And where do you think this $10M comes from? It is being added to the price of the product.
No it isn't. It doesn't change the marginal cost of selling additional whatevers one bit. That means it doesn't change the optimum price to generate the most profit. Realistically, the price that maximizes profit also maximizes profit - $10M. To put this another way, if the company could get more money out of the customers by raising prices, they already would have.
Therefore, it comes out of something internal to the business, and ultimately from the stockholders. The stockholders are at least theoretically the ones making the overall decisions, so it puts pressure more or less where it should.
Who invests a million dollars in a child? That would require over $50K a year for eighteen years, which is approximately the US median household income. Much of that is spent on things not directly involving children, and many families have mutliple children. For a family of four, they'd need a disposable after-tax, after-necessities income of over $100K to invest a million in a child.
Not all that many people hold advanced degrees in hard science fields, and some pretty smart people have a BA as their highest degree.
War and politics aren't separate things, and military officers can screw up on the field.
In WWI, the German war effort was run by the generals, which is why the main effort was switched annually between East and West. That didn't turn out all that well for Germany.
Spontaneous generation was a theory to explain some observations. It made predictions that were found to be wrong, and was dropped. There was never any evidence that life couldn't form on its own, just that it didn't do it as often as predicted. You are also confusing evolution and the appearance of life. Evolution is what happened when life existed.
There are no cases of irreducible complexity, only dumb and unimaginative critics. Complicated relationships can develop spontaneously over millions of years. Bear in mind that a biological structure doesn't necessarily serve the same function it does now. Wings apparently started as radiators, and started to be useful for some form of flight.
Evolution (in the sense of the formation of new species) has been observed in the lab. The formation of life from non-living materials has not, AFAIK, but that's not the same thing. Evolution has happened in small pieces all over the world for a long time, while all we know of the formation of life is that it happened somewhere on the planet at some point in a very long period, so there's no reason to think it would be easy to reproduce in a lab.
The development of life, as it happened, was due to certain energy sources, which generated entropy. Most of this is from the Sun, which is creating entropy at a ferocious rate. The Laws of Thermodynamics apply only to closed systems, and allow for local variations.
There is no general agreement on the number of books in the Bible (consider the Apocrypha). Much of the Bible is accounts of people's observations and interpretations, but the formation of life is not one of them. According to the Bible, Adam and Eve were created in a world already going strong, and therefore had no observations of anything that happened before them.
Lots of legends of floods suggest a lot of local floods, not one big one. A global flood like Noah's would require that lots and lots of water mysteriously appear and then mysteriously disappear, and we would have noticed the effects.
You appear to be unaware of plate tectonics. Where land is now is not where it always was, and there are mechanisms that take ocean bottom and push it into mountains. And how the heck would a forty-day rainfall flash-freeze anything?
We find ancient cities now and then. The existence of an old city does not show that it was destroyed by God for being selfish and uncharitable and basically modern Republican.
I'll give the pointer here, to Snopes.com, to show that you've been swallowing some really dubious kool-aid.
If you want me to believe anything weird about Jericho, you're going to have to provide some sort of cite. I don't see any reason why walls would always fall in, and I haven't seen evidence that Jericho's walls fell outwards. I do know that, in some sieges, people pulled on ropes attached to grapnels at the top of the wall, although I don't know if that was ever done with stone walls.
There is no evidence favoring Biblical intelligent design. Your posts are anti-evolution, with "the alternative that we are left with is Biblical intelligent design" being a false dichotomy. It is an apparently common but baseless belief that the existence of God somehow implies that the Bible is more or less true. While Christianity is the most common religion, it's nowhere near a majority overall.
Nor do I remember a giant turtle or anything from the Tao te Ching.
Evolutionary theory describes a lot of randomness in how it works, and I see no problem with believing that some of that randomness is rigged by something. If someone wants to say that species were independently created, that I've got a problem with.
We started Lend-Leasing during 1941 (the bill was signed in March 1941, and it took some time to start implementing it). At that time, we were ending the sale of general supplies, like oil and pig iron, to Japan, and had no commerce with Germany or Italy. I'm not aware of actual war supplies going to Japan after 1937, although there may have been some, but certainly not by March 1941.
