Take DDT for example. It's basically harmless to humans, and it's broad application eliminates insect-born illnesses like malaria. Yet the adverse effects it has on birds made it the catalyst for the formation of the EPA, the Endangered Species Act, Environmental Protection Act, and pretty much all modern environmental law.
All that had to happen is someone had to write a book that explained the logical conclusion of the use of this and other harmful chemicals.
So the claim that it environmental damage needs to have a clear victim and a clear perpetrator is absurd, and actually contradicts history. No one who knows anything about this would ever agree with Sunstein's conclusion, or what you've said here.
I re-watched that recently. I remember when I first watched it I took it for a dystopian vision of the future of Detroit. As it turns out, it was hopelessly optimistic.
Also, all robots should make the noise that Robocop makes.
John Carter cost $250 m to make and brought in $280 m. Even if they spent $100 m to market it, it would have brought in much less if they hadn't marketed it, because no one would have known to go see it. The point is, if you've spent a lot of money to make it, it's really too late not to release it.
What good is it to be able to predict if the movie will flop when you have to spend $100 million making the damn thing first! Maybe you could just make the trailer, and see how well its wikipedia page does?
That's a false choice. Read one of the earliest entries on your list:
Noah's Ark (1928). Three people died, one man lost a leg and a number were injured in a scene where several hundred extras were caught in the 'Great Flood'. The deaths were instrumental in the introduction of film safety regulations in the following year.
People work very hard to avoid accidents in the film industry, and they are by no means a necessary to the production of movies. That said, some of the stunts they do are unnecessary and dangerous. I don't understand why someone would risk their life to make a movie, and if I were financing a movie, I wouldn't let it happen.
On the other hand, working with large predators is always dangerous, and there doesn't seem to be any obvious way to avoid the risk. It shouldn't be done, and I can't imagine what people who run places like SeaWorld or wild animal theme parks could be thinking. I've seen grizzly bears and mountain lions in the wild. While it is thrilling, I do everything I can to avoid such encounters. I can't fathom why someone would want to work in close proximity with these animals, unless they did not fully understand the risk. It would be like working with live high-voltage lines just for the fun of it.
Do they? Because the last time I checked, SeaWorld was still claiming that Tilikum was not actually trying to kill Dawn Brancheau when it grabed her by the arm, crushed her, dismembered her, and then ate her arm. They also claim the other two deaths were not deliberate (or that they don't know) when a review of the facts definitely indicates that Tilikum killed these people. I can't imagine anyone in their right mind working with this animal if they were in full possession of the facts. This is a safety issue, but SeaWorld is also deliberately downplaying that risk.
Should actions which would violate the geneva convention were they carried out on a prisoner of war be considered acceptable when carried out on individuals otherwise detained? Should a government deal with it's own citizens more harshly than an enemy combatant (whom they would have killed had he not surrendered)?
It seems you consider your fellow man the enemy. Indeed, you believe he should be dealt with more harshly than a foreigner who has taken up arms against you. You should rethink your priorities.
It was better than using their website on your phone. I still think you could make it work, especially since today's phones have more memory so it wouldn't crash as much. I don't know why Javascript doesn't have any way to deallocate memory manually, maybe they don't want you to be able to tell the good developers from the bad?
Yes. I see people getting ripped off every day. Many businesses make most of their money running scams, insurance companies, other financial product companies, and medical care providers are good examples of this. Then there even more obvious ones, multi-level-marketing companies like Herbalife and "It Works!" Or there are illicit (and legal) substances that promise happiness but actually catch people in addiction. The market doesn't correct these inefficiencies because the people getting screwed over don't know it's happening. Were they to become aware of what was happening, people caught up in these scams would be able to shut them down and spend their time and resources on their own goals.
I am not a liberal by any means. I hardly ever find government intervention agreeable. The government only acts through force or coercion, and I really don't like that. But I also don't approve of people making money by scamming people. I think it's almost as bad as what the government does (almost because if you're smart you can avoid it).
I also don't believe that stupidity is a genetically determined certainty. It seems to me that people have the ability to learn to be cautious and thoughtful. As long as enough people choose to live their lives that way, I think a free market can work. But many (most?) people don't live that way. They like easy answers and mindless entertainment. People who chose to live that way are killing the free market.
