What he is saying is that the job of a journalist is to decide what the public needs to know. They know better than the government, or they would have kept all of the files secret. But they also know better than you the public, because they should hold back some papers at their discretion. Very noble of them to take on this weighty responsibility.
My argument, more generally, was that the structure of systems does matter in their efficiency in dealing with these sorts of problems. When you give a single group unilateral control over an issue and no personal link to any penalties for their failure, you end up with inefficient and poorly functioning systems. This, in general, describes regulatory bureaucracy.
The more ability to regulate you place in a single group, especially one who is not directly accountable, the more you have these sorts of problems.
Yes, you *can* have the same issues with a proper tort law setup, but legislators writing those tort laws have far more constituencies to balance, and judges have more general issues and specific accountability as well. Moreover, because those suing and being sued are bearing the actual, not potential or estimated costs involved, striking the correct balance is more direct.
So yes, I pointed to problems inherent with all human systems. That does not mean that some systems are more or less vulnerable to them.
Yes, that's why my engine places massive electronic limitations on how it runs until it has reached operating temperature. Lowered redline, no variable valve timing or lift engagement. They're still definitely happier once they've properly warmed up.
With a proper tort law setup this would only really be a problem for air pollution. Water and land pollution tends to be fairly localized and easily traceable. That's not unpaid externalities, that's property damage.
Technically, one would have to weigh the benefits against the cost.
If we slag 100 acres of wilderness to produce modern medical technology, I would call that progress. If we destroy the entire biosphere of a continent to save 5 cents at the gas pump, probably not.
As a general rule, most people when voting with their dollars have chosen cheap goods over cleaner. When they get to vote with what they perceive as other people's dollars, however, suddenly clean sounds a lot better.
Of course, there's a very large gap between "this is unacceptable behavior and a significant breach of trust in the relationship, and a good reason for divorce" and "this is a felony with a 5-year sentence."
They seem to work fine at the grocery, but horribly at other stores. The hardware stores have them, and let me tell you that running a load of lumber and bricks through one is *not* efficient.
Does anyone know of some economic studies on what the consequences would be for losing our "biggest kid on the block" status? It seems as though there is some overall economic benefit to being the world's hegemon, but I'm curious how it can be measured and how it compares to the military cost.
Well, there is an aspect of are you ever obligated to buy from a company. When you walk into a store, you are giving them a chance to sell to you, through price or service or extras or whatever. That's why car dealers send out free boxes of chocolate and have giveaways for taking a test drive. Once they have you in the store, looking at the product, their biggest barrier to a sale is already past. If they don't close at that point, how much of that is on them?
I hate shopping and I hate dealing with people. But when you get that rare combination of good service and knowledge that an expert salesman provides, it's an entirely different experience.
Don't rush the shopper. Let them come to you, but be ready for them. Listen to what their needs are, and know enough about the products to articulate what the tradeoffs are for the options that might make sense to them. Never judge their decision.
The only places I ever see service like that are really specialty shops where you know the guy is working there because he geeks out about it. Guitar shops, gun shops, computer shops, hiking gear shops - hobbies that the salespeople do for fun themselves and are really passionate about. Of course, that isn't enough by itself, but it can make a big difference.
Oh, there's definitely a number somewhere. But for an almost 2x difference in cost, I'd rather deal with not seeing the TV in person (since the way they have the color settings done, you're mostly going off of reviews anyway) and pocket the difference if that's the only choice.
The TV was $2000 from amazon, and worth every penny, for all that we don't watch that much TV. Football games are almost better than being there, and the resolution is high enough to use it as another monitor. I spend money on things I will use and get that much enjoyment out of.
Unless you live in a hut somewhere with dirt floors, I'm sure you have something you've spent money on that I'd disapprove of, so don't be a dick.
People working with large numbers deal in percentages and proportions. It's how our monkey brains try to handle values that are so much larger than anything we were designed for.
There's also the question of worth. Something that is only worth $50 might not be worth a purchase of $100, but something that is worth $950 most likely is probably still worth $1000 to someone.
This is, of course, why the most efficient use of your time for most people is in negotiating a better deal on your car or your house.
