So basically it's like the 1760s (Americans were taxed and arrested by laws of a UK parliament they never elected), except now it's operating in reverse.
>>>nothing more than an indignant letter and a small fine.
And a nice mortgage bailout for those fatcats too. (Yes it's a bad thing. It did almost nothing for mortgage customers, and was a giant gift for Bank of America and other major lenders.) Ignore the article and watch all the embedded links/videos. http://www.infowars.com/mortgage-settlement-is-just-another-stealth-bank-bailout/
Why isn't the U.S. on the Enemies of the Internet 'under surveillance' list? Russia and Australia and the UK are there, but the U.S. isn't? It makes no logical sense.
"The 'under surveillance' list also includes Russia, which has used cyber-attacks and has arrested bloggers and netizens to prevent a real online political debate."
The U.S. has done the same (usually with a false claim of copyright infringement) .
Exactly. Marketing to doctors and customers promotes the new pill & reduces the cost as sales increases. It's not an evil thing.
Those people who think advertising is bad are the same people who think paying ~$250 a year to get the ad-free BBC is a good idea. (For comparison U.S. cable channels cost ~40 cents a month, because the advertising reduces the subscriber fee.) Some people hate ads soooooo much that they refuse to see how advertising/marketing can be beneficial to the customer.
Yeah well that's one of the reasons I oppose having copy or patent monopolies longer than a generation (20 years). Let the companies recoup their initial costs, but then move the item into public domain as soon as possible.
>>>No amount of marketing can change the number of people who need a drug.
That is true, but if you don't advertise your drug and only 100 people know about it, then the other 1 million people with cancer will be left out. Advertising will make those other million people realize the drug is available, increase the sales, and decrease the per-pill cost. (The same principle that worked on Viagra pills.) So advertising SAVES money rather than waste money, through economy of scale.
Stop committing first-order thinking (advertising == waste of money == bad). Look to secondary and tertiary effects, and it's obvious that advertising increases awareness which is a positive good for the doctors, the customers, and the overall cost.
I guess I have to spell it out. You develop a new pill called Viagra. It costs $1000 a pill but you don't advertise it, so very few people buy it and the cost remains $1000 a pill.
Then you decide to advertise it on TV, radio, and the net and within a year you're selling to over 10 million customers. Thanks to economy of scale, the price per pill drops to $1. Therefore advertising actually saved money (rather than waste money as the great-grandparent post claimed).
1. Advertising actually save money because it encourages more sales. 2. Academic research is funded by drug companies and other corporations. 3. They don't make that much profit. I don't see Bayer in the top 100. 4. Doubtful. No company sells at a loss. Bayer would just avoid India completely, and not release their patented drugs until 10-20 years later (after they recover their initial R&D investment).
Not immediately but that will be the eventual result. Bayer and others won't waste their time patenting drugs in India if they are unable to recoup their R&D costs (i.e. they won't sell at a loss). Instead India will get the new drugs 10-20 years later after the initial R&D has been paid-off by EU and US and RF customers.
My point was that I don't oppose the use of cameras, because the cameras are not the problem. It's the police officers that are the problem. I would trust the cold logic of a camera (either you are speeding or not) then a lying human being.
Problem solved. And if you think the speed limits are too slow, then petition to have them raised rather than weaken the enforcement.
Of course one needs to make sure the camera owners are not cheating, like they were in D.C. (the yellow light was shortened in order to boost profits). I'm not sure how cheating happens with speed cameras but I'm sure there's a way. Perhaps the same way that New Mexican officer claimed I was doing 91 when I was only doing 79.
Environmentalists/greens who say this stuff obviously never did a bit of research. If you live in a claustrophic concrete hellhole (what other people call "cities"), then yes there are buses/trains galore but not out in the suburbs. I would have to drive 20 minutes just to get to the nearest metro stop, and then wait 15-20 more minutes for it to show up. Then waste time on the ride. Then walk another 20 minutes from the station to my job.
It's faster to just drive past the metro stop and go direct to my destination. In fact it's about half the time (35 minutes versus 1.4 hours).
>>>I'd much rather spend my commute reading than driving
Yes. Me too! The unfortunate side-effect is that people will start commutting 2 hours to work instead of 1/2 to 1 hour, because they can just sit back and enjoy the ride while reading the newspaper or watching a movie. That will drive pollution even higher.
