The demand is the number desired (at a "price"). Supply is the number available (at a "price"). Talking about the cost of a Ford involves neither the supply, nor the demand. In economics, "supply and demand" is a set of equations (usually represented graphically, not mathematically), that often is explicitly wrong. It is almost always "wrong" at the extremes. Which is why the supply/demand set of equations is usually expressed solely as the equilibrium, without regard to the accuracy or validity of the underlying supply and demand curves it represents.
It also represents a model of scarcity, as one predicts demand based on variations in supply.
Also, note that supply requires people produce at a loss and demand requires people spend money they don't have, so in reality, as noted before, the curves are always wrong. It's a short-cut to explain equilibrium, and how a market price is achieved, and to predict *small* changes in the price based on *small* changes in the supply and demand.
They had explicitly announced that future purchases will (eventually) not include lifetime supercharger access. Somehow, living up to a published announcement is fraud, at least to the Tesla haters.
That's simply not true. A poo flinging monkey wouldn't have done much worse than Ken Lay, Carly Fiorina, or a variety of others I could name.
CEO is easy. It requires all the qualifications of an entry level used car salesman. And yes, I've been both. Wasn't bad at CEOing either. They pay for past success, even when past success isn't an indicator of future returns. Simply put, the selection isn't rational. It's an inbred nepotistic game, not a rational business decision.
Ah, the problem is that you don't know English. "supply and demand" is an economic term that doesn't relate directly to the dictionary definitions of the constituent words.
Nope. Value sets the cap. If the person doing the job creates $1M in value for the company, then that position is worth $1M, and would pay 50-75% of that if there was only one person on the planet who could do that job. You hire that one person, or you lose out on $1M in value.
But if 1M people could do that job, and they would work for $1 per day, then the value of the job is still $1M, but you'd pay someone $1 to do it. So the workers set the minimum at $1, and the company sets the maximum at $750k. So the supply and demand is a factor, but far from the only one. As there are billions of people that would work as a CEO for $20M a year, but the pay for that position is still insanely high. So supply and demand fails, as it's only just one piece.
And for all the online platforms, Steam is one of the few that lets you play (almost) anything offline, when Steam is offline. I've tried on Origin and others, and if you were to come home to a fiber cut and have no Internet, you can't get online to "authorise" offline play. While Steam will let you restart in offline mode and play almost any offline game. I haven't tried the Win10 store games. I don't own any yet. But I expect MS to be unforgiving if you are offline.
They try to cross-brand and abuse their monopoly. The problem is they are so bad at it, it doesn't matter. IE exists solely to download Chrome. Now they have "buy on Xbox, use on Windows 10". But with games designed consoles you have to pay console prices on to get the Windows, so it's more a curiosity.
Though Recore surprised me. I played on the PC while the kids were playing something else on the Xbox, and when they got off, I shutdown the PC and opened Recore on the Xbox, and was saved in the same spot. Being able to play a campaign seamless between multiple machines (same or different platform) is nice, if you play on multiple machines.
If I buy from Steam and get the Steam-only version, when I in-game purchase, Steam will take the money and deliver the goods. When I buy from MS, and purchase in-game, MS gets the cash and delivers the goods. The problem is with in-game purchases (and a lesser extent, gaming experience, where MS may have different rules on chat and such than Steam).
I predict the people here will say they should just get along, but that'd be asking direct competitors to get along when it comes to competing for customers.
There's also the possibility of people registering when they aren't eligible to vote.
That's the real point of voter ID laws, right? I have multiple friend who came into the US illegally (none Mexican). Registering to vote is trivial. But getting an ID these days requires a SSN, ostensibly because white American deadbeat dads would commit ID fraud to get around child support requirements. But, since you require an SSN to get an ID, to prevent deadbeat dad fraud, then you can require an ID to vote, and thus require an SSN to vote.
The simpler answer is always the best. Seems simpler to require an SSN to register. Done.
Better yet, auti-register everyone who gets an ID, or registers for the Selective Service, or any other government service that requires citizenship.
Expand Selective Service to all people male and female, and auto-enroll everyone on their 18th birthday in that, and local voting. Problem solved. Anyone who is naturalized will have their voter-registration filed with the naturalization. Problem solved.
The problem of people voting for someone else is tiny. It's a felony you have to do in person. And if you go through the same polling station 10 times under different names, someone may notice. Since your vote is private, but whether you voted isn't, we could solve that problem with a face-recognition system.
