Compared to all the other things in our solar system, why is Pluto all that interesting? Its appeal seems about more pop interest than science: which was also the only thing preventing it from being downgraded from planet status in the first place.
---I believe it will be Nintendo because of the lack of DVD support.---
My car lacks DVD support, and yet tht didn't stop me from buying it, instead of a super expensive minivan that actually DOES have it. The point is: not all people want their eletronic appliances integrated. Time and time again companies have bet on their next big product being an "integrated solution" for home entertainment. But for the most part, these efforts fail to catch on.
---If the kiddies want a gaming system and parents were thinking of getting a DVD player, I would sure as hell kill two birds with one stone. ---
The problem is: most of the people who want to buy DVD players already have one. So this just isn't as big a market as you might think.
Re:we could be living in one big black hole
on
Giant Black Hole Found
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
---On the subject of black holes, it's interesting to note that our entire (known) universe could be inside of a black hole.---
This isn't really a good way to phrase it. "Inside" is not a concept that conveys any helpful meaning about this possibility, and in fact it sort of really confuses the issue. The basic physics point is this: it looks as if an entire universe can start from just a single singularity: that our universe could have started as a result of a quantum event. Victor Sternger has discussed this idea at length.
---We'd still have to find some exotic matter or something to counteract the tidal forces, and there's time discrepancy issues to deal with, but that's a somewhat moot point.---
Moot because it doesn't seem in the least possible? This "matter" would have be so exotic that it would be unlike any "matter" that anyone has ever even concieved of before to survive the tidal forces.
Isn't it funny how, since we are unable to figure out who this guy is, we decided to publically release an FBI profile that was basically just a bunch of schoolyard insults? "He's most likely a loner, a loser, he probably has no girlfriend cus he's too ugly and insecure...."
---Would we castigate the airline industry for allowing terrorists to take over their planes and crash them into skyscrapers? Well, apparently not. Instead we give the airlines tons of money so they can continue to make a profit while their revenues decline.---
It's worse than that. First, consider that the fact that an airline goes bankrupt doesn't mean the planes stop flying. Plane routes will continue to be flown for as long as they are profitable. If they cease to be profitable, they will very RIGHTLY not be flown. In this case, demand for airline flights is going to fall, because people just aren't as eager to fly. This means that the real market for airline flights is going to shrink: flying is going to become less profitable. But the government, obvlivious to this, is going to keep on trying to fund the airlines in an attempt to get as many flights flown as there used to be BEFORE people became much more averse to flying. The result is, again, huge profits to an industry that's not providing services to anyone at the level they are getting funded.
Then consider stock differentials due to risk. People are willing to pay certain prices for certain stocks depending on how risky they are. The airlines have a certain level of risk that factors in even the offchance of things like this. By basically covering any shortfalls, the government has destroyed these risk differentials.
I like Steven Landsburg's comment on this: "Our Uncle Sam seems to have got it into his head that if we all buy stuff from each other, we can all end up richer than we started."
In the end, if you want to buy something, buy it. If not, don't. The ONLY good economic effect it has is that you get something you want. Your buying certainly helps producers: but it hurts other consumers by EXACTLY the same amount!
----Republicans are in general for smaller gov. This is a known fact. ----
This is a known CLAIM. But it's mostly rhetoric. Republicans like to cut taxes, but that's not the same thing as cutting government. Lest you forget: the entire Senate voted to federalize airport security, and the House has now gone that way as well.
---McCain can kiss my ass he's a traitor to his own party...He was voted under Republican and should stick to the line.---
Oh yes, what a great political system we have where everyone must tow a party line, and not vote the consciences of their constituents. Fuck party loyalty: it makes for a sicker, more corrupt America with the most puerile and tribal of debate.
---Like I said before last week...Reveolutions have started for much less taxation.....---
Oh, whatever. Revolutions over taxes happen in countries where the taxation is spent on coronating kings, not where they're voted into office. Despite all the whining about inefficiency, most of our tax dollars are spent on things people actually want. They just don't want to have to pay for them.
It's worse than that: think about the effect this has on the markets for various technologies.
