All markets do work this way. Well, free markets that is. It is gov't (or rather, "unnatural") intervention that makes it seem as though some markets need help. Pretty much any serious market analyst or economist will agree that unregulated/unrestricted markets work to generally provide service at the level the most users will enjoy.
And this isn't a big suprise. Both free market enthusiasts and big gov't interventionists agree that people will do what is best for themselves. But this is why free markets work so well. Cutting prices, adding incentives, and making the customer feel happy all play into making more money, gaining more power in your share of the market, and generally being better off. In a free market, even the bad side of human nature ends up benefitting all.
It's really sad that most people don't realize this and want the gov't to play nanny. Thus far gov't intervention has only resulted in poverty, class wars, and general unrest.
How exactly is this "News for Nerds"? I mean, sure, it is definatly interesting news, but wtf does it have to do with tech or science or anything/. is supposed to be reporting?
Feinstein is a crock. Sadly a sham and a player and a disgrace to California. She pretty much considers herself a God among peons and for most all of her positions I cannot trust her to represent this state.
Which is a pity, really. Because it lends discredit to her statements. And as far as being a "leading US Senator", well, that opinion must come from somebody outside CA. Bush is evil, sure. But do you trust a nafarious liar such as Feinstein to point out his administrations evils? Its just hard to swallow...
Precicesly. It is sometimes best to "fire" the customer, because they are simply a pain in the ass and not worth dealing with.
The software company I work for tells customers to bugger off, from time to time (very rarely mind you, but it has happened). Basically it comes down to some twit costing us $10 a month in support costs (a lot for just one customer from a company offering free support), but only buying our most basic service at around $1 a month. If they insist on being cheapskate morons that need an hour of hand holding every day, we are better off without them.
So I'd have to agree. In certain cases the customer needs to be "fired" for the continued health of the company.
How right you are about the "raped form of CSS." I've just read some MSDN articles about ASP.NET 2.0 and its new features, one of which of course is "skins and themes." The entire article lacks mention of how these themes are implemented in the html, only that they use special MS.NET files and how to set them up. I really fear that these things are just going to slap more "IE only" tags into the html, which pretty much makes it f**cking useless to me. I need an IDE the helps create sites that can display in any browser, not just the latest "greatest" version of IE.
So once again I'll probably be stuck tweaking the code that VS.NET generates in order for it to use CSS and other standards. Which sucks, since that IDE is pretty nice, and ASP.NET 2.0 has some pretty sweet features, albiet they are semi-broken from my point of view.
I agree, it is good business (or at least could be for an enterprising energy company). But that wasn't part of the argument at all. Why should there be a LAW that says they HAVE to pay you? The gov't should stay the hell out of it. If buying small producer energy is such a good business deal, then the companies will come around to it or they will be beaten out by others.
And if you are upset because they sell the energy you pump back into the grid, then DONT PUMP IT BACK INTO THE GRID. 'Nuff said.
I fail to see why PG&E should have to pay you for pumping energy into the grid. I know that when I signed a contract to get electricity from them, I didn't stipulate that I get paid if I put more energy back into the system, so why should they be forced to pay me? If you want a different arrangement, negotiate a different deal. But a law that says some energy company HAS to pay you is just as ludicrous as a law that says they cannot pay you.
If I had to go up against a grizzly bear, I'd rather have nothing but a thong and a Desert Eagle than one of these wacky contraptions.
Nay, you've gotten it all wrong. Your method means carrying around a heavy chunk of metal for miles and miles, only to have the bear shove it up your ass at the end of the confrontation. All you really need is a.22 revolver and track shoes. Why? Shoot your hiking partner in the knee and run like hell:)
Re:The thing about comparing cars and planes....
on
The Bugatti Veyron
·
· Score: 1
Acutally cars are NOT designed to use their engine at 10% peak output most of the time, and therein lies a major automotive problem. The internal combustion engine in cars is such that it gets best performance when using close to peak output, but normal driving doesn't even come close to peak output most of the time. So in essense the engine is being wasted and as such is wasteful. It is only now with certain gas/electric hybrids that this is being addressed. I think it is the new Prius that will run on only electric up to 40mph, but kicks in the gas engine when it would actually run above 60 or 70% output, where the engine is much more effecient. Why weren't they doing this ages ago?
