There may have been a drop in the number of horses back in the early 20th century, but for some decades now, horse breeding has been on the increase. And it's not just race or show horses; various kinds of work horses are also being bred
Yes, yes they are. They bred them for the hormones in female horses which is used to make estrongen replacement hormones for human women.
Well, cursive isn't the only way to write with your hands. Its a fast way to right... but I almost can never read most people's cursive, and these are people older than me. I'd much rather people print when they write with their hands, because it always seems more legible.
Apple lawyer will simply instruct judge(s) to type http://www.webkit.org/ and remind them it is open source, even used by their most die-hard competitors in their products. We speak about 100M+ Nokia phones coming with Webkit based browser here.
And the judge would then correctly state "webkit is not a web browser, Safari is," and rule against apple.
"When the only real competition comes from a not for profit open source organization that depends on volunteers for almost half of its work product and nearly all of its marketing and distribution, while more than half a dozen other "traditional" browser vendors with better than I.E. products have had near-zero success encroaching on Microsoft I.E.'s dominance, there's a demonstrable tilt to the playing field. That tilt comes with the distribution channel - default status for the OS bundled Web browser.
What horseshit. Who would pay when there are at least TWO browsers given away for free (Mozilla being one of them... maybe they should start charging as well, to level the playing field for non-free browsers).
Are you saying that criminals shouldn't be punished just because it was a long time ago?
It depends. If its over stealing a pack of gum five years ago, then yes... its not worth the time. It also prevents government from keeping a nice little dossier on you, until you step out of line THEN, hitting you with a charge for something minor 15 years ago... you know, like the Crown was doing around oh 1776.
Actually I got to like IE8 and have since stopped using FF. And in the netbook space, Windows has quickly replaced Linux as the OS, because people were choosing Windows over Linux. I know you believe only idiots use Windows, but the fact is that a good number of people do like it.
The kid doesn't break the window, then the shopkeeper spends his money on bread, and he has BOTH the bread and the window.
You're assuming he buys bread at all; he may not buy anything at all. Why do you always ignore that option? At any rate, we're not blowing up F22s to justify building more; we're just building new F22s.
If breaking windows was a way to promote economic growth, Germany could have gotten out of the depression by having a Krystallnacht every weekend until they were all rich.
Interesting you brought this up; Germany got out of its recession on militrary spending, you know, building tanks and PLANES, and that's what later brought the US out of the great depression as well.
When the kid breaks the window, the amount of wealth existing in the economy is diminished by the value of the window.
And that's different how than replacing a window simply because it's old and worn?
When money is forcibly extracted from the taxpayers to build F22s, and used to employ people in that pursuit, the society loses the wealth that those people could be creating if they were employed in a productive enterprise.
Replace F22 with roads, public water works, or rail lines, does your argument still hold? How exactly does the society lose wealth?
As I see it, as a society, we now have an F22 (which would be useful, if we actually used it, but for some reason have decided not to, but take focus away from the F22 directly and replace with "fighter jet," I don't see an arguement against building figher jets in general), the people employed building the F22 have money, which they use to increase their wealth (buying a new car, a new DVD, a new oven), the people supplying the steel are also paid, the company supplying the steel may now be able to upgrade its facilities, etc etc. So, how exactly did we lose wealth building something new? In the end its still a net gain.
Your argument seems to be we should focus our economy on building something else. That's a value judgement and you're free to argue that, but to say that we've LOST wealth because we built an F22 instead of something else is stupid.
You have a point on the top of your head, and that certainly can't be refuted.
Whats a matter... you can't make a point so you have to stick with insults? You can contine these jabs all you want... it doesn't help your argument at all, and it makes you look like a jackass baby that can't take that he lost the arguement.
Oh, so you mean you can buy a new computer and have no clue if it will be fully supported by your OS of choice? So that now, in addition to setup, my mom has to install the OS, no recovery, oh and more expensive because software bundles can't be done anymore.
Its not done because for the majority of users its not a problem.
Ok, apparently your argument is that priority of USA should be building air superiority fighter planes that will probably never be used. In this case don't bring in argument that USA is doing it because it employs people.
