So you admit that it made testable claims that were proved false, making it a science. Or maybe Newton wasn't a scientist because in the end he was proven wrong?
Pennies are less than a penny a piece (since you can get them for free all over the place), and people don't use those to line their driveways for a number of reasons. Demand isn't anywhere near infinite, even for things that are free or near free.
You put it in your own post: willing. Why are they not willing to buy an infinite amount of anything, if they have the money? Why doesn't bill gates have a stockpile of PS3s? Because demand simply isn't infinite, consumers want only a fixed amount of things before they are satiated, and want other things, or simply nothing more. Many rich people reach the point where they begin to give their assets away because the satisfaction of doing good and being remembered well historically outweighs their desire for more goods. And though you could try to argue that that's another kind of 'good', it would really be stretching the definition of 'demand' as used in conventional economics.
We're not going to lose bees, thank you evolution. There are plenty of hives that have survived CCD, and while it may take a few years for populations to fully recover, we can be confident that Darwin has left us with the bees that naturally resist whatever the cause of CCD turns out to bee.
I don't think the difference between justified and unjustified homicide is in itself complicated enough to require lawyers. The law is enormously more complicated than it needs to be mainly in that it has devolved into answering too many specifics, and not leaving enough responsibility for rationality in the hands of judges and juries.
So we should imprison some people because a judge/jury found their homicide unjustified, while the same person in front of a different judge/jury would have had their homicide found justified?
This could happen when two judges/juries have varying opinions about if protection of property can justify lethal force.
One aspect of "fairness" is equal application of the law to all individuals. And that a person should have the ability to know if their actions are legal/protected prior to actually performing them.
Applying a vague ambiguous law, which allows justification for homicide to be argued a priori every single time is prone to unfairly impact those who are not able to represent themselves well.
But we have that problem with the existing system, so why not have a simpler legal system that can work for the little guy some of the time, instead of only working for the rich and the lawyers.
Even BPs gross of 366 billion would take 35 years to pay off the debt.
That's more than 'a few', not that that really undermines your point, which is really that BP is too big to let any government fine it willy-nilly. It will defend itself to a ridiculous level in the courts, and whatever they pay out in the end will be a pittance.
I don't think the difference between justified and unjustified homicide is in itself complicated enough to require lawyers. The law is enormously more complicated than it needs to be mainly in that it has devolved into answering too many specifics, and not leaving enough responsibility for rationality in the hands of judges and juries.
Just like it's usually a waste of money to pay UPS or USPS to insure your package against their negligence.
I don't understand what you're saying here. UPS/USPS damages packages all the time... if I ship anything of value over $100, I always take insurance, and while I suppose it is likely that UPS prices the insurance to be a statistical loser, I'm pretty sure the USPS insurance is subsidized by stamp purchases, and even the UPS insurance may be subsidized by shipping costs. All I know is that I've been a long term winner with the insurance to the tune of a couple of thousand dollar now.
Oh, so cute, believing the vote matters when the real powers have set up two political parties, neither of which will mess with anything they care about.
Re:in other news, cementing the BP CEO has started
on
Gulf Oil Leak Plugged?
·
· Score: 1
Sadly, I've yet to see a case made that a CEO has skills worthy of the pay disparity. Even those who don't fail miserably don't do anything to deserve what they earn.
At least with the sports stars, I believe that I couldn't outperform even the lowest paid professional. Whereas with the CEOs, I look at what they do, and generally think I could easily do better.
Or pregnant with twins, triplets, or octuplets. There are degrees of just about everything.:-)
Re:in other news, cementing the BP CEO has started
on
Gulf Oil Leak Plugged?
·
· Score: 1
Well, I have a problem with sports pay too, but at least they demonstrate superior talent. With CEOs, they get paid ridiculous amounts of money to fail miserably.
Re:in other news, cementing the BP CEO has started
on
Gulf Oil Leak Plugged?
·
· Score: 1
It works the other direction, either we get to complain about their money making, or they have to take personal responsibility for this kind of tragedy. They can't earn the money with no responsibility for the performance of the organization.
Slashdot Mirror
Thank you, I can't believe that got modded troll.
So you admit that it made testable claims that were proved false, making it a science. Or maybe Newton wasn't a scientist because in the end he was proven wrong?
ID is certainly a science:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/science
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design
I'm afraid it would be hard to define something that better fit the dictionary definition of 'science'.
Pennies are less than a penny a piece (since you can get them for free all over the place), and people don't use those to line their driveways for a number of reasons. Demand isn't anywhere near infinite, even for things that are free or near free.
