Yes, a percentage tax does seem to be counter-productive, if the idea is to handle recycling. Where I live, they have a 2 cent tax on all disposable containers. There are some flaws with that logic, as well, but they seem biased towards simplicity rather than any desire to make more money off of it.
As for how long they last, they will eventually wear out, even if that time is measured in years, or even decades. This is in fact a great argument for putting an incentive in the form of a tax break on it, since the moeny collected to handle the disposal of that battery will have such a long time to accrue interest (if the gov't didn't spend it elsewhere first) before it is actually needed. Hopefully someone will see the light and change it to a more reasonable taxation method.
In this way I found out I was also paying a "recycling" tax on my RECHARGABLE batteries.
And how is this unreasonable? Do they last forever? Can the materials they're made of be reused once the battery is no longer functional? The question in my mind is, is it the same as the recycling tax on a regular battery.
A lot of people might be thinking "It should be lower", but the process for making and disposing of rechargable batteries is about as environmentally unfriendly as regular batteries. And if the tax is the same on a per-battery basis, you be saving huge amounts of tax by buying the rechargable ones anyway.
You are not there to "grant" the privledge of computing. You are there to "support" it.
The same applies to janitorial staff. But if you don't have the brains to throw your garbage in the trash or use the washroom when you have to take a shit, why should they have to clean it up? If you don't know basic hygeine for the environment you work in, that's your problem, no one else's.
I agree. Frankly, I can't think of a better use for my corpse (when the time comes) than to harvest it for organs and tissue, and convert the rest into fuel. Why on earth would I want to waste some valuable space to put it (along with a bunch of toxic chemicals) into a hole in the ground or spend money and resources burning it instead?
Well, here I was going to moderate on this article, but everyone is botching the maths so badly that I had to reply. This post is in response to all the people who apparently can't count above 4, and can't keep track of two sets of numbers at one time.
Option 1: Number of Games = 5. Cost = $4M. Units Sold = 300,000. Revenue Per Game (based on $50 per unit) = $15M. Profit Per Game = $11M. %Profit Per Game = 200% [(11-4)/4*100]. Total Revenue = $75M. Total Profit = $55M.
Option 2: Number of Games = 1. Cost = $20M. Units Sold = 8,000,000. Revenue Per Game (based on $50 per unit) = $400M. Profit Per Game = $380M. %Profit Per Game = 1900% [(400-20)/20*100]. Total Revenue = $400M again. Total Profit = $380M again.
Now that you have correct numbers based on the values given in the article, perhaps you'll agree with the doctor that the options listed in the article truly suck.
And stop trying to use math if you aren't qualified.:P
Another alternative to screw the record companies and get the music you want is to buy used CDs. No money to the record companies and, if you're discriminating, as-good-as-new CDs for you. Note that this will not improve the quality of music distributed by the major record companies.
Your statements assume that interbreeding between humans and neandertals would lead to viable offspring. I wouldn't be surprised if, when you have a small (or closed) population and a large (or open) population where interbreeding is common, but leads to infertile offspring, that the small population will be decimated. It might cause problems for the larger population, too, but not as badly.
So we might be able to say that our ancestors didn't have any neandertal genes, but that doesn't mean they weren't interbreeding.
Okay, I have to say this. When your doctor comes in to describe the treatment and starts with, "Okay, the first thing we need to do is cut off your hand...", that's going to be a pretty wierd world.
Assuming the grandparent's figures are correct, the cost per year, nation-wide, is $38B. The cost per life saved is $45.6M. So, $38B/295M is $128.81 per person per year for the opportunity to save 832 children per year. That's a little more significant than $0.16.
That would also be about 100M subscriptions to save a kid in Africa, if the comparison matters to you.
When my wife and I picked out our rings, the sales guy said "...and there's a diamond in the centre there..." My wife-to-be said, "Oh, really?" in a somewhat disappointed voice. And sure enough, there was a miniscule diamond in the centre of the design, so small that we'd missed it entirely. I looked at her, read her expression as being as ambivalent as I was and said to the salesman, "That's okay, we like it anyway."
Out of curiosity, would they apply if their brains weren't positronic, and still had consciousness and the ability to make decisions? I don't think the framework matters, only the result.
You would think, if Perfect 10 is doing something other than trying to cash in on Google, that they would use Google's search facilities to find the real infringers and send them C&D orders.
Your argument doesn't even stand on its own merit, let alone the elements you don't touch.
