The point is to reduce wastefulness. If everybody buys trucks just for the times that they need the, and has another vehicle (or more) for the rest of the time, then most of the time the truck is sitting around doing nothing.
If people rent instead, then (hopefully) the truck can be used much more, thus reducing the number of trucks that need to be produced, and reducing the amount of material needed.
I've been advocating a similar strategy with regards to trucks for years now. Most of the people that I know that own trucks only use them as a truck occasionally. Most of the time they use them for simple transportation, which could easily be accomplished by a much less polluting (and cheaper to operate) car.
I've long wondered when the day will come that these people have a small car for their daily needs, then rent a truck for their occasional needs.
Well, the market doesn't always operate in the best interests of the people. Environmental issues show this to be the case.
In other words, the market isn't the solution to every problem, and "saving the environment" is a prime example of where it's going to take subsidies in order to counteract the market, so as to secure the public interest.
you do realize that the article mentions that one of the testers was able to identify FLAC every single time right?
SOME people can tell the difference, myself included. The usual culprit is lack of bass in MP3's, or at least bass that is missing the punch of the original recording.
Obviously MP3 is great for the masses, but for some people FLAC is worthwhile
How exactly is labeling Glen Beck evil equivalent to fearing free speach? It's exactly because we (Beck included) have free speech that he can say the retarded things that he says which serve to highlight his evilness. I mean imagine someone exercising their right to free speech and proclaiming that they believe that all babies should be killed; people wouldn't be fearful of free speech if they called him a baby-hater.
D00d, nearly everything WE do is based on corporate interests infecting our daily lives, primarily through mass marketing, and the push for consumerism.
Why would you pay attention when it's so much more enjoyable to sit back and watch CSI: Bombay????
you're doing something MASSIVELY wrong if you spend money on high end audio equipment and enjoy the music less. Seriously the purpose of the project is specifically to bring more enjoyment through better sound quality.
Actually we need health care reform because of the sky rocketing costs. This is the motivation to do something now. Politicians aren't nearly benevolent enough to do reform to keep people from suffering.
Wow, so it's unprofitable for employers to employ the millions of people that they DO employ at minimum wage? And all of those min wage peole are "very-low-productivity" as evidenced by their minimum wage pay?
Maybe you should watch the part in Roger & Me were the ex-auto workers couldn't make it at a fast food restaurant because the pace of work was too fast for them. Kinda dispels your idea that minimum wage = low productivity.
Minimum wage is a workers protection against employers driving wages down to a point that is unlivable. And it's a pretty poor protection at even that minimal task.
Just like I thought, because YOU got off minimum wage quickly means that everyone can!... Except that not everyone has the same opportunities as you:( Contrary to popular myth not everyone is afforded the boots sufficient to allow them to "pull themselves up by the boot straps".
That's not the whole story of sub-prime. Banks took the risky loans because they could get combine them with less risky loans and get them rated as investment worthy and then sell them off to other people. THIS created the lending craze that fueled the bubble. Yes politicians wanted these guys to promote home ownership but no one in their right mind wanted them to get as crazy with it as they did. But they weren't in their right mind because they were looking at how by making these loans they could make a buck today while the bubble is rising.
The sad thing about the housing bubble is that even the layman could see it. My parents bought their house in 2000 for $97k, and at the height of the bubble it was worth nearly $250k. And no once could have seen it coming!!!/sarcasm).
Of course neither of us is doing the collapse and it's causes any justice because it was ridiculous convoluted. In the end the people most responsible were the people actually making these loans (and their ridiculous models)
Yes and some of the most famous people behind the rational actors ideas now admit that it's far more complex. The example that I heard one of them cite was buying something because your girlfriend or wife liked it more than what you'd otherwise rationally purchase.
The rational actors idea dovetails so nicely with the "non-accountability" in government to form the argument that the market is a direct feedback mechanism while the government has no incentive not to just waste money:(:( (as if democracy isn't supposed to be a feedback mechanism with rational voting)
I get so sick of hearing the idea the old false idea that consumer purchasing is a feedback mechanism. Mostly it is, but in countless situations people don't "vote with their dollars" (so to speak). There are all sorts of non-self-interested reasons to buy something, like my girlfriend likes it more, or that I simply can't afford what's in my best interest, or maybe I don't have time to buy what's in my interest (like eating fast food instead of cooking). The very people that invented the simple portrait of consumer dollars representing consumer interest are the very people that now realize the mistake that they made. Perhaps the most obvious influence here is the power of marketing.
The other fallacy is that governent spending / control HAS to be bad. I agree that in most situations it turns out that way (largely because of the fundamental disconnect between the interests of voters and the interests of those that represent them), but it's not inherent.
Both of these add up to the tired right wing line that the market is always greater than the government.
Slashdot Mirror
The point is to reduce wastefulness. If everybody buys trucks just for the times that they need the, and has another vehicle (or more) for the rest of the time, then most of the time the truck is sitting around doing nothing. If people rent instead, then (hopefully) the truck can be used much more, thus reducing the number of trucks that need to be produced, and reducing the amount of material needed.
