Qualified agreement, but exactly how/what do you mean? I think your method would throw the baby out with the bathwater, I would think "no govt interference in free market" would limit some good things: Ability for courts to establish a level playing field ( to do so is simply intrusive ). Ability for the executive/legislature to tax ( I don't think I need to go on with that ),
establish some kinds of foreign relations ( anything having to do with economics would seem overreaching there ),
ability to establish reasonable working conditions ( the argument would be that the workers should do that, but we have seen where that goes already ) Probably more I cant think of now.
Human nature is ugly, people have and will abuse those less powerful than they ( otherwise, we could both argue for anarchy ). Some level of regulation is required, or we might as well just go straight for "man with biggest virtual club sets the rules" and fight it out.
Remove the ability for corporations to donate to political campaigns/politicians at all, this problem goes away. Limit personal contributions also, so the "heads" of these corporations cant just continue to buy elections.
And you are correct, in a strict sense, it is the customer's fault, but your "choice" isn't a very sensible one. The only real choice is not to go to a competitor and buy from them ( market capitalism ), but to suck it up and buy or go without ( cartel/monopoly behaviour ). This is a deliberate structure to keep the market from bringing the price to some kind of real equilibrium, hence my contention that this is not the market price.
You invest 100, and receive back 105, nominal profit of 5. Assuming you are taxed at 15% ( at capital gains rates, income rates would be more, I presume ) on the 105. If I have done the math right, tax is 15.75, 10.75 more than your profit.
Wasnt the embargo and the turmoil in the middle east bad enough? Leaving climate change out, there are sufficient adverse effects that we as thinking ( supposedly ) creatures should be considering moving off oil. Alternative energy really should be farther along, if we were reasoning about these things. The market is good at many things, but avoiding disaster is not one of them. By far ( re: 2008 meltdown, etc, et al ).
The trend for oil prices is up currently, you have a point that if alternatives start to make a difference, those prices will fall. Keep in mind that the limit on patent duration as time increase approaches infinity ( from all I see ).
We have known for some time ( Carter presidency at least ) that we need to get off oil. We don't seem to be doing a very good job of it.
Oil is not at all like milk or meat, it has been sitting underground for a *long* time. It wont spoil. We should move off oil for energy and save it for plastics/ and/ or leave it down there.
The Israelis committed terrorist acts until the powers that be threw up their hands and walked away. They also sent people into the area far in excess of agreed upon quotas ( I will grant you that it was not the Israelis doing the agreeing, but still not legal ). It is interesting that the people living on the land were not the ones doing the giving, but people living far away. For myself, if someone in granted someone the land I was living on I would not be terribly happy about that,. "legal" or not. Yes, a huge number of the Arab Muslims they were living among attacked. That was wrong. So are the current attempts to grab land in the disputed areas. Personally, I agree that Israel is a great idea. I think trying to paint either side as saints with all the evil attaching to the other side is nonsense. Which side is more evil? Not a great path to follow, I think. Finding a real way to live together would be better.
It isn't just buying of votes. The bigger issue is coercion of votes. Your boss saying "no job for you unless you vote and prove it." Your union foreman saying "no job for you unless you vote and prove it." Your saying "vote or I will disinherit you/not sleep with you/sleep with you/fart in your general direction/etc". Other scenarios can be imagined.
On the "trying to buy your vote by throwing money ( I presume you mean advertising )", I am of the opinion that donations to political campaigns should not ever come from union/corporate sources ( unless it goes into a pool for all candidates to draw from ( yeah, that will happen ) ) and should be limited in size, so that the wealthy cannot exert an out-sized influence.
"..inspired development platform that would work on Windows, OSX and Linux, and would take one code in (Python? or better yet, a decoupled language front end of choice) and spit out apps for IOS, Android and WP8..."
Microsoft does not do agnostic. They only touch other platforms is they believe it will act as a bridge to bring you to their platform. So, it would be ".net for devices".
In my mind it is unethical to send so many jobs overseas when there is a great need for employment here. No, not every job should be kept here, I am not arguing that.