We are all dependant on outside elements to survive. People don't do too well off of our planet for long-term survival, and nothing but serious infrastructure (on the scale of planetary assistance) is going to change that. So now we have the question of how much support should be called "capable of supporting life on its own". A fully developed infant with some significant damage which has no hope of going off of life-support equipment and surviving is not the same as a ball of cells which can be implanted into a suitable environment for a mere 9 months and have a reasonable chance of surviving for 70+ years. That's the first flaw in your argument.
Comparing the destruction of life or the potential for life (if you believe that logical fallacy) for the possiblilty of improving the lives of others to the stifling of research in a purely observational field is also inherently flawed, unless Gallileo was dropping differently-sized people off of buildings to see which would hit first.
And to cap it off, you mention your own concern for producing embryos for the sake of research, while earlier you said they were less alive than an infant. Either you're above that threshold where moral (and possibly at a different point, ethical) considerations apply or you aren't. If there is no moral or ethical impact in taking already-produced embryos for medical research, then why would there be for contracting to produce embryos for medical research? And if that point hasn't been sufficiently defined for someone's satisfaction, why would you be surprised that he doesn't want to move in that direction?
Perhaps you should look into the history of cadavers in medical research. You may find more logical arguments for what you appear to be trying to present in that realm than in either life-support for (and transplants from) people with no hope of recovery or the whole Gallileo situation. It's a very good fit actually, and more interesting still when considered after the decades where it was raised. Spontaneous miscarriages could also be a relevant topic.
For the record, I'm for embryonic stem cell research in theory, but am very concerned about the moral implications. I'm more concerned about those implications since virtually no discussion or standards have been raised in the scientific field. There has been far more in the transplant field, mostly because people often have to die to be donors. I'm not convinced this is different for embryos.
First off, I think you need to differentiate between "hobbies" that are passive and active. Watching sports and playing sports are two different things, one giving you a benefit that lasts beyond the moment. There is also a difference between interactive and non-interactive hobbies, such as gardening (can be non-interactive) and sports (almost always interactive). Again, interaction provides a benefit beyond the moment, which online gaming can also provide, but often doesn't appear to.
I think everyone should take a step back from time to time and review their lives and see what they're getting from their activities, whether it be work or play, and see if they're getting anything from it besides hours whittled out of your life.
This is why some make the distinction between recreation (to re-create yourself, to refresh yourself) and entertainment (idle play). Both have value in appropriate quantities, but they also have fundamental differences.
It's nice to see that you would raise the penalty for resisting arrest to death, and that the need for a trial should be waived in those circumstances. Hopefully one day the police don't decide you're 'resisting arrest' and take action.
Just about every tyranny in history began with the words "for the good of the people and the security of our nation".
Assuming you're from the UK, you find it surprising that someone might beat the crap out of someone else for barging into their house, in spite of the fact that there are riots and deaths pretty much every year over sports? At least the grandparent's view of the world is based on reality.
And yet, people still buy the opportunity to see a movie sooner than they could at home, for a single viewing, for a single person, with a bigger screen, with possibly better sound, and with rude strangers. As with most things, if the consumer is discriminating (and has a choice) bad models will fall out of use. Unfortunately, that means we're probably doomed.
Well done. You've clearly detailed how Canadian politics/government is ineffective/irresponsible. That's not the real problem. The real problem is how do we make them ineffective/less powerful? What I'm looking for is a government that is fairly powerless, and has enough backbiting going on to keep them out of the hair of the common man. That way the only time they'll get around to doing something is when a dramatic failure occurs, and hopefully they'll be able to fix it instead of make it worse.
Or we can keep waiting for the pipe dream of an effective, responsible democracy to take place.
I on the other hand, have no interest in living terribly simply, just cheaply and with little or no environmental impact. That's why I'm bookmarking them so I can read them once the/. effect is over.
It would be incredible to be able to live on 10 acres of undeveloped land with almost no environmental footprint for about $6k/year, while still being able to enjoy many of the comforts of modern living.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, a percentage tax does seem to be counter-productive, if the idea is to handle recycling. Where I live, they have a 2 cent tax on all disposable containers. There are some flaws with that logic, as well, but they seem biased towards simplicity rather than any desire to make more money off of it.
As for how long they last, they will eventually wear out, even if that time is measured in years, or even decades. This is in fact a great argument for putting an incentive in the form of a tax break on it, since the moeny collected to handle the disposal of that battery will have such a long time to accrue interest (if the gov't didn't spend it elsewhere first) before it is actually needed. Hopefully someone will see the light and change it to a more reasonable taxation method.