I've been advocating a similar strategy with regards to trucks for years now. Most of the people that I know that own trucks only use them as a truck occasionally. Most of the time they use them for simple transportation, which could easily be accomplished by a much less polluting (and cheaper to operate) car. I've long wondered when the day will come that these people have a small car for their daily needs, then rent a truck for their occasional needs.
Well, the market doesn't always operate in the best interests of the people. Environmental issues show this to be the case. In other words, the market isn't the solution to every problem, and "saving the environment" is a prime example of where it's going to take subsidies in order to counteract the market, so as to secure the public interest.
about:crashes only shows submitted crash reports... so if you didn't submit it won't be there
you do realize that the article mentions that one of the testers was able to identify FLAC every single time right?
SOME people can tell the difference, myself included. The usual culprit is lack of bass in MP3's, or at least bass that is missing the punch of the original recording.
Obviously MP3 is great for the masses, but for some people FLAC is worthwhile
HAHHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAH
How exactly is labeling Glen Beck evil equivalent to fearing free speach?
It's exactly because we (Beck included) have free speech that he can say the retarded things that he says which serve to highlight his evilness. I mean imagine someone exercising their right to free speech and proclaiming that they believe that all babies should be killed; people wouldn't be fearful of free speech if they called him a baby-hater.
D00d, nearly everything WE do is based on corporate interests infecting our daily lives, primarily through mass marketing, and the push for consumerism. Why would you pay attention when it's so much more enjoyable to sit back and watch CSI: Bombay????
you're doing something MASSIVELY wrong if you spend money on high end audio equipment and enjoy the music less. Seriously the purpose of the project is specifically to bring more enjoyment through better sound quality.
Prices plummeted and they nearly all went bankrupt.
Actually we need health care reform because of the sky rocketing costs. This is the motivation to do something now. Politicians aren't nearly benevolent enough to do reform to keep people from suffering.
Weed is barely addictive
Wow, so it's unprofitable for employers to employ the millions of people that they DO employ at minimum wage? And all of those min wage peole are "very-low-productivity" as evidenced by their minimum wage pay?
... Except that not everyone has the same opportunities as you :( Contrary to popular myth not everyone is afforded the boots sufficient to allow them to "pull themselves up by the boot straps".
Maybe you should watch the part in Roger & Me were the ex-auto workers couldn't make it at a fast food restaurant because the pace of work was too fast for them. Kinda dispels your idea that minimum wage = low productivity.
Minimum wage is a workers protection against employers driving wages down to a point that is unlivable. And it's a pretty poor protection at even that minimal task.
Just like I thought, because YOU got off minimum wage quickly means that everyone can!
no one said it's unscientific or inaccurate or made up. It just isn't peer reviewed.
That's not the whole story of sub-prime. Banks took the risky loans because they could get combine them with less risky loans and get them rated as investment worthy and then sell them off to other people. THIS created the lending craze that fueled the bubble. Yes politicians wanted these guys to promote home ownership but no one in their right mind wanted them to get as crazy with it as they did. But they weren't in their right mind because they were looking at how by making these loans they could make a buck today while the bubble is rising.
/sarcasm).
The sad thing about the housing bubble is that even the layman could see it. My parents bought their house in 2000 for $97k, and at the height of the bubble it was worth nearly $250k. And no once could have seen it coming!!!
Of course neither of us is doing the collapse and it's causes any justice because it was ridiculous convoluted. In the end the people most responsible were the people actually making these loans (and their ridiculous models)
Yes because everyone that makes minimum wage has a bad work ethic, a fifth-grade education, and no experience!
Scientific != peer reviewed
Yes and some of the most famous people behind the rational actors ideas now admit that it's far more complex. The example that I heard one of them cite was buying something because your girlfriend or wife liked it more than what you'd otherwise rationally purchase.
:( :( (as if democracy isn't supposed to be a feedback mechanism with rational voting)
The rational actors idea dovetails so nicely with the "non-accountability" in government to form the argument that the market is a direct feedback mechanism while the government has no incentive not to just waste money
we've never had real regulation because we always compromise with the capitalists :( You're straw manning regulation.
Wages aren't protected by laws on the books. I mean the minimum wage is a joke, so it doesn't count.
I get so sick of hearing the idea the old false idea that consumer purchasing is a feedback mechanism. Mostly it is, but in countless situations people don't "vote with their dollars" (so to speak). There are all sorts of non-self-interested reasons to buy something, like my girlfriend likes it more, or that I simply can't afford what's in my best interest, or maybe I don't have time to buy what's in my interest (like eating fast food instead of cooking). The very people that invented the simple portrait of consumer dollars representing consumer interest are the very people that now realize the mistake that they made. Perhaps the most obvious influence here is the power of marketing.
The other fallacy is that governent spending / control HAS to be bad. I agree that in most situations it turns out that way (largely because of the fundamental disconnect between the interests of voters and the interests of those that represent them), but it's not inherent.
Both of these add up to the tired right wing line that the market is always greater than the government.
KPFA, 100% listener sponsored radio since the mid-40's. Makes NPR look like Fox news.
Don't get me wrong NPR is good, but KPFA is about 10x greater.
Indeed, the history of Rupert Murdoch is free of principles save for the overriding principle of seeking profits.
But global warming isn't real!
you found $24 earbuds that had a microphone?