I wonder if the voice actor thinks that Rockstar wouldn't be able to find someone to do basically the same quality of voice acting for $99,000, or $98,000. Somehow, I think they could.
Of course, it probably wouldn't hurt Rockstar much to take 3 or 4 percent of the profit and split it up among the whole project team. Assume that they have made ~$100 million on those sales and that there are 10,000 people involved (that's probably high) and each person gets a few hundred dollars, which is better than a few hundred pats on the back.
His post might be ethically correct, but given the current population, it isn't nearly as simple as his presentation. (It is unlikely that subsistence farming could support, for instance, the current population of Japan). Much of the unrest in Africa is due to population pressure.
Only ~$90 billion in market cap to go. Of course, Microsoft has just over 3x Google's $18 billion in revenue, so buying Microsoft would destroy the current price multiple on shares of Google.
You sure like to type. Anyway, things in Europe aren't enormously better than they are here (they are less sensitive to the price of fuel, so that particular problem isn't nearly as harmful). England is having their own housing bubble/ginned up financial instrument issues.
Anyway, it's all semantics. You are claiming that someone will pay $4 for gas because they need to but that they simultaneously do not place $4 of value on that gas. I don't use the word "value" in a way that is compatible with that statement, but I can see where you might.
I guess you don't understand what a commodity is, all buyers of a commodity participate in setting the market price of a commodity. So while we aren't the only reason for high costs, we are certainly one of them, we have about 5% of the global population and use about 25% of the worlds oil. Lots of that goes into industrial products that then get shipped somewhere and used, so it isn't quite accurate to attribute the consumption to the US, but it is probably close enough.
You seem to think that I am rubbing my hands in glee at the current economic situation in the US. I'm not. It sucks that people are having a hard time. And while it isn't 100% their fault, it isn't 100% not their fault either, people made all sorts of unfortunate decisions when the price of energy was low, without considering whether it could possibly stay that low.
I'm not sure those are reasonable people. There is some yahoo who rides by here on his crotch rocket (there is some fresh rural asphalt just down the road) a couple of times a week during the summer, and it is obvious that he is just out screwing around. I find the noise annoying and generally roll my eyes when he comes back for seconds, but I sure wouldn't bother flipping him off.
It precisely means that they think it is worth it. If they didn't think it was worth it, they would quit their jobs or whatever. That's a nasty thing to say, but that doesn't make it untrue.
I'm not happy that the economy in the US is currently built around an unsustainable rate of consumption, or that we are exporting almost 5% of our productivity simply for transportation fuels, but since you understand that fuel is a commodity, I probably don't need to go on.
The dollar is being devalued because the US is on the short end of the global adjustment in quality of life (That is, we are all doing relatively well, so to the extent that we have to adjust, we have to make do with less). It sucks that it isn't a smoothly managed process where people increase their quality of life without having any impact on the quality of life of other people around the world, but it's the it is.
Clearly we live on opposite sides of the optimist/pessimist divide.
I wouldn't be surprised if the next drastic change in global politics comes after a massive bio/chemical/nuclear war (all of them at once), and that it is towards a more regimented, structured society (which I wouldn't like), so that we can all be 'safe'.
A floating platform would be awful hard to actually make money with. Scientific research, especially the kind that would likely be done on such a platform, is only going to pay day rates, and it isn't all that likely to be full time (because the platform isn't going to charge peanuts). Recreation and tourism might work, but Brazil and Costa Rica and Greece and Italy and Hawaii and Thailand and so on and on all have most of the same advantages, without all the expenses that would come from being a floating platform.
The political free zone is an interesting concept, but I don't really think it would pay the bills.
Slashdot Mirror
2 + 2 = 4 is probably objective, but -2 * -2 = 4 probably isn't.
In case it was more than a typo, you probably mean lord(verb):
http://www.answers.com/laud
http://www.answers.com/lord
The US will generally allow you to renounce your citizenship. I think you might need existing citizenship from another country to do it though.
The shadiest thing they could possibly do is to monitor your email and not disclose it.
If they are disclosing that they monitor your use of their resources, you can choose if you are willing to put up with it or not.
Don't forget about DisneyMoon.
Just curious, what did what the Pope thought have to do with anything?
That Columbus had guns and germs mattered a whole lot more than what the Pope had to say.
I wonder if the voice actor thinks that Rockstar wouldn't be able to find someone to do basically the same quality of voice acting for $99,000, or $98,000. Somehow, I think they could.
Of course, it probably wouldn't hurt Rockstar much to take 3 or 4 percent of the profit and split it up among the whole project team. Assume that they have made ~$100 million on those sales and that there are 10,000 people involved (that's probably high) and each person gets a few hundred dollars, which is better than a few hundred pats on the back.