In this way I found out I was also paying a "recycling" tax on my RECHARGABLE batteries.
And how is this unreasonable? Do they last forever? Can the materials they're made of be reused once the battery is no longer functional? The question in my mind is, is it the same as the recycling tax on a regular battery.
A lot of people might be thinking "It should be lower", but the process for making and disposing of rechargable batteries is about as environmentally unfriendly as regular batteries. And if the tax is the same on a per-battery basis, you be saving huge amounts of tax by buying the rechargable ones anyway.
Heh, reminds me of "Liar, Liar."
"Your honor, I object!"
"On what grounds?"
"On the grounds that it's very damaging to my case."
The judge tells them they need to be able to show "active inducement", so they shout "you're encouraging illegal downloads!" for a couple months?
And in the process you start an even bigger flamewar by using basic to describe the other one.
Do you understand how chaos theory works now? Stop trying to kill butterflies until you know the full consequences!
You are not there to "grant" the privledge of computing. You are there to "support" it.
The same applies to janitorial staff. But if you don't have the brains to throw your garbage in the trash or use the washroom when you have to take a shit, why should they have to clean it up? If you don't know basic hygeine for the environment you work in, that's your problem, no one else's.
I agree. Frankly, I can't think of a better use for my corpse (when the time comes) than to harvest it for organs and tissue, and convert the rest into fuel. Why on earth would I want to waste some valuable space to put it (along with a bunch of toxic chemicals) into a hole in the ground or spend money and resources burning it instead?
Well, here I was going to moderate on this article, but everyone is botching the maths so badly that I had to reply. This post is in response to all the people who apparently can't count above 4, and can't keep track of two sets of numbers at one time.
:P
Option 1:
Number of Games = 5.
Cost = $4M.
Units Sold = 300,000.
Revenue Per Game (based on $50 per unit) = $15M.
Profit Per Game = $11M.
%Profit Per Game = 200% [(11-4)/4*100].
Total Revenue = $75M.
Total Profit = $55M.
Option 2:
Number of Games = 1.
Cost = $20M.
Units Sold = 8,000,000.
Revenue Per Game (based on $50 per unit) = $400M.
Profit Per Game = $380M.
%Profit Per Game = 1900% [(400-20)/20*100].
Total Revenue = $400M again.
Total Profit = $380M again.
Now that you have correct numbers based on the values given in the article, perhaps you'll agree with the doctor that the options listed in the article truly suck.
And stop trying to use math if you aren't qualified.
Another alternative to screw the record companies and get the music you want is to buy used CDs. No money to the record companies and, if you're discriminating, as-good-as-new CDs for you. Note that this will not improve the quality of music distributed by the major record companies.
Your statements assume that interbreeding between humans and neandertals would lead to viable offspring. I wouldn't be surprised if, when you have a small (or closed) population and a large (or open) population where interbreeding is common, but leads to infertile offspring, that the small population will be decimated. It might cause problems for the larger population, too, but not as badly.
So we might be able to say that our ancestors didn't have any neandertal genes, but that doesn't mean they weren't interbreeding.
Okay, I have to say this. When your doctor comes in to describe the treatment and starts with, "Okay, the first thing we need to do is cut off your hand...", that's going to be a pretty wierd world.
Reason - really, really bad math.
Assuming the grandparent's figures are correct, the cost per year, nation-wide, is $38B. The cost per life saved is $45.6M. So, $38B/295M is $128.81 per person per year for the opportunity to save 832 children per year. That's a little more significant than $0.16.
That would also be about 100M subscriptions to save a kid in Africa, if the comparison matters to you.
When my wife and I picked out our rings, the sales guy said "...and there's a diamond in the centre there..." My wife-to-be said, "Oh, really?" in a somewhat disappointed voice. And sure enough, there was a miniscule diamond in the centre of the design, so small that we'd missed it entirely. I looked at her, read her expression as being as ambivalent as I was and said to the salesman, "That's okay, we like it anyway."
Yeah, but it puts a whole new spin on the phrase, "And if I'm wrong, may God (or your diety of choice) strike me down with lightning."
Out of curiosity, would they apply if their brains weren't positronic, and still had consciousness and the ability to make decisions? I don't think the framework matters, only the result.
You would think, if Perfect 10 is doing something other than trying to cash in on Google, that they would use Google's search facilities to find the real infringers and send them C&D orders.
Unfortunately, if you try to tell people about this, they get all confused due to that recent documentary (which stole the name).
