I question if gazillions of gallons of oil gushing into the ocean all at once is more or less bad than a little plutonium.
I go with more bad.
Plutonium is pretty fucking toxic.
If you breathe it in under ideal conditions. Most sea life doesn't have lungs, the plutonium would all be chemically bounded up as salts or other compounds, the whole mess would be greatly diluted, and there wasn't much in the way of plutonium anyway - they're far more worried about radioactive isotopes of cesium or strontium.
He concludes based on a long and twisty argument that cartels are inherently unstable and monopolies aren't a problem (because eventually a competitor will arise... somehow), which doesn't match how real markets seem to work.
Of course, you have to have observed how real markets work in order for this argument to carry water. I'm not going to defend this guy, BUT a lot of statements about supposed real observations of cartels and monopolies often aren't based on real observations but on conveniently available myths.
It depends on the market as to how stable a concentration of market power is. For example, the "natural monopoly" where someone has to provide considerable infrastructure for a particular service and it's very hard for a competitor's infrastructure to fit in the same physical space (water, electricity delivery, roads for example). Similarly, there are situations where cartels naturally form such as in accounting and auditing. It's something of a demonstration of fiscal fitness to use the same few, relatively pricey accounting firms that everyone else does rather than a new competitor that no one has heard of.
Then there's restaurants: easy field to enter, easy for customers to switch to competitors.
And a lot of the supposed examples of cartels and monopolies formed with heavy government intervention and maintenance - something which in theory would not be present in the agorist utopia.
I imagine there wasn't much if any radioactive water gushing into the Gulf of Mexico from Deepwater Horizon, so yes, it is more "catastrophic" in that hysterically overblown sense.
Monsanto is a conflict of interest, against man and nature
I know you're just trying to be witty here, but there's no obligation on the part of Monsanto to support "man and nature", hence there is no conflict of interest. I know some anti-corporatist types claim that corporations should serve some sort of public benefit or be banished.
I don't agree, partly because I don't think the above sort of people could recognize a benefit to society and partly because I think the necessities of free societies preclude that sort of onerous and nebulous burden.
The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.
Moderation doesn't give you a modern society. Sure, going on various sorts of irrational binges don't either. But the accumulation of wealth has as a necessary precondition some means of acquiring that wealth. Not everyone can be a leech acquiring resources with little effort. So that leaves the means that require effort.
Ah yes, blame those evil corporations. But it isn't going to get you out of that massive hole you dug.
For decades, the US and most of the rest of the developed world has been wriggling on the hook, trying to find a way to preserve their standards of living in the face of intense labor competition from the rest of the world - without having to do any real work. Now, we're starting to come to the end game where these societies can no longer juggle all of those stupid policies and schemes.
Go ahead and blame "corporations". It's not going to do you or your society any good, but maybe future generations will learn something from your example.
Apparently a certain influential Dr. Eddington didn't love to be proven wrong, especially by an Indian. And his influence was strong enough for Chandrasekhar to seek greener pastures in a different country.
It'd be helpful if you could tell us the difference. I gather forecasting makes predictions/estimates of future numerical parameters over a fixed span of time such as amount of rainfall for a given area over the next day. Predictions can be more general, say, the odds of an event which triggers an insurance claim.
Biological organisms are affected by non-ionizing radiation--period.
I was about to disagree, then I recalled that I got tagged by some high intensity 60Hz non-ionizing radiation a while back. Luckly, exposure was brief, so I just ended up with a numb finger for about a minute.
If you think that a conclusion made by scientists is wrong, we would absolutely love it if you could prove them wrong.
Like Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar's star model which turns out to be a good explanation for stellar evolution? He eventually did run into people who absolutely love to be proved wrong.
Going into the comments section and telling people that the earth isn't really getting warmer does not count as proving anyone wrong.
The problem here is that research for this particular field is being used for justification for public spending and behavior modification to the tune of tens to hundreds of billions of dollars a year. Complaining about the few people who don't think the Earth is warming ignores the big problem - major, civilization-altering decisions based on weak scientific and economic projections.
How do I know this? Because I have 30+ years experience in a company that sells primarily big-ticket items to F100 companies and goverments.
That experience counts if it is applicable. I don't see that. I have some experience as well and my experience runs counter to yours.
Second, marketing teams going into a feeding frenzy aren't evidence that I'm wrong. You would expect that sort of behavior for a once a year bonanza.
Third, hasty financial decisions generally hurt the less competent or experienced party in a transaction unless they're lucky or the transaction is simple enough that it doesn't need a lot of thought. The government would be that party here.
Fourth, a bundle of such rushed decisions greatly reduces the risk of public scrutiny. There is safety in numbers. For the government side, the primary incentive is that the money gets spent. How or on what is considerably less of a priority as long as it fits whatever constraints Congress and upper management have put on the transaction. The business-side has various incentives to get the best deal possible.