Someone at Lucent pointed out to me that technologically, the main advantage that the internet network has over the phone network is that the phone network is bogged down by insane burdens of taxation and crazy legislation (some of it which FORCES companies to charge you more than they otherwise would).
If you think about the phone network and the internet being two networks in competition, the tax free status of the internet is an artificial butress that distorts market incentives to choose the most efficient technology for a given job. And, as many people would argue, the phone network is actually based on far better technology and theoretical framework, from the "circuit" idea to the actual equipment itself. So, due to policies like a taxless internet, the phone network, with many superior qualities to recommend it, gets underused and underinvested in. This is bad for society as whole.
Republicans in general aren't for small government in anything more than a rhetorical sense. It's a nice yelling point, but I've never seen any serious attempts to put a libertarian structure onto the doings of government except for an occasional Publican maverick like pork-hunter McCain. As it is, cutting taxes today ultimately only means higher taxes tommorow.
Actually, most historians will tell you that the colonists didn't really care so much about the representation thing, because they knew that it wouldn't make a lick of difference: they were way too few to make any difference, and England wasn't the sort of representative democracy it is today were even a ton of representatives could make much of a difference in policy. Colonists didn't want to get taxed period, and they resented having to pay for a war that they felt England had picked with the Indians via France.
There were also some more sinister motives. The tea revolt itself (and the Boston Tea Party) wasn't headed by patriots against tea taxes: it was largely headed by smugglers who's bottom line was being cut off by the much cheaper tea of the British monopolies. That still doesn't make Britian the good guy, but it certainly casts a more realistic light on people's motivations.
People still don't seem realize that only a third of Americans at the time even supported the revolution. About a third were loyalists, and another third didn't real;y give a damn. When we look back in history, we tend to simplify things to the point where we think the nation acted as one, or even that most people cared about politics.
Oh, I see tha Slashdot has instituted a new feature akin to Google's new innovation: paid advertisement posts. Just slip the Slashguys a few bucks, and you get an instant moderator skyrocket to the top of a post about competitor's new release. That'll show em!
An interesting Great Britian during the colonial era had FAR FAR more of it's GDP tied up in trade than the U.S. does today. Foriegn markets make up less than 20% of our actual market. So when people talk about how interconnected the world economy has gotten, ask them what they are comparing it to. Because there have been many points in history where trade across national borders was much more important to nations than it is today.
----Not true. It's there because there is a market for it, but that's not the same thing as a demand for it.---
Uh, yes it does. If a bussiness can provide a service in a competative market with lower marginal cost, the loss to domestic suppliers is more than offset both by the countervailing gain to consumers, as well as the expansion of the market as a whole (a net gain for society!)
----Outdated Cold War rhetoric? I wasn't even alive for most of the Cold War. My point is that Osama wants his thoughts to spread, especially among other Muslims. ----
You needn't have been alive to get exposed to recylcing of this idea. It even bears similarities the "Hitler" syndrome, where everyone compares every evil person to Hitler, as if this comparison illuminated anything helpful about the specific situation. Yes, Osama would like to win support among Muslims. His primary way of doing it, however, seems to be by baiting the U.S. further into outraging them. He knows that the majority of them would NEVER come on their accord to believe what he believes, or even condone his terrorism: but he obviously feels that he can play up the evils of the U.S., which many Muslims DO have major problems with, regardless of whether they actually support Osama.
---I know some about Islam, but I'm not an expert. So I'm giving my Muslim friends the benefit of the doubt when they say Osama's actions are not Islamic, and that he's taking some things in the Koran out of context. I've witnessed a similar phenomenon with the Christian Bible in use, so I try to empathize as much as possible.---
I think that anyone who tells you that there is a "right" context to take phrases in a holy text is misleading you. Interpretations are ultimately just people's personal opinions, and should be stated as such. The real important thing is to reassure believers that they are not responsible for other people's interpretations. But it's silly to run around pretending that, say, a literalist interpretation of the Bible is somehow "wrong." It's not. When faith is involved, an especially when there's the perception that God's words are cryptic and gnostical, then one can read into a text any damn thing you need to.
