There was a story on "60 Minutes" long ago at the dawn of time, when dinosaurs and Morley Safer roamed the earth, about gentrification and its effect on rents.
One woman complained, "Them white boys come in on they motorcycles and start fixing things up." (That quote may be verbatim. It's certainly close.)
Made quite the impression.
More even than "Alms for an ex-leper?", another entry in the No Pleasing Some People sweepstakes.
Or not [mentally handicapped] but simply responding to perverse incentives provided by our omniscient, all-wise legislative and regulatory overlords.
One such example -- right down to the manure on frozen ground detail -- is given in a book on organic farming, "Everything I Want To Do Is Illegal". Well-meaning environmental activists got the law (or regulation, I forget which) they'd asked for. But there were unintended consequences, bad ones. Repealing the law (or rescinding the regulation) would have meant declaring an environmentalist victory a mistake, and nobody involved wanted that.
Well, the wildlife in Chesapeake Bay would have.
But they're not as important as the egos and careers of those who got what they asked for (but not what they wanted).
At first I took "put lots of resources into backwards countries" to mean foreign aid, and was going to point out that isn't really a lot of federal spending, in dollar terms.
But if you include the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and Vietnam and South Korea before them, and the military bases all over the world, it's a significantly bigger number.
It could be argued that, in the case of Iraq at least, it has provided motivation for some to join or fund Al Qaeda. So in that case there is something to show for it. Just not something good.
And by "any other monopoly does" we mean Amazon will discover it's easier to get market dominance than keep it.
If they suddenly get all scary big-pricey, they'll discover that people can buy from elsewhere -- and their suppliers will discover that selling a lot with razor-thin margins is not nearly as good as selling less with much better margins.
Scarcity is what you discover when you try to look for something, and don't find much of it.
Shortages are what you get when government sells it below the market price, or requires others to.
If the selling price was the actual market price, people would use less, use it better, get it from other places, or go other places and use the water there.
The WaveGlider when deployed does not look like the photo. This is the stowed configuration, which is how it is put into the water. They haven't actually deployed it yet.
The top surfboard-y part floats. The bottom part with the vanes is a ways below it, and isn't buoyant. (The motive power comes from the fact that the vanes get pulled up and down by the buoyant part -- the distance is necessary for it to work.)
So, the fact that the buoyant and dense parts didn't separate, and their connecting cables didn't snap or get snarled and rendered useless is kinda impressive. At least to me.
Well, this is incorrect: "EquuSearch, which is clearly operating to the benefit of society (as opposed to purely commercial drone use)"
People who buy goods and services in the commercial sphere do so because they expect to benefit. Otherwise, they'd keep their money. Those people are part of society.
That the providers of those goods and services profit (or hope to, soon) doesn't change those facts.
I've heard that there is (or was) a newsletter that provides (or provided) tips for getting around contribution limits/transparency, etc. It's been a while, so maybe it's not around any more. Or maybe it's distributed by e-mail these days.
You don't get a contribution from the automobile dealers association before introducing your anti-Tesla legislation. But you son does happen to qualify for and get a college scholarship provided by -- guess who? Or the Machinist Union buys a boatload of copies of your campaign book, for distribution to their members. They even forget to ask for the quantity discount. Or your wife's woman-owned business gets a contract for vaguely-defined consulting services to a certain major employer. And so on.
Some of these things leave a larger or more embarrassing paper trail than others. Discovering good techniques is not for amateurs. Hence, the newsletter.
Merely observing a subpopulation does not match exactly the demographics of the larger population does not mean there is a "problem". If there were, major league sports leagues (especially the NBA) would be in serious trouble.
The people who design intersections and the equipment used at them can't control that. They are mere mortals, not Professor X.
They can, however, make decisions that improve or worsen some aspects of traffic flow.
Or more likely, improve and worsen some aspects of traffic flow, since it's hard to make a change that affects only one thing, or only improves or leaves along everything it changes, and worsens nothing. It's hard to improve some thing or things without worsening at least one other thing.
