Pardon me, I'm just another armchair economist--but isn't the composition of the Earth the 'supply' side of the 'supply and demand' equation? Meaning, when supply of natural resources decrease demand increases along with price? And when price increases, formerly resource-poor ores suddenly become economically advantageous to extract?
I don't believe that the composition of the Earth responds to demand so much as people begin to price the purity of that composition differently when demand is higher than supply. But since you are an actual economist, I would like to hear your views on the matter.
Would they have gotten to their goal if they hadn't had so many server outages? Seriously, how hard is it to make sure you have the iron to support your stated download target?
This sort of mail fraud, along with spam, should be a capital crime. Unfortunately, that would mean that Canada would never agree to extradite them. Decisions, decisions.
That's the best euphemism I've ever heard for legitimized corporate spyware and DRM. Big software companies will finally be able help themselves to my electronic devices.
Just st-st-stuh-stutter when you talk. And use a lot of, uh, you know, um, non-word sounds between, uh, like, your phrases. And don't use any complexificated words without Bushifying them first. Better yet, only speak in Klingon.
Or maybe you shouldn't say anything on VoIP that you don't want anyone else to hear.
How does the military ensure that it is operating within the law regarding online military offensive activities? Are there any laws or oversight, as such? If so, how are those laws and/or oversight affected by a declaration of war?
What word do you suppose was supposed to be in there? Effusive? Effulgent? Affluent? Maybe the author couldn't decide and just mashed all three together.
"This has enforced a degree of collegiality amongst colleagues," Dennehy noted. "Now when you see someone that makes an edit to a page you are contributing to, you can look back and see where this person works, where their interests lie, making us a community of analysts rather than a community of agencies."
Yeah, right, 'collegiality'. That bit about seeing 'where a person works and where their interests lie' sounds a lot like a threat to me.
Don't edit my Intellipedia article, college boy. I can kill a man with my thumb and I know where you work.
This reminds me of a restaurant in Colorado Springs that prided itself on cutting your tie in half if you stupidly showed up with one on. Casual diners only!
What it gives you is the ability to drive to the airport, take off, land at another airport, and drive to your destination in the same vehicle.
How is that different from a flying car? Put another way, isn't that also what a flying car is expected to do?
Its also intended for pilots, its not a solution for the masses.
This is what I was getting at: the idea of a flying car for the masses is fundamentally flawed, since being a pilot takes a lot more skill than driving a car, and there's a higher risk involved since there's no such thing as a fender-bender in the air.
I understand what you're saying, but any flying car (roadable aircraft or not) has to meet minimum specifications which make it a 'car'--and presumably, has qualities which make it fly. All I'm saying is, we've been hearing about flying cars for decades and we're still no closer to a practical mass-market product despite efforts like these because the whole idea of a flying car for the masses is fundamentally flawed.
How is this different from any other crazy flying car? It's still vaporware as long as there isn't a working prototype, and as far as the difference between a flying car and a 'roadable aircraft'--it seems like a marketing gimmick to me.
I LTFA and it boils down to visualization therapy (they call it 'vicarious reinforcement'). If you 'see' yourself as thinner in VR then you will be more likely to become thinner IRL.
Why is it so easy to trash the Constitution and Bill of Rights, and so hard to put them back? What a bunch of assholes. They must have had the words "probable cause" surgically removed from their brains.
I bet it was a laparoscopic surgery from an existing orifice. You know, because they're constantly pulling probable cause outta their asses.
Outside of cities with mass transit, a car is now a fundamental necessity. See where your reasoning goes?
So would you consider roads a fundamental necessity? If the government didn't build those, what good would your car be? I know you were being facetious, but there are some things that the government can do more efficiently than the free market. For example, if the people decide that having a literate population is integral to the success of the nation, then it makes sense for their government to fund the education of their children using their taxes for the good of the nation. Just because you don't have kids doesn't mean you're not reaping the benefits of this system. Privatizing the system would lead to people without enough money not being educated, which is fine if you don't really want a literate population in the first place.
Another example is the military. Should we privatize that too? Have a patchwork of competing companies trying to fight our wars by cutting corners to maximize corporate profits? We'll just voluntarily pay them based on whether we agree with their corporate policy regarding national security. They can send us bills, and then private soldiers as collection agents.
I'm not a socialist either, but there are cases, like health care, where having a nationalized system is a benefit to the entire country. Again, just because you are young and healthy and don't need health care right now doesn't mean you aren't going to reap the benefits of a healthier population in general.
Your argument that some guy was free to screw up his life and will freeload off of your hard-earned tax dollars is a rhetorical device to inject your emotions into a debate that should be more logical: if somebody needs a liver transplant I want a system where they'll have access to that technology regardless of the cause of their condition. Who will sit in judgment to parcel out liver transplants? You? I'd rather have an impartial system accountable to the people rather than what we have now under a free market system: the HMOs unilaterally decide who gets access to life-saving technology, and the wealthy are favored over the indigent. Taken to its ridiculous extreme, your argument is tantamount to advocating the execution of people who make life choices you disagree with: Alcoholic? No health care. Smoker? No health care. Gay? No health care. Immigrant? No health care. No exceptions, no excuses. Unless you're wealthy.
And any system of distributing goods and services beyond voluntary exchange quickly leads to lowering production and thus to rationing.