---Stocks are investments. When you invest money, you are funding production.---
Yes, but you apparently forgot that buying stocks is not the only way that production is funded, and that money not used to buy stocks doesn't just vanish into smoke. You can't tell a story about one part of the economy, and simply ignore the rest. If you want to prove to me or anyone that you have a clue, you need to suggest an economic _model_ of how the economy works, and show how falling stock prices contribute to net social loss of surplus.
---It may seem too abstract for you to wrap your defective little brain around, but here's a simple example at the extreme: when stock prices drop below a certain level, it makes sense to buy the company just to sell off its easily-scrapped assets.----
When the assests of one company are sold to another, society is neither better or worse off. No one is going to do something as silly as scrap productive assests. If they are productive, they will be put to use. If not, not, and rightly so. Your story simply doesn't make any sense.
---That's the key: efficient allocation of resources. That's the very definition of economy, and that's what markets are for. When the markets fail, everything else goes down with them.---
You haven't made a case for why falling stock prices = markets failing. And you certainly haven't made a case that not buying stocks = misallocation of resources. Where do you think the money that isn't used to buy stock DOES go? To the moon? People are quite justified, for instance, in supposing that widespread disaster in the airline industry means that the industry as a whole will be less profitable than it otherwise woul have been. Simply buying it's stock doesn't make the bussiness any more profitable. Economists have a long list of ways that markets can fail, but low stock prices isn't one of them. Sometimes, lower prices are justified, and it's a better investment to buy other things.
Why, because you, after providing NO data on the industry, say it is?
---Costs for airplane development are 10x-100x what the costs for similar automotive development would be.----
And this proves... what exactly? Costs for auto development are 10x-100x more than development of little red wagons. Yet people still buy cars. Strange, isn't it?
---I'm pointing out that it's safe enough.---
According to what? It could be. OR it could be far from safe enough. How did you figure out what the optimal level of airline safety was? I'm assuming you didn't do all the math in your head.
---No? Last I checked the borders are getting closed tighter and tighter.---
Oh, whatever. This is your "history" lesson? Comparisons so stretched you could make them fit anywhere, anytime?
---Culture: Bread and circuses/Fast food and TV Military: #1 World power/#1 World Power Foreign Politics: Not a big concern for the Romans which took over every bit of the world they saw. Technology: Most advanced of their time/Most advanced of our time ---
Oh yeah, I forgot about how everything is exactly the same because you say it is. Bread = Fast food. Right. If you really can compare, say, the effects of technology on one era to the next by vague categories of "best of their time," I just don't know what to say to that idiocy. SOMEONE's technology has to be the best of our time... and it's the Japanese's.:)
---Well in that case, Gasoline should be dirt cheap... Wonderful. And produce should be cheap, as well as electricity in California, and natural Gas.---
Uh, why? That there are short term supply curves is not even remotely what I reffered to. We don't like in magic-hippy land. Supply side problems in ancient Rome involved massive famine and periodic economy wide labor shortages. But can you find me one example of Rome going through a period of interest rates? A stock market crash?
---They had human slaves, we've got machines and computers that do much of our work. Just a few more advancements and the machines will run themselves. Sound familiar? Take a history lesson damit.---
If I were willing to abuse and mangle history as much as you do just to make a exceedingly silly and simplistic comparision, I could compare living in Antartica in 200 B.C. to living in the Bahamas in 2001 (there are some disturbing similarities....)
---Why doesn't America helping the Muslim Kuwaitis in Desert Storm count? ---
Osama doesn't care about anyone "helping" anyone. To him, American troops on holy land = Satan raping the virgin Mary.
---If you read the article, most of Osama's criticism revolves around the US' support of Israel. Is this issue really about Islam or anti-Semitism?---
One doesn't need to be an anti-Semite to hate the nation of Israel. I personally don't like it much myself, and it be pretty silly to call me anti-Semite, being that I've... ermum... fulfilled Abraham's covenant with God.... It may well include Israel. My point remains the same: Bin Laden believes that, via torture, he can change U.S. foriegn policy, which he sees as being the chief evil in his region.
