If they only had the first claim, you would be right. But the second and third make it so it has to violate the first law. The heat pump has a performance below 100% when you consider the system to be large enough (i.e. planet earth will suffice). b/c it takes energy in the form of heat to run. In the sense that you can make a heater that heats more than 1 watt per watt taken from the wall plug though, it does the job!
To spare you from having to read the article, they spontaniously make a think layer on copper that isn't just a lump (like your examples) but has holes in it. The holes have a patern, the surface now has hexagons on it! If you have questions still, open the article and look at the pictures. Those are molecules (imaged by an atomic force microscope or Scanning tunneling microscope).
So they made something with a microstructure without doing anything at all. This is "shake and bake" chemistry beyond doubt, but sometimes a million monkeys do type a great phrase or two.
I bought memroy from a guy once (1993) who told me that Apple and Digital both tests parts when the arrived and when built and if there is a problem they send it back and Packard Bell (then about 40% of the market) bought them and so it sold computer for about 5-10% cheaper and Apple and Digital were about 5-10% over the rest of the market. PB no longer sells 40% of the PCs and all my friends with them had them die shortly after that (1-2 years after purchase).
While Apple's quality has gone way down, their DOA rate is still lower, so there is something else they are doing.
BTW, what monitors are the non-apple apple monitors in putty boxes?
R is OSS and has the commands he wants (image, countour, and wireframe) it sounds like exactly what he wants: code that makes these plots that he can look at.
Last time I went to the DMV in my state the office was run better than my local drug store or grocery store as you say. Here are my expierences.
DMV:
There was a greater who welcomed me and then after I looked confused as to where I should go politely asked me if I needed help and directed me to the right place to go;
every person was kind and polite;
there was not a line longer than one person (including me);
the fees were reasonable ($10/license).
Grocery store / drug store:
I have to chase people to get help;
checkout clerks rarely acknowlege me until they ask "credit or debit" often carying on long conversations with other clerks loudly and taking a "rest" between every person they serve;
The lines are often 10-20 minutes long;
the costs are through the roof.
BTW, I live in one of the nations largest cities (top five) and both the DMV and the grocery stores are inside the city limits.
You have to realize that if your free-market claims were true, states would be one of the most competitive markets in our system (there are 50, far more than other industries) and you would be asking me where I live so that you could move here for the great DMV.
But let me also point out that you spoke past me on my centeral claims. There is a moral hazard if the airline is allowed without cash on hand to pay for the maximum possible dammage caused by a plane--say $50 billion. This is 10 times American's market cap, they could never get their hands on that amount of money. So they would have to insure. But then there is a moral hazard, so the insurance would have to come up with regulations, rules generated by a bureaucrat. This would be the same as the linked FAA paper's "centeral planner." You have exchanged a public system with a private system that has the exact same problems but also all sorts of additional management overhead.
Also, regarding your claims about public unions having problems, I would ask you what expierence you have had with this. At the macro level, the medicare is opperated with about two to three percent overhead, contrast this with private insurers at about 20 to 30 percent. At a microlevel, I have worked for one of these and I can tell you that my boss fired two of the fifteen people that worked for him in his five years on the job; this is possible and it's just that managers don't do it. In another example, I know a teacher who said there is a underperforming teacher at their school. They have said that the union does not object to firing this person and has told this to the management--it is management that is holding the ball.
Just for contrast, I have another friend who worked for a fortune 50 company and one year (of the 15 years they worked there) the president decided that the company was going to fire people--turning over a new leaf. They fired on person in this person's division (the manager, 180 people all told) and there was an ungodly amount of paperwork and BS.
This amounts to, in my mind, evidence pointing to companies and the government having inefficiencies, moral hazards, and problems opperating--we are all just human. Someone who thinks that simply removing a government from various spaces will instantly increase efficiency and make everyt thing perfect is just plain wrong, I think it's hummorous how libertarians try to convince themselves of this (i.e. my GP post).
for reference, the wings on a 737 the wings are 1344 sq. ft. and the maximum takeoff weight is 174200 lbs. At cruising (i.e. when the lift and weight are in equilibrium) that's 0.9 psi on the wings. But I don't know about the lift over weight durring take off.
Thank you so much for posting this stuff, it's hilarious. The one on the FAA is a real zinger.
Airlines are free to setup their own safety regulations to add on to the federally required ones, but they don't. This means that the market solution would have the same or a lower level of security than the present system. Alternately, airlines could be forced to pay for any damages done by planes--but these companies have no money and would just go bankrupt before they could pay for real damages, so they would be distorted even more towards less security. Also, allowing insurance is no different than the current system.