As for sat-radio, if you want to save some cash check out Sirius XM's ala carte plan. Only $8 a month. That's the plan I would choose if I had satellite radio.
I'm going on vacation in California and Nevada soon. Which brothel provides the best service? I was thinking the "Pimpin' for Paul" one I saw advertised on RT's Alyona Show, but I'm open to suggestions.
>>>This isn't even a question that requires the unique expertise of the/. crowd;
They use the Sprint network..... no idea if it's the "best" but it's affordable. $50 for unlimited internet, and it works anywhere that a cellphone works. Plus no contract so you can use it 1 month and then done.
I have tried Wifi in my hotel, and it barely works at all (slow and drops connection frequently). I don't recommend that route.
Exactly. Accountants never seems to understand that R&D is costly and often leads to dead-ends.
But that's also how you discover innovations like Bell Labs used to do, and Google is doing now. The alternative is to count pennies & become like Microsoft. They just copied ideas from other companies like Atari, Commodore, Apple, Netscape/Mozilla, Google, Opera, rather than innovate new ideas.
Satellite net is usually the same speed as budget Cable internet but with higher latency. In all my previous hotels which provided free internet, they had wired ethernet to all the rooms. It was nice and fast (100 to 200 kilobyte/s).
Maybe I'll try VirginMobile's $50/month plan. Or just stick with dialup ($7) for the facebook/email and let uTorrent handle the hotel's Wifi mess, since it doesn't mind the dropped connections.
Incandescent bulbs were built here in the U.S. or Mexico. So shipping costs were minimal (~1500 miles miles rather than halfway round the world). Therefore less energy wasted. AND they could be disposed here rather than having to be shipped all the way to China for recycling.
And no I didn't use crap. They were Philips bulbs. They don't die because of poor power quality but because they are upside down in ceiling fixtures which trap the heat. Heat kills CFLs. (For comparison the incandescent bulbs also lasted about 1/2 a year... they don't mind the heat.)
I just think all this BS over bulbs is ridiculous.
They represent about 1/2% of our total power usage. Almost all of the generated electricity gets sucked-up into our air conditioners and heaters. THAT'S where we should be targeting higher efficiency (and maybe requiring new homes be PassiveHaus standards). Not wasting our time with CFLs that operate as poorly as Windows Vista on a 256 megabyte RAM computer. CFLs are a DOWNgrade not an upgrade.
CFLs are shit, and I've already enumerated all the reasons. They are dim for 4-5 minutes before reaching a level where I can read my damn book. They die prematurely in upside-down, enclosed, or heat-trapping fixtures. They are expensive, filled with mercury, and require special disposal which adds wasted energy & cost. At the end of the day, I don't think a CFL saves any more production-to-disposal (overall) energy than a standard bulb. Maybe 1-2 kWh per year but that's about it. Not. Worth. The hassle.
All politicians receive bribery during their re-election campaigns, all the way up to the president. Just look at the top donors for Obama and Romney (the list is almost identical).
I did give one of my family members a Linux laptop when I was done with it, but they still manage to turn it into a mess every now and then. Linux isn't any more reliable than Windows in the hands of an unskilled user who doesn't give a shit about downloading anything & everything.
Iran is not a "bad nation". They are a theocratic democracy... a Republic to be more precise (rule by law passed by the elected parliament). And they are signatories to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty which allows them to develop nuclear reactors, which UN inspectors have confirmed they are doing. (Purifying uranium at 25% pure level... not weapons-grade level.)
So where's the evil? Where's the cause to go to war & kill or maim millions of innocent men, women, and children? I cannot locate it. All I see if a lot of propaganda, just like the propaganda we were fed that Iraq had WMDs (they did not).
I bet Jesus wept when he saw all the carnage the U.S. caused in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya, and he will weep again when we start adding Iranians to the pile of corpses. (And yes I know this will offend you. It should. It's murder.) War and killing in general is only justified in the case of self defense.
Slashdot Mirror
So basically it's like the 1760s (Americans were taxed and arrested by laws of a UK parliament they never elected), except now it's operating in reverse.