---While spreading a religion is fine, I personally don't consider ObL's interpretation of Islam to be accurate or representative of the religion, as many Muslims have been telling us. That's why I say his philosophy is twisted.---
I never said it wasn't twisted. I said that it's probably not helpful to misconstrue his aims into outdated Cold War rhetoric. I also don't see the point in trying to define what religions are "twisted" and what aren't. I don't happen to believe in any of them. I can't say I much love the very idea of evangelism itself: it's a pretty twisted idea to think that other people must believe what you believe. It's way easier, and less biased, for me to talk about how people act than about what they believe. I don't personally care what "true" or "accurate" Islam may be: I don't care if someone is Islamic or not. All I care about is when a person is a genocidal maniac, no matter what their beliefs, and Al Queda is full of them.
---Their goal is to spread their twisted philosophy everywhere, right? ---
Not really. This sort of thinking is just sort of a knee-jerk cold war reflex: obviously the bad guys are trying to RULE THE WORLD with their CRAZY PHILOSOPHY. But for these Muslim extremists, and even for those that might wish it, that just isn't even a plausible goal, and they all know it.
What they want is more pragmatic: to hurt us so bad, and prove to us that they can continue to hurt us, that we do things like move out of Saudi Arabia. This is the usual logic of terrorism: you hurt the other side until it decides it isn't worth it to resist. They want us to think this: "Are thousands of American lives worth stationing some troops in SA?" They want us to answer "no, they sure aren't."
Now, I doubt that'll happen, but that is what Osama seems to ahve said, over and over, is their general aim: to get the U.S. out of all "Islamic" bussiness, a widely and crazily as he construes what that is. And if we don't, his god tells him that he has to torture us until we do it.
---There is more in common between the US and the Roman empire than any of us should be confortable with.---
Um, like what, exactly? The only major real similarity I can think of is that we are a diverse nation, and the empire was very diverse for its day and age. Otherwise, there's world's of difference. Even our diversity is very very different, seeing as we don't have slavery or this concept of "only Romans get to be citizens." We have a VERY VERY different sort fo political culture, military history, foriegn political environment, technology, economy, etc. The Roman empire, it wasn't even possible to have a recession as we have it today: almost all their economic troubles came from supply side problems, where almost all of ours come from demand side problems.
The only people I've seen take this whole "remember the roman Empire" thing seriously are evangelicals, and they're praying for the collapse of civilization anyway.
---The reason all those "mass air travel will never be feasible" arguments got traction is that they were very nearly right. It didn't really go anywhere until technology improvements and prosperity and governmental investment made the economics work.---
No, the economics worked because flying routes was profitable, plain and simple. As time went on, both air travel AND safety features increased. So I don't see any rationale for claiming that more safety is necessarily going to have major costs (most of them fixed, however) not at least partially outweighed by benefits (most of them variable).
---Yes, you can make airlining much more expensive without killing it entirely. The Concorde is proof that anyone wishing the service will pay for it, exhorbitantly, even if it's just an increment better in time savings and no more safe. ---
Right. Not every plane would necessarily have to be safer either, just like not every plane has to be the Concorde.
----But you wouldn't have the A300 or the 767. You'd have the same size fuselage, but with a small cabin (just big enough for current first-class traffic, I'd say) and the rest of the space would be packed with crumple zones, armor, fire retardant, impact inflating flotation devices, parachute, ejection gear, and self-deploying medical supplies. And still they would crash and still people would die. ----
When you can only win an arguement by exaggerating the opposing case to absurdity... go for it!
Interesting thing: Bin Laden said in an interview before this all happened that he got the idea of bombing civilian targets from seeing how effective Hiroshima and Nagasaki were. In short, his reasoning is that to win a war, the fastest way is to cause the civilian base of the enemy so much pain that they their leaders won't be willing to continue and risk more of it.
This puts us all in a bit of a pickle: If, as Bush claims, nothing justifies the killing of innocent people to achieve an end, then Hiroshima and Nagasaki cannot be justified. But if they can, then I guess such acts of terrorism (attacking civilian targets to blackmail a goal) CAN potentially be justified, and its a matter of opinion if the cause is important enough (winning a war more conclusively than not vs. appeasing what you believe to be mortal outrages against your god).
"Who's the moral relativist now?" we might ask the crazed righties...
Slashdot Mirror
Compared to all the other things in our solar system, why is Pluto all that interesting? Its appeal seems about more pop interest than science: which was also the only thing preventing it from being downgraded from planet status in the first place.