Sometimes the results are counter-intuitive.
In one European city, they improved safety in an intersection by removing all traffic control features and devices. Signs. Traffic signals. Stripes. Even the boundary between sidewalk and street, if memory serves.
Instead of trusting traffic signals and the like, drivers paid attention.
And if memory still serves, traffic throughput also improved.
Regulators are very frequently drawn from the industry being regulated. One could argue that industry-specific knowledge is important in a top regulator.
Not to me. Not successfully. But people do argue that.
It hasn't worked out that well, from a "good government" standpoint. Recent revelations at the Veteran's Administration and elsewhere justify continued skepticism.
If a company sells a product and then sells another (inferior) product by the same name and model number, isn't that fraud? Not just in the casual sense of the word, but in a legal sense?
Apparently not, or they would have gotten their asses sued off. I'd like to hear a definitive explanation of where the border lies between "we changed our product some" and "we're cheating people" and the rationale, from someone more knowledgeable than me.
Slashdot Mirror
There was a story on "60 Minutes" long ago at the dawn of time, when dinosaurs and Morley Safer roamed the earth, about gentrification and its effect on rents.
One woman complained, "Them white boys come in on they motorcycles and start fixing things up." (That quote may be verbatim. It's certainly close.)
Made quite the impression.
More even than "Alms for an ex-leper?", another entry in the No Pleasing Some People sweepstakes.
Yep. There are institutions and individuals dedicated to finding racism -- whether it's there or not.
One is due in the St. Louis suburb of Ferguson, MO shortly, if he's not already here.
Or not [mentally handicapped] but simply responding to perverse incentives provided by our omniscient, all-wise legislative and regulatory overlords.
One such example -- right down to the manure on frozen ground detail -- is given in a book on organic farming, "Everything I Want To Do Is Illegal". Well-meaning environmental activists got the law (or regulation, I forget which) they'd asked for. But there were unintended consequences, bad ones. Repealing the law (or rescinding the regulation) would have meant declaring an environmentalist victory a mistake, and nobody involved wanted that.
Well, the wildlife in Chesapeake Bay would have.
But they're not as important as the egos and careers of those who got what they asked for (but not what they wanted).
At first I took "put lots of resources into backwards countries" to mean foreign aid, and was going to point out that isn't really a lot of federal spending, in dollar terms.
But if you include the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and Vietnam and South Korea before them, and the military bases all over the world, it's a significantly bigger number.
It could be argued that, in the case of Iraq at least, it has provided motivation for some to join or fund Al Qaeda. So in that case there is something to show for it. Just not something good.
That was sarcasm, right? Damn you, Poe's Law!
And by "any other monopoly does" we mean Amazon will discover it's easier to get market dominance than keep it.
If they suddenly get all scary big-pricey, they'll discover that people can buy from elsewhere -- and their suppliers will discover that selling a lot with razor-thin margins is not nearly as good as selling less with much better margins.
Other happy-ending scenarios outlined here: http://www.daviddfriedman.com/...
Well, unless they engage in violence, or get the government to do it on their behalf. The latter possibility is a credible one worth considering.
Scarcity is what you discover when you try to look for something, and don't find much of it.
Shortages are what you get when government sells it below the market price, or requires others to.
If the selling price was the actual market price, people would use less, use it better, get it from other places, or go other places and use the water there.
Duh.
This may be more a metaphor than an analogy.
The Dutch and American governments are doing something analogous to money laundering.
Only it's data, not money, that goes from bad to good, by taking a different path.
And it's governments, not individuals or companies, that are doing it.
And government decides it's not a violation, when government does it.
The metaphor is "data laundering". Or "illegal surveillance data laundering".
The WaveGlider when deployed does not look like the photo. This is the stowed configuration, which is how it is put into the water. They haven't actually deployed it yet.
