Sigh, the state of certain particular glaciers doesn't prove human induced climate change any more than a bad storm season does. Of course insurance companies paid out more in the 1990s, if the amount of damaging storms was constant but the value of property around the world continues to grow...Well your argument is meaningless, again. Of course our presence and activity effects the climate, just like everything else does. It's a question of magnitude, direction, and consequences. The bottom line is that any "action" we decide to take will have definite human consequences, so pardon me for being sceptical about this rush to drastically alter our behavior. (because Kyoto is only a tiny fraction of what needs to be done if it is as bad as many say it will be) (it only delays the warming 6 years over the next century).
CO2 really isn't a pollutant, at least not like the examples you cite. I should be more clear, CO2 emissions aren't polluting the air so much as effecting our atmospheric composition. Of course the problem is that climate is always changing and it is extremely diffucult to determine the magnitude and effect that our actions are having on the climate. CO2 contributes to global warming. How much? Does our other pollution tend to counteract the effects of CO2 emmissions? There are so many unknowns.
The "we need to do something" attitude worries me. Basically, there is a very uncertain benefit to reducing CO2 emissions and it comes at a very high cost. Whereas there is a much more definite benefit to reducing other types of pollution (at a lower cost). Bottom line, there are so many other environmental issues in this world that demand our resources and attention that it is very difficult to put global warming ahead of those, simply because the percieved payoff is highly unknown and the costs are very high (comparatively).
"It won't get hard until you get to the last 1%. Until then it will continue to be easy to extract the oil."
Not true. There are many different sources of oil with different costs to extract. And they probably won't run out at the same time either. Also, as the cheeper reserves start to run low prices will rise as people ANTICIPATE that prices are about to go up.
Not every increase in wages is "good". If everyone's wages go up without increasing productivity, then all you have is pure inflation, meaning your REAL wage hasn't really changed. Basically, wages should (and pretty much do) track the productivity of workers.
Why isn't everyone employed if wages are set by the market? Even with very low wages, companies are constrainted by demand for whatever they are producing, and the other non-wage costs of making something. So even if wages are zero you wouldn't have unlimited production, because the cost of making something doesn't become zero.
If you say wages MUST be X, (where X is higher than the market wage), then you increase the cost of producing something. This has the effect of decreasing the number of workers employed and increasing the price of whatever they are making (assuming that wages are a significant portion of total costs of making something.)
Who decides what is "right for society"?
You?
Sure lots of irrational decisions are made, but on the whole, they tend to be more rational than those made by a central authority. Markets and individuals make mistakes, but its a lot easier to rectify those mistakes than to throw the whole thing out for a system that seems to be even less effective.
"Every corporation ever formed has made the EXPLICIT promise in their corporate charter that if we as a society grant them tax breaks and freedom from personal liability for the owners, then the corporation will benefit society as a whole."
WRONG! Might want to go reread your history. The purpose of a corporation is pretty simple, it allows individuals to pool their resources. It limits the liability of the investors, by making the company a "person". The fact that corporations pay taxes at all is in return for the grant of limited liability and other advantages of incorporating.
Nice theory, but reducing the CEO salary to zero would have very little impact on the price of drugs or the share price of the company. Naturally the best CEO is going to cost as much, or more, than your best R&D worker. Why, cause if the CEO screws it all up, then the whole company is screwed, if a peon screws up, then you might be out some money. It's a simple matter of responsibility.
(Now some CEO's aren't worth what they are paid, cause they suck, but thats a different matter than just CEO pay in general. Cause a really, truely great CEO IS worth millions to a large company.)
I like how you lump administration costs in there with advertising and try to sell the whole bill as "advertising".
Administration is pretty much anything that isn't the direct manufacture and developement. So all the accountants, product reps, etc, office staff, all of those people are "administration". So don't try to pretend that all of this "advertising" money is really spent on TV commercials that drive up the cost of the drug by 20%. Actually, most drugs don't get TV advertising, unless they treat a problem that a large part of the popualtion has. Actually, advertising my lower the cost of the drug (since a large part of the costs are fixed for drugs, increases volume might allow the drug co. to lower prices and recoup that fixed cost faster). I'll let you think about that.