It is also not smart to send so many jobs away. Who is it that buys these products? How will they, if they have fewer jobs to earn enough money to do so at? And those fewer jobs are chased by as many or more people? Wages go down. Ability to buy goes down. You can argue it is not Apple's ( or fill in the blank for whatever company you like ) job to make sure there are jobs here. So, fine, who's is it? Or do we just keep the wage arbitrage going until everyone earns the same ( and can pay the same )?
There is plenty to criticize the Democratic party for without resorting to taking things deliberately out of context.
And if you are trying to say that China's govt is now free, it is my personal opinion that you need to take a closer look. Adding a few trappings of capitalism to an authoritarian government does not make free, it makes fascism, IMHO.
For power, they should adapt whatever they were using to extract power from a person walking. Then the bouncing of the breasts would power the detection equipment.
Not to mention, but as the density increases, self-driven cars could detect that, and up the speed, decreasing the density ( within limits, of course ). And could warn other cars to take alternate routes ( I am assuming they would be networked* ).
If they were all self-driven and networked, no more red lights, they could just interleave between each other. No stopping until the end point is reached.
*with in car provision to double check certain things...
I just read a bit about anti lag, and my first question is "why not use a supercharger in that application"? I would presume others have already asked that question, and the efficiency, even with burning fuel to keep the turbo going is worth it.
Thank you for adding to my knowledge. I did not know that.
I would say, for the "acceleration" part under discussion, you would not have a locked up converter, my understanding is that locking does not occur "under load".
With a bit of thought, I would expect the the pumping could be made to happen just when the side walls are sagging a bit due to lower air pressure, and not operating when they are upright, due to correct air pressure.
Slashdot Mirror
Qualified agreement, but exactly how/what do you mean?
I think your method would throw the baby out with the bathwater, I would think "no govt interference in free market" would limit some good things:
Ability for courts to establish a level playing field ( to do so is simply intrusive ).
Ability for the executive/legislature to tax ( I don't think I need to go on with that ),
establish some kinds of foreign relations ( anything having to do with economics would seem overreaching there ),
ability to establish reasonable working conditions ( the argument would be that the workers should do that, but we have seen where that goes already )
Probably more I cant think of now.
Human nature is ugly, people have and will abuse those less powerful than they ( otherwise, we could both argue for anarchy ).
Some level of regulation is required, or we might as well just go straight for "man with biggest virtual club sets the rules" and fight it out.
Remove the ability for corporations to donate to political campaigns/politicians at all, this problem goes away.
Limit personal contributions also, so the "heads" of these corporations cant just continue to buy elections.
Hardly anyone buys at the "retail price".
And you are correct, in a strict sense, it is the customer's fault, but your "choice" isn't a very sensible one. The only real choice is not to go to a competitor and buy from them ( market capitalism ), but to suck it up and buy or go without ( cartel/monopoly behaviour ). This is a deliberate structure to keep the market from bringing the price to some kind of real equilibrium, hence my contention that this is not the market price.
I see. I wasn't clear on the "unregistered" part.
You invest 100, and receive back 105, nominal profit of 5.
Assuming you are taxed at 15% ( at capital gains rates, income rates would be more, I presume ) on the 105.
If I have done the math right, tax is 15.75, 10.75 more than your profit.
"Full Retail". I stumble a bit on term. There is no real market setting a price, there is just price "setting"*.
The "Full Retail" price is just a scheme to coerce you into their pricing system for both service and the phone.
*gouging, IHMO.
Wasnt the embargo and the turmoil in the middle east bad enough?
Leaving climate change out, there are sufficient adverse effects that we as thinking ( supposedly ) creatures should be considering moving off oil.
Alternative energy really should be farther along, if we were reasoning about these things. The market is good at many things, but avoiding disaster is not one of them. By far ( re: 2008 meltdown, etc, et al ).
The trend for oil prices is up currently, you have a point that if alternatives start to make a difference, those prices will fall.
Keep in mind that the limit on patent duration as time increase approaches infinity ( from all I see ).
We have known for some time ( Carter presidency at least ) that we need to get off oil.
We don't seem to be doing a very good job of it.
Oil is not at all like milk or meat, it has been sitting underground for a *long* time. It wont spoil.
