That doesn't invalidate the theory at all, it simply implies that real-world markets are never perfectly competitive, which is utterly surprising in an imperfect world. (Good thing, too, because improving the world's imperfections is what makes business possible.) The theory simply states that as they approach perfect competition, profits approach zero, even if they never reach it. Think of it as an asymptote. The theory describes a relationship to competition and profits, that's all.
What source? There are basically only three people involved here: Manning, Lamo, and Poulsen. If third parties are mentioned in the chats between Manning and Lamo, Poulsen is under no journalistic obligation to protect those identities because they are not sources. At the very least he could at least verify the veracity of the public revelations of his compatriot, Lamos.
Actually, excepting the current economic slump, manufacturing output has been steadily increasing, not decreasing. It only seems like the reverse is true because (1) productivity has gone way up, meaning fewer workers are required, and (2) other sectors of the economy have grown much faster, reducing the contribution of manufacturing to the GDP.
The church, as a collective, owns only the donations, *never* the means of production, so calling it "socialism" is not appropriate. The word "charity" describes it much more accurately.
And for the record, encouragement of private charity is nothing like socialism, so there is no inherent hypocrisy in simultaneously advocating FOR government promotion of private charity and AGAINST government ownership of the means of production.
No, the term "socialism" was invented in the 19th century pretty much specifically to describe what the dictionary definitions state (ideas which, incidentally, were explicitly humanist, not "grown out of centuries of Christian charity"). Things like "altruism" and "charity" have been around much longer and have more appropriate words to describe them than "socialism." You are attempting to broaden the term beyond its original definition specifically for the purpose of rehabilitating the ideas it was invented to describe.
It's hard to blame NASA - their lack of focus and even their bureaucratic sloth is largely attributable to the micromanagement of Congress. Being a government agency is good for billions of dollars but not for efficiency. That is why SpaceX is eating NASA's lunch when it comes to getting things into space efficiently.
socialism noun \s-sh-li-zm\ Definition of SOCIALISM
1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods 2 a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state 3 : a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done
Now, I can't speak about how people outside the USA use the term "socialism," but I do know me some dictionary definitions, and if they are using it to describe simple acts of community charity, that's certainly at odds with the *dictionary.*
Wouldn't a *direct* quote be, "the only winning move is not to play?"
Re:Already wrote about this in my journal
on
Tron: Legacy
·
· Score: 1
But like the original Tron, it is less about "plot" and more about "ideas" and "experience." In fact, I was surprised how restrained it was in its use of action.
Consider 2001: it was widely panned for its slow, plodding plot when it was released - and considered on its own, can you argue the *plot* is interesting or very comprehensible? But the film overall is a masterpiece because of the meticulous otherworldly experience it provides and the interesting ideas it ponders.
I'm not saying Tron:Legacy is a masterpiece on the same order as 2001: A Space Odyssey, but I think it succeeds as the same kind of movie, and the same people that hate 2001 will hate Tron:Legacy.
Re:A worthy successor
on
Tron: Legacy
·
· Score: 1
No, you definitely are not.
*Some say* that he's actually the *good* twin. And that his program was written in *Visual Basic!* All we know is, he's called the "Rinzler!"
Nope, that actually was the current Chrome at the time of the test. If you are going to criticize another organization for being slipshod with the facts, it helps to make sure your own facts are correct.
I don't buy R&D as an externality. NASA itself has all the same benefit - actually moreso, since who knows what hasn't been publicly released? - and yet hasn't been able to come anywhere close to being as efficient at this basic task as SpaceX. Ditto for the big MIC contractors. Very likely this is due to both bureaucratic and political hamstringing, not anything deficient about NASA personnel per se, but that sort of proves my basic point.
And when it comes to dumping costs off elsewhere, you can't be serious. Government agencies are the most notorious entities ever for dumping their costs elsewhere; either on other agencies or on the taxpayers. Private corporations, in their wildest dreams, could not externalize more costs than a government agency on its best day.
It's both free-market genius AND luck of adequate funding, actually, because the funding they WERE given by the non-free market wouldn't be anywhere near enough for the same amount of progress if given to other agencies, and especially if given to NASA. Not to be unduly critical of NASA, but one thing they definitely are not is efficient.
P.S. Does anybody know why I can't copy and paste text from the comments into the reply box, in Chrome on Win7? They copy works - I can paste into e.g. Notepad, but pasting into the reply box doesn't work.
Slashdot Mirror
"OS"
What would be the obvious name for a store that sells apps?
A restaurant! And after my app, the entree!
That doesn't invalidate the theory at all, it simply implies that real-world markets are never perfectly competitive, which is utterly surprising in an imperfect world. (Good thing, too, because improving the world's imperfections is what makes business possible.) The theory simply states that as they approach perfect competition, profits approach zero, even if they never reach it. Think of it as an asymptote. The theory describes a relationship to competition and profits, that's all.
