Right. This is why my web pages have links to download applications that users can just run on their own desktops. It's great for security, too, because running arbitrary executables is perfectly safe.
Hey, I've got a solution to this: just have the McAfee, etc. client turn off random virus definitions from time to time. Then everyone would have a different "immune system"!
There's actually a difference between being a monopoly in terms of market share and being able to use monopoly pricing. Let's say a company has 100% market share, but knows that raising its price by 1% would cause competitors to enter. In this case, it cannot employ monopoly pricing because of the mere threat of competition. So the consumer gets the same efficient pricing as if there were competition.
This is a fairly unusual scenario, granted (usually there are fixed costs that prevent competitors from entering even if they could slightly undercut the monopoly for a while). But it's also unusual to find a pure monopoly that can employ monopoly pricing with no risk of competition. The above reasoning generally holds at least to some degree.
In the particular case of CPU manufacturing, barriers to entry are significant, so losing AMD might be really bad for consumers. I just wanted to point out that this isn't always the case.
This isn't meant to answer your question, but I still think it's fascinating (and terrible). Look at this picture. In the upper right you'll find the Korean peninsula. South Korea is a sea of light. North Korea is completely dark (except for a little dot around Pyongyang). The dividing line is sharp and obvious.
The problem is that "facts" are slippery creatures. People lie. Instruments are faulty. Methods are applied incorrectly. Relationships between variables are misunderstood. There are all sorts of reasons why what we think of as factual may be incorrect. To combat this science requires that experiments be repeatable under controlled conditions. Given enough trials, we tend to believe that the facts, at least, are correct. This establishes "dogma", if you like, but I would say it establishes a baseline of pretty-well-agreed-upon facts upon which theory may be based.
Given this metaphysic, when a new "fact" comes along that doesn't match the framework, it's going to tend to be treated skeptically until bolstered with other supporting evidence, at which point scientists have no choice but to incorporate it. But more often than not the new "fact" turns out to be wrong and is rejected. A new "fact" is more extraordinary the more urgently it requires a change in existing theory.
Karl Popper is a good reference to read for more about this kind of thing.
Science isn't about believing anything is possible until proved otherwise. I think many scientists would agree that it's possible there is or was life on Mars. But life evolving independently anywhere other than Earth would be a major breakthrough for science, so they want to be very careful about claiming it until it is really, unquestionably proved. IMO this is just good science.
If it can't be seen in your genes, are you really born with it?
Perhaps you mean "conceived with it", since you have 9 months of nurture working on you by the time you're born. A crack baby may be born with an addiction, but that doesn't mean it's encoded in his genes.
On a sidenote: do conservatives really think the US has a "free market" when all this govt. money is being pumped into damn near every industry?
As a aside to your sidenote: Not all conservatives are laissez-faire economists.
That being said, most conservatives that I know would gladly accept less pork in exchange for lower taxes. I don't know any conservatives who are big fans of industrial subsidies. I'm not talking about politicians here, few of whom can be considered conservative.
By pollution do you mean the steam (fresh water) that is ejected from the thrusters as oxygen (that stuff you breathe) and hydrogen (the most abudnant element in the Universe) are ignited?
In fairness to OP (at whom I previously poked a bit of mild fun), while hydrogen/oxygen rockets burn pretty clean, do you have any idea what kind of crap an SRB produces? Pretty nasty stuff.
The pollution (and therefore environmental damage) caused by using a rocket to put one ton of payload into space is about a zillion times what would be caused by using the space elevator for the same load.
It needs to "get" a whole lot cleaner, something most right-wingnuts refuse to understand.
Something most left-wingnuts refuse to understand is that "clean enough" depends on the trade-offs you're willing to make to get there. You can have pristine, 100% natural air (not the same as "clean air" in the emissions sense) - simply by getting rid of all industry, all manmade fires, etc. 99% of humanity would die, which is the trade-off. I'm willing to pay a little for a big reduction in air pollution. I may not be willing to pay a lot for a small reduction, though. I'm definitely not willing to say that any reduction in pollution is automatically a good idea.
But I wonder why, exactly, a "Leftist" is inherently opposed to CO 2 emmisions.
A common theme among Leftists today is that the West is responsible for holding down the developing world. Kyoto is a way to redress this inequity. Frankly, even if the science is true, I think Kyoto is largely driven by this. You may not want to punish the West and reward the developing world, but many Leftists do.
What makes you doubt it?