>>>nothing more than an indignant letter and a small fine.
And a nice mortgage bailout for those fatcats too. (Yes it's a bad thing. It did almost nothing for mortgage customers, and was a giant gift for Bank of America and other major lenders.) Ignore the article and watch all the embedded links/videos. http://www.infowars.com/mortgage-settlement-is-just-another-stealth-bank-bailout/
Why isn't the U.S. on the Enemies of the Internet 'under surveillance' list? Russia and Australia and the UK are there, but the U.S. isn't? It makes no logical sense.
I used to get Fidonet through my local BBS, but now I have no idea how to access it. (It's not easy like usenet which can be reached through google.)
"The 'under surveillance' list also includes Russia, which has used cyber-attacks and has arrested bloggers and netizens to prevent a real online political debate."
The U.S. has done the same (usually with a false claim of copyright infringement)
.
Exactly. Marketing to doctors and customers promotes the new pill & reduces the cost as sales increases. It's not an evil thing.
Those people who think advertising is bad are the same people who think paying ~$250 a year to get the ad-free BBC is a good idea. (For comparison U.S. cable channels cost ~40 cents a month, because the advertising reduces the subscriber fee.) Some people hate ads soooooo much that they refuse to see how advertising/marketing can be beneficial to the customer.
Yeah well that's one of the reasons I oppose having copy or patent monopolies longer than a generation (20 years). Let the companies recoup their initial costs, but then move the item into public domain as soon as possible.
>>>No amount of marketing can change the number of people who need a drug.
That is true, but if you don't advertise your drug and only 100 people know about it, then the other 1 million people with cancer will be left out. Advertising will make those other million people realize the drug is available, increase the sales, and decrease the per-pill cost. (The same principle that worked on Viagra pills.) So advertising SAVES money rather than waste money, through economy of scale.
Stop committing first-order thinking (advertising == waste of money == bad). Look to secondary and tertiary effects, and it's obvious that advertising increases awareness which is a positive good for the doctors, the customers, and the overall cost.
I guess I have to spell it out. You develop a new pill called Viagra. It costs $1000 a pill but you don't advertise it, so very few people buy it and the cost remains $1000 a pill.
Then you decide to advertise it on TV, radio, and the net and within a year you're selling to over 10 million customers. Thanks to economy of scale, the price per pill drops to $1. Therefore advertising actually saved money (rather than waste money as the great-grandparent post claimed).
1. Advertising actually save money because it encourages more sales.
2. Academic research is funded by drug companies and other corporations.
3. They don't make that much profit. I don't see Bayer in the top 100.
4. Doubtful. No company sells at a loss. Bayer would just avoid India completely, and not release their patented drugs until 10-20 years later (after they recover their initial R&D investment).
Not immediately but that will be the eventual result. Bayer and others won't waste their time patenting drugs in India if they are unable to recoup their R&D costs (i.e. they won't sell at a loss). Instead India will get the new drugs 10-20 years later after the initial R&D has been paid-off by EU and US and RF customers.
If the camera is owned (or funded) by the EU or US member state, then you are wasting taxpayer dollars.
My point was that I don't oppose the use of cameras, because the cameras are not the problem. It's the police officers that are the problem. I would trust the cold logic of a camera (either you are speeding or not) then a lying human being.
Who?
Problem solved. And if you think the speed limits are too slow, then petition to have them raised rather than weaken the enforcement.
Of course one needs to make sure the camera owners are not cheating, like they were in D.C. (the yellow light was shortened in order to boost profits). I'm not sure how cheating happens with speed cameras but I'm sure there's a way. Perhaps the same way that New Mexican officer claimed I was doing 91 when I was only doing 79.
>>>You could get a train, or a bus, or a taxi.
Environmentalists/greens who say this stuff obviously never did a bit of research. If you live in a claustrophic concrete hellhole (what other people call "cities"), then yes there are buses/trains galore but not out in the suburbs. I would have to drive 20 minutes just to get to the nearest metro stop, and then wait 15-20 more minutes for it to show up. Then waste time on the ride. Then walk another 20 minutes from the station to my job.
It's faster to just drive past the metro stop and go direct to my destination. In fact it's about half the time (35 minutes versus 1.4 hours).