Anyhow, give me a jet black Trans Am, supercharged to 700hp, over a Prius, anyday:)
When not a single weather person (meteorologist or whatever they are) cannnot tell me if it is going to rain 24 hours from now, in my local area, using the most advanced models available, why should I expect some group of scientists to tell me that the globe is warming over the next 20 years? I've seen alot of data from those weather baloons, etc... Depending on the way you interpret the data, it appears we could be increasing by a couple of degrees over the next 10 years or DECREASING over that same time. The margin of error is enough that it could go either way. All this doomsday "save the planet from evil humans!" BS is just that, a bunch of scare tactic BS. There is no solid evidence, and it doesn't look like there will be anytime soon. We just can't handle something as complex as the weather, yet.
I like the analogy, in as far as it goes, but it really doesn't hold up too well.
Consider that the real problem here is with admins leaving machines unpatched, unconfigured (or badly configured), and generally unprotected. That would then be analagous with blaming the person getting shot for not wearing a Level III body armor with steel vitals inserts, which would be ludicrous indeed. Just a thought.
Oh, and I do support RKBA fully and I believe security scanners/toolkits are a godsend, not a menace.
Odd, from the looks of things in the US, an ecomony based on "oil and cheap foreign labor" seems to be doing pretty well. Of course your statement was a vast simplification with the obvious "I hate America" overtones, but whatever.
I'll give you the quick-simple-dirty rundown on why cheap foreign labor helps us out, even if we aren't replacing those jobs "with *higher value* jobs." Its actually quite simple when you understand some basic ecomonics: Cheaper labor = lower consumer prices = more purchasing power. Hence, even if you don't replace your outsourced job with a higher paying one, the goods you buy become cheaper which means you don't need as much money to live at your current level. And if you do get a job of equal or greater pay than your last one, well you are just that much better off because you both have more money and your money buys you more per dollar.
I don't consider the comments on/. to be news either, if that is what you are insinuating. And whatever stories get linked to, I trust based on what site is posting them and where they originally came from, not because they were posted on slashdot.
I certinaly didn't want to make it sound easy. That is why I said _if_ we could teach computers the basics. Obviously discovering just what the "basics" are and getting a computer to work by those rules would be very difficult, but ultimatly I'd think it would work.
As for the problem of decompositional limits, making assumptions, etc... This is what humans do all the time. We break things down until we can understand. If we can't break it down enough we make (sometimes radical) assumptions (God, anyone?). Humans also don't have the ability to correctly classify everything our sensors feed us, with absolut certainty. Yet will still manage to make decisions based on what we have available. I see no reason a computer couldn't do the same. Just because its sensors will never have certain inputs and just because a problem sometimes can't be figured to its smallest parts doesn't mean the computer system would simply have to stop.
Not that I take CNN/NBC/CBS/etc.. as the Word of God, but...
The day I take the likes of Indymedia to be an actual news site is the day I'll basing my opinions on the rants of the insane downtown homeless guy that sells magic wands.
I would argue that decision making under conditions that are uncertain, open-ended, massively multiplayer, and subject to changes in the rules are a bit different.
Except that these new situations and different rules really don't change anything about the way you handle situations. Basically everything in life is just a series of much smaller problems, requiring a finite number of operations. You just have to make a bunch of smaller decisions to handle that one big "new" experience. If we could teach computers the "basics", they should be able to handle any situation on their own.