I am endlessly entertained watching the Slashdot community discuss magnetic fields without any mention of the electrical currents which tend to be their cause down here on Earth.
Why would that be relevant? You can have strong magnetic fields in the presence of microscopic electric currents such as permanent magnets. And they're discussing this in the context of plasma, both from the Sun and from the interstellar environment. I understand there is some current in the Solar Wind, but one can easily explain magnetic fields on interstellar scales without requiring similar scale electrical fields or currents.
You don't see four nuclear reactors leaking radioactive substances directly into the ocean as a threat to life on this planet?
You got it right in my case as well. I don't see that because it isn't a threat to life on this planet.
TEPCO is in charge of this mess...and they do next to nothing. Do you have any better ideas?
Sure, move that stuff aside, recycle what nuclear fuel you can, and let the rest cool down for a few centuries. Meanwhile, build a new group of reactors there. You have this great place for nuclear reactors - plenty of land, water, and it even has a nice wide exclusion zone. And now you know how bad earthquakes and tsunami can get. So that particular disaster will never catch you off guard again.
For the land of the exclusion zone, you can now use it for industrial purposes or green spaces.
It's already illegal since the subject of the picture didn't authorize it. And how do you prove any of it? Most such acts would be untouchable due to lack of evidence.
At least under current law they can go after websites in the US which show the picture and from there, backtrack to who released the picture in the first place.
This law was found to be unconstitutional. Yet they chose an unconstitutional way to keep it going.
Likewise, I'm saying your attempts to fight the law have been tried, and failed. Yet you keep doing the same thing expecting a different result.
The thing is you are wrong here. Speech has succeeded in the past. Bad laws have been overturned, sometimes on the strength of mere words, sometimes with subsequent action.
My advice isn't to get lost, silly. My advice (which was originally your advice, btw) is reconsider your strategy, maybe use your own advice to others which is to do nothing. Do nothing doesn't mean leaving. You can still stay, just stop trying to argue.
A lot of bad group decisions are based on false consensus. Everyone appears to agree so people internalize that they must be the only ones out there who don't agree.
This is a common game in totalitarian governments which for the most part rely on not just fear but isolation, you suffer alone despite being surrounded by thousands or millions of people experiencing the same thing. And it is all because people are afraid to speak and communicate. But all it takes is one to cross that line and say what everyone is thinking.
By challenging the most sacred of health care taboos and myths, I will enable other people to speak their mind. They won't necessarily agree with me (they may continue to back the current state of things). But it's more than saying nothing would do.
Further, the situation is wrong. I see no value in saying nothing. The individual mandate and the state medicare obligations were not essential to Obamacare. They could have replaced those with constitutional provisions such as subsidies (which they had to put in anyway!) and the like. I still wouldn't like them and probably would say many mean things about them on Slashdot, but they wouldn't have broken the law.
The reason the creators of Obamacare didn't is because it would have cost too much. They chose the more convenient route rather than the harder but legal route. That's the odious heart of Obamacare. It was cheaper and more expedient to disregard the law and just force us to do what they wanted. Sure, similar things have been done many times before as you note. But this crossed a new threshold of coercion and we will have to live with the consequences of that precedent.
You are sort of right, but not in the situation being discussed here.
Again, I don't see your points at all. I am "sort of" right for this sort of situation.
In that situation, you get a better price, because you can say to the vendor 'I have the money now, you can sell for a price I want and increase your sales for the quarter. Or, you can take your chances that I will have this money available next year.'
Conversely, the vendor has a huge amount of business right now with or without that particular deal. And if that money goes back to the general budget then there's a good chance Congress will be budget cutting it next year - use it or lose it.
As a monopsopy, the US is remarkably incompetent. It doesn't do what you claim and behavior like last minute shopping is part of the symptoms of this incompetence.
And we're ignoring the various ways, legal and illegal for businesses to exploit these situations. They can bribe the people making the monetary decisions even to the point of obtaining legislation. They can just simply out-negotiate the government side, often with insider information and the ability to bamboozle the government side about the actual costs the vendor experiences.
I agree. I too would lose the scare quotes. Special access means a rather high quality of research. It often means other things like a tendency to propaganda.
Slashdot Mirror
I question if gazillions of gallons of oil gushing into the ocean all at once is more or less bad than a little plutonium.
I go with more bad.
Plutonium is pretty fucking toxic.
If you breathe it in under ideal conditions. Most sea life doesn't have lungs, the plutonium would all be chemically bounded up as salts or other compounds, the whole mess would be greatly diluted, and there wasn't much in the way of plutonium anyway - they're far more worried about radioactive isotopes of cesium or strontium.
Usually the big missing ingredient is "opportunity".