But the rest of the paper uses the logic, "If they regulate a system, and it isn't perfect, then all the problems must be with them!" i.e. blaming the FAA for delays because they run air-traffic control. If the market would really bear a better system, then they would simply offer to pay for one (via a tax on the industry) and the system would be there. As is, they are just complaining that the size of the subsidy is too small.
It's a real pleasure to see such confused libertarians.
On the first point, taking their money makes a previously profitable business pratice unprofitable (if the fine is large enough). If the fine is larger still, it shows other companies that they shouldn't even try.
On the second point, you would be right in a competitive market, handouts woudln't help in the long run. But in a non-competitive market, handouts could change things. This has to be considered on a case by case bases. In this case, I'm not so sure commerciial fims could got it going (why hasn't apple taken off?). But what if you divided up $1 bln. to some OSS developers to accomplish small achievable tasks and paid on perfromance of a task, it just might work. It would be worth trying at least.
On a Mac you actually have to confirm that you intend to run a new app the first time that you run one. The basic idea is to make one more click for these instances. It's not perfect, but it is more secure than not having it.
The medical industry has $250,000 fines for breaches of medical data combined with a get out of jail free card from the administration. Examples include doctors just throwing out medical records. The sad thing about that is how many people had to know about that, and nobody said anything.
Your post suggests that choice leads to pandering and this is a serious problem with privitization of social goods. There are many others. In reality, you have to select schools/private goods as a bundle (i.e. there won't be a million schools in your neighborhood) this leads to bad distortions, like in New York city where everybody I knew hated their local deli, but went there all the time because it was the closest one. here the only factor that mattered was location and there was essentially no compitition along this sole axis, the closest deli is the closest deli.
BTW, this doesn't work for dinner spots, here people were willing to move around and there was huge compition and dinner spots were world class. Schools would probably start out with a few schools with large bundeling effects, but in places where they started out small and competing and a winner emmerged, it would quickly become a monopoly and 10 or 15 years down the line the people that made it a great school may have moved on, and you would be left with a monopoly that was accountable, but in name only. What's worse, you would have signed away the school board.
It's imortant to note that hormesis (protection against cancer provided by a pre-dose of radiation) has never been shown to last more than 24 hours. Also, Linear-no-threshold was accepted by the NCRP, according to the wikipedia article you linked to. In edition, radiation doses as small as 100 mR (1 mGy) were shown to increase cancer risk in Japanese bomb survivors. This is associated with a 0.00004 increase in cancer risk. Not sure about you, but if it goes down to zero or below after that point, not sure I care about the minute difference. For risks that I might be concerned about, it's real.
This is what I don't get, about a decade after the invention of the Newton, why use the machine's language when you can use a Newton and it can read very, very bad hand writing? I know people who's family couldn't read their writing, but their Newton could! It was based on learning of what you cross out. The only trick was that if anybody else used the thing, it very quickly unlearned the awful writing and he had a day of hell teaching it again.
D= The predictions and the models do disagree, one is almost surely wrong.
?= The model probability that the model and the prediction are off by this far is low, but not so close to zero that we can convince others.
A= The model and the predictions agree. The prediction is exact (?) and the model is an approximation that is not exact.
This third results is impressive to the extend that the model has reasonable power for alternative ways of thinking about it. To the extend that there are lots of interesting alternatives that would also like fall in the "A" area, the third result is not so interesting.
But it also all depends on some sense of independance and I don't understand where that is coming from. But maybe I should RTA to get that.
And why aren't there two conclusions there? The first and the third should have the same preimage, right? Either the results is within the error range or it wasn't. If it was in the error range, then he was right to within your ability to conclude this. If it isn't then he was wrong or the calculation had an error. There exist borderline cases, but then it's just a comment on picking exactly the wrong approximation, right?
The LC II was slow. It had a 16 MHz 69030 and was out until 1993--there were IIs on the market, and quadras. The hard drive was in every computer, and RAM upgrades were already common.
The SE was fast at 8 MHz and was on the market until 1990. the hard drive was huge at 20 Mbi--there wasnt much faster.
this is something that bothers me a lot. How is it that a Mac 512 worked so well with the OS and word processor on the floppy and the data on another flopy, and with 512 kb of memory. Seriously, I want to know. It wasn't all that bad.
It's amazing that even though we could do all that with a 10 MHz proc. and 2.8 Mb of disk space, now a 1 GHz computer is "pokey" with only 128 Mb.
What is new is that the loop-hole disappeared b/c the price of a barrel of oil went above $50 -- so now the producers want the cap removed so they can get the money all the time.
This cap was placed in to improve predictability. Oil was above that mark and they decided that the companies investing in this should get a subsidy if the price of oil went down. So when gas is cheap, producers get a subsidy, and when it got expensive they would have to make it on their own (it should be economic when oil is very expensive). The basic idea is to help them make it through any short term dip in oil prices.
