The price of goods or services is chosen based on the highest price you can get and still sell enough. The cost of manufacturing goods doesn't determine the price at market, it determines whether or not you are in the game of selling the goods. If they cost more to make than you can sell them for you obviously don't sell them. If you can make a profit then you sell them.
And just like the cowboy myth, and probably Arthurian legend, there is some historical basis for the ninja legend as well
The cowboy myth's are easy to discuss because there are people alive today who remember meeting cowboys. This is completely different than so called ninjas and Arthurian knights who supposedly existed hundreds of years ago and often had mythic powers.
I have studied (in an informal manner) feudal Japanese samurai culture,
And that is why you don't really know what you are talking about. Ninjas were not really very often assassins or killers. They were most often a spy. As a spy they would be skilled in the oh so sneaky arts of mastering local dialects and dressing like peasents in the local garb. This is what they were good at. Blending in is what they did, and they were not literally blending into the background. They would impersonate peasants in the field or servants in the castle. Sometimes they would attack but most often they would gather information and leave.
It provides much more hope than evolution, which says I live for a little bit, and then I die. So you believe in God because you want to hope, not that you actually believe?
Life has no meaning, it never did, it doesn't now, and it never will. It is just time and death. Thats all. That's tough. It's only tough if you think life has no meaning without god. I find plenty of meaning in my life without any god whether or not one exists.
If evolution is absolute fact, then why do you bother arguing about anything? What is the point? The Christian, the atheist, the undecided, will all die, and that is it. We argue because there is this whole life thing before death. Too many religious types dwell on the idea that death is permanent without god. It doesn't matter that it is permanent because you get a good life before that happens. One of the things holding all the secular people back in life is the religious zealotry in the world. Religion is responsible for more wars and killing than anything else in history.
Do you know why the earth sucks? It is because we are under a curse. Earth doesn't suck to me, i live a happy life without god. The only curse I see is greed and religion. You too can live a happy life without god if you wanted to. I think too many people hide behind religion, they believe they are going to heaven so they think this world doesn't matter. They don't really have to solve and problems or help any people because they are going to heaven. Some even think they are guaranteed heaven so its ok if they blow themselves and a few others up before they go.
At the end of the day people it is individuals who need to A: Realize that global warming is real. B: That they have to do something about it. C: Actually do something about.
You are right but i would phrase it slightly differently. The average citizen needs to wade through all the crap and believe the climatologists that say global warming is real. Then they need to do something about it. If the average citizen decides they are going to read through the data by themselves and not trust any scientists they will inevitably come to the wrong conclusion. The reason why is because of all the advertising and sinister marketing that is being put into the minds of everyone. There is a lot of money going into creating confusion and doubt. I never said people should shut up and listen, i simply said they need to move straight to do the doing something about it step.
I would love to... make my own decisions on the problem
Therein lies the problem, someone who is not a climatologist wants to make decisions. I appreciate your desire to read through the real facts alone but we are going nowhere when politicians or untrained scientists make decisions. Unfortunately the average citizen is also not able to make good choices here, there are far too many conflicting facts to make sense of without training.
Such is progress. Unfortunately people lose jobs with almost any form of real progress made. If all the progress we ever made was simply needing more things, and people to work on those things, we would never get anywhere. By cutting the number of people IBM needs it is giving the economy more workers. As you said, this is a win/win situation, the only problem is the short term for the people who lost their jobs.
Right now they are unemployed and this is why we need things like socialized unemployment help. The system will temporarily hurt people by making progress and we as a society need to protect those people until they can get a job again.
The buggy whip industry used to be booming, imagine if we had tried to keep that around...
Why are we as the human species obligated to live to EVERYWHERE. Why should we try so hard to make sure that Alaska can artificially maintain an economy once the natural resources are gone. If the cost of holding onto legacy equipment is too high i generally let it become obsolete. Of course nobody WANTS to let something become obsolete but there is a cost to everything.
Its a tough pill to swallow but maybe people should move away there is no more oil and gas. If the people who live in the wilderness of Alaska want to live with all the benefits of modern society they may not be able to live wherever they want. If instead they want to live there and are willing to give up modern amenities then that is their choice. Either way its not our responsibility to pour money into the Alaskan wilderness just because some people REALLY want to live there.
The problem here is that they of course want to go after misdemeanor suspects first. Its the cliche slippery slope argument. The problem is they will lower and lower the bar for what is acceptable. Eventually minor crime will be what they search for.