Every company "deducts" costs, we only tax profits in companies, not gross income. (And you'd be a fool to reverse it as you would be helping monopolies and punishing highly competitve companies.)
Fundamentally, drug development is a very high risk-reward scenario. Notice that to convince people to invest in a risky enterprise you have to offer a higher return than whatever the bank or US governement is offering to borrow, or higher than most companies making about an average of 10-12%. Drug companies rely on hitting one out of the park every couple years, if they don't, well their profits tank, their stock falls, and they get bought up, perhaps in peices.
Re:Wait... so you're telling me...
on
A New Ice Age?
·
· Score: 1
IIRC, those CO2 trading and reforestation provisions were only added later (during negotiations with Australia IIRC), in order to get additional signees. This was after the US had already voted the protocol down.
Frankly, we are better off spending the money trying to come up with newer environmentally friendly technologies than trying to reduce CO2 emissions now.
You are free to believe that americans are stupid and pigheaded, but get your facts right.
USians aren't really any more or less educated than most of europe. Heck, the US probably spends more money on education that any other country in the world. Is everyone who doesn't agree with you "less educated". If so I'd sure hate to be your neighbor, and you call other people pig headed!
The "reliance" on foreign scientists is because the US, even after 9/11 and its aftermath, is still a very open and accepting society with very diverse population, probably due to its history as an imigrant nation. Come to think of it, most of those "foreign scientists" were educated in the US, so it's not entirely illogical that they might work there.
I don't know where you got your "60% without healthcare" statistic, but that's not right either. The statistic that is bantered about is "49 million american's without health insurance". But that isn't anywhere near 60% of a population of 290 million. Of not having private insurance doesn't necessarily mean you don't have access to healthcare either, but either way your numbers are way off.
Oh yes, it was the US that destabilized Venezuela, not the president (chavez) who violated the constituion, murdered judges, and threw the country into civil war. Yes, it was all the fault of the US for buying oil from them. If they did have that money the country would be so much better off. (note the dripping sarcasm).
And fankly, I don't think most Iraqi's are mad about the 'mericans "running their cars all the time".
"The current system that we have set in the United States is almost geared to slow down advanced students to the level that their age group is at. I say screw my age group and let me advance at my own pace."
Blame the "educational theory" that dominates how "education" is/was taught to teachers from the 60s forward in most US colleges. We had to learn about this in 4th grade, ironically as part of the gifted program I was in. The basic theory was that you taught at the speed of the average student. Students are separated students into three tiers: top, middle and bottom (this could be done in each subject). The top tier would get the material right away and finish early, you were then supposed to give them "enrichment materials" (read busy work). The middle group would use the whole class time to complete their materials and the bottom group would need extra time and help. (Of course in reality, by lowering the "average" you have fewer students that need the extra help (you shrink the bottom group) and make the top group larger.
Bascially, what you describe is by design. The purpose of the educational system right now isn't to push each student to achieve their potential (yes there are some programs, but thats not the focus). The purpose is to have all kids of the same age be at the same educational level so they can be taught as one group. The way these people see it, pushing for excellence is dangerous. To them disparity between students is the enemy. To them it leads to hurt feelings, social stratification, and all sorts of other undesirable social outcomes. If you don't believe me, just talk to a professor of education at a university with a large college of education.
The real purpose of the public school system isn't to raise the average level of education, at least to those running the system. The purpose is uniformity, both educationally and socially.
Re:Wait... so you're telling me...
on
A New Ice Age?
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Actually, the US does have vast streches of forests (that are growing, not shrinking), though I wouldn't call them secret. The US has very low net carbon emmissons, compared to countries in Europe. One of the things the US wanted in Kyoto, but didn't get, was credit for CO2 absorbtion. (The other was a CO2 trading market, which didn't get added until the US dropped Kyoto like a bad habit) In other words, the US wanted to focus not just on CO2 emmissions, but on net contribution of CO2.
It's not about apple owning the whole media player market.
Apple just needs a major segment. Apple's business strategy appears to depend on a couple things
1. Individual consumer lock-in. Once you start using iTMS on the iPod you there is a barrier to switching to another player/music store.