As with all large systems used by a society, the free market is incapable of solving problems, and is easily corrupted if most of the people in it are too stupid to make good choices for themselves. The thing that's great about a free market is that it works as long as enough people are smart enough to promote their own interests, it has no prerequisite for "moral" behavior because the individuals police each other's bad behavior. But the whole thing breaks down is most individuals are too stupid to do that.
The human brain is highly adaptive, so social traits tend to "evolve" with little or no actual genetic basis for the behavior. That means that it doesn't have to be advantageous in order to exist (when you are talking about humans, at least).
Some people find other environments more stimulating than when they are sitting at their desk. Sitting at the beach, or on the couch, for example. So, even though a tablet has less screen space, the tablet is the preferable option in cases where it may be used.
I'll admit they've had over the top action sequences for a while, but not all of them were so boring. Take the end of the Avengers, it drags on a bit, but there were still things happening with the plot. Then you look at the fight scene at the end to the new Superman, nothing is happening, you're literally just waiting for it to end.
The problem with these movies is that they have overblown action sequences which are boring and add nothing to the plot. It's no surprise nobody wants to go see them. They might as well be trying to charge admission to go to the DMV.
Apple dictated the terms which the publishers agreed too
No, the publishers proposed that all retailers use the "agency model." Apple had proposed that a "most favored nation" cause be added to their contract to prevent Amazon from undercutting their prices, requiring all retailers to be on the same model was the counter-offer made by the publishers.
Effectively node.js allows inexperienced developers to do something that people who understand IIS, many Java Application Servers, WCF, or even raw sockets programming have already been doing for many years already.
I'm still not sure I understand how Apple fits into this conspiracy. Is it because they were willing to provide an alternative ebook platform and sell at a price the publishers found agreeable? And that gave the publishers the leverage they needed to say to Amazon "change your terms or we will no longer sell to you?" I don't see how Apple has colluded with publishers simply by agreeing to their terms. What should they have done instead?
Actually, there have been several versions of the 1 liter concept car rolled out since the idea was originally announced by VW in 2002. This latest one was released in 2011 and is the first one that will be put into production. The production model is slightly different from the 2011 concept car, and 250 examples of it will be built.
Slashdot Mirror
Take DDT for example. It's basically harmless to humans, and it's broad application eliminates insect-born illnesses like malaria. Yet the adverse effects it has on birds made it the catalyst for the formation of the EPA, the Endangered Species Act, Environmental Protection Act, and pretty much all modern environmental law.
All that had to happen is someone had to write a book that explained the logical conclusion of the use of this and other harmful chemicals.
So the claim that it environmental damage needs to have a clear victim and a clear perpetrator is absurd, and actually contradicts history. No one who knows anything about this would ever agree with Sunstein's conclusion, or what you've said here.
I re-watched that recently. I remember when I first watched it I took it for a dystopian vision of the future of Detroit. As it turns out, it was hopelessly optimistic.
Also, all robots should make the noise that Robocop makes.
John Carter cost $250 m to make and brought in $280 m. Even if they spent $100 m to market it, it would have brought in much less if they hadn't marketed it, because no one would have known to go see it. The point is, if you've spent a lot of money to make it, it's really too late not to release it.
What good is it to be able to predict if the movie will flop when you have to spend $100 million making the damn thing first! Maybe you could just make the trailer, and see how well its wikipedia page does?
That's a false choice. Read one of the earliest entries on your list:
People work very hard to avoid accidents in the film industry, and they are by no means a necessary to the production of movies. That said, some of the stunts they do are unnecessary and dangerous. I don't understand why someone would risk their life to make a movie, and if I were financing a movie, I wouldn't let it happen.
On the other hand, working with large predators is always dangerous, and there doesn't seem to be any obvious way to avoid the risk. It shouldn't be done, and I can't imagine what people who run places like SeaWorld or wild animal theme parks could be thinking. I've seen grizzly bears and mountain lions in the wild. While it is thrilling, I do everything I can to avoid such encounters. I can't fathom why someone would want to work in close proximity with these animals, unless they did not fully understand the risk. It would be like working with live high-voltage lines just for the fun of it.
Do they? Because the last time I checked, SeaWorld was still claiming that Tilikum was not actually trying to kill Dawn Brancheau when it grabed her by the arm, crushed her, dismembered her, and then ate her arm. They also claim the other two deaths were not deliberate (or that they don't know) when a review of the facts definitely indicates that Tilikum killed these people. I can't imagine anyone in their right mind working with this animal if they were in full possession of the facts. This is a safety issue, but SeaWorld is also deliberately downplaying that risk.