The problem i see here is that this is a small attack on our liberty from all sides. Imagine in the future the government makes some really asinine illegal, like burning an American flag. They make it a crime but to appease the people who want it to be legal they make it a tiny tiny offense, a slap on the wrist. What they don't make clear is that anyone who is wanted for this crime is probably going to be arrested on their way to work causing serious hardship.
Also view this police practice in light of the ridiculous war on drugs we have. Marijuana for person use is not a serious crime but that is where i see this tactic being used in the future. Overzealous cops trying to make a career for themselves with no care for the greater good of society will vigorously pursue average peaceful citizens. Their property will be seized for to pay for the inertia of the police force. Too many people's careers are involved in policing small things for this is lighten up.
Using randomness to beat pattern recognition is not the best plan. If a random move was a viable move people would do it anyway. The problem is that you can't very well win using random moves, you need to have tactics, whatever tactics you are using can be detected.
Your point is right but some of the things you say are a little off.
This is beyond simple mathematical calculations and hence it's MUCH harder than chess. Chess is much more than just simple calculations. It is full of very complex calculations. Because of the incredibly huge number of moves possible it is more than just calculating. The best computer chess programs calculate less and use pattern recognition more. These days a computer with a fraction of the computing power of Deep Blue would beat it. That is because of the superior pattern recognition that is going on.
Card games are all about pattern recognition. You need to learn your opponents behavior, everyone plays in certain patterns and even when someone tries to change their own game they do it in their own personal way. Now card games are hard for a computer to win at right now because humans haven't been able to quantify all the elements of the game properly yet. Once computer SOFTWARE (pattern recognition algorithms) become stronger you will see computers beating everyone at card games as well as chess, which is already the case for chess.
That leads to the question of whether or not people will still gamble once they know a computer can do it better. I would bet casino's aren't going anywhere but online gambling is going top have to figure something out.
Because the tax paid one won't spend day and night hunting down and destroying anything that gets between a company and its profit. Oh wait yes it will...
The opposition to H1Bs or immigration in general often seems to center on this idea that there is some fixed number of jobs, and if a foreigner comes here and gets one, then there would be one fewer jobs for Americans. But when you think about it that's clearly false; otherwise our natural population growth would have long ago led to us all being unemployed. More people means more demand for goods and services, which means more jobs to go around.
Oh please. Just because there isn't a static number of fixed jobs doesn't mean they are unlimited. There is a limit to the good jobs in America. The limit is always going up but the real growth is in service jobs. The scenario you talk about goes like this. Foreign workers obtain H1B visas and enter the country. They obtain good jobs which may or may not be at the expense of Americans The H1B system is setup to not take jobs from Americans but it is abused so much that is not the case. So these foreign workers are making good money and stimulating the economy. This creates brand new service jobs for Americans, horray! That is not what Americans want and there is nothing wrong with that. We want the good paying jobs to go to our neighbors. We want to good paying jobs to go to people who aren't going to send their money overseas into someone else's economy.
I think the laptop will no longer be the most common mobile device but it will still have a place. People that actually travel or commute with their laptops will surely want to replace them with a more mobile smart phone/PC. My brother got an iPhone on day 1 and he says he already doesn't bring his laptop home from work with him anymore, he can just carry his iPhone.
On the other hand my friend is not a computer power user; she only uses her laptop on the desk or in her lap on the couch. I think a lot of laptops being sold are merely desktop replacements. There is no reason for someone who only wants to do email/web/schoolwork to buy a full on desktop computer. I would bet money that most laptops being sold today are going to people who are not transporting them very far.
While my brother uses an iPhone and my friend uses a laptop I don't think I will give up my desktop anytime soon. Although i own a nice laptop i never use it, it sits in my closet. My desktop has a 21" CRT, 3 hard drives, and a real mouse and kayboard with a huge mouse pad (for gaming). I have played several video games competitively (you might have heard of the WoW guild was in) and a laptop just wouldn't have worked. Now that I don't play any video games anymore i still like my desktop. The huge screen is good for browsing and the mouse is much more accurate than a touch pad.
The article mentioned that die hard desktop users will always be on the desktop. That is of course correct but I think there are many benefits to doing normal stuff on a desktop too.
You bring up some good related points but this case is still 100% clear to me. Take the example of the women selling cosmetics from TFA. If she is telling the truth and gets the items from a flea market they could be stolen or fake but that is not what the company is worried about. They are pursuing the ebay seller because they suspect that she bought the cosmetics from a salon which has an agreement to only sell in the salon they run. Therefor the salon is breaking the agreement with the cosmetics company. That would be a clearcut case of them breaking the agreement if that is what is going on, nobody would defend the salon in breaking that agreement.