I regularly pay a little more for goods that I know less about if I got good service. As long as the price is at least vaguely comparable, being able to physically touch and try out something is worth a bit of money to me. Especially when it's something where the salesperson helped me look at options, understood what I wanted, picked the best value for me, etc, and didn't just hand me which one they were pushing that week.
Of course... sometimes the markup is too high. I really wanted to buy a TV locally, but they "don't price match amazon," which means that the same TV at amazon was $1500 less... you've got to at least make the same ballpark.
Except for you can't, at least not in any general sense, or those left-wing irrationalities would no longer exist.
The problem is when you get into an argument of whose experts to trust, because few people holding these opinions are actually experts themselves.
Scientific-ish justifications are always brought out by liberals for any new policy decision. The healthcare reform will be revenue neutral, because the CBO projections say so. But ten years down the road, when the projections are wrong (as they have been for pretty much every new government spending project, just look at the actual versus projected cost of Massachusetts healthcare reforms) there will be a new "scientific" reason that the reforms were actually mostly successful and we just need to add this one *new* program to plug the holes, and this one will actually be revenue neutral...
Neither side, at the public policy level, at least, tends to follow good judgement. It's mostly just which sort of "expert" they trot out to rationalize what they wanted to do anyway, because that's the sort of expert that appeals to the thought processes of their base.
The thing is, most media does have a liberal-ish bias.
Not the "OMG shills for the democrats" bias that Fox News' pundits rail about, though.
Most media takes what educated people in New York or LA (ie, the people running the business) consider to be a moderate point of view.
This is considerably more liberal than what most rural conservatives in the rest of the country would consider a moderate view.
Gun control is "reasonable." Government assertions about the cost of programs is usually taken at face value. Welfare programs are assumed to be overall beneficial.
Now, they also tend to take a hard line on crime, and at least a moderately prudish view of morality - because they are *trying* to be moderate.
But that doesn't change the fact that there is enough of an inherent worldview difference from many viewers for Fox to have a ready market looking for less liberal news.
As much as I dislike Fox News, the immediate reaction of "Of course this just reinforces my belief that fox watchers are idiots blah blah" is just as deplorable.
I would argue that it's more that those on the left prefer a pseudo-intellectual justification for their biases, whereas those on the right prefer to go with their gut and "common sense."
Gun control, the welfare state, political correctness, "green" regulations... the left has quite a few idealogical missteps of their own. We can of course judge which one is "worse" or "better," but it's fairly hard to find an objective standard for that.
So write it on a scrap of paper and stick it in your pocket. If it isn't meant to last more than 4 weeks a scrap of printer paper will last plenty long enough.
Because they have all the targets they need in Afghanistan and Iraq?
Plotting a real terror attack on the US is *hard*. Most of the people who'd like to help you out with it live out in the middle east somewhere. People living here generally know that if they go into this seriously they are going to die/spend the rest of their lives in prison.
It's hard to find people who are a) willing to commit suicide to run these attacks b) not on an obvious watch list already and c) living in or with easy access to the US, because for the most part you don't come here to be a terrorist. You come here because you want to go to school or find a job.
There has been one semi-legitimate attack on the US in all this time, by a guy who was so bad at this stuff that he only burned his crotch, and who was so obvious about his plot that his own father called in to warn about him. Maybe it's just that Al Qaeda isn't some all powerful band of evil masterminds, but a couple crazy guys hiding in a cave trying to attack the military behemoth of the century, and that's difficult, even with TSA agents feeling up your crotch.
Indeed. Why would anyone bother sneaking a bomb through airport security when malls, stadiums, high school graduations, and even the airport security line are such easy and terrifying targets.
The whole usefulness of attacking an airplane is to take control of a multi-million dollar man-guided missile. That's not going to happen any more, with the secure cockpit doors and passengers who aren't likely to along quietly.
Not to mention that many system now run the audio players through the same interface and do *not* have a lock on them while driving. My friend terrifies me every time I drive with him with how much he messes wit the audio controls.
Of course, he did the same thing when it was an ipod plugged into the stereo, so I don't know that good engineering can fix stupid.
Slashdot Mirror
What he is saying is that the job of a journalist is to decide what the public needs to know. They know better than the government, or they would have kept all of the files secret. But they also know better than you the public, because they should hold back some papers at their discretion. Very noble of them to take on this weighty responsibility.