We should move off oil for energy and save it for plastics/ and/ or leave it down there.
The Israelis committed terrorist acts until the powers that be threw up their hands and walked away.
They also sent people into the area far in excess of agreed upon quotas ( I will grant you that it was not the Israelis doing the agreeing, but still not legal ).
It is interesting that the people living on the land were not the ones doing the giving, but people living far away.
For myself, if someone in granted someone the land I was living on I would not be terribly happy about that,. "legal" or not.
Yes, a huge number of the Arab Muslims they were living among attacked. That was wrong. So are the current attempts to grab land in the disputed areas.
Personally, I agree that Israel is a great idea. I think trying to paint either side as saints with all the evil attaching to the other side is nonsense.
Which side is more evil? Not a great path to follow, I think. Finding a real way to live together would be better.
It isn't just buying of votes.
The bigger issue is coercion of votes.
Your boss saying "no job for you unless you vote and prove it."
Your union foreman saying "no job for you unless you vote and prove it."
Your saying "vote or I will disinherit you/not sleep with you/sleep with you/fart in your general direction/etc".
Other scenarios can be imagined.
On the "trying to buy your vote by throwing money ( I presume you mean advertising )", I am of the opinion that donations to political campaigns should not ever come from union/corporate sources ( unless it goes into a pool for all candidates to draw from ( yeah, that will happen ) ) and should be limited in size, so that the wealthy cannot exert an out-sized influence.
And we liked it!
Did you mean debugging?
"..inspired development platform that would work on Windows, OSX and Linux, and would take one code in (Python? or better yet, a decoupled language front end of choice) and spit out apps for IOS, Android and WP8..."
Microsoft does not do agnostic. They only touch other platforms is they believe it will act as a bridge to bring you to their platform.
So, it would be ".net for devices".
In my mind it is unethical to send so many jobs overseas when there is a great need for employment here.
No, not every job should be kept here, I am not arguing that.
It is also not smart to send so many jobs away. Who is it that buys these products?
How will they, if they have fewer jobs to earn enough money to do so at?
And those fewer jobs are chased by as many or more people? Wages go down. Ability to buy goes down.
You can argue it is not Apple's ( or fill in the blank for whatever company you like ) job to make sure there are jobs here.
So, fine, who's is it? Or do we just keep the wage arbitrage going until everyone earns the same ( and can pay the same )?
""You didn't build that business.""
There is plenty to criticize the Democratic party for without resorting to taking things deliberately out of context.
And if you are trying to say that China's govt is now free, it is my personal opinion that you need to take a closer look.
Adding a few trappings of capitalism to an authoritarian government does not make free, it makes fascism, IMHO.
What if they are wrong?
No worries. I laughed a bit. :-)
If he was the last kid, he would have no peer.
For power, they should adapt whatever they were using to extract power from a person walking. Then the bouncing of the breasts would power the detection equipment.
Amen, brother.
Not to mention, but as the density increases, self-driven cars could detect that, and up the speed, decreasing the density ( within limits, of course ).
And could warn other cars to take alternate routes ( I am assuming they would be networked* ).
If they were all self-driven and networked, no more red lights, they could just interleave between each other. No stopping until the end point is reached.
*with in car provision to double check certain things...
I just read a bit about anti lag, and my first question is "why not use a supercharger in that application"?
I would presume others have already asked that question, and the efficiency, even with burning fuel to keep the turbo going is worth it.
Thank you for adding to my knowledge. I did not know that.
I would say, for the "acceleration" part under discussion, you would not have a locked up converter, my understanding is that locking does not occur "under load".
WOT means no pumping loss moving air past the throttle plate.
Yes, indeed it will. And if you are an idiot with a manual, and dont downshift, you will be better off with an automatic.
But, properly driven ( and there are many who cant or wont ), a manual will get more of the power of the engine to the rear wheels.
If you feel like disagreeing, fine, but look up "torque converter" before replying.
With a bit of thought, I would expect the the pumping could be made to happen just when the side walls are sagging a bit due to lower air pressure, and not operating when they are upright, due to correct air pressure.