I'm sure you've just got into a feedback loop of sorts, and aren't finding whats out there that fits your needs. Now I can't say for sure, because you could have thousands of albums already, but I'd be willing to wager there is plenty of music out there that is more than a few singles slapped together with filler of no real value.
Not knowing what kind of music you'll like, I'll suggest 2 albums to help start you off (don't flame me if you hate/have these already, its just a suggestion).
Two great albums with a real "theme" to them, that just beg to be listened all the way through. Anyhow there is plenty of new (and old) good music out there, it just gets hard to find after awhile because you get used to looking in the same old places for the same old stuff.
And I sort of consider 10 songs to be a short album (unless its classical, jazz, etc..)
Brilliant ideas abound with music execs. CD's cost too much, so lets offer music online that costs even more! Hahaha, I'll enjoy seeing them squirm even more, harping to the newpapers that their sales are declining due to evil pirates.
If it is private property I should be able to do whatever I damned well please. If I own a theater and don't want phones going off, bullocks to you if you don't like it. You seem to have an obvious need to use your cellphone all the time, at least until your next child is born. Well, looks like you would then have to stay out of theaters/restaraunts/etc. that would be using this technology. Just because YOU want/need to use your phone all the time, doesn't mean WE have to oblige.
Yeah, because I'm CERTAIN any alien race advanced enough to reach us via interplanatary space flight would have NEVER had any point in their history where all races/species/whatever didn't get along. Don't be such a rube. Any time hundreds, thousands, millions, or billions of people exist on one big hunk of rock, there are going to be sides that get all irrational and petty and start to fight.
BTW, I only rant because the parent is modded up as "Insightful". Had it been "Funny", I'd totally understand. It would make a nice little sunday comic, but as true social commentary it is lacking.
Reason is a great magazine, btw. I really enjoy it, and suggest you check out their online site. It has every article the dead-tree version does, just a month later. I still get the print version just because I like to support such a great mag and the cover art is usually worth having around in print format (like a dominatrix dressed Rupert Murdoch... oh the nightmares!).
Obviously in the 3rd paragraph that should read "250+ million individuals.":)
And now, before anybody goes off on me about the individual faults of US policy (internal or external), I'd like to again state that I know things are only getting worse. It needs to change, but that is the way every country goes. The politicos grab power and impose law to keep their power. The people have to get that power back (or just stop giving it away). And even those methods don't last forever.
No great civilization in history has lasted forever. I doubt the US will be magic #1 in this regard. But this country certainly has a solid enough foundation (Constitution, Bill of Rights, etc..) that it can at least remain free for many more generations, if we as a citizenry choose to stand up for ourselves.
Anyhow, thats it for my addendum/rant/what-have-you.
Wow, I'm a US citizen who would like, and in fact demands, to see a HUGE change in the way things are handled here. But you are just being a reactionary jackass.
The U.S. is THE biggest arms dealer in the world.
The US is also the biggest foriegn aide spender in the world, has done more to rebuild countries after major wars/catastrophies than the UN ever has/will/can, and its private citizens give billions of dollars a year to help people from all walks of life, all around the globe.
But yeah, the US, a country of 250+ individuals, can be boiled down to: "they" don't want to do anything about Isreal/Palestine. "They" don't care about any world conflict. "They" all elected some cowboy president. "They" are the enemy. This nebulous "they" entity. You sound like such a bigot/racist/zealot, do you realize?
Sounds like the only one on a high horse is you. And you certainly have one hell of a chip on your shoulder. But by all means, please do tell me where you live. I'd love to go to this great utopia where everyone is free yet somehow agrees on all world conflicts, on all internal policy, has the most enlightened leader ever, and doesn't even need an army because the country is loved by everybody, world over.
Slashdot Mirror
All markets do work this way. Well, free markets that is. It is gov't (or rather, "unnatural") intervention that makes it seem as though some markets need help. Pretty much any serious market analyst or economist will agree that unregulated/unrestricted markets work to generally provide service at the level the most users will enjoy.