From what I understand, cloned beef is now in the food supply, so they may have advanced their techniques since the show you saw was produced.
First episode, mid-2007:
http://www.thisamericanlife.org/TV_Episode.aspx?episode=1
Cloned meat in food supply, early-2008 (Wired says it already is, NPR says it is approved):
http://www.wired.com/medtech/health/magazine/15-11/ff_clonedmeat
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=18137332
Farmer states that progeny of clones are in food supply on this page:
http://www.wired.com/medtech/health/magazine/15-11/ff_clonedmeat?currentPage=4
His post might be ethically correct, but given the current population, it isn't nearly as simple as his presentation. (It is unlikely that subsistence farming could support, for instance, the current population of Japan). Much of the unrest in Africa is due to population pressure.
All he is demonstrating is that -1 * -1 = 1 is a convenient convention that maintains the distributive law.
Leave the dust in place!
Only ~$90 billion in market cap to go. Of course, Microsoft has just over 3x Google's $18 billion in revenue, so buying Microsoft would destroy the current price multiple on shares of Google.
Get a Mercedes Benz SLR Mclaren:
http://www.mbusa.com/models/main.do?modelCode=SLR
It's grandma's supercar, a supercar that you can take to the grocery store.
Only $497,750.
I'm not your buddy, guy!
Drug use is alive and well in the US, and aging well:
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=when-im-sixty-four
Please send me $100,000,000, I would like to purchase a formally verified version of solitaire.
You sure like to type. Anyway, things in Europe aren't enormously better than they are here (they are less sensitive to the price of fuel, so that particular problem isn't nearly as harmful). England is having their own housing bubble/ginned up financial instrument issues.
Anyway, it's all semantics. You are claiming that someone will pay $4 for gas because they need to but that they simultaneously do not place $4 of value on that gas. I don't use the word "value" in a way that is compatible with that statement, but I can see where you might.
I guess you don't understand what a commodity is, all buyers of a commodity participate in setting the market price of a commodity. So while we aren't the only reason for high costs, we are certainly one of them, we have about 5% of the global population and use about 25% of the worlds oil. Lots of that goes into industrial products that then get shipped somewhere and used, so it isn't quite accurate to attribute the consumption to the US, but it is probably close enough.
You seem to think that I am rubbing my hands in glee at the current economic situation in the US. I'm not. It sucks that people are having a hard time. And while it isn't 100% their fault, it isn't 100% not their fault either, people made all sorts of unfortunate decisions when the price of energy was low, without considering whether it could possibly stay that low.
I'm not sure those are reasonable people. There is some yahoo who rides by here on his crotch rocket (there is some fresh rural asphalt just down the road) a couple of times a week during the summer, and it is obvious that he is just out screwing around. I find the noise annoying and generally roll my eyes when he comes back for seconds, but I sure wouldn't bother flipping him off.
There is a "way" missing in that last sentence.
It precisely means that they think it is worth it. If they didn't think it was worth it, they would quit their jobs or whatever. That's a nasty thing to say, but that doesn't make it untrue.
I'm not happy that the economy in the US is currently built around an unsustainable rate of consumption, or that we are exporting almost 5% of our productivity simply for transportation fuels, but since you understand that fuel is a commodity, I probably don't need to go on.
The dollar is being devalued because the US is on the short end of the global adjustment in quality of life (That is, we are all doing relatively well, so to the extent that we have to adjust, we have to make do with less). It sucks that it isn't a smoothly managed process where people increase their quality of life without having any impact on the quality of life of other people around the world, but it's the it is.
Is there somewhere where it promises to be objective and unbiased, or is there some text disclosing the reviewer's connection to the author?
Upon seeing the headline "Mother loves, praises Child", Harold interjected "How do we know we can trust her opinion?"
So prostitution and gambling then? The 20 year trend in taxes is down, isn't it (especially taking into account corporate taxes outside the US)?
You picked an odd reply button to push.
Clearly we live on opposite sides of the optimist/pessimist divide.
I wouldn't be surprised if the next drastic change in global politics comes after a massive bio/chemical/nuclear war (all of them at once), and that it is towards a more regimented, structured society (which I wouldn't like), so that we can all be 'safe'.
A floating platform would be awful hard to actually make money with. Scientific research, especially the kind that would likely be done on such a platform, is only going to pay day rates, and it isn't all that likely to be full time (because the platform isn't going to charge peanuts). Recreation and tourism might work, but Brazil and Costa Rica and Greece and Italy and Hawaii and Thailand and so on and on all have most of the same advantages, without all the expenses that would come from being a floating platform.
The political free zone is an interesting concept, but I don't really think it would pay the bills.