Breeders. That's an actual job title at many seed companies.
Who decides what is a better product - the shinier fruit or the ones are walking down the field?
Usually they pick a particular trait that they would like to develop, preferably one that's easy to test for. They measure plants in the field, measure their output, scan the resulting product with near-infrared spectroscopy or nuclear magnetic resonance scans to find composition, and even look at genetic markers. Then they ship the seed for the next generation to be planted somewhere warm to shorten the generation time. Monsanto and Syngenta have labs a short drive from where I live that do NIR, MR, and PCR/marker testing for breeders, and there are lots of small fields full of odd-looking plants around here.
If a company can replace a person with a machine [and save money], they will do it because it is best for their bottom line. If they can ship jobs overseas and save money they will do it.
Exactly! So when someone is forced to pay a higher wage it makes it more likely that they will take advantage of other options.
You can't take the janitor... and ship that job to China
You don't think it's possible to replace some janitors with "mop and wax" versions of Roomba, Teflon coatings, and by making employees empty their own trash?
or cashier and ship that job to China
You can buy automated "self checkout" systems from China. I'm pretty sure that if wages go up enough stores will turn into giant vending machines.
[1] There are, of course, many who make their wealth by rigging the system to keep competition out or via other mechanisms such as exclusive rights or privileges to government contracts, etc. Wealth obtained this way is illegitimate. It is not mutually beneficial, such as those exchanges that occur on the free market.
If this is the best evidence that people (on both sides) can give me I'm going to have to stay neutral. Give me peer reviewed material from several sources and I'll be convinced, but usually the only reason to reference an article in Salon is because you don't have anything better.
Which is exactly why this may be a fascinating language. Even if it's completely absurd and impractical, whatever ideas he's cooking up may at least be entertaining and/or thought-provoking.
I'd have to be insane to believe everything I've read on an internet forum.
So you mean my date isn't a French model???
While you won't get any money from the Nigerian prince, and your penis will never be any more impressive than it is now, your date really is a French bodybuilding model. But be warned, he likes to play rough.
Not showing an effect would be a negative, how do you expect someone to prove a negative?
I don't, it was a rhetorical question. IOW: If you can't prove a negative, you shouldn't claim a negative.
But to bring this out of nitpick-land - I'd take almost anything reliable as evidence that an example hasn't been found.
I'm not saying he's right, I'm saying that you and you need to prove the positive.
No I don't, I haven't made a claim.
Again, to avoid the nitpick - If this is true, I'd like to know it's true to a reasonable degree of certainty. I'd have to be insane to believe everything I've read on an internet forum.
Driving is pretty saturated (note short term stiffness in gasoline demand) so it seems unlikely this is important.
While that's true in the short term, I don't think that many effects from CAFE standards would be described as 'short term'. There's no reason that demand can't be inelastic in the short term (filling up) and elastic in the long term (auto purchases).
And, the effect has never been shown to increase demand...
Never? That's quite an assertion you've got there, son. Care to let the rest of us in on your sources?
It's not fracking, that caused Iranians not to export crude, it's that little thing called sanctions. - Says one person
'I think it's pretty clear that without the U.S. shale revolution, it never would have been possible to put this kind of embargo on Iran,' - Says someone else, who has a political agenda.
Well, clearly the first person had to be wrong. There's no other explanation.
One person said: "Wages in the US are amongst the top of ANY other country."
Which is true.
Another person said: "No."
Which is a false.
The fact that you came up with a much more intelligent response, pointing out that that fact wasn't that important, and has to be interpreted in light of other facts, doesn't mean that the original statement was incorrect.
Throwing money into a broken system doesn't magically stop the broken system being broken.
I agree completely, but that doesn't change the fact that they really are throwing the most money (per capita) into their system.
My point was the no matter how bad their system is or what issue you look at, a general lack of money can't possibly be at the root of the problem, because every society in the history of the world has managed to get by with less.
Possibly because they read the correct wikipedia article...
I'm sorry, but I tried to make clear that I was not talking about outcomes at all, only spending. The fact that the US's literacy rate sucks doesn't mean that they didn't spend the money.
As you note, they'll soon be making $100+k per year. Creditors and a bankruptcy judge would have that in mind.
You'd think so, but in some actual cases that didn't happen, and students managed to walk away from significant debt with very valuable degrees. Which is why the law was changed in the first place (or at least that was the argument that was used to sell it).