2. Market lock-in. Once a technology reaches "critical mass" (like linux has, at least on servers) means that certain economies of scale have been reached. If Apple can get a large enough installed base, then the iPod and iTMS won't be going anywhere quick, even if a "better" service and player come along. The power of inertia. (Think Intel vs. AMD rather than MS-DOS vs CP/M in terms of market share effects)
My understanding, assuming that he isn't a total crackpot (and the article was slashdotted so i couldn't read it), is that the engine is more efficient, not the motor. Motors are very good at converting electricity into motion. It's the internal combustion engine he is "fixing"?? Engines only convert a small part of their potential into enengy into power. (30% iirc is pretty good)
Well of course real is the most downloaded, Windows media player ships with windows, so it doesn't need to be downloaded. And quicktime player comes free on the Mac.
To review, windows users only DL Real and QT, mac users only DL WMP and Real if they want. Real is the only one that needs to be DLed on both platforms.
You know what, both sides were being political. And while they were both within their rights to do what they did, even if it was a bad idea.
Robbins, by becomming a leading anti-war proponent inexorably became a political figure, even if his speech at cooperstown would have avoided the topic, just as surely as if he had decided to become NRA spokesperson. Petroskey, by taking about Robbins "putting the troops in danger" was suggesting that his particular stance, rather than his current high political profile, was the cause of his removal from the ceremony.
In short, I don't think it was unfair to remove Robbins, but would he have done the same for say, Mel Gibson or Arnold or some other politically active celeb that he agrees with? If not he is a hypocrite, but not a law breaker.
I don't think that supreme court is "extending" the constitution to consider things expressed in artwork or other mediums speech. Speech, afterall, by your definition should only be the spoken word, and not protect newspapers, that was clearly not the intent of the framers. The point is, the medium doesn't matter, speech is speech, whether it takes place from a soapbox on the side of one. Pure speech, as opposed to speech that calls for illegal actions, its highly protected. (Which is why I think McCain-Finegold ought to be on this list, talk about perverting the intent of the 1st ammendment)
I see, CBS, a private entity which paid the government a large amount of money for a small chunk of the total spectrum (not a monopoly) should be "treated differently." So exactly where does the government draw the line?
The rich didn't just get lucky, they did what the middle class did too, but they did one other thing. Most of them too big risks. Now if you are already rich I'll grant you that is easier to do, but most rich people in the US are first generation, meaning they weren't just born into wealth.
Although I do agree that education about risk taking and investment is woefully inadequate, and is one reason that some people, who seem to be doing all the right stuff with regards to "working hard", can't seem to catch a break.
I would like to point out that most of the starving people dying from malnutrition don't live in countries that have embraced capitalism (adam smith style, im not talking about mercantileism, which some of you often confuse for capitalism)
The problem is that sun can't get out of the chip business (unless it is going to let fujitsu design its chips) because its entire sales pitch is based on total hardware compatibility and backwards binary compatibility. Basically that you can run ancient apps for old SPARC machines on brand new stuff with no modification and that something that runs on a sun workstation will run on a E15K (much faster). If they give up on SPARC, then customers have no more reason to buy from SUN than from HP/IBM/Dell/SGI/APPLE. SUN's play is a one OS one hardware stack thing, sorta like apple, but they have much higher end machines.
Slashdot Mirror
Sigh, the state of certain particular glaciers doesn't prove human induced climate change any more than a bad storm season does. Of course insurance companies paid out more in the 1990s, if the amount of damaging storms was constant but the value of property around the world continues to grow...Well your argument is meaningless, again. Of course our presence and activity effects the climate, just like everything else does. It's a question of magnitude, direction, and consequences. The bottom line is that any "action" we decide to take will have definite human consequences, so pardon me for being sceptical about this rush to drastically alter our behavior. (because Kyoto is only a tiny fraction of what needs to be done if it is as bad as many say it will be) (it only delays the warming 6 years over the next century).
The "we need to do something" attitude worries me. Basically, there is a very uncertain benefit to reducing CO2 emissions and it comes at a very high cost. Whereas there is a much more definite benefit to reducing other types of pollution (at a lower cost). Bottom line, there are so many other environmental issues in this world that demand our resources and attention that it is very difficult to put global warming ahead of those, simply because the percieved payoff is highly unknown and the costs are very high (comparatively).
Sigh, he said alternative FUELS, not alternative energy....Think about it.