Should actions which would violate the geneva convention were they carried out on a prisoner of war be considered acceptable when carried out on individuals otherwise detained? Should a government deal with it's own citizens more harshly than an enemy combatant (whom they would have killed had he not surrendered)?
It seems you consider your fellow man the enemy. Indeed, you believe he should be dealt with more harshly than a foreigner who has taken up arms against you. You should rethink your priorities.
It was better than using their website on your phone. I still think you could make it work, especially since today's phones have more memory so it wouldn't crash as much. I don't know why Javascript doesn't have any way to deallocate memory manually, maybe they don't want you to be able to tell the good developers from the bad?
Yes. I see people getting ripped off every day. Many businesses make most of their money running scams, insurance companies, other financial product companies, and medical care providers are good examples of this. Then there even more obvious ones, multi-level-marketing companies like Herbalife and "It Works!" Or there are illicit (and legal) substances that promise happiness but actually catch people in addiction. The market doesn't correct these inefficiencies because the people getting screwed over don't know it's happening. Were they to become aware of what was happening, people caught up in these scams would be able to shut them down and spend their time and resources on their own goals.
I am not a liberal by any means. I hardly ever find government intervention agreeable. The government only acts through force or coercion, and I really don't like that. But I also don't approve of people making money by scamming people. I think it's almost as bad as what the government does (almost because if you're smart you can avoid it).
I also don't believe that stupidity is a genetically determined certainty. It seems to me that people have the ability to learn to be cautious and thoughtful. As long as enough people choose to live their lives that way, I think a free market can work. But many (most?) people don't live that way. They like easy answers and mindless entertainment. People who chose to live that way are killing the free market.
As with all large systems used by a society, the free market is incapable of solving problems, and is easily corrupted if most of the people in it are too stupid to make good choices for themselves. The thing that's great about a free market is that it works as long as enough people are smart enough to promote their own interests, it has no prerequisite for "moral" behavior because the individuals police each other's bad behavior. But the whole thing breaks down is most individuals are too stupid to do that.
Not China. . .
Pedophilia is a sexual interest in prepubescent children, as in they can not possibly get pregnant. You are talking about something very different.
The human brain is highly adaptive, so social traits tend to "evolve" with little or no actual genetic basis for the behavior. That means that it doesn't have to be advantageous in order to exist (when you are talking about humans, at least).
Some people find other environments more stimulating than when they are sitting at their desk. Sitting at the beach, or on the couch, for example. So, even though a tablet has less screen space, the tablet is the preferable option in cases where it may be used.
It that's not a part of your content creation process, I wonder if maybe you should consider adding it? You may find it helpful. . .
I'll admit they've had over the top action sequences for a while, but not all of them were so boring. Take the end of the Avengers, it drags on a bit, but there were still things happening with the plot. Then you look at the fight scene at the end to the new Superman, nothing is happening, you're literally just waiting for it to end.
The problem with these movies is that they have overblown action sequences which are boring and add nothing to the plot. It's no surprise nobody wants to go see them. They might as well be trying to charge admission to go to the DMV.
It's weird how often it seems government officials watch movies like Robocop or read books like 1984 and say to themselves "now there's a good idea!"
You do what they say, or else they come shoot you and plant drugs on your body.
No, the publishers proposed that all retailers use the "agency model." Apple had proposed that a "most favored nation" cause be added to their contract to prevent Amazon from undercutting their prices, requiring all retailers to be on the same model was the counter-offer made by the publishers.
Ok, you sold me on it.
I'm still not sure I understand how Apple fits into this conspiracy. Is it because they were willing to provide an alternative ebook platform and sell at a price the publishers found agreeable? And that gave the publishers the leverage they needed to say to Amazon "change your terms or we will no longer sell to you?" I don't see how Apple has colluded with publishers simply by agreeing to their terms. What should they have done instead?
Really? Apparently no one told the DOJ. . .
Actually, there have been several versions of the 1 liter concept car rolled out since the idea was originally announced by VW in 2002. This latest one was released in 2011 and is the first one that will be put into production. The production model is slightly different from the 2011 concept car, and 250 examples of it will be built.
How do you know? They never opened up their books to scrutiny. . .