The top surfboard-y part floats. The bottom part with the vanes is a ways below it, and isn't buoyant. (The motive power comes from the fact that the vanes get pulled up and down by the buoyant part -- the distance is necessary for it to work.)
So, the fact that the buoyant and dense parts didn't separate, and their connecting cables didn't snap or get snarled and rendered useless is kinda impressive. At least to me.
String theory is testable, eh?
So, how'd the tests come out?
Crickets. All I hear are crickets.
Well, this is incorrect: "EquuSearch, which is clearly operating to the benefit of society (as opposed to purely commercial drone use)"
People who buy goods and services in the commercial sphere do so because they expect to benefit. Otherwise, they'd keep their money. Those people are part of society.
That the providers of those goods and services profit (or hope to, soon) doesn't change those facts.
And if the organs aren't usable, they could still be contestants (or props) on "The Running Man".
Are you sure about that? I seem to recall something about DEA agents making pests of themselves in states which legalized marijuana dispensaries.
Why the assumption that democratically elected government are good?
Not the same thing, but reminiscent in a way: John Scalzi's "Old Man's War".
Well, that's never happened before.
I've heard that there is (or was) a newsletter that provides (or provided) tips for getting around contribution limits/transparency, etc. It's been a while, so maybe it's not around any more. Or maybe it's distributed by e-mail these days.
You don't get a contribution from the automobile dealers association before introducing your anti-Tesla legislation. But you son does happen to qualify for and get a college scholarship provided by -- guess who? Or the Machinist Union buys a boatload of copies of your campaign book, for distribution to their members. They even forget to ask for the quantity discount. Or your wife's woman-owned business gets a contract for vaguely-defined consulting services to a certain major employer. And so on.
Some of these things leave a larger or more embarrassing paper trail than others. Discovering good techniques is not for amateurs. Hence, the newsletter.
If if is a problem.
Merely observing a subpopulation does not match exactly the demographics of the larger population does not mean there is a "problem". If there were, major league sports leagues (especially the NBA) would be in serious trouble.
Oh, I can see how the FAA's rule are enforceable: selectively.
Oh, wait. 2020 is when they turn it on. It might not work right away. Could take as much as a year to get one up and running near me.
Let's call it 7 years away, then.
The people who design intersections and the equipment used at them can't control that. They are mere mortals, not Professor X.
They can, however, make decisions that improve or worsen some aspects of traffic flow.
Or more likely, improve and worsen some aspects of traffic flow, since it's hard to make a change that affects only one thing, or only improves or leaves along everything it changes, and worsens nothing. It's hard to improve some thing or things without worsening at least one other thing.
Sometimes the results are counter-intuitive.
In one European city, they improved safety in an intersection by removing all traffic control features and devices. Signs. Traffic signals. Stripes. Even the boundary between sidewalk and street, if memory serves.
Instead of trusting traffic signals and the like, drivers paid attention.
And if memory still serves, traffic throughput also improved.
http://www.howwedrive.com/
Tradition?
Regulators are very frequently drawn from the industry being regulated. One could argue that industry-specific knowledge is important in a top regulator.
Not to me. Not successfully. But people do argue that.
It hasn't worked out that well, from a "good government" standpoint. Recent revelations at the Veteran's Administration and elsewhere justify continued skepticism.
Two wrongs don't make a right, but very often they make a Supreme Court decision.
If a company sells a product and then sells another (inferior) product by the same name and model number, isn't that fraud? Not just in the casual sense of the word, but in a legal sense?
Apparently not, or they would have gotten their asses sued off. I'd like to hear a definitive explanation of where the border lies between "we changed our product some" and "we're cheating people" and the rationale, from someone more knowledgeable than me.
One would hope that would be the case. I'm not so sure.
Supposedly, one man was convicted of accepting a bribe that the other man was acquitted of offering. (Or was it the other way around?)
The law can work wonders, sometimes.