Not true. There are many different sources of oil with different costs to extract. And they probably won't run out at the same time either. Also, as the cheeper reserves start to run low prices will rise as people ANTICIPATE that prices are about to go up.
Why isn't everyone employed if wages are set by the market? Even with very low wages, companies are constrainted by demand for whatever they are producing, and the other non-wage costs of making something. So even if wages are zero you wouldn't have unlimited production, because the cost of making something doesn't become zero.
If you say wages MUST be X, (where X is higher than the market wage), then you increase the cost of producing something. This has the effect of decreasing the number of workers employed and increasing the price of whatever they are making (assuming that wages are a significant portion of total costs of making something.)
Who decides what is "right for society"? You? Sure lots of irrational decisions are made, but on the whole, they tend to be more rational than those made by a central authority. Markets and individuals make mistakes, but its a lot easier to rectify those mistakes than to throw the whole thing out for a system that seems to be even less effective.
"Every corporation ever formed has made the EXPLICIT promise in their corporate charter that if we as a society grant them tax breaks and freedom from personal liability for the owners, then the corporation will benefit society as a whole." WRONG! Might want to go reread your history. The purpose of a corporation is pretty simple, it allows individuals to pool their resources. It limits the liability of the investors, by making the company a "person". The fact that corporations pay taxes at all is in return for the grant of limited liability and other advantages of incorporating.
(Now some CEO's aren't worth what they are paid, cause they suck, but thats a different matter than just CEO pay in general. Cause a really, truely great CEO IS worth millions to a large company.)
Every company "deducts" costs, we only tax profits in companies, not gross income. (And you'd be a fool to reverse it as you would be helping monopolies and punishing highly competitve companies.)
Fundamentally, drug development is a very high risk-reward scenario. Notice that to convince people to invest in a risky enterprise you have to offer a higher return than whatever the bank or US governement is offering to borrow, or higher than most companies making about an average of 10-12%. Drug companies rely on hitting one out of the park every couple years, if they don't, well their profits tank, their stock falls, and they get bought up, perhaps in peices.
IIRC, those CO2 trading and reforestation provisions were only added later (during negotiations with Australia IIRC), in order to get additional signees. This was after the US had already voted the protocol down. Frankly, we are better off spending the money trying to come up with newer environmentally friendly technologies than trying to reduce CO2 emissions now.
USians aren't really any more or less educated than most of europe. Heck, the US probably spends more money on education that any other country in the world. Is everyone who doesn't agree with you "less educated". If so I'd sure hate to be your neighbor, and you call other people pig headed!
The "reliance" on foreign scientists is because the US, even after 9/11 and its aftermath, is still a very open and accepting society with very diverse population, probably due to its history as an imigrant nation. Come to think of it, most of those "foreign scientists" were educated in the US, so it's not entirely illogical that they might work there.
I don't know where you got your "60% without healthcare" statistic, but that's not right either. The statistic that is bantered about is "49 million american's without health insurance". But that isn't anywhere near 60% of a population of 290 million. Of not having private insurance doesn't necessarily mean you don't have access to healthcare either, but either way your numbers are way off.
Oh yes, it was the US that destabilized Venezuela, not the president (chavez) who violated the constituion, murdered judges, and threw the country into civil war. Yes, it was all the fault of the US for buying oil from them. If they did have that money the country would be so much better off. (note the dripping sarcasm).
And fankly, I don't think most Iraqi's are mad about the 'mericans "running their cars all the time".
Blame the "educational theory" that dominates how "education" is/was taught to teachers from the 60s forward in most US colleges. We had to learn about this in 4th grade, ironically as part of the gifted program I was in. The basic theory was that you taught at the speed of the average student. Students are separated students into three tiers: top, middle and bottom (this could be done in each subject). The top tier would get the material right away and finish early, you were then supposed to give them "enrichment materials" (read busy work). The middle group would use the whole class time to complete their materials and the bottom group would need extra time and help. (Of course in reality, by lowering the "average" you have fewer students that need the extra help (you shrink the bottom group) and make the top group larger.