---I believe it will be Nintendo because of the lack of DVD support.---
My car lacks DVD support, and yet tht didn't stop me from buying it, instead of a super expensive minivan that actually DOES have it. The point is: not all people want their eletronic appliances integrated. Time and time again companies have bet on their next big product being an "integrated solution" for home entertainment. But for the most part, these efforts fail to catch on.
---If the kiddies want a gaming system and parents were thinking of getting a DVD player, I would sure as hell kill two birds with one stone. ---
The problem is: most of the people who want to buy DVD players already have one. So this just isn't as big a market as you might think.
---On the subject of black holes, it's interesting to note that our entire (known) universe could be inside of a black hole.---
This isn't really a good way to phrase it. "Inside" is not a concept that conveys any helpful meaning about this possibility, and in fact it sort of really confuses the issue. The basic physics point is this: it looks as if an entire universe can start from just a single singularity: that our universe could have started as a result of a quantum event. Victor Sternger has discussed this idea at length.
---We'd still have to find some exotic matter or something to counteract the tidal forces, and there's time discrepancy issues to deal with, but that's a somewhat moot point.---
Moot because it doesn't seem in the least possible? This "matter" would have be so exotic that it would be unlike any "matter" that anyone has ever even concieved of before to survive the tidal forces.
I half expect him to expose himself by running into FBI headquarters and yelling "I do TOO have a girlfriend!"
Isn't it funny how, since we are unable to figure out who this guy is, we decided to publically release an FBI profile that was basically just a bunch of schoolyard insults? "He's most likely a loner, a loser, he probably has no girlfriend cus he's too ugly and insecure...."
---Would we castigate the airline industry for allowing terrorists to take over their planes and crash them into skyscrapers? Well, apparently not. Instead we give the airlines tons of money so they can continue to make a profit while their revenues decline.---
It's worse than that.
First, consider that the fact that an airline goes bankrupt doesn't mean the planes stop flying. Plane routes will continue to be flown for as long as they are profitable. If they cease to be profitable, they will very RIGHTLY not be flown. In this case, demand for airline flights is going to fall, because people just aren't as eager to fly. This means that the real market for airline flights is going to shrink: flying is going to become less profitable. But the government, obvlivious to this, is going to keep on trying to fund the airlines in an attempt to get as many flights flown as there used to be BEFORE people became much more averse to flying. The result is, again, huge profits to an industry that's not providing services to anyone at the level they are getting funded.
Then consider stock differentials due to risk. People are willing to pay certain prices for certain stocks depending on how risky they are. The airlines have a certain level of risk that factors in even the offchance of things like this. By basically covering any shortfalls, the government has destroyed these risk differentials.
---We limit your right to speak intentional lies about people (e.g., slander/libel laws).---
Unless this is a lie about someone society doesn't like in the first place. Then it's perfectly legal.
I like Steven Landsburg's comment on this: "Our Uncle Sam seems to have got it into his head that if we all buy stuff from each other, we can all end up richer than we started."
In the end, if you want to buy something, buy it. If not, don't. The ONLY good economic effect it has is that you get something you want. Your buying certainly helps producers: but it hurts other consumers by EXACTLY the same amount!
Maybe Bush is just looking to the next election here: he just wants to be able to claim that he created an internet too!
----Republicans are in general for smaller gov. This is a known fact. ----
This is a known CLAIM. But it's mostly rhetoric. Republicans like to cut taxes, but that's not the same thing as cutting government. Lest you forget: the entire Senate voted to federalize airport security, and the House has now gone that way as well.
---McCain can kiss my ass he's a traitor to his own party...He was voted under Republican and should stick to the line.---
Oh yes, what a great political system we have where everyone must tow a party line, and not vote the consciences of their constituents. Fuck party loyalty: it makes for a sicker, more corrupt America with the most puerile and tribal of debate.
---Like I said before last week...Reveolutions have started for much less taxation.....---
Oh, whatever. Revolutions over taxes happen in countries where the taxation is spent on coronating kings, not where they're voted into office. Despite all the whining about inefficiency, most of our tax dollars are spent on things people actually want. They just don't want to have to pay for them.
It's worse than that: think about the effect this has on the markets for various technologies.
