Exactly what statement did I make which reflect a poor knowledge of the field ? I don't claim to be very knowledgeable at all in that field, but I don't think you have a point here.
I am not sure what you are arguing. Are you for or against government control in those issues?
Ah, it should be irrelevant to my post which is purely descriptive, but yeah I'm against it.
That fishing example you gave. You seem to be saying that removing those quotas will somehow solve overfishing? And that trusting companies that only care about short term profits will work better? Or that letting fishermen who can barely make a living because there is too many of them handle this problem will work better than actual strict quotas?
No. Imagine you're in a car. The government ties your foot to the gas pedal. Since you start to become reckless, they say you need regulation and tie your foot to the break pedal. Best would be to let you drive, but it doesn't mean that untying the break is the best idea.
The problem for fishing is lack of property rights. Quotas needs to be removed, while at the same time allowing fishers to claim exclusive fishing rights over the part of the sea that they use and defend. It can include building habitat, breeding fish on site, etc. It's not perfect, fish can move, it's hard to define what constitutes a legitimate claim, but it's far better than the real world application of government control.
Do you think that the companies who created CFC cared about the ozone hole? They only started looking into new products because it would be more damaging for them to break the law by using more cfc rather than changing to something less damaging.
If they had been strictly liable for damages caused by UV radiation, they would. Property rights internalize externalities. The solution is probably a mix of property rights and tort law.
It's a common economic mistake. Many companies which end up very profitable do not make a penny for many years, yet their stock price appreciates with time, providing entrepreneurs with short term return.
The real issue with the number 1000 is not that people expect immediate return, it's rather that all the profits of the enterprise must be discounted by compounding interest over a 1000 years, we're talking 10^-30.
It's not a statement about greedy investors, it's just that us, as human beings, are on average not that much concerned about the future. If we were very long sighted we would be consuming very little, saving a lot which would drive the interest rate down a lot and make this project more profitable.
It doesn't mean that it's truly a good thing though. If human beings really loved chocolate, we would produce much more chocolate and much less peanut butter. Same goes for long term / short term projects. I want to have the hope of seeing human beings live on Mars someday but I also want pizza tonight.
It could be also that our preference reflects the best technological course. It might be best to invest in technology bringing down the time from 1000 years to 100 years after 10 year of research. Maybe true IA would be a much faster path than current technological solution.
Deforestation of the Amazon for example is linked to the fact that only temporary lease can be obtained instead of property rights. An owner has an incentive to maintain the property value, a tenant doesn't care.
Similarly overfishing is only a problem due to lack of property rights, replaced by clumsy governmental quota.
Pollution should be recognized as a tort and owners compensated appropriately. In some cases this can be difficult, if anthropogenic global warming is indeed an issue it is very difficult to evaluate individual responsibilities (not to say that governmental solutions are better, they're likely worse).
It may be time to put NASA brains working for the private sector, following price signals instead of vague planning, and tax dollars back in banks^H^H^H^H^H people's pocket.
I'd love to live and see at least the beginning of terraformation of Mars but I don't see it happening without a business plan.
I don't even think they were bred for stupidity, it's just that they were bred with no preference for stupidity or intelligence, it's irrelevant to reproductive success. The rest is just natural genetic drift.
They can make weightless porn in a parabolic flight (the vomit comet) in front of a green screen. After that, adding a space background is piece of cake. Much cheaper than $1,000,000. Shit, have I just disclosed the best business plan on earth.
I don't think it is anecdotal to note that the correlation between the right-wing and military has not, historically, in this country and many others been stable.
They took 46 people, 46, showed them picture of bloody face, and noticed a link with the current divide between left and right wing.
How significant, I'm overwhelmed.
True I am a random guy, but the viewpoint I am pushing (the null hypothesis) is much more likely than theirs, thus you might have a greater reason to trust me.
I think being startled has much more to do with the ability to concentrate than with fear.
I am the most startled person I know... If I am concentrating on something, I make a total vacuum, I block all my senses... if at that point I am distracted by someone I will jump a foot in the air and scream. I don't consider myself fearful though.