The Second Law of Thermodynamics applies only in a closed system. The Earth is not a closed system, and indeed if we didn't have the Sun we wouldn't have any life. We can have local decreases in entropy.
This, along with the Fourteenth Amendment extension, means that government may not favor a religion. Public schools must be neutral. They shouldn't teach Christianity, Buddhism, or atheism.
Depends on what you want from the data set. When proposing an increase in government power, it's useful to ask how it could go wrong, and picking out prominent politicians who are in power or easily could be is reasonable.
Or we have schools that don't teach religion and therefore stay neutral. Religion can be taught outside public schools. Schools can teach what we've got actual evidence for.
You're confusing evolution and biogenesis, which are two different things. Biogenesis can be due to very rare events, since all we really know is that it happened once. There's no particular reason that we should be able to reproduce in the lab something that happens maybe once in a billion years on a planet.
Also, I've never read that quote of yours in an evolution textbook.
Yes, home-schooled kids tend to do better. However, if you ask any teacher you'll be told that parental involvement is a key factor in how well a kid does in school. Not all parents of kids in public or private school are involved with their kid's education, but parents of home-schooled kids are.
From what I've seen, teaching becomes easier as the students get older. I taught introductory programming classes in college without any training on how to do it. Teaching young children is a lot more complicated, and I'd rather have more educated teachers doing it.
the vast majority of things you intuitively believe are more or less false.
Nope. The majority of things I intuitively believe are more or less true. There are some spectacular failures, but people are more interested in where it fails than where it succeeds.
Slashdot Mirror
Practically, that's been false since the 1940s.
No it isn't. It doesn't change the marginal cost of selling additional whatevers one bit. That means it doesn't change the optimum price to generate the most profit. Realistically, the price that maximizes profit also maximizes profit - $10M. To put this another way, if the company could get more money out of the customers by raising prices, they already would have.
Therefore, it comes out of something internal to the business, and ultimately from the stockholders. The stockholders are at least theoretically the ones making the overall decisions, so it puts pressure more or less where it should.
Regrettably, the US Supreme Court has held that binding arbitration clauses in contracts of adhesion are legal.
Damn, you could have used some real science education in school.
Who invests a million dollars in a child? That would require over $50K a year for eighteen years, which is approximately the US median household income. Much of that is spent on things not directly involving children, and many families have mutliple children. For a family of four, they'd need a disposable after-tax, after-necessities income of over $100K to invest a million in a child.
Not all that many people hold advanced degrees in hard science fields, and some pretty smart people have a BA as their highest degree.
There are no hyper-liberals in the US. The closest to it are people that most Europeans would call centrist.
War and politics aren't separate things, and military officers can screw up on the field.
In WWI, the German war effort was run by the generals, which is why the main effort was switched annually between East and West. That didn't turn out all that well for Germany.
Spontaneous generation was a theory to explain some observations. It made predictions that were found to be wrong, and was dropped. There was never any evidence that life couldn't form on its own, just that it didn't do it as often as predicted. You are also confusing evolution and the appearance of life. Evolution is what happened when life existed.
There are no cases of irreducible complexity, only dumb and unimaginative critics. Complicated relationships can develop spontaneously over millions of years. Bear in mind that a biological structure doesn't necessarily serve the same function it does now. Wings apparently started as radiators, and started to be useful for some form of flight.
Evolution (in the sense of the formation of new species) has been observed in the lab. The formation of life from non-living materials has not, AFAIK, but that's not the same thing. Evolution has happened in small pieces all over the world for a long time, while all we know of the formation of life is that it happened somewhere on the planet at some point in a very long period, so there's no reason to think it would be easy to reproduce in a lab.
The development of life, as it happened, was due to certain energy sources, which generated entropy. Most of this is from the Sun, which is creating entropy at a ferocious rate. The Laws of Thermodynamics apply only to closed systems, and allow for local variations.