The problem here that is 100% clear cut to me is that the cosmetics company is not going after the salon. The company is going after a 3rd party who MAYBE bought the cosmetics from the salon. They say that the ebay selling is breaking an agreement between 2 parties, neither of which are her. How could she possibly be responsible for an agreement that she didn't agree to? If she did get the cosmetics from the salon (which she denies) she has bought something from them and owns it. She is not responsible to uphold an agreement she did not have anything to do with.
What i see going on here is this; a cosmetic company is seeing the BATSHIT FUCKING CRAZY logic that companies are using to defend their intellectual property. They want in on some of the action and are calling their TANGIBLE GOODS an intellectual property. I know that they REALLY REALLY want to be in the market of selling intellectual property because it allows them to make all sorts of ridiculous claims in court but it just isn't the reality for them. They are selling tangible goods in the strictest definition and should not get away with this crap.
Re:The conspiracy stuff....
on
New X-Files Movie
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
The weird sci-fi ones were the best. I liked the one where the bugs would come if they didn;t have light, or the arctic research lab with the worm that made people go nuts, or even the one on the dead tanker where the water was poisonous. Those episodes are the ones that were really scary because it was a "what if" kind of effect. It was plausible that it could happen and so it was interesting. Thats good science fiction to me. Don't get me wrong, space operas like star wars are cool and all but thats all people see as sci-fi these days.
Drinking nanotubes is funny but pretty dangerous. They are so small they can pass through cell membranes and through the blood-brain barrier with the greatest of ease. They end up causing damage as they float through everything in your body. Ill stick with Flax Seed oil as my final 5% of my shake.
You have a good point that Linux shouldn't only be attracting new users. However I imagine that if Linux did reach large numbers of new people things would be really incredible. If you like Linux now imagine how it would be with much more hardware vendor's support along with games and most applications working on Linux.
Slashdot Mirror
You must have failed econ 101...
The price of goods or services is chosen based on the highest price you can get and still sell enough. The cost of manufacturing goods doesn't determine the price at market, it determines whether or not you are in the game of selling the goods. If they cost more to make than you can sell them for you obviously don't sell them. If you can make a profit then you sell them.
And just like the cowboy myth, and probably Arthurian legend, there is some historical basis for the ninja legend as well
The cowboy myth's are easy to discuss because there are people alive today who remember meeting cowboys. This is completely different than so called ninjas and Arthurian knights who supposedly existed hundreds of years ago and often had mythic powers.
I have studied (in an informal manner) feudal Japanese samurai culture,
And that is why you don't really know what you are talking about. Ninjas were not really very often assassins or killers. They were most often a spy. As a spy they would be skilled in the oh so sneaky arts of mastering local dialects and dressing like peasents in the local garb. This is what they were good at. Blending in is what they did, and they were not literally blending into the background. They would impersonate peasants in the field or servants in the castle. Sometimes they would attack but most often they would gather information and leave.
I'm sure they also have a patent on BS lawsuits.
What the hell am i talking about? Everyone does that these days.
the RIAA has no intellectual property...
I bet if you started using their logo they would disagree...
I'm sure they also have a patent on BS lawsuits.
Seattle
how is the truth flamebait? the US incarcerates its problems.
The US has problems BECAUSE of its incarceration also...
It provides much more hope than evolution, which says I live for a little bit, and then I die.
So you believe in God because you want to hope, not that you actually believe?
Life has no meaning, it never did, it doesn't now, and it never will. It is just time and death. Thats all. That's tough.
It's only tough if you think life has no meaning without god. I find plenty of meaning in my life without any god whether or not one exists.
If evolution is absolute fact, then why do you bother arguing about anything? What is the point? The Christian, the atheist, the undecided, will all die, and that is it.
We argue because there is this whole life thing before death. Too many religious types dwell on the idea that death is permanent without god. It doesn't matter that it is permanent because you get a good life before that happens. One of the things holding all the secular people back in life is the religious zealotry in the world. Religion is responsible for more wars and killing than anything else in history.
Do you know why the earth sucks? It is because we are under a curse.
Earth doesn't suck to me, i live a happy life without god. The only curse I see is greed and religion. You too can live a happy life without god if you wanted to. I think too many people hide behind religion, they believe they are going to heaven so they think this world doesn't matter. They don't really have to solve and problems or help any people because they are going to heaven. Some even think they are guaranteed heaven so its ok if they blow themselves and a few others up before they go.