My argument, more generally, was that the structure of systems does matter in their efficiency in dealing with these sorts of problems. When you give a single group unilateral control over an issue and no personal link to any penalties for their failure, you end up with inefficient and poorly functioning systems. This, in general, describes regulatory bureaucracy.
The more ability to regulate you place in a single group, especially one who is not directly accountable, the more you have these sorts of problems.
Yes, you *can* have the same issues with a proper tort law setup, but legislators writing those tort laws have far more constituencies to balance, and judges have more general issues and specific accountability as well. Moreover, because those suing and being sued are bearing the actual, not potential or estimated costs involved, striking the correct balance is more direct.
So yes, I pointed to problems inherent with all human systems. That does not mean that some systems are more or less vulnerable to them.
Yes, that's why my engine places massive electronic limitations on how it runs until it has reached operating temperature. Lowered redline, no variable valve timing or lift engagement. They're still definitely happier once they've properly warmed up.
And thankfully we have wise people with no personal agenda nor lobbyist influence making decisions about what is proper regulation.
With a proper tort law setup this would only really be a problem for air pollution. Water and land pollution tends to be fairly localized and easily traceable. That's not unpaid externalities, that's property damage.
Technically, one would have to weigh the benefits against the cost.
If we slag 100 acres of wilderness to produce modern medical technology, I would call that progress. If we destroy the entire biosphere of a continent to save 5 cents at the gas pump, probably not.
As a general rule, most people when voting with their dollars have chosen cheap goods over cleaner. When they get to vote with what they perceive as other people's dollars, however, suddenly clean sounds a lot better.
Of course, there's a very large gap between "this is unacceptable behavior and a significant breach of trust in the relationship, and a good reason for divorce" and "this is a felony with a 5-year sentence."
What the heck is that prosecutor thinking?
They seem to work fine at the grocery, but horribly at other stores. The hardware stores have them, and let me tell you that running a load of lumber and bricks through one is *not* efficient.
Indeed. In English it should matter. In my other classes they never graded me on spelling anyway.
Does anyone know of some economic studies on what the consequences would be for losing our "biggest kid on the block" status? It seems as though there is some overall economic benefit to being the world's hegemon, but I'm curious how it can be measured and how it compares to the military cost.
Yes, except for the whole part where this works offline, which is what many people are likely to be when traveling.
If this actually works on a menu, it would have been *hugely* useful on the last trip I made. Whether it super-imposes text or not is just icing.
Well, there is an aspect of are you ever obligated to buy from a company. When you walk into a store, you are giving them a chance to sell to you, through price or service or extras or whatever. That's why car dealers send out free boxes of chocolate and have giveaways for taking a test drive. Once they have you in the store, looking at the product, their biggest barrier to a sale is already past. If they don't close at that point, how much of that is on them?
I so wholeheartedly agree.
I hate shopping and I hate dealing with people. But when you get that rare combination of good service and knowledge that an expert salesman provides, it's an entirely different experience.
Don't rush the shopper. Let them come to you, but be ready for them. Listen to what their needs are, and know enough about the products to articulate what the tradeoffs are for the options that might make sense to them. Never judge their decision.
The only places I ever see service like that are really specialty shops where you know the guy is working there because he geeks out about it. Guitar shops, gun shops, computer shops, hiking gear shops - hobbies that the salespeople do for fun themselves and are really passionate about. Of course, that isn't enough by itself, but it can make a big difference.
Oh, there's definitely a number somewhere. But for an almost 2x difference in cost, I'd rather deal with not seeing the TV in person (since the way they have the color settings done, you're mostly going off of reviews anyway) and pocket the difference if that's the only choice.
The TV was $2000 from amazon, and worth every penny, for all that we don't watch that much TV. Football games are almost better than being there, and the resolution is high enough to use it as another monitor. I spend money on things I will use and get that much enjoyment out of.
Unless you live in a hut somewhere with dirt floors, I'm sure you have something you've spent money on that I'd disapprove of, so don't be a dick.
People working with large numbers deal in percentages and proportions. It's how our monkey brains try to handle values that are so much larger than anything we were designed for.
There's also the question of worth. Something that is only worth $50 might not be worth a purchase of $100, but something that is worth $950 most likely is probably still worth $1000 to someone.