And this isn't a big suprise. Both free market enthusiasts and big gov't interventionists agree that people will do what is best for themselves. But this is why free markets work so well. Cutting prices, adding incentives, and making the customer feel happy all play into making more money, gaining more power in your share of the market, and generally being better off. In a free market, even the bad side of human nature ends up benefitting all.
It's really sad that most people don't realize this and want the gov't to play nanny. Thus far gov't intervention has only resulted in poverty, class wars, and general unrest.
How exactly is this "News for Nerds"? I mean, sure, it is definatly interesting news, but wtf does it have to do with tech or science or anything /. is supposed to be reporting?
Ah well, take it as it comes, eh?
Feinstein is a crock. Sadly a sham and a player and a disgrace to California. She pretty much considers herself a God among peons and for most all of her positions I cannot trust her to represent this state.
Which is a pity, really. Because it lends discredit to her statements. And as far as being a "leading US Senator", well, that opinion must come from somebody outside CA. Bush is evil, sure. But do you trust a nafarious liar such as Feinstein to point out his administrations evils? Its just hard to swallow...
Precicesly. It is sometimes best to "fire" the customer, because they are simply a pain in the ass and not worth dealing with.
The software company I work for tells customers to bugger off, from time to time (very rarely mind you, but it has happened). Basically it comes down to some twit costing us $10 a month in support costs (a lot for just one customer from a company offering free support), but only buying our most basic service at around $1 a month. If they insist on being cheapskate morons that need an hour of hand holding every day, we are better off without them.
So I'd have to agree. In certain cases the customer needs to be "fired" for the continued health of the company.
How right you are about the "raped form of CSS." I've just read some MSDN articles about ASP .NET 2.0 and its new features, one of which of course is "skins and themes." The entire article lacks mention of how these themes are implemented in the html, only that they use special MS .NET files and how to set them up. I really fear that these things are just going to slap more "IE only" tags into the html, which pretty much makes it f**cking useless to me. I need an IDE the helps create sites that can display in any browser, not just the latest "greatest" version of IE.
.NET generates in order for it to use CSS and other standards. Which sucks, since that IDE is pretty nice, and ASP.NET 2.0 has some pretty sweet features, albiet they are semi-broken from my point of view.
So once again I'll probably be stuck tweaking the code that VS
I agree, it is good business (or at least could be for an enterprising energy company). But that wasn't part of the argument at all. Why should there be a LAW that says they HAVE to pay you? The gov't should stay the hell out of it. If buying small producer energy is such a good business deal, then the companies will come around to it or they will be beaten out by others.
And if you are upset because they sell the energy you pump back into the grid, then DONT PUMP IT BACK INTO THE GRID. 'Nuff said.
I fail to see why PG&E should have to pay you for pumping energy into the grid. I know that when I signed a contract to get electricity from them, I didn't stipulate that I get paid if I put more energy back into the system, so why should they be forced to pay me? If you want a different arrangement, negotiate a different deal. But a law that says some energy company HAS to pay you is just as ludicrous as a law that says they cannot pay you.
If I had to go up against a grizzly bear, I'd rather have nothing but a thong and a Desert Eagle than one of these wacky contraptions.
.22 revolver and track shoes. Why? Shoot your hiking partner in the knee and run like hell :)
Nay, you've gotten it all wrong. Your method means carrying around a heavy chunk of metal for miles and miles, only to have the bear shove it up your ass at the end of the confrontation. All you really need is a
Acutally cars are NOT designed to use their engine at 10% peak output most of the time, and therein lies a major automotive problem. The internal combustion engine in cars is such that it gets best performance when using close to peak output, but normal driving doesn't even come close to peak output most of the time. So in essense the engine is being wasted and as such is wasteful. It is only now with certain gas/electric hybrids that this is being addressed. I think it is the new Prius that will run on only electric up to 40mph, but kicks in the gas engine when it would actually run above 60 or 70% output, where the engine is much more effecient. Why weren't they doing this ages ago?