At the end of the day people it is individuals who need to
A: Realize that global warming is real.
B: That they have to do something about it.
C: Actually do something about.
You are right but i would phrase it slightly differently. The average citizen needs to wade through all the crap and believe the climatologists that say global warming is real. Then they need to do something about it. If the average citizen decides they are going to read through the data by themselves and not trust any scientists they will inevitably come to the wrong conclusion. The reason why is because of all the advertising and sinister marketing that is being put into the minds of everyone. There is a lot of money going into creating confusion and doubt. I never said people should shut up and listen, i simply said they need to move straight to do the doing something about it step.
(though not a climatologist)...
I would love to... make my own decisions on the problem
Therein lies the problem, someone who is not a climatologist wants to make decisions. I appreciate your desire to read through the real facts alone but we are going nowhere when politicians or untrained scientists make decisions. Unfortunately the average citizen is also not able to make good choices here, there are far too many conflicting facts to make sense of without training.
Please don't sniff the cork, it makes you look as unrefined as a... beer drinker!
*ducks*
Just don't forget to sear the meat to lock in the juices!
*ducks*
Such is progress. Unfortunately people lose jobs with almost any form of real progress made. If all the progress we ever made was simply needing more things, and people to work on those things, we would never get anywhere. By cutting the number of people IBM needs it is giving the economy more workers. As you said, this is a win/win situation, the only problem is the short term for the people who lost their jobs.
Right now they are unemployed and this is why we need things like socialized unemployment help. The system will temporarily hurt people by making progress and we as a society need to protect those people until they can get a job again.
The buggy whip industry used to be booming, imagine if we had tried to keep that around...
Why are we as the human species obligated to live to EVERYWHERE. Why should we try so hard to make sure that Alaska can artificially maintain an economy once the natural resources are gone. If the cost of holding onto legacy equipment is too high i generally let it become obsolete. Of course nobody WANTS to let something become obsolete but there is a cost to everything.
Its a tough pill to swallow but maybe people should move away there is no more oil and gas. If the people who live in the wilderness of Alaska want to live with all the benefits of modern society they may not be able to live wherever they want. If instead they want to live there and are willing to give up modern amenities then that is their choice. Either way its not our responsibility to pour money into the Alaskan wilderness just because some people REALLY want to live there.
I also imagine they won't be issuing permits to people who want to film protests that the police might crack some heads at.
The problem here is that they of course want to go after misdemeanor suspects first. Its the cliche slippery slope argument. The problem is they will lower and lower the bar for what is acceptable. Eventually minor crime will be what they search for.
The problem i see here is that this is a small attack on our liberty from all sides. Imagine in the future the government makes some really asinine illegal, like burning an American flag. They make it a crime but to appease the people who want it to be legal they make it a tiny tiny offense, a slap on the wrist. What they don't make clear is that anyone who is wanted for this crime is probably going to be arrested on their way to work causing serious hardship.
Also view this police practice in light of the ridiculous war on drugs we have. Marijuana for person use is not a serious crime but that is where i see this tactic being used in the future. Overzealous cops trying to make a career for themselves with no care for the greater good of society will vigorously pursue average peaceful citizens. Their property will be seized for to pay for the inertia of the police force. Too many people's careers are involved in policing small things for this is lighten up.
Using randomness to beat pattern recognition is not the best plan. If a random move was a viable move people would do it anyway. The problem is that you can't very well win using random moves, you need to have tactics, whatever tactics you are using can be detected.
Your point is right but some of the things you say are a little off.
This is beyond simple mathematical calculations and hence it's MUCH harder than chess.
Chess is much more than just simple calculations. It is full of very complex calculations. Because of the incredibly huge number of moves possible it is more than just calculating. The best computer chess programs calculate less and use pattern recognition more. These days a computer with a fraction of the computing power of Deep Blue would beat it. That is because of the superior pattern recognition that is going on.
Card games are all about pattern recognition. You need to learn your opponents behavior, everyone plays in certain patterns and even when someone tries to change their own game they do it in their own personal way. Now card games are hard for a computer to win at right now because humans haven't been able to quantify all the elements of the game properly yet. Once computer SOFTWARE (pattern recognition algorithms) become stronger you will see computers beating everyone at card games as well as chess, which is already the case for chess.
That leads to the question of whether or not people will still gamble once they know a computer can do it better. I would bet casino's aren't going anywhere but online gambling is going top have to figure something out.
Because the tax paid one won't spend day and night hunting down and destroying anything that gets between a company and its profit. Oh wait yes it will...