Once you make the perfect society, then you need perfect people.
He concludes based on a long and twisty argument that cartels are inherently unstable and monopolies aren't a problem (because eventually a competitor will arise ... somehow), which doesn't match how real markets seem to work.
Of course, you have to have observed how real markets work in order for this argument to carry water. I'm not going to defend this guy, BUT a lot of statements about supposed real observations of cartels and monopolies often aren't based on real observations but on conveniently available myths.
It depends on the market as to how stable a concentration of market power is. For example, the "natural monopoly" where someone has to provide considerable infrastructure for a particular service and it's very hard for a competitor's infrastructure to fit in the same physical space (water, electricity delivery, roads for example). Similarly, there are situations where cartels naturally form such as in accounting and auditing. It's something of a demonstration of fiscal fitness to use the same few, relatively pricey accounting firms that everyone else does rather than a new competitor that no one has heard of.
Then there's restaurants: easy field to enter, easy for customers to switch to competitors.
And a lot of the supposed examples of cartels and monopolies formed with heavy government intervention and maintenance - something which in theory would not be present in the agorist utopia.
I imagine there wasn't much if any radioactive water gushing into the Gulf of Mexico from Deepwater Horizon, so yes, it is more "catastrophic" in that hysterically overblown sense.
It's worth remembering here that the tank might have been nice and level in early 2011.
Monsanto is a conflict of interest, against man and nature
I know you're just trying to be witty here, but there's no obligation on the part of Monsanto to support "man and nature", hence there is no conflict of interest. I know some anti-corporatist types claim that corporations should serve some sort of public benefit or be banished.
I don't agree, partly because I don't think the above sort of people could recognize a benefit to society and partly because I think the necessities of free societies preclude that sort of onerous and nebulous burden.
Eexaa endorsed moderation as a philosophical goal
Reminds me of something Bernard Shaw wrote:
The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.
Moderation doesn't give you a modern society. Sure, going on various sorts of irrational binges don't either. But the accumulation of wealth has as a necessary precondition some means of acquiring that wealth. Not everyone can be a leech acquiring resources with little effort. So that leaves the means that require effort.
Ah yes, blame those evil corporations. But it isn't going to get you out of that massive hole you dug.
For decades, the US and most of the rest of the developed world has been wriggling on the hook, trying to find a way to preserve their standards of living in the face of intense labor competition from the rest of the world - without having to do any real work. Now, we're starting to come to the end game where these societies can no longer juggle all of those stupid policies and schemes.
Go ahead and blame "corporations". It's not going to do you or your society any good, but maybe future generations will learn something from your example.
Another reason could be the relation to the obvious conflict of interest in Monsanto owning such a tech company.
What would be the conflict of interest? I really don't get it here. It sounds like rather straightforward integration/bundling of services.
Apparently a certain influential Dr. Eddington didn't love to be proven wrong, especially by an Indian. And his influence was strong enough for Chandrasekhar to seek greener pastures in a different country.
and it's not prediction, it's forecasting.
It'd be helpful if you could tell us the difference. I gather forecasting makes predictions/estimates of future numerical parameters over a fixed span of time such as amount of rainfall for a given area over the next day. Predictions can be more general, say, the odds of an event which triggers an insurance claim.
Biological organisms are affected by non-ionizing radiation--period.
I was about to disagree, then I recalled that I got tagged by some high intensity 60Hz non-ionizing radiation a while back. Luckly, exposure was brief, so I just ended up with a numb finger for about a minute.
If you think that a conclusion made by scientists is wrong, we would absolutely love it if you could prove them wrong.
Like Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar's star model which turns out to be a good explanation for stellar evolution? He eventually did run into people who absolutely love to be proved wrong.
Going into the comments section and telling people that the earth isn't really getting warmer does not count as proving anyone wrong.
The problem here is that research for this particular field is being used for justification for public spending and behavior modification to the tune of tens to hundreds of billions of dollars a year. Complaining about the few people who don't think the Earth is warming ignores the big problem - major, civilization-altering decisions based on weak scientific and economic projections.
How did that work out for Paris?
Sounds like she got $400,000 plus a percentage of profits from the porn movie.
How do I know this? Because I have 30+ years experience in a company that sells primarily big-ticket items to F100 companies and goverments.
That experience counts if it is applicable. I don't see that. I have some experience as well and my experience runs counter to yours.
Second, marketing teams going into a feeding frenzy aren't evidence that I'm wrong. You would expect that sort of behavior for a once a year bonanza.
Third, hasty financial decisions generally hurt the less competent or experienced party in a transaction unless they're lucky or the transaction is simple enough that it doesn't need a lot of thought. The government would be that party here.