The easiest fraud is generating 10,000,000 mail-in votes for your candidate, and sending them all in under the names of everyone eligible to mail-in-vote. If they also mail-in-vote, you've, at worst, spoiled a random vote. If they vote in person, the mail-in is usually discarded. But if they don't vote, then your vote would be counted. And ID is never shown with mail-in-votes.
But the fix to every vote-fraud currently in use is to abandon secret voting and go to open voting. When you can verify your own vote, you can raise an alarm if the vote is mis-counted. With the current system, your vote can never be known. Not even to you.
Successful voter fraud is easily detected. More votes than the register has listed as voting. Easy to find, and quite common. The response is: count all votes as valid, even when we know some of them are fraudulent. That's the real voter fraud. Throw out every one and require a re-vote. For the re-vote have more poll workers, and count the ballots on-site before moving them. When you move them and "mix" them in with the other votes before anyone knows what's happened, there are piles of places where fraud can happen.
Tank commander (inside the tank). And if the tanks have encrypted communications with field command, it'd be there regardless of whether there are cameras on the tank,
You are paying the shop with an IOU. The "money" you use is credit. That you aren't using cash doesn't change the "money" exchanged at the time of purchase. You give them an IOU for $10 and they give you $10 worth of goods. That you pay a 3rd party to take care of the IOU doesn't change the purchase agreement, and the "money" that changes hands at that point.
I had someone mention it to me, then I had to do my own research after. The studies about the higher arrest rate are there, the studies about the higher conviction rate are there. The studies about longer sentences are there. The studies about recidivism are there. But the number of meta studies that follow the cumulative effect are few. When you do the numbers yourself, the answer is there, but nobody wants the answer. It shows the huge racial bias left in the US.
Sure it is. The rain falls. It runs over a dam. It evaporates. It rains again. It falls over that same dam, once again. Repeat. What's not renewable about that?
the entire environmental movement has spent the better part of 30 years crying over nuclear power,
The sign that a person is lying is when they label an "entire" group as believing/doing something that provably the "entire" group has not. It's not only browns that supported nuclear. Greens were in there too. Even if it was just one, that proves you wrong (or a liar). At this point, you've given multiple "liar" signals, and nothing you've said is relevant to the discussion. Just label the "opposition" and lie about them. Sounds like Trump.
And the "greens" against nuclear were all conservatives who claim to be "green" when it suits their cause. NIMBYs and BANANAs were the leaders of the anti-nuclear movement. Greens didn't oppose nuclear at every turn, but tried to remove the government subsidies for it and turn them towards more green power. The actual oppositions when plants were announced generally came from conservative locals. So blame the conservatives. They are the ones that held back nuclear.
http://www.dictionary.com/brow... to make contact with (someone) by sending a brief electronic message, as a text message: The design team should ping marketing to set up a meeting next week.
Ping me when you arrive, and I’ll meet you at the door.
It may not be a popular use, but I certainly didn't make it up. That you are too dumb to know words doesn't mean they aren't real.
Sure it is. What's the crime rate of whites with no criminal record? Near zero. What's the crime rate of Blacks with no criminal record? Even lower than that.
As for the memes you're talking about, wouldn't lighter sentences (but convictions nonetheless) lead to a higher recidivism rate for whites? "Hey I can get away with rape, I'll just do it again." Doesn't match reality.
You've changed the subject. The American justice system is broken. You can't use that as proof that race isn't a factor, when that was one of the reasons race was a factor.
It would be nonsense if the rate of incarceration were consistent. But there are great differences in how the first "minor" crimes are treated. A Black child caught shoplifting is more likely to be formally arrested than a white. While the white child will be given a warning by the shipowner or police and "released" to his parents.
Have you not seen all the rape memes? White athletes raping and getting no or minimal jail time, while "innocent" Black men getting long sentences?
All of the physical evidence indicates that Trayvon Martin (yes, you misspelled his name) was killed while committing felony assault.
All the physical evidence indicates he was stalked by an armed aggressor down a blind alley, and when he defended himself from that aggressor, the aggressor killed him.
And, when you correct for recidivism, Blacks commit fewer crimes. Feel free to post the facts to prove me wrong. So far, I've been modded down, and people argued, but nobody has argued the specific point I made.
White South Africans don't consider themselves African. So your assertion is wrong. He's Dutch-American (or something like that). As most white people who move out of Africa claim the heritage of their ancestors, not location of birth as their ethnicity.
Slashdot Mirror
The demand is the number desired (at a "price"). Supply is the number available (at a "price"). Talking about the cost of a Ford involves neither the supply, nor the demand. In economics, "supply and demand" is a set of equations (usually represented graphically, not mathematically), that often is explicitly wrong. It is almost always "wrong" at the extremes. Which is why the supply/demand set of equations is usually expressed solely as the equilibrium, without regard to the accuracy or validity of the underlying supply and demand curves it represents.