:)
Anyhow, give me a jet black Trans Am, supercharged to 700hp, over a Prius, anyday
When not a single weather person (meteorologist or whatever they are) cannnot tell me if it is going to rain 24 hours from now, in my local area, using the most advanced models available, why should I expect some group of scientists to tell me that the globe is warming over the next 20 years? I've seen alot of data from those weather baloons, etc... Depending on the way you interpret the data, it appears we could be increasing by a couple of degrees over the next 10 years or DECREASING over that same time. The margin of error is enough that it could go either way. All this doomsday "save the planet from evil humans!" BS is just that, a bunch of scare tactic BS. There is no solid evidence, and it doesn't look like there will be anytime soon. We just can't handle something as complex as the weather, yet.
I think you've talked around the real question here: Why is it a big deal that most Americans own and drive cars? We can so we do. Who cares?
Next lets go harp on those Irish for eating so many damned potatos. And the drinking in Europe! AYE!
I like the analogy, in as far as it goes, but it really doesn't hold up too well.
Consider that the real problem here is with admins leaving machines unpatched, unconfigured (or badly configured), and generally unprotected. That would then be analagous with blaming the person getting shot for not wearing a Level III body armor with steel vitals inserts, which would be ludicrous indeed. Just a thought.
Oh, and I do support RKBA fully and I believe security scanners/toolkits are a godsend, not a menace.
Odd, from the looks of things in the US, an ecomony based on "oil and cheap foreign labor" seems to be doing pretty well. Of course your statement was a vast simplification with the obvious "I hate America" overtones, but whatever.
I'll give you the quick-simple-dirty rundown on why cheap foreign labor helps us out, even if we aren't replacing those jobs "with *higher value* jobs." Its actually quite simple when you understand some basic ecomonics: Cheaper labor = lower consumer prices = more purchasing power. Hence, even if you don't replace your outsourced job with a higher paying one, the goods you buy become cheaper which means you don't need as much money to live at your current level. And if you do get a job of equal or greater pay than your last one, well you are just that much better off because you both have more money and your money buys you more per dollar.
I don't consider the comments on /. to be news either, if that is what you are insinuating. And whatever stories get linked to, I trust based on what site is posting them and where they originally came from, not because they were posted on slashdot.
:)
Irony... Where? What? Who?
Easier said than done.
I certinaly didn't want to make it sound easy. That is why I said _if_ we could teach computers the basics. Obviously discovering just what the "basics" are and getting a computer to work by those rules would be very difficult, but ultimatly I'd think it would work.
As for the problem of decompositional limits, making assumptions, etc... This is what humans do all the time. We break things down until we can understand. If we can't break it down enough we make (sometimes radical) assumptions (God, anyone?). Humans also don't have the ability to correctly classify everything our sensors feed us, with absolut certainty. Yet will still manage to make decisions based on what we have available. I see no reason a computer couldn't do the same. Just because its sensors will never have certain inputs and just because a problem sometimes can't be figured to its smallest parts doesn't mean the computer system would simply have to stop.
Not that I take CNN/NBC/CBS/etc.. as the Word of God, but...
The day I take the likes of Indymedia to be an actual news site is the day I'll basing my opinions on the rants of the insane downtown homeless guy that sells magic wands.
I would argue that decision making under conditions that are uncertain, open-ended, massively multiplayer, and subject to changes in the rules are a bit different.
Except that these new situations and different rules really don't change anything about the way you handle situations. Basically everything in life is just a series of much smaller problems, requiring a finite number of operations. You just have to make a bunch of smaller decisions to handle that one big "new" experience. If we could teach computers the "basics", they should be able to handle any situation on their own.
I'm sure you've just got into a feedback loop of sorts, and aren't finding whats out there that fits your needs. Now I can't say for sure, because you could have thousands of albums already, but I'd be willing to wager there is plenty of music out there that is more than a few singles slapped together with filler of no real value.