But I do agree with you in that a less drastic 'tweak' to the law would have been wiser.
Without student loans the price of education will have to fall if the universities want to not be empty.
Sure, but they probably still won't be cheap enough for students to work their way through (at least not in a normal time frame), so the educational class divide would become even more pronounced.
Again, I'm not against the idea, I just want to make sure that when you guys have a chance to change the law you have a plan to handle the negative side effects.
And yes, I think the exclusion for student loans should be taken out of bankruptcy law.
Which is fine, but how do you solve the problem of students defaulting en masse upon graduation, leading to no more student loans being made? IOW: What's my incentive to give a half-million dollars to someone in their early 20s when they have zero incentive (outside of a sense of honor or credit score damage) to repay it? I can't repo their diploma or their brain, and for someone soon to be making >$100K a low credit score isn't that threatening.
Yes. Yes. Yes. I really don't understand how someone could be so certain of facts that they are so incorrect about:
Education
According to a 2005 report from the OECD, the United States is tied for first place with Switzerland when it comes to annual spending per student on its public schools, with each of those two countries spending more than $11,000.
Health
According to the World Health Organization (WHO), the United States spent more on health care per capita ($8,608), and more on health care as percentage of its GDP (17.2%), than any other nation in 2011.
Wages
Rank: 1
Country: United States
Disposable USD 2011: 42,050
Gross USD2011: 54,450
Outcomes may be worse than other countries, but when it comes to those three things, we really are #1.
Slashdot Mirror
Often. People have been patenting varieties of plants and animals for some time now.
Monsanto owns the patent on this technique, but has promised not to use it.
Uh huh. Yer right. It isn't necessary to continue reading after that one.
What? You think they're secretly using it, and nobody noticed?
So the farmer uses more and nastier chemicals on ther plants, and you wind up eating more nasty chemicals.
Traits like the Roundup Ready one actually reduce the use of herbicides and let farmers use safer herbicides. I can go into more detail if you want.
Haven't you seen the studies of lab rats, etc who have been feed gmo corn? They look horrible.
Of course they do, they start with rats that have been bred to be susceptible to tumors - most of them will look horrible on any diet.
Who does the selection (that's the hard part)?
Breeders. That's an actual job title at many seed companies.
Who decides what is a better product - the shinier fruit or the ones are walking down the field?
Usually they pick a particular trait that they would like to develop, preferably one that's easy to test for. They measure plants in the field, measure their output, scan the resulting product with near-infrared spectroscopy or nuclear magnetic resonance scans to find composition, and even look at genetic markers. Then they ship the seed for the next generation to be planted somewhere warm to shorten the generation time. Monsanto and Syngenta have labs a short drive from where I live that do NIR, MR, and PCR/marker testing for breeders, and there are lots of small fields full of odd-looking plants around here.
If a company can replace a person with a machine [and save money], they will do it because it is best for their bottom line. If they can ship jobs overseas and save money they will do it.
Exactly! So when someone is forced to pay a higher wage it makes it more likely that they will take advantage of other options.
You can't take the janitor ... and ship that job to China
You don't think it's possible to replace some janitors with "mop and wax" versions of Roomba, Teflon coatings, and by making employees empty their own trash?
or cashier and ship that job to China
You can buy automated "self checkout" systems from China. I'm pretty sure that if wages go up enough stores will turn into giant vending machines.
[1] There are, of course, many who make their wealth by rigging the system to keep competition out or via other mechanisms such as exclusive rights or privileges to government contracts, etc. Wealth obtained this way is illegitimate. It is not mutually beneficial, such as those exchanges that occur on the free market.
The government already sticks its nose into the personal business of every citizen...
Is your argument that because government does one thing that is wrong it's OK if it does other things that are wrong? Really?
If this is the best evidence that people (on both sides) can give me I'm going to have to stay neutral. Give me peer reviewed material from several sources and I'll be convinced, but usually the only reason to reference an article in Salon is because you don't have anything better.
Which is exactly why this may be a fascinating language. Even if it's completely absurd and impractical, whatever ideas he's cooking up may at least be entertaining and/or thought-provoking.
So a bit like Lisp?
I'm saying you must have done something ... *something* that he didn't like the look of.
He was born black?
I'd have to be insane to believe everything I've read on an internet forum.
So you mean my date isn't a French model???