>>>I'd much rather spend my commute reading than driving
Yes. Me too! The unfortunate side-effect is that people will start commutting 2 hours to work instead of 1/2 to 1 hour, because they can just sit back and enjoy the ride while reading the newspaper or watching a movie. That will drive pollution even higher.
As for sat-radio, if you want to save some cash check out Sirius XM's ala carte plan. Only $8 a month. That's the plan I would choose if I had satellite radio.
I'm going on vacation in California and Nevada soon. Which brothel provides the best service? I was thinking the "Pimpin' for Paul" one I saw advertised on RT's Alyona Show, but I'm open to suggestions.
>>>This isn't even a question that requires the unique expertise of the /. crowd;
Yeah you're right.
;-)
What was I thinking.
They use the Sprint network..... no idea if it's the "best" but it's affordable. $50 for unlimited internet, and it works anywhere that a cellphone works. Plus no contract so you can use it 1 month and then done.
I have tried Wifi in my hotel, and it barely works at all (slow and drops connection frequently). I don't recommend that route.
Exactly. Accountants never seems to understand that R&D is costly and often leads to dead-ends.
But that's also how you discover innovations like Bell Labs used to do, and Google is doing now. The alternative is to count pennies & become like Microsoft. They just copied ideas from other companies like Atari, Commodore, Apple, Netscape/Mozilla, Google, Opera, rather than innovate new ideas.
Satellite net is usually the same speed as budget Cable internet but with higher latency. In all my previous hotels which provided free internet, they had wired ethernet to all the rooms. It was nice and fast (100 to 200 kilobyte/s).
Maybe I'll try VirginMobile's $50/month plan. Or just stick with dialup ($7) for the facebook/email and let uTorrent handle the hotel's Wifi mess, since it doesn't mind the dropped connections.
Incandescent bulbs were built here in the U.S. or Mexico. So shipping costs were minimal (~1500 miles miles rather than halfway round the world). Therefore less energy wasted. AND they could be disposed here rather than having to be shipped all the way to China for recycling.
And no I didn't use crap. They were Philips bulbs. They don't die because of poor power quality but because they are upside down in ceiling fixtures which trap the heat. Heat kills CFLs. (For comparison the incandescent bulbs also lasted about 1/2 a year... they don't mind the heat.)
I just think all this BS over bulbs is ridiculous.
They represent about 1/2% of our total power usage. Almost all of the generated electricity gets sucked-up into our air conditioners and heaters. THAT'S where we should be targeting higher efficiency (and maybe requiring new homes be PassiveHaus standards). Not wasting our time with CFLs that operate as poorly as Windows Vista on a 256 megabyte RAM computer. CFLs are a DOWNgrade not an upgrade.
CFLs are shit, and I've already enumerated all the reasons. They are dim for 4-5 minutes before reaching a level where I can read my damn book. They die prematurely in upside-down, enclosed, or heat-trapping fixtures. They are expensive, filled with mercury, and require special disposal which adds wasted energy & cost. At the end of the day, I don't think a CFL saves any more production-to-disposal (overall) energy than a standard bulb. Maybe 1-2 kWh per year but that's about it. Not. Worth. The hassle.
All politicians receive bribery during their re-election campaigns, all the way up to the president. Just look at the top donors for Obama and Romney (the list is almost identical).
I did give one of my family members a Linux laptop when I was done with it, but they still manage to turn it into a mess every now and then. Linux isn't any more reliable than Windows in the hands of an unskilled user who doesn't give a shit about downloading anything & everything.
Iran is not a "bad nation". They are a theocratic democracy... a Republic to be more precise (rule by law passed by the elected parliament). And they are signatories to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty which allows them to develop nuclear reactors, which UN inspectors have confirmed they are doing. (Purifying uranium at 25% pure level... not weapons-grade level.)
So where's the evil? Where's the cause to go to war & kill or maim millions of innocent men, women, and children? I cannot locate it. All I see if a lot of propaganda, just like the propaganda we were fed that Iraq had WMDs (they did not).
I bet Jesus wept when he saw all the carnage the U.S. caused in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya, and he will weep again when we start adding Iranians to the pile of corpses. (And yes I know this will offend you. It should. It's murder.) War and killing in general is only justified in the case of self defense.