Someone at Lucent pointed out to me that technologically, the main advantage that the internet network has over the phone network is that the phone network is bogged down by insane burdens of taxation and crazy legislation (some of it which FORCES companies to charge you more than they otherwise would).
If you think about the phone network and the internet being two networks in competition, the tax free status of the internet is an artificial butress that distorts market incentives to choose the most efficient technology for a given job. And, as many people would argue, the phone network is actually based on far better technology and theoretical framework, from the "circuit" idea to the actual equipment itself. So, due to policies like a taxless internet, the phone network, with many superior qualities to recommend it, gets underused and underinvested in. This is bad for society as whole.
Republicans in general aren't for small government in anything more than a rhetorical sense. It's a nice yelling point, but I've never seen any serious attempts to put a libertarian structure onto the doings of government except for an occasional Publican maverick like pork-hunter McCain.
As it is, cutting taxes today ultimately only means higher taxes tommorow.
Actually, most historians will tell you that the colonists didn't really care so much about the representation thing, because they knew that it wouldn't make a lick of difference: they were way too few to make any difference, and England wasn't the sort of representative democracy it is today were even a ton of representatives could make much of a difference in policy. Colonists didn't want to get taxed period, and they resented having to pay for a war that they felt England had picked with the Indians via France.
There were also some more sinister motives. The tea revolt itself (and the Boston Tea Party) wasn't headed by patriots against tea taxes: it was largely headed by smugglers who's bottom line was being cut off by the much cheaper tea of the British monopolies. That still doesn't make Britian the good guy, but it certainly casts a more realistic light on people's motivations.
People still don't seem realize that only a third of Americans at the time even supported the revolution. About a third were loyalists, and another third didn't real;y give a damn. When we look back in history, we tend to simplify things to the point where we think the nation acted as one, or even that most people cared about politics.
Oh, I see tha Slashdot has instituted a new feature akin to Google's new innovation: paid advertisement posts. Just slip the Slashguys a few bucks, and you get an instant moderator skyrocket to the top of a post about competitor's new release. That'll show em!
An interesting Great Britian during the colonial era had FAR FAR more of it's GDP tied up in trade than the U.S. does today. Foriegn markets make up less than 20% of our actual market. So when people talk about how interconnected the world economy has gotten, ask them what they are comparing it to. Because there have been many points in history where trade across national borders was much more important to nations than it is today.
----Not true. It's there because there is a market for it, but that's not the same thing as a demand for it.---
Uh, yes it does. If a bussiness can provide a service in a competative market with lower marginal cost, the loss to domestic suppliers is more than offset both by the countervailing gain to consumers, as well as the expansion of the market as a whole (a net gain for society!)
----Outdated Cold War rhetoric? I wasn't even alive for most of the Cold War. My point is that Osama wants his thoughts to spread, especially among other Muslims. ----
You needn't have been alive to get exposed to recylcing of this idea. It even bears similarities the "Hitler" syndrome, where everyone compares every evil person to Hitler, as if this comparison illuminated anything helpful about the specific situation. Yes, Osama would like to win support among Muslims. His primary way of doing it, however, seems to be by baiting the U.S. further into outraging them. He knows that the majority of them would NEVER come on their accord to believe what he believes, or even condone his terrorism: but he obviously feels that he can play up the evils of the U.S., which many Muslims DO have major problems with, regardless of whether they actually support Osama.
---I know some about Islam, but I'm not an expert. So I'm giving my Muslim friends the benefit of the doubt when they say Osama's actions are not Islamic, and that he's taking some things in the Koran out of context. I've witnessed a similar phenomenon with the Christian Bible in use, so I try to empathize as much as possible.---
I think that anyone who tells you that there is a "right" context to take phrases in a holy text is misleading you. Interpretations are ultimately just people's personal opinions, and should be stated as such. The real important thing is to reassure believers that they are not responsible for other people's interpretations. But it's silly to run around pretending that, say, a literalist interpretation of the Bible is somehow "wrong." It's not. When faith is involved, an especially when there's the perception that God's words are cryptic and gnostical, then one can read into a text any damn thing you need to.