Your argument is to wait until a war breaks out before build jets and tanks (and yes, which are better... having inferiour jets and tanks doesn't really deter anyone). Oh, and I didn't say we should be building jets JUST to employ people. I said the money spent on building said jets and tanks DOESN'T DISAPPER INTO THE ETHER. It CONTINUES to contribute to the economy, just like building anything else does. That is the claim I'm refuting; that building a jet DRAINS the economy. It does not.
My point is that USA's resources could be spent on other things. I do agree that capabilities to defend yourself are necessary, but what USA is doing is a major overkill. And spending money on F-22 means less money on rifles, bulletproof vests, training, etc. for the infantry/special forces, that are actually needed in Afghanistan & Iraq.
I don't disagree... however, the claim was that building such things drains the economy and doesn't lead to economic growth... THAT is the point I'm contending, because it clearly DOES contribute to the economy.
And I do think that "education, science, getting us in space, open source software" are things more worth pursuing than strengthening military where it's already strongest by far. For example, education will bring prosperity in the future. Extra F-22s won't.
There needs to be a balance. I don't care how educated you are, if Russia or the Chinese or whoever decide to invade, and you're not strong enough to fight them off, you're not going to be prosperous.
And even keeping money "in the mattress" is not a waste, as it is kept in a bank that reinvests it.
If by re-investing you mean paying record bonuses, after said banks nearly caused our economy to tank, sure. Not that those receiving the bonuses will sit on it either, but a better use of that money would be to have it spread more among more people.
And the thing is, it's up to the shopkeeper to decide what he does with his money, not some goons with stones.
I never said there wasn't a moral problem with goons tossing stones through windows. But the broken glass "fallacy" isn't a fallacy.. a broken window enriches the glazier instead of the baker. Economically speaking, it didn't matter. Morally its another story.... but to say the entire auto repair industry is "draining" the economy is a joke. Money spent fixing things after an accident is still spent, still employees someone, still drives the economy. You might not be able to buy that new TV now, but the auto shop owner might after he fixes your car.
No, you moron. We remember what he wrote back then, because he was right.
As right as any modern day economist.
Wow, you really are that dense.
Please then, explain the difference between repairing a window which simple broke due to age and one that broke because the kid threw a rock through it, economically speaking.
You've done absolutely NOTHING to show I'm wrong... only saying I'm dense. Go ahead, explain it to me.. I doubt you will though, you'll just continue with your moronic appeal to authority and saying I'm dense, without actually refuting any of the points I've raised.
I'll check to see if you actually come up with a refute to any of the points, but somehow I think you're not going to.
I have probably been trolled, but I'll write anyway. Go and actually READ about broken window fallacy.
You're not being trolled, and I HAVE read it. Here's the key point of the fallacy: "As the shopkeeper was forced to spend his money on a new window, he could not spend it on something else. For example, the shopkeeper might have preferred to spend the money on bread and shoes for himself (thus enriching the baker and cobbler), but now cannot because he must fix his window."
That's the main thrust... that he would have prefered to spend his limited resources elsewhere. Because all things being equal, the money is spent.. and you can are that he prefer to keep his money under the mattress, where it does nobody any good. So please explain... why is it "better" to enrich the baker or cobbler than the glazier? And what about the possiblity that he does not spend his money? Why is that ignored?
People working on F-22 are NOT working on education, science, getting us in space, open source software, ending world hunger, etc.
So what? Are those only things worth pursuing? Everything BUT defenese? F22 aside, how is spending money on defense, which keeps other nations from ravaging our country, not something whihc improves our lot? Or is it better to live like Somalia?
Resources spent on F-22 are SPENT, and they could have been put to better use elsewhere.
Yup... they are. You're making a value judgement that somehow a jet isn't worth anything, even though having defenses IS important for a country, yet education is? Oh, and those resources spent is MONEY... which BUY steel from steel refiners, gas from oil companies, pays for people to work, who THEN go and spend on education, open source software, science, ending world hunger (donataions), etc. The money spent DOES NOT VANISH. It spreads BACK into the economy. Why do you think the government is attempting to SPEND on shovel ready projects? To get money circulating again!
Making a choice and spending time/money on something you don't need does NOT improve prosperity. go read about something called Opportunity Cost.