Bascially, what you describe is by design. The purpose of the educational system right now isn't to push each student to achieve their potential (yes there are some programs, but thats not the focus). The purpose is to have all kids of the same age be at the same educational level so they can be taught as one group. The way these people see it, pushing for excellence is dangerous. To them disparity between students is the enemy. To them it leads to hurt feelings, social stratification, and all sorts of other undesirable social outcomes. If you don't believe me, just talk to a professor of education at a university with a large college of education.
The real purpose of the public school system isn't to raise the average level of education, at least to those running the system. The purpose is uniformity, both educationally and socially.
Actually, the US does have vast streches of forests (that are growing, not shrinking), though I wouldn't call them secret. The US has very low net carbon emmissons, compared to countries in Europe. One of the things the US wanted in Kyoto, but didn't get, was credit for CO2 absorbtion. (The other was a CO2 trading market, which didn't get added until the US dropped Kyoto like a bad habit) In other words, the US wanted to focus not just on CO2 emmissions, but on net contribution of CO2.
You have stats on the "declining sales every year"?? Didn't Job's return bring sales way up throught the introduction of the iMac?
1. Individual consumer lock-in. Once you start using iTMS on the iPod you there is a barrier to switching to another player/music store.
2. Market lock-in. Once a technology reaches "critical mass" (like linux has, at least on servers) means that certain economies of scale have been reached. If Apple can get a large enough installed base, then the iPod and iTMS won't be going anywhere quick, even if a "better" service and player come along. The power of inertia. (Think Intel vs. AMD rather than MS-DOS vs CP/M in terms of market share effects)
My understanding, assuming that he isn't a total crackpot (and the article was slashdotted so i couldn't read it), is that the engine is more efficient, not the motor. Motors are very good at converting electricity into motion. It's the internal combustion engine he is "fixing"?? Engines only convert a small part of their potential into enengy into power. (30% iirc is pretty good)
To review, windows users only DL Real and QT, mac users only DL WMP and Real if they want. Real is the only one that needs to be DLed on both platforms.
Robbins, by becomming a leading anti-war proponent inexorably became a political figure, even if his speech at cooperstown would have avoided the topic, just as surely as if he had decided to become NRA spokesperson. Petroskey, by taking about Robbins "putting the troops in danger" was suggesting that his particular stance, rather than his current high political profile, was the cause of his removal from the ceremony.
In short, I don't think it was unfair to remove Robbins, but would he have done the same for say, Mel Gibson or Arnold or some other politically active celeb that he agrees with? If not he is a hypocrite, but not a law breaker.
I don't think that supreme court is "extending" the constitution to consider things expressed in artwork or other mediums speech. Speech, afterall, by your definition should only be the spoken word, and not protect newspapers, that was clearly not the intent of the framers. The point is, the medium doesn't matter, speech is speech, whether it takes place from a soapbox on the side of one. Pure speech, as opposed to speech that calls for illegal actions, its highly protected. (Which is why I think McCain-Finegold ought to be on this list, talk about perverting the intent of the 1st ammendment)
I see, CBS, a private entity which paid the government a large amount of money for a small chunk of the total spectrum (not a monopoly) should be "treated differently." So exactly where does the government draw the line?
you are missing the point, It's both ability AND cost. The indians are at least "good enough" and they are also cheeper.
The rich didn't just get lucky, they did what the middle class did too, but they did one other thing. Most of them too big risks. Now if you are already rich I'll grant you that is easier to do, but most rich people in the US are first generation, meaning they weren't just born into wealth. Although I do agree that education about risk taking and investment is woefully inadequate, and is one reason that some people, who seem to be doing all the right stuff with regards to "working hard", can't seem to catch a break.
I would like to point out that most of the starving people dying from malnutrition don't live in countries that have embraced capitalism (adam smith style, im not talking about mercantileism, which some of you often confuse for capitalism)
The problem is that sun can't get out of the chip business (unless it is going to let fujitsu design its chips) because its entire sales pitch is based on total hardware compatibility and backwards binary compatibility. Basically that you can run ancient apps for old SPARC machines on brand new stuff with no modification and that something that runs on a sun workstation will run on a E15K (much faster). If they give up on SPARC, then customers have no more reason to buy from SUN than from HP/IBM/Dell/SGI/APPLE. SUN's play is a one OS one hardware stack thing, sorta like apple, but they have much higher end machines.
Hmm, do i detect a raging case of intolerance here?