---Stocks are investments. When you invest money, you are funding production.---
Yes, but you apparently forgot that buying stocks is not the only way that production is funded, and that money not used to buy stocks doesn't just vanish into smoke. You can't tell a story about one part of the economy, and simply ignore the rest. If you want to prove to me or anyone that you have a clue, you need to suggest an economic _model_ of how the economy works, and show how falling stock prices contribute to net social loss of surplus.
---It may seem too abstract for you to wrap your defective little brain around, but here's a simple example at the extreme: when stock prices drop below a certain level, it makes sense to buy the company just to sell off its easily-scrapped assets.----
When the assests of one company are sold to another, society is neither better or worse off. No one is going to do something as silly as scrap productive assests. If they are productive, they will be put to use. If not, not, and rightly so. Your story simply doesn't make any sense.
---That's the key: efficient allocation of resources. That's the very definition of economy, and that's what markets are for. When the markets fail, everything else goes down with them.---
You haven't made a case for why falling stock prices = markets failing. And you certainly haven't made a case that not buying stocks = misallocation of resources. Where do you think the money that isn't used to buy stock DOES go? To the moon? People are quite justified, for instance, in supposing that widespread disaster in the airline industry means that the industry as a whole will be less profitable than it otherwise woul have been. Simply buying it's stock doesn't make the bussiness any more profitable.
Economists have a long list of ways that markets can fail, but low stock prices isn't one of them. Sometimes, lower prices are justified, and it's a better investment to buy other things.
---Look, sunshine, the case is already absurd---
Why, because you, after providing NO data on the industry, say it is?
---Costs for airplane development are 10x-100x what the costs for similar automotive development would be.----
And this proves... what exactly? Costs for auto development are 10x-100x more than development of little red wagons. Yet people still buy cars. Strange, isn't it?
---I'm pointing out that it's safe enough.---
According to what? It could be. OR it could be far from safe enough. How did you figure out what the optimal level of airline safety was? I'm assuming you didn't do all the math in your head.
---No? Last I checked the borders are getting closed tighter and tighter.---
:)
Oh, whatever. This is your "history" lesson? Comparisons so stretched you could make them fit anywhere, anytime?
---Culture: Bread and circuses/Fast food and TV Military: #1 World power/#1 World Power Foreign Politics: Not a big concern for the Romans which took over every bit of the world they saw. Technology: Most advanced of their time/Most advanced of our time ---
Oh yeah, I forgot about how everything is exactly the same because you say it is. Bread = Fast food. Right.
If you really can compare, say, the effects of technology on one era to the next by vague categories of "best of their time," I just don't know what to say to that idiocy. SOMEONE's technology has to be the best of our time... and it's the Japanese's.
---Well in that case, Gasoline should be dirt cheap... Wonderful. And produce should be cheap, as well as electricity in California, and natural Gas.---
Uh, why? That there are short term supply curves is not even remotely what I reffered to. We don't like in magic-hippy land. Supply side problems in ancient Rome involved massive famine and periodic economy wide labor shortages. But can you find me one example of Rome going through a period of interest rates? A stock market crash?
---They had human slaves, we've got machines and computers that do much of our work. Just a few more advancements and the machines will run themselves. Sound familiar? Take a history lesson damit.---
If I were willing to abuse and mangle history as much as you do just to make a exceedingly silly and simplistic comparision, I could compare living in Antartica in 200 B.C. to living in the Bahamas in 2001 (there are some disturbing similarities....)
---Why doesn't America helping the Muslim Kuwaitis in Desert Storm count? ---
Osama doesn't care about anyone "helping" anyone. To him, American troops on holy land = Satan raping the virgin Mary.
---If you read the article, most of Osama's criticism revolves around the US' support of Israel. Is this issue really about Islam or anti-Semitism?---
One doesn't need to be an anti-Semite to hate the nation of Israel. I personally don't like it much myself, and it be pretty silly to call me anti-Semite, being that I've... ermum... fulfilled Abraham's covenant with God....
It may well include Israel. My point remains the same: Bin Laden believes that, via torture, he can change U.S. foriegn policy, which he sees as being the chief evil in his region.