There is no general agreement on the number of books in the Bible (consider the Apocrypha). Much of the Bible is accounts of people's observations and interpretations, but the formation of life is not one of them. According to the Bible, Adam and Eve were created in a world already going strong, and therefore had no observations of anything that happened before them.
Lots of legends of floods suggest a lot of local floods, not one big one. A global flood like Noah's would require that lots and lots of water mysteriously appear and then mysteriously disappear, and we would have noticed the effects.
You appear to be unaware of plate tectonics. Where land is now is not where it always was, and there are mechanisms that take ocean bottom and push it into mountains. And how the heck would a forty-day rainfall flash-freeze anything?
We find ancient cities now and then. The existence of an old city does not show that it was destroyed by God for being selfish and uncharitable and basically modern Republican.
I'll give the pointer here, to Snopes.com, to show that you've been swallowing some really dubious kool-aid.
If you want me to believe anything weird about Jericho, you're going to have to provide some sort of cite. I don't see any reason why walls would always fall in, and I haven't seen evidence that Jericho's walls fell outwards. I do know that, in some sieges, people pulled on ropes attached to grapnels at the top of the wall, although I don't know if that was ever done with stone walls.
There is no evidence favoring Biblical intelligent design. Your posts are anti-evolution, with "the alternative that we are left with is Biblical intelligent design" being a false dichotomy. It is an apparently common but baseless belief that the existence of God somehow implies that the Bible is more or less true. While Christianity is the most common religion, it's nowhere near a majority overall.
Nor do I remember a giant turtle or anything from the Tao te Ching.
Evolutionary theory describes a lot of randomness in how it works, and I see no problem with believing that some of that randomness is rigged by something. If someone wants to say that species were independently created, that I've got a problem with.
Was that ever actually banned, or was it just found to be stupid and racist and generally undesirable? There's a difference, you know.
We started Lend-Leasing during 1941 (the bill was signed in March 1941, and it took some time to start implementing it). At that time, we were ending the sale of general supplies, like oil and pig iron, to Japan, and had no commerce with Germany or Italy. I'm not aware of actual war supplies going to Japan after 1937, although there may have been some, but certainly not by March 1941.
The Second Law of Thermodynamics applies only in a closed system. The Earth is not a closed system, and indeed if we didn't have the Sun we wouldn't have any life. We can have local decreases in entropy.
This, along with the Fourteenth Amendment extension, means that government may not favor a religion. Public schools must be neutral. They shouldn't teach Christianity, Buddhism, or atheism.
Depends on what you want from the data set. When proposing an increase in government power, it's useful to ask how it could go wrong, and picking out prominent politicians who are in power or easily could be is reasonable.
By all means have the kids question evolution in science class. Then give them honest and truthful answers.
Or we have schools that don't teach religion and therefore stay neutral. Religion can be taught outside public schools. Schools can teach what we've got actual evidence for.
You're confusing evolution and biogenesis, which are two different things. Biogenesis can be due to very rare events, since all we really know is that it happened once. There's no particular reason that we should be able to reproduce in the lab something that happens maybe once in a billion years on a planet.
Also, I've never read that quote of yours in an evolution textbook.
Yes, home-schooled kids tend to do better. However, if you ask any teacher you'll be told that parental involvement is a key factor in how well a kid does in school. Not all parents of kids in public or private school are involved with their kid's education, but parents of home-schooled kids are.
From what I've seen, teaching becomes easier as the students get older. I taught introductory programming classes in college without any training on how to do it. Teaching young children is a lot more complicated, and I'd rather have more educated teachers doing it.
And nobody wants a sexbot with a floppy drive.
Personally, I doubt anyone who isn't a pedophile would want to have sex with a robot that looks like a child.
A pedophile is by definition someone who has urges to do harmful acts. That is not true of any of the other categories you listed.
Ever notice all the outcry over any popular thing teenagers come up with to do that doesn't involve sex or drugs?
Nope. The majority of things I intuitively believe are more or less true. There are some spectacular failures, but people are more interested in where it fails than where it succeeds.
Yeah, but the computations get real hairy with rotating reference frames.