F22 aside, you don't think we NEED to keep an army together? People have been warring since we stood upright, I don't see that changing anytime soon. Until it does, money DOES need to be spent on defense. But saying building an fighter jet is a drain on the economy is stupid... its only stupid to build a plane not being used... but don't act like spending on fighter jets is in and of itself a waste.. its not. The only reason we're not using F22s is because we're not fighting against the traditional state based enemy.
I've often wondered there... are you supposed to pretty much maintain your current lifestyle? What ifyou start working out like a fiend? What if you give up and binge on dounuts? I know the number of participants is supposed to smooth out that... but really, over a year isn't it likely that most participants have made at least one major change in their life?
Get rid of the power strips which only serve to "turn off" cables with only one end attached. The energy you save is like spitting into the ocean to fill it back up. Oh, and some energy WILL be lost simply going through yet another power strip.
The only solution I have would be cable ties; at least the mess is organized... but only if you don't need to take the cable with you.
While "Cloud" computing is here to stay, it is a while off
Cloud computing isn't here to stay. It's the latest buzzword of an industry trying to generate revenue. Whatever happened to SaaS? Oh, still not really here is it? Or "Web Services?" In the end, its just another way to move data around... nothing really revolunatary. But hey, lots of pointed haired people said "OMG our product needs to have / use Web services, it will change everything!" Ya, did it?
Oh, and you got that wrong, too. Go read Bastiat and try to learn something.
Oh, because he wrote something over 100 years ago, it automatically MUST be correct, right? I've read the fallacy many times, and it seems more like a morality commentary than an economic one. I shouldn't be coerced into an action, but that has NOTHING to do with economics.
Or do you propose that we simply throw everything away as soon as it breaks down, because repairs to existing items drain the economy? I guess all those 3rd party auto parts suppliers, plumbers and electrians repairing broken pipes or blown sockets are draiing the country of wealth. My roof leaks, so throw it away and buy a new house right??? THAT will make me wealthy!
Are you really that dense? The F22 program EMPLOYES PEOPLE who turn around AND BUY STUFF, thereby improving THEIR wealth, which increase the wealth of our nation as a whole. Economys can only grow when money is spent; what it's spent on is rather irrelevent.
Breaking a window shifts wealth from the oven maker to the window maker... but it doesn't make "wealth" disappear into thin air. Defense spending in general improves our quality of life, because other countries AREN'T invading us constantly.
Where do you suggest I go for an oil change that will do it in 45 minutes for $25, and will throw in a quick filter cleaning (read: vacuuming) for free?
Ya know, you get what you pay for. But that seems to be the mentality; its cheap, so I'll continue to take it up the ass, yet complain they didn't use lube. I take my car to the deal, because the recommended service is NOT just an oil change... at a minium its an oil change, fluid check, tire rotation and a few other smaller service items.
My car now is over 120,000 miles and seven years old, and the only out of pocket repair I've had was a new transmission sensor, which was $300. Otherwise, its run perfectly, because I mantain it properly.
Oh, and it's Honda, not Dodge:P
Take it to an Acura dealer then; its the same car, and you'll probably find better service, but you would have to be willing to pay a bit more. Like I said, you get what you pay for.
You're going to Jiffy Lube and Dodge dealers... no wonder you're having a crap time.
If your dad is knowledgable enough to knock $1000 of the repair cost, but still goes to a dealer, perhaps your view isn't quite correct.
Oh, and the glass company that replaced your windshield is a whole other industry... experiences with them should have no impact on repair shops.
Re:How many soldiers die if 187 F-22s aren't enoug
on
F-22 Raptor Cancelled
·
· Score: 1
Drop dead. EUROPE created the mess, not the US. Woodrow Willison was against the reperations. You might want to check out the Treaty of Versailles and the US' 14 points.
Oh shut it with that stupid fallacy. The people working on f22s are taking home money, allowing them to spend it on things like homes, cars, food, movies, etc.
The only thing that fallacy shows is that if someone breaks your window, you've lost the choice of where to spend some of your money. But it doesn't drain the economy, as you claim.
