, the incentive is to take such steps to pump the stock price in the short term (say, 3-5 years), with no regard to the long term consequences (say 10+ years).
I wonder what the conviction rate is for To Catch a Predator.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_motor_vehicle_deaths_in_U.S._by_year
In 2007, there were 17,352 suicides by guns and 12,632 homicides by guns. This equates to 47.5 per day and 34.6 per day respectively.
By contrast, there were 41,059 traffic fatalities (112.5 per day) in that year.
In America, we too have VERY few massacres.
How do you define "VERY few"?
July 2012 - 12 dead, 50 wounded - Aurora, CO
May 2012 - 6 dead, 1 wounded; Seattle, WA -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Seattle_cafe_shooting_spree
April 2012 - 7 dead, 3 injured - Oikos University, Oakland, CA
Feb 2012 - 3 dead, 2 wounded - Chardon, OH
Aug 2011 - 8 dead, 1 wounded; Copley Township, OH -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Copley_Township,_Ohio_shooting
July 2011 - 8 dead, 2 wounded; Grand Rapids, MI -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Grand_Rapids,_Michigan_shooting
Jan 2011 - 6 dead; 13 wounded - Tucson, AZ -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Tucson_shooting
Jan 2010 - 8 dead; Appomattox, VA -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Appomattox_shootings
Nov 2009 - 13 dead, 30 wounded; Ft. Hood, TX -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_Hood_Shooting
April 2009 - 14 dead; 4 wounded - Binghamton, NY -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binghamton_shootings
Mar 2009 - 11 dead 6 wounded, Samson, AL -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_County_massacre
Feb 2009 - 4 dead, 1 wounded; University of AZ -- http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-201_162-527308.html
Dec 2008 - 9 dead, 3+ injured; Covina, CA
Sept 2008 - 6 dead, 2 injured; Alger, WA -- http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2008153942_webshooting02m.html
Dec 2007 - 8 dead, 5 wounded; Omaha, NE
April 2007 - 32 dead; Virginia Tech
Oct 2006 - 6 dead, 5 injured; Nickel Mines, PA -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amish_school_shooting
Jan 2006 - 7 dead; Goleta, CA -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jennifer_San_Marco
March 2005 - 7 dead, 4 wounded; Brooksfield, WI -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terry_Ratzmann
March 2005 - 10 dead, 12 injured; Red Lake HS, Minnesota
October 2002 - 10 dead, 3 injured; Washington DC (sniper attacks over 3 week period) -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beltway_sniper_attacks
July 1999 - 9 dead 13 wounded; Atlanta, GA -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_O._Barton
April 1999 - 12 dead; Columbine HS
Dec 1993 - 6 dead, 19 wounded; Long Island Railroad -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_Island_Rail_Road_Massacre
May 1993 - 2 dead, 3 wounded; Dearborn, MI --
May 1993 - 3 dead; Dana Point, CA
July 1993 - 9 dead, 6 wounded; San Francisco, CA -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/101_California_Street_shootings
Nov 1991 - 4 dead, 6 wounded; Royal Oak, MI -- http://www.nytimes.com/1991/11/15/us/ex-postal-worker-kills-3-and-wounds-6-in-michigan.html
Oct 1991 - 4 dead (1 by samurai sword); Ridgewood, NJ -- http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/a-former-postal-worker-commits-mass-murder
Oct 1991
Post of the fucking year right there.
I have my Free Cascadia bumper sticker and my Bureau of Sasquatch Affairs t-shirt.
I have, on a couple of occasions, shown my 4 year old that if I don't know the answer to his question I can look it up on Google. I don't think he get's it entirely, as he thinks the "internet" is the thing that let's him watch Power Rangers on Netflix.
if I tell my son to do something and he asks why, that is encouraged and a reason is given, things are explained. I don't subject to the "because I said so" mentality of parenting. Sometimes you let them do stupid things to learn and see the consequences. If a parent can't give a good reason for why something can or can't be done, perhaps that isn't a rule that needs to be enforced.
I really try to do this to, but it is so hard.
Me: Get in the car. ........
Child: Why?
M: Because we have to go to school?
C: Why?
M: Because you need to learn things and play with other kids, and Daddy has to go to work?
C: Why?
M: Well, social development is important and I have to make money so we have a house and food to eat?
C: Why?
M: Why what?
C: Why we need food to eat?
M: If we don't eat we will die.
C: Why?
And this doesn't end. He will keep going until I either say, "I don't know" or "Just because. That's the way it is." I hate saying it, but I don't know how to break the cycle. I'm trying out other options such as, "I don't know, why do you think we will die if we don't eat?"
Yes, I know various office suites can do this, but I never see users using the feature in practice - whereas every LaTeX user I've met uses them extensively.
Perhaps because Word and LaTeX are different tools suited to different tasks.
I have no experience with LaTeX, and only use Word for the simplest of documents, but it seems to me that LaTeX excels at creating academic or scientific papers at the cost of a slow learning curve, whereas Word excels at creating simpler documents with some basic features (such as TOCs). It doesn't sound practical to migrate an entire company to LaTeX if the majority of their use cases are memos and letters (perhaps the Bid Manager writing RFP responses would benefit from LaTeX, but if the rest of the organization supporting him is writing their portions in Word, well....). Likewise, it doesn't sound practical to have the Physics department at MIT or the CERN guys use Word.