Right wing in the US has, for most of its existence, been isolationist and thus favored less military rather than more. I don't believe there's any connection.
1) What makes Ubuntu great and cheap is precisely the fact that it resists putting copyright protected software. This is a bad move. It would be much better if the codec were sold separately by a different entity than canonical.
2) Capitalism is about private ownership of the means of production, not about government enforced laws of copyrights. Many radical advocates of capitalism oppose IP laws.
3) Where do you see capitalism being the state religion ? Are you joking ? As we speak the state is bailing out the whole economy. The state hates capitalism, if we have a bit of capitalism, it is merely because a parasite has to let its host thrive to feed itself.
In any case, even if it were true, so what if hundreds of millions of people died? That's the point of totalitarian collectivism- it doesn't matter if individuals die, as long as they serve the State in doing so
Doesn't prove much, I think many people carrying knives do so because they know they are more prone to be attacked. Besides, it doesn't say how many times the knife was useful. If you are attacked 10 times, thwart 9 attacks thanks knife and get it used against you once, it puts you in the list of the 65%, although you benefited from the knife.
Society doesn't exist, it has no will, no values, no interest, only individuals are real. The whole idea of "value to society" is simply meaningless.
You are advocating pure totalitarian collectivism, an ideology responsible for the death of hundred of million of people during this century. Muse upon it.
You got it the other way around... it's not about "permitting" people to carry weapon. As long as you do not assault anyone, nobody has the right to tell you what you may or may not carry, even if they're wearing a colorful uniform.
academic journals are peer-reviewed, and usually there's plenty of original data available, so you can repeat the experiments or statistics to see if you get the same result.
And why would you trust academics ? The process you are describing is precisely the one the parent denies is possible without people being educated. The point I am making is that sourcing knowledge using trust and reputation does not depend on people being educated, it's the other way around.
Slashdot Mirror
Brazilian, thanks for asking.
Exactly what statement did I make which reflect a poor knowledge of the field ? I don't claim to be very knowledgeable at all in that field, but I don't think you have a point here.
Ah, it should be irrelevant to my post which is purely descriptive, but yeah I'm against it.
No. Imagine you're in a car. The government ties your foot to the gas pedal. Since you start to become reckless, they say you need regulation and tie your foot to the break pedal. Best would be to let you drive, but it doesn't mean that untying the break is the best idea.
The problem for fishing is lack of property rights. Quotas needs to be removed, while at the same time allowing fishers to claim exclusive fishing rights over the part of the sea that they use and defend. It can include building habitat, breeding fish on site, etc. It's not perfect, fish can move, it's hard to define what constitutes a legitimate claim, but it's far better than the real world application of government control.
If they had been strictly liable for damages caused by UV radiation, they would. Property rights internalize externalities. The solution is probably a mix of property rights and tort law.
It's a common economic mistake. Many companies which end up very profitable do not make a penny for many years, yet their stock price appreciates with time, providing entrepreneurs with short term return.
The real issue with the number 1000 is not that people expect immediate return, it's rather that all the profits of the enterprise must be discounted by compounding interest over a 1000 years, we're talking 10^-30.
It's not a statement about greedy investors, it's just that us, as human beings, are on average not that much concerned about the future. If we were very long sighted we would be consuming very little, saving a lot which would drive the interest rate down a lot and make this project more profitable.
It doesn't mean that it's truly a good thing though. If human beings really loved chocolate, we would produce much more chocolate and much less peanut butter. Same goes for long term / short term projects. I want to have the hope of seeing human beings live on Mars someday but I also want pizza tonight.
It could be also that our preference reflects the best technological course. It might be best to invest in technology bringing down the time from 1000 years to 100 years after 10 year of research. Maybe true IA would be a much faster path than current technological solution.
Deforestation of the Amazon for example is linked to the fact that only temporary lease can be obtained instead of property rights. An owner has an incentive to maintain the property value, a tenant doesn't care.
Similarly overfishing is only a problem due to lack of property rights, replaced by clumsy governmental quota.