Slashdot Mirror
There may have been a drop in the number of horses back in the early 20th century, but for some decades now, horse breeding has been on the increase. And it's not just race or show horses; various kinds of work horses are also being bred
Yes, yes they are. They bred them for the hormones in female horses which is used to make estrongen replacement hormones for human women.
http://www.findings.net/supremarin.html
Well, cursive isn't the only way to write with your hands. Its a fast way to right... but I almost can never read most people's cursive, and these are people older than me. I'd much rather people print when they write with their hands, because it always seems more legible.
Let cursive die, it's time has past.
Apple lawyer will simply instruct judge(s) to type http://www.webkit.org/ and remind them it is open source, even used by their most die-hard competitors in their products. We speak about 100M+ Nokia phones coming with Webkit based browser here.
And the judge would then correctly state "webkit is not a web browser, Safari is," and rule against apple.
"When the only real competition comes from a not for profit open source organization that depends on volunteers for almost half of its work product and nearly all of its marketing and distribution, while more than half a dozen other "traditional" browser vendors with better than I.E. products have had near-zero success encroaching on Microsoft I.E.'s dominance, there's a demonstrable tilt to the playing field. That tilt comes with the distribution channel - default status for the OS bundled Web browser.
What horseshit. Who would pay when there are at least TWO browsers given away for free (Mozilla being one of them... maybe they should start charging as well, to level the playing field for non-free browsers).
Are you saying that criminals shouldn't be punished just because it was a long time ago?
It depends. If its over stealing a pack of gum five years ago, then yes... its not worth the time. It also prevents government from keeping a nice little dossier on you, until you step out of line THEN, hitting you with a charge for something minor 15 years ago... you know, like the Crown was doing around oh 1776.
Actually I got to like IE8 and have since stopped using FF. And in the netbook space, Windows has quickly replaced Linux as the OS, because people were choosing Windows over Linux. I know you believe only idiots use Windows, but the fact is that a good number of people do like it.
I do not know what a burp-tank is
I'm not sure either, but I assume he means the overflow tank.
No, its only racist when aimed at a color!
Hmm... hit a little too close to home?
Apparently they also interfer with satellite radio signals even when two rooms away.
The kid doesn't break the window, then the shopkeeper spends his money on bread, and he has BOTH the bread and the window.
You're assuming he buys bread at all; he may not buy anything at all. Why do you always ignore that option? At any rate, we're not blowing up F22s to justify building more; we're just building new F22s.
If breaking windows was a way to promote economic growth, Germany could have gotten out of the depression by having a Krystallnacht every weekend until they were all rich.
Interesting you brought this up; Germany got out of its recession on militrary spending, you know, building tanks and PLANES, and that's what later brought the US out of the great depression as well.
When the kid breaks the window, the amount of wealth existing in the economy is diminished by the value of the window.
And that's different how than replacing a window simply because it's old and worn?
When money is forcibly extracted from the taxpayers to build F22s, and used to employ people in that pursuit, the society loses the wealth that those people could be creating if they were employed in a productive enterprise.
Replace F22 with roads, public water works, or rail lines, does your argument still hold? How exactly does the society lose wealth?
As I see it, as a society, we now have an F22 (which would be useful, if we actually used it, but for some reason have decided not to, but take focus away from the F22 directly and replace with "fighter jet," I don't see an arguement against building figher jets in general), the people employed building the F22 have money, which they use to increase their wealth (buying a new car, a new DVD, a new oven), the people supplying the steel are also paid, the company supplying the steel may now be able to upgrade its facilities, etc etc. So, how exactly did we lose wealth building something new? In the end its still a net gain.
Your argument seems to be we should focus our economy on building something else. That's a value judgement and you're free to argue that, but to say that we've LOST wealth because we built an F22 instead of something else is stupid.
You have a point on the top of your head, and that certainly can't be refuted.
Whats a matter... you can't make a point so you have to stick with insults? You can contine these jabs all you want... it doesn't help your argument at all, and it makes you look like a jackass baby that can't take that he lost the arguement.
Oh, so you mean you can buy a new computer and have no clue if it will be fully supported by your OS of choice? So that now, in addition to setup, my mom has to install the OS, no recovery, oh and more expensive because software bundles can't be done anymore.
Its not done because for the majority of users its not a problem.