Now, Senator Hatches office claims that removing the cap is necessary to reduce unpredictability b/c of the fluctuating price of oil. I'm not sure I understand the logic.
A scientific conclusion is not an opinion. For example, consider, "There is a 90 percent chance of rain tomorrow." or, "It will probably rain tomorrow." or, "previous weather patterns like this have been followed by rain on the next day 90 percent of the time, it will probably rain tomorrow."
The point is that it is a scientific conclusion and it wan censored. It is inconsistent with the quote that the top level poster and thier child poster was making.
I'll agree with that. The point was about the politics of the action, not what is most efficient. The US has a very odd version of capitalism where the political process can be far more important than the market forces. Look at the example in the top thread.
Slashdot Mirror
If they only had the first claim, you would be right. But the second and third make it so it has to violate the first law. The heat pump has a performance below 100% when you consider the system to be large enough (i.e. planet earth will suffice). b/c it takes energy in the form of heat to run. In the sense that you can make a heater that heats more than 1 watt per watt taken from the wall plug though, it does the job!
So they made something with a microstructure without doing anything at all. This is "shake and bake" chemistry beyond doubt, but sometimes a million monkeys do type a great phrase or two.
While Apple's quality has gone way down, their DOA rate is still lower, so there is something else they are doing.
BTW, what monitors are the non-apple apple monitors in putty boxes?
R is OSS and has the commands he wants (image, countour, and wireframe) it sounds like exactly what he wants: code that makes these plots that he can look at.
DMV:
- There was a greater who welcomed me and then after I looked confused as to where I should go politely asked me if I needed help and directed me to the right place to go;
- every person was kind and polite;
- there was not a line longer than one person (including me);
- the fees were reasonable ($10/license).
Grocery store / drug store:- I have to chase people to get help;
- checkout clerks rarely acknowlege me until they ask "credit or debit" often carying on long conversations with other clerks loudly and taking a "rest" between every person they serve;
- The lines are often 10-20 minutes long;
- the costs are through the roof.
BTW, I live in one of the nations largest cities (top five) and both the DMV and the grocery stores are inside the city limits.You have to realize that if your free-market claims were true, states would be one of the most competitive markets in our system (there are 50, far more than other industries) and you would be asking me where I live so that you could move here for the great DMV.
But let me also point out that you spoke past me on my centeral claims. There is a moral hazard if the airline is allowed without cash on hand to pay for the maximum possible dammage caused by a plane--say $50 billion. This is 10 times American's market cap, they could never get their hands on that amount of money. So they would have to insure. But then there is a moral hazard, so the insurance would have to come up with regulations, rules generated by a bureaucrat. This would be the same as the linked FAA paper's "centeral planner." You have exchanged a public system with a private system that has the exact same problems but also all sorts of additional management overhead.
Also, regarding your claims about public unions having problems, I would ask you what expierence you have had with this. At the macro level, the medicare is opperated with about two to three percent overhead, contrast this with private insurers at about 20 to 30 percent. At a microlevel, I have worked for one of these and I can tell you that my boss fired two of the fifteen people that worked for him in his five years on the job; this is possible and it's just that managers don't do it. In another example, I know a teacher who said there is a underperforming teacher at their school. They have said that the union does not object to firing this person and has told this to the management--it is management that is holding the ball.
Just for contrast, I have another friend who worked for a fortune 50 company and one year (of the 15 years they worked there) the president decided that the company was going to fire people--turning over a new leaf. They fired on person in this person's division (the manager, 180 people all told) and there was an ungodly amount of paperwork and BS.
This amounts to, in my mind, evidence pointing to companies and the government having inefficiencies, moral hazards, and problems opperating--we are all just human. Someone who thinks that simply removing a government from various spaces will instantly increase efficiency and make everyt thing perfect is just plain wrong, I think it's hummorous how libertarians try to convince themselves of this (i.e. my GP post).
yes, I have. And I've had this option activate. Thanks for asking.
for reference, the wings on a 737 the wings are 1344 sq. ft. and the maximum takeoff weight is 174200 lbs. At cruising (i.e. when the lift and weight are in equilibrium) that's 0.9 psi on the wings. But I don't know about the lift over weight durring take off.
Airlines are free to setup their own safety regulations to add on to the federally required ones, but they don't. This means that the market solution would have the same or a lower level of security than the present system. Alternately, airlines could be forced to pay for any damages done by planes--but these companies have no money and would just go bankrupt before they could pay for real damages, so they would be distorted even more towards less security. Also, allowing insurance is no different than the current system.