The global warming claim is twofold: first, that it exists; second, that it is caused by manmade emissions. Both claims are at least somewhat controversial, the second more so than the first. It wouldn't be a big deal except that we're preparing to spent hundreds of billions of dollars on the assumption that the claims are correct.
I don't see how changing our energy policy could be a bad thing here. Industry isn't going to just give up and fold... The end result is more research, cleaner air and less dependence on foreign oil...
Well, I see how it could be a bad thing. It will cost the economy countless billions of dollars, for example. This is OK if we get a clear benefit, but let's consider the benefits you cite:
More research: Research into what? Better emissions control? But this presupposes that research into emissions control is a good way to spend money. Circular reasoning.
Cleaner air: I don't know if you're aware of this, but air has been getting cleaner for decades, well before the Clean Air Act 30 years ago. Besides, CO2 emissions are not what causes smog.
Less dependence on foreign oil: The worst reason of all. It really makes no difference what percentage of oil consumed by the US is actually produced here. Oil is an extremely fungible resource, so a gallon here is worth almost exactly as much as a gallon anywhere else (not counting taxes, which accounts for the biggest part of the difference in gasoline prices worldwide). Say the US were a net oil exporter. This would not affect gas prices in the US except to the degree that worldwide oil prices would fall if US production increased. But the same effect would occur if worldwide production increased by the same amount anywhere else. Contrariwise, as long as world demand for oil is high, an interruption in production anywhere causes world prices to rise. "Foreign dependence" doesn't matter at all here. (You could, OTOH, make the argument that oil "dependence" (vice "foreign") is a problem, but of course it's much harder to fix.
But dammit, [industry isn't] just going to close the doors and give up [if emissions are regulated more]!
Of course not. But they will have to raise prices, which causes inflation and likely reduces demand for their products. They may have to lay off employees if demand falls enough, causing unemployment. So you're right, in that industry won't just "fold". But you're wrong that it will have no effect. I have no problem doing certain pro-environmental regulations if the net benefit is clear, but it's just incorrect to assume that there will be no cost and only benefit to Kyoto.
It's certainly credible (not the same thing as true) that scientists are predominantly left-wing and like the idea of findings that strengthen the socialist politics of the Kyoto Protocol. It's also credible that scientists are as a group selfish and like the idea of a scientific disaster that they will be called on to help fix.
Whether these things are true or not is a different kettle of fish. But these hypotheses are at least credible.
I'm not sure how a post that includes the term "anti-evolutionist climate change deniers" is not modded Troll, but you may consider me a pro-evolution climate change skeptic if you like. I'm not sure where this category fits in to your worldview.
Moreover, they don't want people who ask for iPods for Christmas to get their competitors' products.
That horse has left the barn, crossed the field, and run to the next county. I already hear "iPod" as the generic term for any music player, even from people who should really know better.
Slashdot Mirror
Right. This is why my web pages have links to download applications that users can just run on their own desktops. It's great for security, too, because running arbitrary executables is perfectly safe.
AJAX has its place. It's just not every place.
By this argument, Manhattan has a majority of the world's population.
Hey, I've got a solution to this: just have the McAfee, etc. client turn off random virus definitions from time to time. Then everyone would have a different "immune system"!
Sheesh.
Thousands of p0rn "actresses" just lost their jobs.
I can't believe I'm the first person in this thread to realize this!
There's actually a difference between being a monopoly in terms of market share and being able to use monopoly pricing. Let's say a company has 100% market share, but knows that raising its price by 1% would cause competitors to enter. In this case, it cannot employ monopoly pricing because of the mere threat of competition. So the consumer gets the same efficient pricing as if there were competition.
This is a fairly unusual scenario, granted (usually there are fixed costs that prevent competitors from entering even if they could slightly undercut the monopoly for a while). But it's also unusual to find a pure monopoly that can employ monopoly pricing with no risk of competition. The above reasoning generally holds at least to some degree.
In the particular case of CPU manufacturing, barriers to entry are significant, so losing AMD might be really bad for consumers. I just wanted to point out that this isn't always the case.
This isn't meant to answer your question, but I still think it's fascinating (and terrible). Look at this picture. In the upper right you'll find the Korean peninsula. South Korea is a sea of light. North Korea is completely dark (except for a little dot around Pyongyang). The dividing line is sharp and obvious.
Yes, but "they" (i.e., the 95% of North Koreans who have diddly squat) also have zero power to make decisions. Those in power have plenty to lose.