Ok, apparently your argument is that priority of USA should be building air superiority fighter planes that will probably never be used. In this case don't bring in argument that USA is doing it because it employs people.
Your argument is to wait until a war breaks out before build jets and tanks (and yes, which are better... having inferiour jets and tanks doesn't really deter anyone). Oh, and I didn't say we should be building jets JUST to employ people. I said the money spent on building said jets and tanks DOESN'T DISAPPER INTO THE ETHER. It CONTINUES to contribute to the economy, just like building anything else does. That is the claim I'm refuting; that building a jet DRAINS the economy. It does not.
My point is that USA's resources could be spent on other things. I do agree that capabilities to defend yourself are necessary, but what USA is doing is a major overkill. And spending money on F-22 means less money on rifles, bulletproof vests, training, etc. for the infantry/special forces, that are actually needed in Afghanistan & Iraq.
I don't disagree... however, the claim was that building such things drains the economy and doesn't lead to economic growth... THAT is the point I'm contending, because it clearly DOES contribute to the economy.
And I do think that "education, science, getting us in space, open source software" are things more worth pursuing than strengthening military where it's already strongest by far. For example, education will bring prosperity in the future. Extra F-22s won't.
There needs to be a balance. I don't care how educated you are, if Russia or the Chinese or whoever decide to invade, and you're not strong enough to fight them off, you're not going to be prosperous.
And even keeping money "in the mattress" is not a waste, as it is kept in a bank that reinvests it.
If by re-investing you mean paying record bonuses, after said banks nearly caused our economy to tank, sure. Not that those receiving the bonuses will sit on it either, but a better use of that money would be to have it spread more among more people.
And the thing is, it's up to the shopkeeper to decide what he does with his money, not some goons with stones.
I never said there wasn't a moral problem with goons tossing stones through windows. But the broken glass "fallacy" isn't a fallacy.. a broken window enriches the glazier instead of the baker. Economically speaking, it didn't matter. Morally its another story.... but to say the entire auto repair industry is "draining" the economy is a joke. Money spent fixing things after an accident is still spent, still employees someone, still drives the economy. You might not be able to buy that new TV now, but the auto shop owner might after he fixes your car.
No, you moron. We remember what he wrote back then, because he was right.
As right as any modern day economist.
Wow, you really are that dense.
Please then, explain the difference between repairing a window which simple broke due to age and one that broke because the kid threw a rock through it, economically speaking.
You've done absolutely NOTHING to show I'm wrong... only saying I'm dense. Go ahead, explain it to me.. I doubt you will though, you'll just continue with your moronic appeal to authority and saying I'm dense, without actually refuting any of the points I've raised.
I'll check to see if you actually come up with a refute to any of the points, but somehow I think you're not going to.
I have probably been trolled, but I'll write anyway. Go and actually READ about broken window fallacy.
You're not being trolled, and I HAVE read it. Here's the key point of the fallacy: "As the shopkeeper was forced to spend his money on a new window, he could not spend it on something else. For example, the shopkeeper might have preferred to spend the money on bread and shoes for himself (thus enriching the baker and cobbler), but now cannot because he must fix his window."
That's the main thrust... that he would have prefered to spend his limited resources elsewhere. Because all things being equal, the money is spent.. and you can are that he prefer to keep his money under the mattress, where it does nobody any good. So please explain... why is it "better" to enrich the baker or cobbler than the glazier? And what about the possiblity that he does not spend his money? Why is that ignored?
People working on F-22 are NOT working on education, science, getting us in space, open source software, ending world hunger, etc.
So what? Are those only things worth pursuing? Everything BUT defenese? F22 aside, how is spending money on defense, which keeps other nations from ravaging our country, not something whihc improves our lot? Or is it better to live like Somalia?
Resources spent on F-22 are SPENT, and they could have been put to better use elsewhere.
Yup... they are. You're making a value judgement that somehow a jet isn't worth anything, even though having defenses IS important for a country, yet education is? Oh, and those resources spent is MONEY... which BUY steel from steel refiners, gas from oil companies, pays for people to work, who THEN go and spend on education, open source software, science, ending world hunger (donataions), etc. The money spent DOES NOT VANISH. It spreads BACK into the economy. Why do you think the government is attempting to SPEND on shovel ready projects? To get money circulating again!