For the record participants in Operation CHAOS voted for Clinton.
I may not like or agree with the vast majority of what Reagan said, but I've watched his speeches and can respect that there was intelligence there
Yup, and her name was Peggy Noonan.
Your level-headed calm-mongering is not wanted here, don't you know that? If there isn't an apocalypse at stake, we're not interested!
What source? There are basically only three people involved here: Manning, Lamo, and Poulsen. If third parties are mentioned in the chats between Manning and Lamo, Poulsen is under no journalistic obligation to protect those identities because they are not sources. At the very least he could at least verify the veracity of the public revelations of his compatriot, Lamos.
Actually, excepting the current economic slump, manufacturing output has been steadily increasing, not decreasing. It only seems like the reverse is true because (1) productivity has gone way up, meaning fewer workers are required, and (2) other sectors of the economy have grown much faster, reducing the contribution of manufacturing to the GDP.
HTH, HAND.
Specifically, it is a high-speed, state-of-the-art rumor mill.
The church, as a collective, owns only the donations, *never* the means of production, so calling it "socialism" is not appropriate. The word "charity" describes it much more accurately.
And for the record, encouragement of private charity is nothing like socialism, so there is no inherent hypocrisy in simultaneously advocating FOR government promotion of private charity and AGAINST government ownership of the means of production.
No, the term "socialism" was invented in the 19th century pretty much specifically to describe what the dictionary definitions state (ideas which, incidentally, were explicitly humanist, not "grown out of centuries of Christian charity"). Things like "altruism" and "charity" have been around much longer and have more appropriate words to describe them than "socialism." You are attempting to broaden the term beyond its original definition specifically for the purpose of rehabilitating the ideas it was invented to describe.
It's hard to blame NASA - their lack of focus and even their bureaucratic sloth is largely attributable to the micromanagement of Congress. Being a government agency is good for billions of dollars but not for efficiency. That is why SpaceX is eating NASA's lunch when it comes to getting things into space efficiently.
socialism noun \s-sh-li-zm\
Definition of SOCIALISM
1
: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2
a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property
b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3
: a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done
Now, I can't speak about how people outside the USA use the term "socialism," but I do know me some dictionary definitions, and if they are using it to describe simple acts of community charity, that's certainly at odds with the *dictionary.*
Wouldn't a *direct* quote be, "the only winning move is not to play?"
But like the original Tron, it is less about "plot" and more about "ideas" and "experience." In fact, I was surprised how restrained it was in its use of action.
Consider 2001: it was widely panned for its slow, plodding plot when it was released - and considered on its own, can you argue the *plot* is interesting or very comprehensible? But the film overall is a masterpiece because of the meticulous otherworldly experience it provides and the interesting ideas it ponders.
I'm not saying Tron:Legacy is a masterpiece on the same order as 2001: A Space Odyssey, but I think it succeeds as the same kind of movie, and the same people that hate 2001 will hate Tron:Legacy.
No, you definitely are not.
*Some say* that he's actually the *good* twin. And that his program was written in *Visual Basic!* All we know is, he's called the "Rinzler!"
El-Whoooosho
Back then, the cake really *was* a lie.
Nope, that actually was the current Chrome at the time of the test. If you are going to criticize another organization for being slipshod with the facts, it helps to make sure your own facts are correct.
I don't buy R&D as an externality. NASA itself has all the same benefit - actually moreso, since who knows what hasn't been publicly released? - and yet hasn't been able to come anywhere close to being as efficient at this basic task as SpaceX. Ditto for the big MIC contractors. Very likely this is due to both bureaucratic and political hamstringing, not anything deficient about NASA personnel per se, but that sort of proves my basic point.
And when it comes to dumping costs off elsewhere, you can't be serious. Government agencies are the most notorious entities ever for dumping their costs elsewhere; either on other agencies or on the taxpayers. Private corporations, in their wildest dreams, could not externalize more costs than a government agency on its best day.
It's both free-market genius AND luck of adequate funding, actually, because the funding they WERE given by the non-free market wouldn't be anywhere near enough for the same amount of progress if given to other agencies, and especially if given to NASA. Not to be unduly critical of NASA, but one thing they definitely are not is efficient.
P.S. Does anybody know why I can't copy and paste text from the comments into the reply box, in Chrome on Win7? They copy works - I can paste into e.g. Notepad, but pasting into the reply box doesn't work.
There are a number, I believe, because it was based on real theoretical biochemistry. This is the one that came to mind first:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Talking_Stone
That would be great! A shopping mall in international waters, no taxes, no restrictions! You could have gambling too, with blackjack! And hookers!
In fact, forget the shopping mall, and the blackjack!
+1 Flying Circus
That's not necessary. Just make straitjackets part of the school uniform. Let the kids show some pride with their letterman straitjacket!