Pollution should be recognized as a tort and owners compensated appropriately. In some cases this can be difficult, if anthropogenic global warming is indeed an issue it is very difficult to evaluate individual responsibilities (not to say that governmental solutions are better, they're likely worse).
Than banking industry is NOT free market, the rent of money is set by the Federal reserve, you need a license to do banking... where do I start ?
Most environmental problems can be traced back to state intervention and lack of property rights. Not all, but most.
As for space colonization, it's the best bet against catastrophic events. Redundant systems are good.
It may be time to put NASA brains working for the private sector, following price signals instead of vague planning, and tax dollars back in banks^H^H^H^H^H people's pocket.
I'd love to live and see at least the beginning of terraformation of Mars but I don't see it happening without a business plan.
... the girls own their body, the parents own the car. See the difference ?
I don't even think they were bred for stupidity, it's just that they were bred with no preference for stupidity or intelligence, it's irrelevant to reproductive success. The rest is just natural genetic drift.
I'm looking at you, humanity.
They can make weightless porn in a parabolic flight (the vomit comet) in front of a green screen. After that, adding a space background is piece of cake. Much cheaper than $1,000,000. Shit, have I just disclosed the best business plan on earth.
www.irs.gov is operated by a scam artist
There, fix that for you.
More
I read the article. They used 46 people with strong political views. Need I say more?
I don't think it is anecdotal to note that the correlation between the right-wing and military has not, historically, in this country and many others been stable.
They took 46 people, 46, showed them picture of bloody face, and noticed a link with the current divide between left and right wing.
How significant, I'm overwhelmed.
True I am a random guy, but the viewpoint I am pushing (the null hypothesis) is much more likely than theirs, thus you might have a greater reason to trust me.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Right_(United_States)
(I am not "Old Right Winger", just pointing out that Right and Left are moving categories and thus doubtfully represent fundamental human traits)
I think being startled has much more to do with the ability to concentrate than with fear.
I am the most startled person I know... If I am concentrating on something, I make a total vacuum, I block all my senses... if at that point I am distracted by someone I will jump a foot in the air and scream. I don't consider myself fearful though.
Right wing in the US has, for most of its existence, been isolationist and thus favored less military rather than more. I don't believe there's any connection.
All in all, this research is probably crap.
Canonical could easily spin off an entity that does just that. By keeping things separate it avoids many conflicts of interest, slippery slopes, etc.
The problems experienced can be traced back to the 1913. No, not just since Monday.
1) What makes Ubuntu great and cheap is precisely the fact that it resists putting copyright protected software. This is a bad move. It would be much better if the codec were sold separately by a different entity than canonical.
2) Capitalism is about private ownership of the means of production, not about government enforced laws of copyrights. Many radical advocates of capitalism oppose IP laws.
3) Where do you see capitalism being the state religion ? Are you joking ? As we speak the state is bailing out the whole economy. The state hates capitalism, if we have a bit of capitalism, it is merely because a parasite has to let its host thrive to feed itself.
You are a true psychopath.
Doesn't prove much, I think many people carrying knives do so because they know they are more prone to be attacked. Besides, it doesn't say how many times the knife was useful. If you are attacked 10 times, thwart 9 attacks thanks knife and get it used against you once, it puts you in the list of the 65%, although you benefited from the knife.
Society doesn't exist, it has no will, no values, no interest, only individuals are real. The whole idea of "value to society" is simply meaningless.
You are advocating pure totalitarian collectivism, an ideology responsible for the death of hundred of million of people during this century. Muse upon it.
You got it the other way around... it's not about "permitting" people to carry weapon. As long as you do not assault anyone, nobody has the right to tell you what you may or may not carry, even if they're wearing a colorful uniform.
By the way, being in the 10th percentile gives you an IQ of roughly 120, which is quite good, you are exaggerating your claim.
And why would you trust academics ? The process you are describing is precisely the one the parent denies is possible without people being educated. The point I am making is that sourcing knowledge using trust and reputation does not depend on people being educated, it's the other way around.