Fourth, a bundle of such rushed decisions greatly reduces the risk of public scrutiny. There is safety in numbers. For the government side, the primary incentive is that the money gets spent. How or on what is considerably less of a priority as long as it fits whatever constraints Congress and upper management have put on the transaction. The business-side has various incentives to get the best deal possible.
Most are too proud to let their faith in evolution be shaken
One doesn't need faith. The experiments establishing evolution are well known and can be reproduced by you.
Because Canadian packages are so much harder to open than foreign packages?
I am endlessly entertained watching the Slashdot community discuss magnetic fields without any mention of the electrical currents which tend to be their cause down here on Earth.
Why would that be relevant? You can have strong magnetic fields in the presence of microscopic electric currents such as permanent magnets. And they're discussing this in the context of plasma, both from the Sun and from the interstellar environment. I understand there is some current in the Solar Wind, but one can easily explain magnetic fields on interstellar scales without requiring similar scale electrical fields or currents.
You don't see four nuclear reactors leaking radioactive substances directly into the ocean as a threat to life on this planet?
You got it right in my case as well. I don't see that because it isn't a threat to life on this planet.
TEPCO is in charge of this mess...and they do next to nothing. Do you have any better ideas?
Sure, move that stuff aside, recycle what nuclear fuel you can, and let the rest cool down for a few centuries. Meanwhile, build a new group of reactors there. You have this great place for nuclear reactors - plenty of land, water, and it even has a nice wide exclusion zone. And now you know how bad earthquakes and tsunami can get. So that particular disaster will never catch you off guard again.
For the land of the exclusion zone, you can now use it for industrial purposes or green spaces.
It's already illegal since the subject of the picture didn't authorize it. And how do you prove any of it? Most such acts would be untouchable due to lack of evidence.
At least under current law they can go after websites in the US which show the picture and from there, backtrack to who released the picture in the first place.
This law was found to be unconstitutional. Yet they chose an unconstitutional way to keep it going.
Likewise, I'm saying your attempts to fight the law have been tried, and failed. Yet you keep doing the same thing expecting a different result.
The thing is you are wrong here. Speech has succeeded in the past. Bad laws have been overturned, sometimes on the strength of mere words, sometimes with subsequent action.
My advice isn't to get lost, silly. My advice (which was originally your advice, btw) is reconsider your strategy, maybe use your own advice to others which is to do nothing. Do nothing doesn't mean leaving. You can still stay, just stop trying to argue.
A lot of bad group decisions are based on false consensus. Everyone appears to agree so people internalize that they must be the only ones out there who don't agree.
This is a common game in totalitarian governments which for the most part rely on not just fear but isolation, you suffer alone despite being surrounded by thousands or millions of people experiencing the same thing. And it is all because people are afraid to speak and communicate. But all it takes is one to cross that line and say what everyone is thinking.
By challenging the most sacred of health care taboos and myths, I will enable other people to speak their mind. They won't necessarily agree with me (they may continue to back the current state of things). But it's more than saying nothing would do.
Further, the situation is wrong. I see no value in saying nothing. The individual mandate and the state medicare obligations were not essential to Obamacare. They could have replaced those with constitutional provisions such as subsidies (which they had to put in anyway!) and the like. I still wouldn't like them and probably would say many mean things about them on Slashdot, but they wouldn't have broken the law.
The reason the creators of Obamacare didn't is because it would have cost too much. They chose the more convenient route rather than the harder but legal route. That's the odious heart of Obamacare. It was cheaper and more expedient to disregard the law and just force us to do what they wanted. Sure, similar things have been done many times before as you note. But this crossed a new threshold of coercion and we will have to live with the consequences of that precedent.
You are sort of right, but not in the situation being discussed here.
Again, I don't see your points at all. I am "sort of" right for this sort of situation.
In that situation, you get a better price, because you can say to the vendor 'I have the money now, you can sell for a price I want and increase your sales for the quarter. Or, you can take your chances that I will have this money available next year.'
Conversely, the vendor has a huge amount of business right now with or without that particular deal. And if that money goes back to the general budget then there's a good chance Congress will be budget cutting it next year - use it or lose it.
As a monopsopy, the US is remarkably incompetent. It doesn't do what you claim and behavior like last minute shopping is part of the symptoms of this incompetence.
And we're ignoring the various ways, legal and illegal for businesses to exploit these situations. They can bribe the people making the monetary decisions even to the point of obtaining legislation. They can just simply out-negotiate the government side, often with insider information and the ability to bamboozle the government side about the actual costs the vendor experiences.
I just don't know if I would call this "research"
I agree. I too would lose the scare quotes. Special access means a rather high quality of research. It often means other things like a tendency to propaganda.
That's my government you're denouncing, and my neighbor's, and his cousin's, and his nephew's friend's dog's mother's owner's dentist's son's, too.
Sounds like maybe you guys deserve it. Hope the warranty didn't run out.