The opposition to H1Bs or immigration in general often seems to center on this idea that there is some fixed number of jobs, and if a foreigner comes here and gets one, then there would be one fewer jobs for Americans. But when you think about it that's clearly false; otherwise our natural population growth would have long ago led to us all being unemployed. More people means more demand for goods and services, which means more jobs to go around.
Oh please. Just because there isn't a static number of fixed jobs doesn't mean they are unlimited. There is a limit to the good jobs in America. The limit is always going up but the real growth is in service jobs. The scenario you talk about goes like this. Foreign workers obtain H1B visas and enter the country. They obtain good jobs which may or may not be at the expense of Americans The H1B system is setup to not take jobs from Americans but it is abused so much that is not the case. So these foreign workers are making good money and stimulating the economy. This creates brand new service jobs for Americans, horray! That is not what Americans want and there is nothing wrong with that. We want the good paying jobs to go to our neighbors. We want to good paying jobs to go to people who aren't going to send their money overseas into someone else's economy.
I think the laptop will no longer be the most common mobile device but it will still have a place. People that actually travel or commute with their laptops will surely want to replace them with a more mobile smart phone/PC. My brother got an iPhone on day 1 and he says he already doesn't bring his laptop home from work with him anymore, he can just carry his iPhone.
On the other hand my friend is not a computer power user; she only uses her laptop on the desk or in her lap on the couch. I think a lot of laptops being sold are merely desktop replacements. There is no reason for someone who only wants to do email/web/schoolwork to buy a full on desktop computer. I would bet money that most laptops being sold today are going to people who are not transporting them very far.
While my brother uses an iPhone and my friend uses a laptop I don't think I will give up my desktop anytime soon. Although i own a nice laptop i never use it, it sits in my closet. My desktop has a 21" CRT, 3 hard drives, and a real mouse and kayboard with a huge mouse pad (for gaming). I have played several video games competitively (you might have heard of the WoW guild was in) and a laptop just wouldn't have worked. Now that I don't play any video games anymore i still like my desktop. The huge screen is good for browsing and the mouse is much more accurate than a touch pad.
The article mentioned that die hard desktop users will always be on the desktop. That is of course correct but I think there are many benefits to doing normal stuff on a desktop too.
You bring up some good related points but this case is still 100% clear to me. Take the example of the women selling cosmetics from TFA. If she is telling the truth and gets the items from a flea market they could be stolen or fake but that is not what the company is worried about. They are pursuing the ebay seller because they suspect that she bought the cosmetics from a salon which has an agreement to only sell in the salon they run. Therefor the salon is breaking the agreement with the cosmetics company. That would be a clearcut case of them breaking the agreement if that is what is going on, nobody would defend the salon in breaking that agreement.
The problem here that is 100% clear cut to me is that the cosmetics company is not going after the salon. The company is going after a 3rd party who MAYBE bought the cosmetics from the salon. They say that the ebay selling is breaking an agreement between 2 parties, neither of which are her. How could she possibly be responsible for an agreement that she didn't agree to? If she did get the cosmetics from the salon (which she denies) she has bought something from them and owns it. She is not responsible to uphold an agreement she did not have anything to do with.
What i see going on here is this; a cosmetic company is seeing the BATSHIT FUCKING CRAZY logic that companies are using to defend their intellectual property. They want in on some of the action and are calling their TANGIBLE GOODS an intellectual property. I know that they REALLY REALLY want to be in the market of selling intellectual property because it allows them to make all sorts of ridiculous claims in court but it just isn't the reality for them. They are selling tangible goods in the strictest definition and should not get away with this crap.
The weird sci-fi ones were the best. I liked the one where the bugs would come if they didn;t have light, or the arctic research lab with the worm that made people go nuts, or even the one on the dead tanker where the water was poisonous. Those episodes are the ones that were really scary because it was a "what if" kind of effect. It was plausible that it could happen and so it was interesting. Thats good science fiction to me. Don't get me wrong, space operas like star wars are cool and all but thats all people see as sci-fi these days.
want porn? www.redtube.com
Drinking nanotubes is funny but pretty dangerous. They are so small they can pass through cell membranes and through the blood-brain barrier with the greatest of ease. They end up causing damage as they float through everything in your body. Ill stick with Flax Seed oil as my final 5% of my shake.
You have a good point that Linux shouldn't only be attracting new users. However I imagine that if Linux did reach large numbers of new people things would be really incredible. If you like Linux now imagine how it would be with much more hardware vendor's support along with games and most applications working on Linux.