This is, of course, why the most efficient use of your time for most people is in negotiating a better deal on your car or your house.
I regularly pay a little more for goods that I know less about if I got good service. As long as the price is at least vaguely comparable, being able to physically touch and try out something is worth a bit of money to me. Especially when it's something where the salesperson helped me look at options, understood what I wanted, picked the best value for me, etc, and didn't just hand me which one they were pushing that week.
Of course... sometimes the markup is too high. I really wanted to buy a TV locally, but they "don't price match amazon," which means that the same TV at amazon was $1500 less... you've got to at least make the same ballpark.
Except for you can't, at least not in any general sense, or those left-wing irrationalities would no longer exist.
The problem is when you get into an argument of whose experts to trust, because few people holding these opinions are actually experts themselves.
Scientific-ish justifications are always brought out by liberals for any new policy decision. The healthcare reform will be revenue neutral, because the CBO projections say so. But ten years down the road, when the projections are wrong (as they have been for pretty much every new government spending project, just look at the actual versus projected cost of Massachusetts healthcare reforms) there will be a new "scientific" reason that the reforms were actually mostly successful and we just need to add this one *new* program to plug the holes, and this one will actually be revenue neutral...
Neither side, at the public policy level, at least, tends to follow good judgement. It's mostly just which sort of "expert" they trot out to rationalize what they wanted to do anyway, because that's the sort of expert that appeals to the thought processes of their base.
The thing is, most media does have a liberal-ish bias.
Not the "OMG shills for the democrats" bias that Fox News' pundits rail about, though.
Most media takes what educated people in New York or LA (ie, the people running the business) consider to be a moderate point of view.
This is considerably more liberal than what most rural conservatives in the rest of the country would consider a moderate view.
Gun control is "reasonable." Government assertions about the cost of programs is usually taken at face value. Welfare programs are assumed to be overall beneficial.
Now, they also tend to take a hard line on crime, and at least a moderately prudish view of morality - because they are *trying* to be moderate.
But that doesn't change the fact that there is enough of an inherent worldview difference from many viewers for Fox to have a ready market looking for less liberal news.
As much as I dislike Fox News, the immediate reaction of "Of course this just reinforces my belief that fox watchers are idiots blah blah" is just as deplorable.
I would argue that it's more that those on the left prefer a pseudo-intellectual justification for their biases, whereas those on the right prefer to go with their gut and "common sense."
Gun control, the welfare state, political correctness, "green" regulations ... the left has quite a few idealogical missteps of their own. We can of course judge which one is "worse" or "better," but it's fairly hard to find an objective standard for that.
So write it on a scrap of paper and stick it in your pocket. If it isn't meant to last more than 4 weeks a scrap of printer paper will last plenty long enough.
Because they have all the targets they need in Afghanistan and Iraq?
Plotting a real terror attack on the US is *hard*. Most of the people who'd like to help you out with it live out in the middle east somewhere. People living here generally know that if they go into this seriously they are going to die/spend the rest of their lives in prison.
It's hard to find people who are a) willing to commit suicide to run these attacks b) not on an obvious watch list already and c) living in or with easy access to the US, because for the most part you don't come here to be a terrorist. You come here because you want to go to school or find a job.
There has been one semi-legitimate attack on the US in all this time, by a guy who was so bad at this stuff that he only burned his crotch, and who was so obvious about his plot that his own father called in to warn about him. Maybe it's just that Al Qaeda isn't some all powerful band of evil masterminds, but a couple crazy guys hiding in a cave trying to attack the military behemoth of the century, and that's difficult, even with TSA agents feeling up your crotch.
Indeed. Why would anyone bother sneaking a bomb through airport security when malls, stadiums, high school graduations, and even the airport security line are such easy and terrifying targets.
The whole usefulness of attacking an airplane is to take control of a multi-million dollar man-guided missile. That's not going to happen any more, with the secure cockpit doors and passengers who aren't likely to along quietly.
Not to mention that many system now run the audio players through the same interface and do *not* have a lock on them while driving. My friend terrifies me every time I drive with him with how much he messes wit the audio controls.
Of course, he did the same thing when it was an ipod plugged into the stereo, so I don't know that good engineering can fix stupid.