It also represents a model of scarcity, as one predicts demand based on variations in supply.
Also, note that supply requires people produce at a loss and demand requires people spend money they don't have, so in reality, as noted before, the curves are always wrong. It's a short-cut to explain equilibrium, and how a market price is achieved, and to predict *small* changes in the price based on *small* changes in the supply and demand.
That's called "demand".
No, that's value. "demand" is the number of positions available.
When you learn the basics, feel free to try again.
They had explicitly announced that future purchases will (eventually) not include lifetime supercharger access. Somehow, living up to a published announcement is fraud, at least to the Tesla haters.
That's simply not true. A poo flinging monkey wouldn't have done much worse than Ken Lay, Carly Fiorina, or a variety of others I could name.
CEO is easy. It requires all the qualifications of an entry level used car salesman. And yes, I've been both. Wasn't bad at CEOing either. They pay for past success, even when past success isn't an indicator of future returns. Simply put, the selection isn't rational. It's an inbred nepotistic game, not a rational business decision.
Ah, the problem is that you don't know English. "supply and demand" is an economic term that doesn't relate directly to the dictionary definitions of the constituent words.
Nope. Value sets the cap. If the person doing the job creates $1M in value for the company, then that position is worth $1M, and would pay 50-75% of that if there was only one person on the planet who could do that job. You hire that one person, or you lose out on $1M in value.
But if 1M people could do that job, and they would work for $1 per day, then the value of the job is still $1M, but you'd pay someone $1 to do it. So the workers set the minimum at $1, and the company sets the maximum at $750k. So the supply and demand is a factor, but far from the only one. As there are billions of people that would work as a CEO for $20M a year, but the pay for that position is still insanely high. So supply and demand fails, as it's only just one piece.
And for all the online platforms, Steam is one of the few that lets you play (almost) anything offline, when Steam is offline. I've tried on Origin and others, and if you were to come home to a fiber cut and have no Internet, you can't get online to "authorise" offline play. While Steam will let you restart in offline mode and play almost any offline game. I haven't tried the Win10 store games. I don't own any yet. But I expect MS to be unforgiving if you are offline.
They try to cross-brand and abuse their monopoly. The problem is they are so bad at it, it doesn't matter. IE exists solely to download Chrome. Now they have "buy on Xbox, use on Windows 10". But with games designed consoles you have to pay console prices on to get the Windows, so it's more a curiosity.
Though Recore surprised me. I played on the PC while the kids were playing something else on the Xbox, and when they got off, I shutdown the PC and opened Recore on the Xbox, and was saved in the same spot. Being able to play a campaign seamless between multiple machines (same or different platform) is nice, if you play on multiple machines.
If I buy from Steam and get the Steam-only version, when I in-game purchase, Steam will take the money and deliver the goods. When I buy from MS, and purchase in-game, MS gets the cash and delivers the goods. The problem is with in-game purchases (and a lesser extent, gaming experience, where MS may have different rules on chat and such than Steam).
I predict the people here will say they should just get along, but that'd be asking direct competitors to get along when it comes to competing for customers.
There's also the possibility of people registering when they aren't eligible to vote.
That's the real point of voter ID laws, right? I have multiple friend who came into the US illegally (none Mexican). Registering to vote is trivial. But getting an ID these days requires a SSN, ostensibly because white American deadbeat dads would commit ID fraud to get around child support requirements. But, since you require an SSN to get an ID, to prevent deadbeat dad fraud, then you can require an ID to vote, and thus require an SSN to vote.
The simpler answer is always the best. Seems simpler to require an SSN to register. Done.
Better yet, auti-register everyone who gets an ID, or registers for the Selective Service, or any other government service that requires citizenship.
Expand Selective Service to all people male and female, and auto-enroll everyone on their 18th birthday in that, and local voting. Problem solved. Anyone who is naturalized will have their voter-registration filed with the naturalization. Problem solved.
The problem of people voting for someone else is tiny. It's a felony you have to do in person. And if you go through the same polling station 10 times under different names, someone may notice. Since your vote is private, but whether you voted isn't, we could solve that problem with a face-recognition system.
The easiest fraud is generating 10,000,000 mail-in votes for your candidate, and sending them all in under the names of everyone eligible to mail-in-vote. If they also mail-in-vote, you've, at worst, spoiled a random vote. If they vote in person, the mail-in is usually discarded. But if they don't vote, then your vote would be counted. And ID is never shown with mail-in-votes.