But the rest of the paper uses the logic, "If they regulate a system, and it isn't perfect, then all the problems must be with them!" i.e. blaming the FAA for delays because they run air-traffic control. If the market would really bear a better system, then they would simply offer to pay for one (via a tax on the industry) and the system would be there. As is, they are just complaining that the size of the subsidy is too small.
It's a real pleasure to see such confused libertarians.
On the second point, you would be right in a competitive market, handouts woudln't help in the long run. But in a non-competitive market, handouts could change things. This has to be considered on a case by case bases. In this case, I'm not so sure commerciial fims could got it going (why hasn't apple taken off?). But what if you divided up $1 bln. to some OSS developers to accomplish small achievable tasks and paid on perfromance of a task, it just might work. It would be worth trying at least.
On a Mac you actually have to confirm that you intend to run a new app the first time that you run one. The basic idea is to make one more click for these instances. It's not perfect, but it is more secure than not having it.
The medical industry has $250,000 fines for breaches of medical data combined with a get out of jail free card from the administration. Examples include doctors just throwing out medical records. The sad thing about that is how many people had to know about that, and nobody said anything.
BTW, this doesn't work for dinner spots, here people were willing to move around and there was huge compition and dinner spots were world class. Schools would probably start out with a few schools with large bundeling effects, but in places where they started out small and competing and a winner emmerged, it would quickly become a monopoly and 10 or 15 years down the line the people that made it a great school may have moved on, and you would be left with a monopoly that was accountable, but in name only. What's worse, you would have signed away the school board.
It's imortant to note that hormesis (protection against cancer provided by a pre-dose of radiation) has never been shown to last more than 24 hours. Also, Linear-no-threshold was accepted by the NCRP, according to the wikipedia article you linked to. In edition, radiation doses as small as 100 mR (1 mGy) were shown to increase cancer risk in Japanese bomb survivors. This is associated with a 0.00004 increase in cancer risk. Not sure about you, but if it goes down to zero or below after that point, not sure I care about the minute difference. For risks that I might be concerned about, it's real.
This is what I don't get, about a decade after the invention of the Newton, why use the machine's language when you can use a Newton and it can read very, very bad hand writing? I know people who's family couldn't read their writing, but their Newton could! It was based on learning of what you cross out. The only trick was that if anybody else used the thing, it very quickly unlearned the awful writing and he had a day of hell teaching it again.
By which I mean that (and this may shock you) the ground is not water proof.
Okay, can you explain to me then why there were so many viruses for the old macintosh OSs then? There were a ton, and norton was a must.
But I would say it's more like this:
DDDD???AAA
D= The predictions and the models do disagree, one is almost surely wrong.
?= The model probability that the model and the prediction are off by this far is low, but not so close to zero that we can convince others.
A= The model and the predictions agree. The prediction is exact (?) and the model is an approximation that is not exact.
This third results is impressive to the extend that the model has reasonable power for alternative ways of thinking about it. To the extend that there are lots of interesting alternatives that would also like fall in the "A" area, the third result is not so interesting.
But it also all depends on some sense of independance and I don't understand where that is coming from. But maybe I should RTA to get that.
Yeah, and this is way different from the last time I called the help desk for help with my windows computer.
And why aren't there two conclusions there? The first and the third should have the same preimage, right? Either the results is within the error range or it wasn't. If it was in the error range, then he was right to within your ability to conclude this. If it isn't then he was wrong or the calculation had an error. There exist borderline cases, but then it's just a comment on picking exactly the wrong approximation, right?
The SE was fast at 8 MHz and was on the market until 1990. the hard drive was huge at 20 Mbi--there wasnt much faster.
It's amazing that even though we could do all that with a 10 MHz proc. and 2.8 Mb of disk space, now a 1 GHz computer is "pokey" with only 128 Mb.
This cap was placed in to improve predictability. Oil was above that mark and they decided that the companies investing in this should get a subsidy if the price of oil went down. So when gas is cheap, producers get a subsidy, and when it got expensive they would have to make it on their own (it should be economic when oil is very expensive). The basic idea is to help them make it through any short term dip in oil prices.
Now, Senator Hatches office claims that removing the cap is necessary to reduce unpredictability b/c of the fluctuating price of oil. I'm not sure I understand the logic.
The problem in this case is that they had to estimate temperatures in the artic going back as far as they want. So he can't be 100 percent sure.
The point is that it is a scientific conclusion and it wan censored. It is inconsistent with the quote that the top level poster and thier child poster was making.
I'll agree with that. The point was about the politics of the action, not what is most efficient. The US has a very odd version of capitalism where the political process can be far more important than the market forces. Look at the example in the top thread.