You put it in your own post: willing. Why are they not willing to buy an infinite amount of anything, if they have the money? Why doesn't bill gates have a stockpile of PS3s? Because demand simply isn't infinite, consumers want only a fixed amount of things before they are satiated, and want other things, or simply nothing more. Many rich people reach the point where they begin to give their assets away because the satisfaction of doing good and being remembered well historically outweighs their desire for more goods. And though you could try to argue that that's another kind of 'good', it would really be stretching the definition of 'demand' as used in conventional economics.
The ANOVA with 4 samples will tell you you can't make the 95% rejection of null hypothesis.
We're not going to lose bees, thank you evolution. There are plenty of hives that have survived CCD, and while it may take a few years for populations to fully recover, we can be confident that Darwin has left us with the bees that naturally resist whatever the cause of CCD turns out to bee.
I don't think the difference between justified and unjustified homicide is in itself complicated enough to require lawyers. The law is enormously more complicated than it needs to be mainly in that it has devolved into answering too many specifics, and not leaving enough responsibility for rationality in the hands of judges and juries.
So we should imprison some people because a judge/jury found their homicide unjustified, while the same person in front of a different judge/jury would have had their homicide found justified?
This could happen when two judges/juries have varying opinions about if protection of property can justify lethal force.
One aspect of "fairness" is equal application of the law to all individuals. And that a person should have the ability to know if their actions are legal/protected prior to actually performing them.
Applying a vague ambiguous law, which allows justification for homicide to be argued a priori every single time is prone to unfairly impact those who are not able to represent themselves well.
But we have that problem with the existing system, so why not have a simpler legal system that can work for the little guy some of the time, instead of only working for the rich and the lawyers.
BP's annual profit is less than 60 billion dollars.
http://www.marketwatch.com/investing/stock/BP/financials
The US debt is about 13 trillion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_public_debt
13 trillion / 60 billion / year = 216 years.
Even BPs gross of 366 billion would take 35 years to pay off the debt.
That's more than 'a few', not that that really undermines your point, which is really that BP is too big to let any government fine it willy-nilly. It will defend itself to a ridiculous level in the courts, and whatever they pay out in the end will be a pittance.
The real bummer is being in that first town with no internet access, so that you weren't able to plan your fuel purchase. Towns with no internet suck!
Nothing would ever get done. Food for thought. And thanks to all the corner cutting, BP can afford an environmental catastrophe of this magnitude.
I don't think the difference between justified and unjustified homicide is in itself complicated enough to require lawyers. The law is enormously more complicated than it needs to be mainly in that it has devolved into answering too many specifics, and not leaving enough responsibility for rationality in the hands of judges and juries.
Certainly reality rules in your favor, the law IS too complicated for the layperson to use it.
In the ideal, however, the law would be simple and the tool of anyone who needed its protection.
Just like it's usually a waste of money to pay UPS or USPS to insure your package against their negligence.
I don't understand what you're saying here. UPS/USPS damages packages all the time ... if I ship anything of value over $100, I always take insurance, and while I suppose it is likely that UPS prices the insurance to be a statistical loser, I'm pretty sure the USPS insurance is subsidized by stamp purchases, and even the UPS insurance may be subsidized by shipping costs. All I know is that I've been a long term winner with the insurance to the tune of a couple of thousand dollar now.
Oh, so cute, believing the vote matters when the real powers have set up two political parties, neither of which will mess with anything they care about.
Duly chastised, and I've seen that no less.
Sadly, I've yet to see a case made that a CEO has skills worthy of the pay disparity. Even those who don't fail miserably don't do anything to deserve what they earn.
At least with the sports stars, I believe that I couldn't outperform even the lowest paid professional. Whereas with the CEOs, I look at what they do, and generally think I could easily do better.
Or pregnant with twins, triplets, or octuplets. There are degrees of just about everything. :-)
Well, I have a problem with sports pay too, but at least they demonstrate superior talent. With CEOs, they get paid ridiculous amounts of money to fail miserably.
How many degrees away from true makes the binary transition in state? :-)
Sorry, that was probably unclear wording, let me add a few words, relating back to the prior sentence:
They can't earn the money with no responsibility for the performance of the organization, without duly earning the scorn of us all.
It takes too long to get scuba certified.
It works the other direction, either we get to complain about their money making, or they have to take personal responsibility for this kind of tragedy. They can't earn the money with no responsibility for the performance of the organization.
Whoosh?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_Enough_at_Last
That is the funniest math joke I think I have ever seen. Kudos.