But the fix to every vote-fraud currently in use is to abandon secret voting and go to open voting. When you can verify your own vote, you can raise an alarm if the vote is mis-counted. With the current system, your vote can never be known. Not even to you.
Successful voter fraud is easily detected. More votes than the register has listed as voting. Easy to find, and quite common. The response is: count all votes as valid, even when we know some of them are fraudulent. That's the real voter fraud. Throw out every one and require a re-vote. For the re-vote have more poll workers, and count the ballots on-site before moving them. When you move them and "mix" them in with the other votes before anyone knows what's happened, there are piles of places where fraud can happen.
Tank commander (inside the tank). And if the tanks have encrypted communications with field command, it'd be there regardless of whether there are cameras on the tank,
You are paying the shop with an IOU. The "money" you use is credit. That you aren't using cash doesn't change the "money" exchanged at the time of purchase. You give them an IOU for $10 and they give you $10 worth of goods. That you pay a 3rd party to take care of the IOU doesn't change the purchase agreement, and the "money" that changes hands at that point.
I had someone mention it to me, then I had to do my own research after. The studies about the higher arrest rate are there, the studies about the higher conviction rate are there. The studies about longer sentences are there. The studies about recidivism are there. But the number of meta studies that follow the cumulative effect are few. When you do the numbers yourself, the answer is there, but nobody wants the answer. It shows the huge racial bias left in the US.
Your parents said that while fucking high to rock music.
"hydro" isn't a renewable
Sure it is. The rain falls. It runs over a dam. It evaporates. It rains again. It falls over that same dam, once again. Repeat. What's not renewable about that?
the entire environmental movement has spent the better part of 30 years crying over nuclear power,
The sign that a person is lying is when they label an "entire" group as believing/doing something that provably the "entire" group has not. It's not only browns that supported nuclear. Greens were in there too. Even if it was just one, that proves you wrong (or a liar). At this point, you've given multiple "liar" signals, and nothing you've said is relevant to the discussion. Just label the "opposition" and lie about them. Sounds like Trump.
And the "greens" against nuclear were all conservatives who claim to be "green" when it suits their cause. NIMBYs and BANANAs were the leaders of the anti-nuclear movement. Greens didn't oppose nuclear at every turn, but tried to remove the government subsidies for it and turn them towards more green power. The actual oppositions when plants were announced generally came from conservative locals. So blame the conservatives. They are the ones that held back nuclear.
http://www.dictionary.com/brow...
to make contact with (someone) by sending a brief electronic message, as a text message:
The design team should ping marketing to set up a meeting next week.
Ping me when you arrive, and I’ll meet you at the door.
It may not be a popular use, but I certainly didn't make it up. That you are too dumb to know words doesn't mean they aren't real.
That's not possible to do though.
Sure it is. What's the crime rate of whites with no criminal record? Near zero. What's the crime rate of Blacks with no criminal record? Even lower than that.
As for the memes you're talking about, wouldn't lighter sentences (but convictions nonetheless) lead to a higher recidivism rate for whites? "Hey I can get away with rape, I'll just do it again." Doesn't match reality.
You've changed the subject. The American justice system is broken. You can't use that as proof that race isn't a factor, when that was one of the reasons race was a factor.
Ping means to "check with" in regular English. No big deal. Is Bob coming to lunch Friday? I don't know. Ping him and let us know.
It would be nonsense if the rate of incarceration were consistent. But there are great differences in how the first "minor" crimes are treated. A Black child caught shoplifting is more likely to be formally arrested than a white. While the white child will be given a warning by the shipowner or police and "released" to his parents.
Have you not seen all the rape memes? White athletes raping and getting no or minimal jail time, while "innocent" Black men getting long sentences?
The comparisons I see are "Shawnika" vs "Margaret", not "Shaniqua" vs "Misty Dawn".
If the system (old white males) stopped throwing innocent Black people in prison, you'd stop getting mugged. Your rage is misdirected.
All of the physical evidence indicates that Trayvon Martin (yes, you misspelled his name) was killed while committing felony assault.
All the physical evidence indicates he was stalked by an armed aggressor down a blind alley, and when he defended himself from that aggressor, the aggressor killed him.
And, when you correct for recidivism, Blacks commit fewer crimes. Feel free to post the facts to prove me wrong. So far, I've been modded down, and people argued, but nobody has argued the specific point I made.
White South Africans don't consider themselves African. So your assertion is wrong. He's Dutch-American (or something like that). As most white people who move out of Africa claim the heritage of their ancestors, not location of birth as their ethnicity.