---While spreading a religion is fine, I personally don't consider ObL's interpretation of Islam to be accurate or representative of the religion, as many Muslims have been telling us. That's why I say his philosophy is twisted.---
I never said it wasn't twisted. I said that it's probably not helpful to misconstrue his aims into outdated Cold War rhetoric.
I also don't see the point in trying to define what religions are "twisted" and what aren't. I don't happen to believe in any of them. I can't say I much love the very idea of evangelism itself: it's a pretty twisted idea to think that other people must believe what you believe. It's way easier, and less biased, for me to talk about how people act than about what they believe. I don't personally care what "true" or "accurate" Islam may be: I don't care if someone is Islamic or not. All I care about is when a person is a genocidal maniac, no matter what their beliefs, and Al Queda is full of them.
---Their goal is to spread their twisted philosophy everywhere, right? ---
Not really. This sort of thinking is just sort of a knee-jerk cold war reflex: obviously the bad guys are trying to RULE THE WORLD with their CRAZY PHILOSOPHY. But for these Muslim extremists, and even for those that might wish it, that just isn't even a plausible goal, and they all know it.
What they want is more pragmatic: to hurt us so bad, and prove to us that they can continue to hurt us, that we do things like move out of Saudi Arabia. This is the usual logic of terrorism: you hurt the other side until it decides it isn't worth it to resist. They want us to think this: "Are thousands of American lives worth stationing some troops in SA?" They want us to answer "no, they sure aren't."
Now, I doubt that'll happen, but that is what Osama seems to ahve said, over and over, is their general aim: to get the U.S. out of all "Islamic" bussiness, a widely and crazily as he construes what that is. And if we don't, his god tells him that he has to torture us until we do it.
---There is more in common between the US and the Roman empire than any of us should be confortable with.---
Um, like what, exactly? The only major real similarity I can think of is that we are a diverse nation, and the empire was very diverse for its day and age. Otherwise, there's world's of difference. Even our diversity is very very different, seeing as we don't have slavery or this concept of "only Romans get to be citizens." We have a VERY VERY different sort fo political culture, military history, foriegn political environment, technology, economy, etc. The Roman empire, it wasn't even possible to have a recession as we have it today: almost all their economic troubles came from supply side problems, where almost all of ours come from demand side problems.
The only people I've seen take this whole "remember the roman Empire" thing seriously are evangelicals, and they're praying for the collapse of civilization anyway.
---The reason all those "mass air travel will never be feasible" arguments got traction is that they were very nearly right. It didn't really go anywhere until technology improvements and prosperity and governmental investment made the economics work.---
No, the economics worked because flying routes was profitable, plain and simple. As time went on, both air travel AND safety features increased. So I don't see any rationale for claiming that more safety is necessarily going to have major costs (most of them fixed, however) not at least partially outweighed by benefits (most of them variable).
---Yes, you can make airlining much more expensive without killing it entirely. The Concorde is proof that anyone wishing the service will pay for it, exhorbitantly, even if it's just an increment better in time savings and no more safe. ---
Right. Not every plane would necessarily have to be safer either, just like not every plane has to be the Concorde.
----But you wouldn't have the A300 or the 767. You'd have the same size fuselage, but with a small cabin (just big enough for current first-class traffic, I'd say) and the rest of the space would be packed with crumple zones, armor, fire retardant, impact inflating flotation devices, parachute, ejection gear, and self-deploying medical supplies. And still they would crash and still people would die. ----
When you can only win an arguement by exaggerating the opposing case to absurdity... go for it!
Interesting thing: Bin Laden said in an interview before this all happened that he got the idea of bombing civilian targets from seeing how effective Hiroshima and Nagasaki were. In short, his reasoning is that to win a war, the fastest way is to cause the civilian base of the enemy so much pain that they their leaders won't be willing to continue and risk more of it.
This puts us all in a bit of a pickle: If, as Bush claims, nothing justifies the killing of innocent people to achieve an end, then Hiroshima and Nagasaki cannot be justified. But if they can, then I guess such acts of terrorism (attacking civilian targets to blackmail a goal) CAN potentially be justified, and its a matter of opinion if the cause is important enough (winning a war more conclusively than not vs. appeasing what you believe to be mortal outrages against your god).
"Who's the moral relativist now?" we might ask the crazed righties...