Google's image search might be a good idea for you at this point.
Clearly they want to influence the elections.
The problem is that "facts" are slippery creatures. People lie. Instruments are faulty. Methods are applied incorrectly. Relationships between variables are misunderstood. There are all sorts of reasons why what we think of as factual may be incorrect. To combat this science requires that experiments be repeatable under controlled conditions. Given enough trials, we tend to believe that the facts, at least, are correct. This establishes "dogma", if you like, but I would say it establishes a baseline of pretty-well-agreed-upon facts upon which theory may be based.
Given this metaphysic, when a new "fact" comes along that doesn't match the framework, it's going to tend to be treated skeptically until bolstered with other supporting evidence, at which point scientists have no choice but to incorporate it. But more often than not the new "fact" turns out to be wrong and is rejected. A new "fact" is more extraordinary the more urgently it requires a change in existing theory.
Karl Popper is a good reference to read for more about this kind of thing.
Not a RealGirl (tm)?
It's called: Remarkable claims require remarkable evidence.
Science isn't about believing anything is possible until proved otherwise. I think many scientists would agree that it's possible there is or was life on Mars. But life evolving independently anywhere other than Earth would be a major breakthrough for science, so they want to be very careful about claiming it until it is really, unquestionably proved. IMO this is just good science.
...at Slashdot?
Why? This makes it easier to check for plagiarism.
Perhaps you mean "conceived with it", since you have 9 months of nurture working on you by the time you're born. A crack baby may be born with an addiction, but that doesn't mean it's encoded in his genes.
Impossible for three reasons:
You're welcome.
Hey, mods, seriously - how is my post in any sense a troll?
As a aside to your sidenote: Not all conservatives are laissez-faire economists.
That being said, most conservatives that I know would gladly accept less pork in exchange for lower taxes. I don't know any conservatives who are big fans of industrial subsidies. I'm not talking about politicians here, few of whom can be considered conservative.
In fairness to OP (at whom I previously poked a bit of mild fun), while hydrogen/oxygen rockets burn pretty clean, do you have any idea what kind of crap an SRB produces? Pretty nasty stuff.
Hey, thanks for putting that in perspective.
Something most left-wingnuts refuse to understand is that "clean enough" depends on the trade-offs you're willing to make to get there. You can have pristine, 100% natural air (not the same as "clean air" in the emissions sense) - simply by getting rid of all industry, all manmade fires, etc. 99% of humanity would die, which is the trade-off. I'm willing to pay a little for a big reduction in air pollution. I may not be willing to pay a lot for a small reduction, though. I'm definitely not willing to say that any reduction in pollution is automatically a good idea.
A common theme among Leftists today is that the West is responsible for holding down the developing world. Kyoto is a way to redress this inequity. Frankly, even if the science is true, I think Kyoto is largely driven by this. You may not want to punish the West and reward the developing world, but many Leftists do.
The global warming claim is twofold: first, that it exists; second, that it is caused by manmade emissions. Both claims are at least somewhat controversial, the second more so than the first. It wouldn't be a big deal except that we're preparing to spent hundreds of billions of dollars on the assumption that the claims are correct.
Well, I see how it could be a bad thing. It will cost the economy countless billions of dollars, for example. This is OK if we get a clear benefit, but let's consider the benefits you cite:
Of course not. But they will have to raise prices, which causes inflation and likely reduces demand for their products. They may have to lay off employees if demand falls enough, causing unemployment. So you're right, in that industry won't just "fold". But you're wrong that it will have no effect. I have no problem doing certain pro-environmental regulations if the net benefit is clear, but it's just incorrect to assume that there will be no cost and only benefit to Kyoto.
It's certainly credible (not the same thing as true) that scientists are predominantly left-wing and like the idea of findings that strengthen the socialist politics of the Kyoto Protocol. It's also credible that scientists are as a group selfish and like the idea of a scientific disaster that they will be called on to help fix.
Whether these things are true or not is a different kettle of fish. But these hypotheses are at least credible.
I'm not sure how a post that includes the term "anti-evolutionist climate change deniers" is not modded Troll, but you may consider me a pro-evolution climate change skeptic if you like. I'm not sure where this category fits in to your worldview.
That horse has left the barn, crossed the field, and run to the next county. I already hear "iPod" as the generic term for any music player, even from people who should really know better.
That's OK, we'll release wave after wave of unemployed-tanker-trucker-eating leopards if that becomes a problem.