I was sort of making the point that Monsanto would probably still have a good business if they gave up all of the coercive bullshit. GP phrased his comment in a way that sort of implied that they only make money because our society is broken.
Sure it doesn't matter, the opinion of the EU is pretty much something they are going to put up with, and at some point it will be final.
On the other hand, if they were only being big meanie faces, rather than actually spending money to drive other companies out of business, lots of people are going to take that into account (I mean, making a smaller profit isn't exactly pure unmitigated evil, and the line between really good incentives and coercion is somewhat arbitrary).
More seriously, I'm not sure that is the sort of obfuscation that someone at the C level would be willing to make, they do occasionally get personally held to account.
That article states that it is about micro sized fuel cells. Maybe it will scale up, but they are claiming some of the efficiency comes from not having pumps, so maybe not. Show me one big enough to power a car and I will feel chastised.
And I'm not ruling anything out, research will go on regardless of my attitude, I'm just pointing out that enthusiasm for hypothetical technology that meets some arbitrary benchmark is pointless.
I don't mean all of them or anything, I just mean the vast, vast majority of them. By the time they have fertilizer, time and fuel put into the land, licensing the seeds and spraying the herbicide are details.
Or magic hope powered cars. Direct methanol fuel cells currently don't come anywhere close to being 60% efficient, I can't imagine that a more complicated chemistry is going to help things.
Are you talking about fuel cells with membranes that process methane and gasoline, or are you talking about fuel cells with hydrogen reformers glued to the in pipe?
The reformer ends up making things a (good) bit less efficient.
Much of it has to do with traders defending their futures positions. You can look here and see that a fair amount of price increase is built into the market right now:
Another factor is that oil companies (and countries...) have been scaling back production, because of the glut you speak of; U.S. stocks (of crude) represent about 20-30 days of supply, so they are more indicative of a mismatch between supply and demand than they are of an enormous oversupply actually coming to market.
I'm pretty sure big rights holders (OPEC, Canada, Mexico, etc.) see $10 crude as Armageddon and, secure in the knowledge that they can charge at least $40, they will go to quite some lengths to keep prices higher than that (I'm not real sure, but there is some likelihood that a significant amount of current production would simply be uneconomic at $10). It's pretty easy for them to do, you have to sell an awful lot of $10 oil to make larger nominal profits than when you are selling at $40 or $50, so production cuts are a quick decision.
Given that they have spent more than $10 billion on dividends and stock repurchases over the last 4 quarters, 'lost' is sort of a poor word choice here (maybe 'spent' or 'reduced' would be better):
Right, at a minimum, the banks and credit agencies need to be the ones doing the cleanup.
I'm fine with it making credit a bit harder to obtain; banks would be motivated to come up with a cheap, strong mechanism for verifying identity, so it might not increase costs all that much, and it would certainly distribute them more fairly (i.e., to all customers instead of unlucky ones).
Just make banks responsible for accounts that they open; if the person named on the account says that they didn't open it, the burden should then be on the bank to demonstrate that they did. There needs to be a little protection against people that open accounts and then try to repudiate them, but not much (because the first time the bank caught and verified you, you would never get credit again).
Slashdot Mirror
It's ok, you'll be dead long before they find each other.
So, pretty much anywhere?
I was sort of making the point that Monsanto would probably still have a good business if they gave up all of the coercive bullshit. GP phrased his comment in a way that sort of implied that they only make money because our society is broken.
Sure it doesn't matter, the opinion of the EU is pretty much something they are going to put up with, and at some point it will be final.
On the other hand, if they were only being big meanie faces, rather than actually spending money to drive other companies out of business, lots of people are going to take that into account (I mean, making a smaller profit isn't exactly pure unmitigated evil, and the line between really good incentives and coercion is somewhat arbitrary).
How special is it?
More seriously, I'm not sure that is the sort of obfuscation that someone at the C level would be willing to make, they do occasionally get personally held to account.
That article states that it is about micro sized fuel cells. Maybe it will scale up, but they are claiming some of the efficiency comes from not having pumps, so maybe not. Show me one big enough to power a car and I will feel chastised.
And I'm not ruling anything out, research will go on regardless of my attitude, I'm just pointing out that enthusiasm for hypothetical technology that meets some arbitrary benchmark is pointless.
They would probably be able to claim an implied license.
Well, unless you are a deep sleeper with rather crazy associates.
There are no lawyers in a court of thunder and lightning.
Except farmers fucking looooove Roundup Ready crops.
I don't mean all of them or anything, I just mean the vast, vast majority of them. By the time they have fertilizer, time and fuel put into the land, licensing the seeds and spraying the herbicide are details.
Intel maintains (Of course!) that they never sold below cost.
Or magic hope powered cars. Direct methanol fuel cells currently don't come anywhere close to being 60% efficient, I can't imagine that a more complicated chemistry is going to help things.
Are you talking about fuel cells with membranes that process methane and gasoline, or are you talking about fuel cells with hydrogen reformers glued to the in pipe?
The reformer ends up making things a (good) bit less efficient.
Much of it has to do with traders defending their futures positions. You can look here and see that a fair amount of price increase is built into the market right now:
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/fc?s=CLM09.NYM
Another factor is that oil companies (and countries...) have been scaling back production, because of the glut you speak of; U.S. stocks (of crude) represent about 20-30 days of supply, so they are more indicative of a mismatch between supply and demand than they are of an enormous oversupply actually coming to market.
I'm pretty sure big rights holders (OPEC, Canada, Mexico, etc.) see $10 crude as Armageddon and, secure in the knowledge that they can charge at least $40, they will go to quite some lengths to keep prices higher than that (I'm not real sure, but there is some likelihood that a significant amount of current production would simply be uneconomic at $10). It's pretty easy for them to do, you have to sell an awful lot of $10 oil to make larger nominal profits than when you are selling at $40 or $50, so production cuts are a quick decision.
That would make for an exciting scene in a movie, but this guy points out at article:
http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1231115&cid=27935049
that implies it is quite a bit easier than that (the initiation can probably be done remotely, or on a timer).
Or "long experience".
Does your confidence in the impending douche-baggery make it any less douche-baggy?
It is well known to ordinarily be a gas at STP.
Given that they have spent more than $10 billion on dividends and stock repurchases over the last 4 quarters, 'lost' is sort of a poor word choice here (maybe 'spent' or 'reduced' would be better):
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/cf?s=MSFT
They did take a huge hit ($5 billion!) on investments in the first quarter of this year.
I'm sitting less than 10 feet from a gun. Making assumptions just makes you an ass.
Right, at a minimum, the banks and credit agencies need to be the ones doing the cleanup.
I'm fine with it making credit a bit harder to obtain; banks would be motivated to come up with a cheap, strong mechanism for verifying identity, so it might not increase costs all that much, and it would certainly distribute them more fairly (i.e., to all customers instead of unlucky ones).
God forbid the insurance companies serve their other customers.
If you want universal health care, say so. Complaining that insurance companies/em> try to make a profit is tiresome.
Just make banks responsible for accounts that they open; if the person named on the account says that they didn't open it, the burden should then be on the bank to demonstrate that they did. There needs to be a little protection against people that open accounts and then try to repudiate them, but not much (because the first time the bank caught and verified you, you would never get credit again).
If you are spending all your time just keeping things functioning, isn't that close enough to broke that you should fix it?
No one likes an angry Kenan Thompson.
As long as you live on the block with the asshole fascist cops.
It isn't that strange, state laws are anything but uniform.