That's because people are stupid. And the name wasn't stolen, but derived (poorly, IMHO) from "Fahrenheit 451".
If there was ever a time when the library was the cool place to hang out, I haven't heard of it.
;). Ah, the good old days.
No, but they were always good places to make out, and for the same reason - no people (and comfortable furniture
You, sir, are a fool.
Your argument doesn't even stand on its own merit, let alone the elements you don't touch.
We are all dependant on outside elements to survive. People don't do too well off of our planet for long-term survival, and nothing but serious infrastructure (on the scale of planetary assistance) is going to change that. So now we have the question of how much support should be called "capable of supporting life on its own". A fully developed infant with some significant damage which has no hope of going off of life-support equipment and surviving is not the same as a ball of cells which can be implanted into a suitable environment for a mere 9 months and have a reasonable chance of surviving for 70+ years. That's the first flaw in your argument.
Comparing the destruction of life or the potential for life (if you believe that logical fallacy) for the possiblilty of improving the lives of others to the stifling of research in a purely observational field is also inherently flawed, unless Gallileo was dropping differently-sized people off of buildings to see which would hit first.
And to cap it off, you mention your own concern for producing embryos for the sake of research, while earlier you said they were less alive than an infant. Either you're above that threshold where moral (and possibly at a different point, ethical) considerations apply or you aren't. If there is no moral or ethical impact in taking already-produced embryos for medical research, then why would there be for contracting to produce embryos for medical research? And if that point hasn't been sufficiently defined for someone's satisfaction, why would you be surprised that he doesn't want to move in that direction?
Perhaps you should look into the history of cadavers in medical research. You may find more logical arguments for what you appear to be trying to present in that realm than in either life-support for (and transplants from) people with no hope of recovery or the whole Gallileo situation. It's a very good fit actually, and more interesting still when considered after the decades where it was raised. Spontaneous miscarriages could also be a relevant topic.
For the record, I'm for embryonic stem cell research in theory, but am very concerned about the moral implications. I'm more concerned about those implications since virtually no discussion or standards have been raised in the scientific field. There has been far more in the transplant field, mostly because people often have to die to be donors. I'm not convinced this is different for embryos.
First off, I think you need to differentiate between "hobbies" that are passive and active. Watching sports and playing sports are two different things, one giving you a benefit that lasts beyond the moment. There is also a difference between interactive and non-interactive hobbies, such as gardening (can be non-interactive) and sports (almost always interactive). Again, interaction provides a benefit beyond the moment, which online gaming can also provide, but often doesn't appear to.
I think everyone should take a step back from time to time and review their lives and see what they're getting from their activities, whether it be work or play, and see if they're getting anything from it besides hours whittled out of your life.
This is why some make the distinction between recreation (to re-create yourself, to refresh yourself) and entertainment (idle play). Both have value in appropriate quantities, but they also have fundamental differences.
It's nice to see that you would raise the penalty for resisting arrest to death, and that the need for a trial should be waived in those circumstances. Hopefully one day the police don't decide you're 'resisting arrest' and take action.
Just about every tyranny in history began with the words "for the good of the people and the security of our nation".
Assuming you're from the UK, you find it surprising that someone might beat the crap out of someone else for barging into their house, in spite of the fact that there are riots and deaths pretty much every year over sports? At least the grandparent's view of the world is based on reality.
That's a mighty high horse you have there.
And yet, people still buy the opportunity to see a movie sooner than they could at home, for a single viewing, for a single person, with a bigger screen, with possibly better sound, and with rude strangers. As with most things, if the consumer is discriminating (and has a choice) bad models will fall out of use. Unfortunately, that means we're probably doomed.
Well done. You've clearly detailed how Canadian politics/government is ineffective/irresponsible. That's not the real problem. The real problem is how do we make them ineffective/less powerful? What I'm looking for is a government that is fairly powerless, and has enough backbiting going on to keep them out of the hair of the common man. That way the only time they'll get around to doing something is when a dramatic failure occurs, and hopefully they'll be able to fix it instead of make it worse.
Or we can keep waiting for the pipe dream of an effective, responsible democracy to take place.
I on the other hand, have no interest in living terribly simply, just cheaply and with little or no environmental impact. That's why I'm bookmarking them so I can read them once the /. effect is over.
It would be incredible to be able to live on 10 acres of undeveloped land with almost no environmental footprint for about $6k/year, while still being able to enjoy many of the comforts of modern living.