Making a choice and spending time/money on something you don't need does NOT improve prosperity. go read about something called Opportunity Cost.
F22 aside, you don't think we NEED to keep an army together? People have been warring since we stood upright, I don't see that changing anytime soon. Until it does, money DOES need to be spent on defense. But saying building an fighter jet is a drain on the economy is stupid... its only stupid to build a plane not being used... but don't act like spending on fighter jets is in and of itself a waste.. its not. The only reason we're not using F22s is because we're not fighting against the traditional state based enemy.
I've often wondered there... are you supposed to pretty much maintain your current lifestyle? What ifyou start working out like a fiend? What if you give up and binge on dounuts? I know the number of participants is supposed to smooth out that... but really, over a year isn't it likely that most participants have made at least one major change in their life?
Get rid of the power strips which only serve to "turn off" cables with only one end attached. The energy you save is like spitting into the ocean to fill it back up. Oh, and some energy WILL be lost simply going through yet another power strip.
The only solution I have would be cable ties; at least the mess is organized... but only if you don't need to take the cable with you.
While "Cloud" computing is here to stay, it is a while off
Cloud computing isn't here to stay. It's the latest buzzword of an industry trying to generate revenue. Whatever happened to SaaS? Oh, still not really here is it? Or "Web Services?" In the end, its just another way to move data around... nothing really revolunatary. But hey, lots of pointed haired people said "OMG our product needs to have / use Web services, it will change everything!" Ya, did it?
Oh, and you got that wrong, too. Go read Bastiat and try to learn something.
Oh, because he wrote something over 100 years ago, it automatically MUST be correct, right? I've read the fallacy many times, and it seems more like a morality commentary than an economic one. I shouldn't be coerced into an action, but that has NOTHING to do with economics.
Or do you propose that we simply throw everything away as soon as it breaks down, because repairs to existing items drain the economy? I guess all those 3rd party auto parts suppliers, plumbers and electrians repairing broken pipes or blown sockets are draiing the country of wealth. My roof leaks, so throw it away and buy a new house right??? THAT will make me wealthy!
Are you really that dense? The F22 program EMPLOYES PEOPLE who turn around AND BUY STUFF, thereby improving THEIR wealth, which increase the wealth of our nation as a whole. Economys can only grow when money is spent; what it's spent on is rather irrelevent.
Breaking a window shifts wealth from the oven maker to the window maker... but it doesn't make "wealth" disappear into thin air. Defense spending in general improves our quality of life, because other countries AREN'T invading us constantly.
Where do you suggest I go for an oil change that will do it in 45 minutes for $25, and will throw in a quick filter cleaning (read: vacuuming) for free?
Ya know, you get what you pay for. But that seems to be the mentality; its cheap, so I'll continue to take it up the ass, yet complain they didn't use lube. I take my car to the deal, because the recommended service is NOT just an oil change... at a minium its an oil change, fluid check, tire rotation and a few other smaller service items.
My car now is over 120,000 miles and seven years old, and the only out of pocket repair I've had was a new transmission sensor, which was $300. Otherwise, its run perfectly, because I mantain it properly.
Oh, and it's Honda, not Dodge :P
Take it to an Acura dealer then; its the same car, and you'll probably find better service, but you would have to be willing to pay a bit more. Like I said, you get what you pay for.
You're going to Jiffy Lube and Dodge dealers... no wonder you're having a crap time.
If your dad is knowledgable enough to knock $1000 of the repair cost, but still goes to a dealer, perhaps your view isn't quite correct.
Oh, and the glass company that replaced your windshield is a whole other industry... experiences with them should have no impact on repair shops.
Drop dead. EUROPE created the mess, not the US. Woodrow Willison was against the reperations. You might want to check out the Treaty of Versailles and the US' 14 points.
Oh shut it with that stupid fallacy. The people working on f22s are taking home money, allowing them to spend it on things like homes, cars, food, movies, etc.
The only thing that fallacy shows is that if someone breaks your window, you've lost the choice of where to spend some of your money. But it doesn't drain the economy, as you claim.