It's not about one being better than the other, it's about using the right tool for the write job.
So we should teach children to challenge authority. How wonderful!
This is a valid point, but the Parent takes it a bit too far. It's not a binary proposition, where the kid will either reject all authority and guidance of parents and teachers, or blindly accept everything they say as gospel. As a parent of a 4 and 3 year old, I know how important it is to instill a deep sense of respect for authority. But at the same time, if a person is to learn they have to be able to challenge assumptions and ask their parents and teachers hard questions. I don't know everything, and some things I tell my kids may be wrong. I want them to use their brain and critical thinking skills to take what I or their teachers are telling them, digest and deconstruct it, and examine it for truth, not just accept it as fact. If they get used to accepting what their teachers tell them as fact, then they will do the same when a Democrat politician tells them that we need to pump more money into failing schools, or a Republican politician tells them that we need to deregulate banks.
It's not an easy row to hoe. It's a delicate balance, and the emphasis (I think) should be on respect and adherence to authority in the earlier years, with a shift to more challenging stance in later years. I want my kid to be the one sent home with a note from his physics teach that he is disrespectful because he came up with a cogent argument on why Pluto should be considered a planet.
About the time that George Bush Jr. took office, they got serious about deregulating banking and stocks.
Really? When was Glass-Steagall repealed?
You're shilling, but you're not completely full of shit.*
my Microsoft email client tells me who is sitting at their desk right now
I find that useful, but at my job it appears to be tied to Lync. Co-workers who don't use Lync appear offline. But perhaps other installs of Exchange provide the same functionality.
has one click-desktop sharing, conferencing, file sharing, tasks, goals, sales tasks, decisions, votes, and still works when i have little or no internet.
OK, this sounds like bullshit. How do I with one-click do any of those things? And how do I share my desktop when I have not internet?
It is a cockpit for daily work and efficiency.
Maybe, but meh. So I use my inbox to as a to-do list, big whoop.
When my laptop gets toasted, I have zero data loss and I get it all back as it was with 1-click,
Really? How? Office doesn't force me to save on the network, or even on SharePoint**. And I'm not aware of any Office backup solution that has one click restore. Where is this feature.
and while windows is being reinstalled I still have access to almost everything over any browser/smartphone.
I can't edit word docs or spreadsheets effectively on a smartphone. I use Office 2010, not Google Docs, so I can't access my files through a browser.
Did I mention that all my Russian, Greek, Arabic and Chinese mails all render properly?
This may be true. I know it handles all the accents in French well enough. I don't read any of those other languages, so not a big selling point for me at least.
Sure I can install 15 pieces of software to do that, but not throughout the entire organisation. MS-Office is installed & enterprise-licensed in 1 click, and with another click synchronized from the server.
Again with the one-click claim. Now, the intranet-based upgrade from 2007 to 2010 was one click I believe, but every time I've installed MS software (and most other software) there's always been multiple clicks. And this is how it should be. Not everyone person should have exactly the same install.
*I take it back. You are full of shit. Only the first thing you mention is useful and mostly true, and (at least in my experience) comes from a non-Office product.
**Don't get me started on SP. IT was supposed to upgrade our site to 2010 and none of the files or permissions came over. Perhaps not a flaw of SP, but I have my suspicions.
I recently applied for a job where the HR person specifically requested .docx format.
Last I checked, Google is not selling "their own shit" as a product.
Correct. They are selling our own shit.
Sure there should. There are legitimate reasons for security and privacy related to government proceedings. A grand jury session during which the existence of an active undercover operation (or where classified documents are discussed) should not necessarily be broadcast to the public. This is not to say that there shouldn't be proper checks and balances, with non-invested third parties auditing and/or overseeing such processes, but to make the argument that every Grand Jury should be 100% public is a bit naive.
I can't seem to find the "+1 Awesome" mod.
Agreed. There were reasons that Scorsese shot Raging Bull in B&W, and that Nolan used both B&W and color for Memento. The same can be said for The Wizard of Oz. And more recently, The Artist eschewed sound for artistic reasons. On the flip side of the coin, Cameron delayed making Avatar until he could develop the technology to do it the way he wanted.
I don't think there is any objective reason not to embrace an evolution to 48 fps. Cost and revenue numbers will dictate how fast this occurs. 48fps projectors should be able to play 24 fps sources (at the very worst, they will print each frame twice), so a director who wants to preserve the "imperfections" of that format can still do so. As long as you don't lose the ability to do what you can do today, there is no reason not to have the option to do something different tomorrow.
Nah. An increase in frame rate isn't going to change the film's subject matter (which is what the uncanny valley is about).
But it does change how the subject matter appears to the viewer, (which is what the uncanny valley is about).
The wording is interesting. They are not saying its an error, they are just saying it was sent to an unintended receiver.
In other words: "Yes, we spy on you. But it wasn't our intention your friends know".
I think it's clear that what they meant by that comment is that the 3rd party is not who you, the user, intended to receive the message. However, what's interesting to me is that this can happen at all. I'm not an engineer by any stretch, and perhaps I'm being too paranoid, but isn't it conceivable that the bug might not be that it's sending the IM to an some 3rd party on your contact list, but rather it's sending it to that 3rd party instead of to some log file on Skype's servers, or worse yet, some NSA repository?
There is a difference between a public street and a Grand Jury room.