While you won't get any money from the Nigerian prince, and your penis will never be any more impressive than it is now, your date really is a French bodybuilding model. But be warned, he likes to play rough.
Not showing an effect would be a negative, how do you expect someone to prove a negative?
I don't, it was a rhetorical question. IOW: If you can't prove a negative, you shouldn't claim a negative.
But to bring this out of nitpick-land - I'd take almost anything reliable as evidence that an example hasn't been found.
I'm not saying he's right, I'm saying that you and you need to prove the positive.
No I don't, I haven't made a claim.
Again, to avoid the nitpick - If this is true, I'd like to know it's true to a reasonable degree of certainty. I'd have to be insane to believe everything I've read on an internet forum.
Driving is pretty saturated (note short term stiffness in gasoline demand) so it seems unlikely this is important.
While that's true in the short term, I don't think that many effects from CAFE standards would be described as 'short term'. There's no reason that demand can't be inelastic in the short term (filling up) and elastic in the long term (auto purchases).
And, the effect has never been shown to increase demand...
Never? That's quite an assertion you've got there, son. Care to let the rest of us in on your sources?
It's not fracking, that caused Iranians not to export crude, it's that little thing called sanctions. - Says one person
'I think it's pretty clear that without the U.S. shale revolution, it never would have been possible to put this kind of embargo on Iran,' - Says someone else, who has a political agenda.
Well, clearly the first person had to be wrong. There's no other explanation.
One person said: "Wages in the US are amongst the top of ANY other country."
Which is true.
Another person said: "No."
Which is a false.
The fact that you came up with a much more intelligent response, pointing out that that fact wasn't that important, and has to be interpreted in light of other facts, doesn't mean that the original statement was incorrect.
Throwing money into a broken system doesn't magically stop the broken system being broken.
I agree completely, but that doesn't change the fact that they really are throwing the most money (per capita) into their system.
My point was the no matter how bad their system is or what issue you look at, a general lack of money can't possibly be at the root of the problem, because every society in the history of the world has managed to get by with less.
Possibly because they read the correct wikipedia article...
I'm sorry, but I tried to make clear that I was not talking about outcomes at all, only spending. The fact that the US's literacy rate sucks doesn't mean that they didn't spend the money.
As you note, they'll soon be making $100+k per year. Creditors and a bankruptcy judge would have that in mind.
You'd think so, but in some actual cases that didn't happen, and students managed to walk away from significant debt with very valuable degrees. Which is why the law was changed in the first place (or at least that was the argument that was used to sell it).
But I do agree with you in that a less drastic 'tweak' to the law would have been wiser.
Without student loans the price of education will have to fall if the universities want to not be empty.
Sure, but they probably still won't be cheap enough for students to work their way through (at least not in a normal time frame), so the educational class divide would become even more pronounced.
Again, I'm not against the idea, I just want to make sure that when you guys have a chance to change the law you have a plan to handle the negative side effects.
And yes, I think the exclusion for student loans should be taken out of bankruptcy law.
Which is fine, but how do you solve the problem of students defaulting en masse upon graduation, leading to no more student loans being made? IOW: What's my incentive to give a half-million dollars to someone in their early 20s when they have zero incentive (outside of a sense of honor or credit score damage) to repay it? I can't repo their diploma or their brain, and for someone soon to be making >$100K a low credit score isn't that threatening.
Yes. Yes. Yes. I really don't understand how someone could be so certain of facts that they are so incorrect about:
Education
According to a 2005 report from the OECD, the United States is tied for first place with Switzerland when it comes to annual spending per student on its public schools, with each of those two countries spending more than $11,000.
Health
According to the World Health Organization (WHO), the United States spent more on health care per capita ($8,608), and more on health care as percentage of its GDP (17.2%), than any other nation in 2011.
Wages
Rank: 1
Country: United States
Disposable USD 2011: 42,050
Gross USD2011: 54,450
Outcomes may be worse than other countries, but when it comes to those three things, we really are #1.
What? You think that kids health doesn't get messed up by of coal?
Basically: If the first part of the Bible is allegory or just made up, then why can't the entire Bible be taken the same way?
For many young earth creationists admitting any error or allowing for an allegorical interpretation undermines their entire worldview.
What makes this case different? The fact that you would like it to be true?
It's claiming that the total value of all of its assets are more than the total amount of money that exists. What's wrong with that?