I just don't buy that statement. Again, I'm not advocating the redistribution of wealth or claiming that health care should be 'free' but by framing the argument that way you are missing the point that the government exists for the people and by the people, which you cannot say about any private corporation. The government's sole responsibilities should be the lives, liberty, and happiness pursuits of its people. I don't see how providing health care is at odds with that, in fact, providing health care can only support those responsibilities.
Slashdot Mirror
Pardon me, I'm just another armchair economist--but isn't the composition of the Earth the 'supply' side of the 'supply and demand' equation? Meaning, when supply of natural resources decrease demand increases along with price? And when price increases, formerly resource-poor ores suddenly become economically advantageous to extract?
I don't believe that the composition of the Earth responds to demand so much as people begin to price the purity of that composition differently when demand is higher than supply. But since you are an actual economist, I would like to hear your views on the matter.
Would they have gotten to their goal if they hadn't had so many server outages? Seriously, how hard is it to make sure you have the iron to support your stated download target?
This sort of mail fraud, along with spam, should be a capital crime. Unfortunately, that would mean that Canada would never agree to extradite them. Decisions, decisions.
That's the best euphemism I've ever heard for legitimized corporate spyware and DRM. Big software companies will finally be able help themselves to my electronic devices.
Just st-st-stuh-stutter when you talk. And use a lot of, uh, you know, um, non-word sounds between, uh, like, your phrases. And don't use any complexificated words without Bushifying them first. Better yet, only speak in Klingon.
Or maybe you shouldn't say anything on VoIP that you don't want anyone else to hear.
See if you can track down the one Ballmer threw. In addition to the enormous geek cred, that chair would have great sentimental value as well.
How does the military ensure that it is operating within the law regarding online military offensive activities? Are there any laws or oversight, as such? If so, how are those laws and/or oversight affected by a declaration of war?
In most countries, why is PayPal allowed to act like a bank without being regulated like a bank? I've never understood how they get away with that.
What word do you suppose was supposed to be in there? Effusive? Effulgent? Affluent? Maybe the author couldn't decide and just mashed all three together.
Don't edit my Intellipedia article, college boy. I can kill a man with my thumb and I know where you work.
I doubt he knows. The arrogance coming off that guy was palpable. At one point he says "GINA is an acronym--a collection of letters."
Honestly, why does he feel the need to explain what an acronym is? Does he think his audience is in third grade?
This reminds me of a restaurant in Colorado Springs that prided itself on cutting your tie in half if you stupidly showed up with one on. Casual diners only!
I thought the British X-Files was called 'Torchwood'?
It would be cool if there were an option on sites like Facebook or Flickr to blur the faces on my photos for anyone but my friends.
With technology like this, I wonder how far away Google Image Search is from being able to search image content?
I understand what you're saying, but any flying car (roadable aircraft or not) has to meet minimum specifications which make it a 'car'--and presumably, has qualities which make it fly. All I'm saying is, we've been hearing about flying cars for decades and we're still no closer to a practical mass-market product despite efforts like these because the whole idea of a flying car for the masses is fundamentally flawed.
How is this different from any other crazy flying car? It's still vaporware as long as there isn't a working prototype, and as far as the difference between a flying car and a 'roadable aircraft'--it seems like a marketing gimmick to me.
I've always thought you should use plenty of soap and water after contact with the RIAA. You never know what you'll catch.
http://www.computerworld.com.au/index.php/id;193960399;fp;16;fpid;1;pf;1
Your joke was funny, not offtopic at all.
Which is why you don't have anything insightful to say about it.
I LTFA and it boils down to visualization therapy (they call it 'vicarious reinforcement'). If you 'see' yourself as thinner in VR then you will be more likely to become thinner IRL.
I vote Unobtainium. Or are we planning to use that name for something with an atomic mass of 420?
Another example is the military. Should we privatize that too? Have a patchwork of competing companies trying to fight our wars by cutting corners to maximize corporate profits? We'll just voluntarily pay them based on whether we agree with their corporate policy regarding national security. They can send us bills, and then private soldiers as collection agents.
I'm not a socialist either, but there are cases, like health care, where having a nationalized system is a benefit to the entire country. Again, just because you are young and healthy and don't need health care right now doesn't mean you aren't going to reap the benefits of a healthier population in general.
Your argument that some guy was free to screw up his life and will freeload off of your hard-earned tax dollars is a rhetorical device to inject your emotions into a debate that should be more logical: if somebody needs a liver transplant I want a system where they'll have access to that technology regardless of the cause of their condition. Who will sit in judgment to parcel out liver transplants? You? I'd rather have an impartial system accountable to the people rather than what we have now under a free market system: the HMOs unilaterally decide who gets access to life-saving technology, and the wealthy are favored over the indigent. Taken to its ridiculous extreme, your argument is tantamount to advocating the execution of people who make life choices you disagree with: Alcoholic? No health care. Smoker? No health care. Gay? No health care. Immigrant? No health care. No exceptions, no excuses. Unless you're wealthy.
I just don't buy that statement. Again, I'm not advocating the redistribution of wealth or claiming that health care should be 'free' but by framing the argument that way you are missing the point that the government exists for the people and by the people, which you cannot say about any private corporation. The government's sole responsibilities should be the lives, liberty, and happiness pursuits of its people. I don't see how providing health care is at odds with that, in fact, providing health care can only support those responsibilities.