Not knowing what kind of music you'll like, I'll suggest 2 albums to help start you off (don't flame me if you hate/have these already, its just a suggestion).
Miles Davis: Sketches of Spain
Estradasphere: It's Understood
Two great albums with a real "theme" to them, that just beg to be listened all the way through. Anyhow there is plenty of new (and old) good music out there, it just gets hard to find after awhile because you get used to looking in the same old places for the same old stuff.
Let's see: $2.49 x 10 songs = $24.90
And I sort of consider 10 songs to be a short album (unless its classical, jazz, etc..)
Brilliant ideas abound with music execs. CD's cost too much, so lets offer music online that costs even more! Hahaha, I'll enjoy seeing them squirm even more, harping to the newpapers that their sales are declining due to evil pirates.
If it is private property I should be able to do whatever I damned well please. If I own a theater and don't want phones going off, bullocks to you if you don't like it. You seem to have an obvious need to use your cellphone all the time, at least until your next child is born. Well, looks like you would then have to stay out of theaters/restaraunts/etc. that would be using this technology. Just because YOU want/need to use your phone all the time, doesn't mean WE have to oblige.
Yeah, because I'm CERTAIN any alien race advanced enough to reach us via interplanatary space flight would have NEVER had any point in their history where all races/species/whatever didn't get along. Don't be such a rube. Any time hundreds, thousands, millions, or billions of people exist on one big hunk of rock, there are going to be sides that get all irrational and petty and start to fight.
BTW, I only rant because the parent is modded up as "Insightful". Had it been "Funny", I'd totally understand. It would make a nice little sunday comic, but as true social commentary it is lacking.
Reason is a great magazine, btw. I really enjoy it, and suggest you check out their online site. It has every article the dead-tree version does, just a month later. I still get the print version just because I like to support such a great mag and the cover art is usually worth having around in print format (like a dominatrix dressed Rupert Murdoch... oh the nightmares!).
A bit of an addendum:
:)
Obviously in the 3rd paragraph that should read "250+ million individuals."
And now, before anybody goes off on me about the individual faults of US policy (internal or external), I'd like to again state that I know things are only getting worse. It needs to change, but that is the way every country goes. The politicos grab power and impose law to keep their power. The people have to get that power back (or just stop giving it away). And even those methods don't last forever.
No great civilization in history has lasted forever. I doubt the US will be magic #1 in this regard. But this country certainly has a solid enough foundation (Constitution, Bill of Rights, etc..) that it can at least remain free for many more generations, if we as a citizenry choose to stand up for ourselves.
Anyhow, thats it for my addendum/rant/what-have-you.
Lol, great story. Looks like those "Drug Warriors" at least got your mom's priorities straight. Drugs == bad. Bleeding son == oh well.
Wow, I'm a US citizen who would like, and in fact demands, to see a HUGE change in the way things are handled here. But you are just being a reactionary jackass.
The U.S. is THE biggest arms dealer in the world.
The US is also the biggest foriegn aide spender in the world, has done more to rebuild countries after major wars/catastrophies than the UN ever has/will/can, and its private citizens give billions of dollars a year to help people from all walks of life, all around the globe.
But yeah, the US, a country of 250+ individuals, can be boiled down to: "they" don't want to do anything about Isreal/Palestine. "They" don't care about any world conflict. "They" all elected some cowboy president. "They" are the enemy. This nebulous "they" entity. You sound like such a bigot/racist/zealot, do you realize?
Sounds like the only one on a high horse is you. And you certainly have one hell of a chip on your shoulder. But by all means, please do tell me where you live. I'd love to go to this great utopia where everyone is free yet somehow agrees on all world conflicts, on all internal policy, has the most enlightened leader ever, and doesn't even need an army because the country is loved by everybody, world over.