Yup. I figure, oh, I don't know, parents should make sure kids don't go looking for porn, or at least sit down with them and say, "well Timmy, while you search for stuff, you might find things you weren't looking for, like pictures of people doing adult things. You're not to look at such things..."
Laws shouldn't replace parenting. That's just retarded.
The individual who was hired right out of college and is simply too young and inexperienced to have a well-developed sense of personal ethics.
I'm sorry, but this pissed me off. It implies that ethics is something we young and inexperienced folks lack, and must learn from our elders. If you don't have ethics by the time you're out of college, you probably won't by the time you retire. Good people usually stay good people, and bad people usually stay bad people. It's not like all young people are hellraisers who eventually learn the error of their ways. Sheesh.
Things don't evolve just for kicks. They evolve when there's pressure on them, and it's either survive or evolve. (And sometimes they don't survive, of course.) So if these guys found a niche that worked for them, why would they evolve anymore?
2 things wrong with that logic: first, there are people who have no cars, so society does not necessarily lose a car. Second, even if someone does junk their old car, the average quality of cars is increased.
Also, cars do last a long time, if properly cared for. It's quite easy to have a 10, 20, 30 year old car. The fact that some people like to "trade-up" every 2 or 3 years, well, that's their business, and it makes me that much better off when they do it.
But with people breaking windows, society has less *stuff* total, which is the measure economists use. When you buy a new car, you'll sell yours to someone else, not just junk it (unless it's quite old.) So you'll have a new car, and someone else will get your car. That's twice as many cars as there was before, and one's nicer. Cleary an improvement. With windows, there's just a replacement of the window, not anything new.
Also, people who "hoard" money also help the economy (well, today they do, since basically no one keeps it in a box buried in the backyard). They'll invest it in stocks, or bonds, or just put it in the bank, who'll then invest it. And investement is good for the economy.
In short, yes, all economists agree about the broken window fallacy.
So your solution is to prohibit alcohol? Look how well that worked... Besides, the comparison between alcohol and heroin is very tenuous. The violence caused by alcohol is pharmacological, the violence caused by heroin is sociological.
Overall I agree with you, but I just thougth I'd mention that some studies suggest that the link between alcohol and aggression is sociological as well - in a study I read, people who believed they consumed alcohol, whether they had or not, were more aggressive than people who didn't think they had consumed alcohol, whether they had or not.
I think what happens is you have a bigger service field. More money = more managers, office workers = more jobs for people in restaurants, barbershops, luxury, etc.
All the examples you gave are examples were the other country has the comparative advantage compared to the USA. America should not be in those markets. They aren't the most efficient thing for America, its trading partners, or the world economy as a whole.
The problem is, some people want to be sheep farmers, and want to get paid well to do it.
If everyone sticks to something they do well, it'll work out. Instead, people do things they want to. That's fine, I beliece in making your own choices. Just don't whine when there's no money in.
If all other things are equal, lower priced goods do mean a higher standard of living. The argument is whether or not lower priced goods combined with the other factors leads to an overall better situation. And if so, better for whom.
Based on your post, I assume you take no deductions for anything when filling out your tax forms. Is this true? Do you blindly submit as much of your income to the governement as they as for? Or do you take the standard deductions, the ones for charitable contributions, the ones because you're married and have x dependents, etc. etc.
I agree with you in a lot of ways. People who go out of their way to avoid taxes are jerks, imo. But governments who waste tax dollars on wars on nouns and on useless crap to get themselves re-elected are jerks of a higher order, so it's hard to be on their side. If taxes went more to schools and roads and cops and firemen and healthcare, and less to huge military spending and kickbacks, I'd be a lot more willing to pay every penny they asked for.
Besides which, if GP takes the money out of the corporation, he's taxed on it, isn't he? Lower rate than if it was a salary, maybe, but he's still taxed. You can't hide from the taxman.
As children age they get more cavities. They also learn more words. Thus both cavities and vocabularly are effects of age; of course they are correlated. But the "cause" in this case is incorrect.
The first thing I thought of was the family's income. (Which is correlated to such things as dental insurance and the # of books in the house.) Anyway, my point is just that one has to be very, very careful at going from correlation to cause. In this example, both the child's age and the family income could work, or a combination, or a different variable entirely. Experimenting with this kind of thing is difficult, to say the least.
I just did a quick search, and regular diesel is around $2.25-$2.75. That's a significant difference, maybe not for the average consumer, but for things like shipping companies, that's a big cost. The fact is, if everyone was willing to pay a fair bit more for everything to have cleaner air, we'd have it. People aren't.
Regarding this, do you hold copyright on a work if you don't claim it? I mean, if you don't have a little "Copyright 2006 Raoul666" at the bottom of, say, a web page you write, can you sue someone for infringement if they stumble on it and put it somewhere? I'm genuinely curious.
I'd also argue that google is not stealing their product, or devalueing it in any way. To get the full size image, you must get it from the source. Clicking on the picture leads you to the page it was found. All you get from google is a small pic that gives you the general idea what you're looking at, not incredible detail. I think it's reasonably analagous to displaying a clip from a movie or a sentance from a book, which is generally allowed.
While we're on the subject of "ulimited" being deceptive, let's also sue ISPs for offering "unlimited" internet access. I wanted to have 800 hours of interent access in January, but because of my ISP's "throttling", I was unable to exceed 744 hours of internet access, a far cry from the "unlimited" they advertised.
So you wanted the ISP to add 2 more days to the month of January? I knew they were getting a little too powerful, but that's just ridiculous.
The fundamental question is how much has humanity effected the global warming of this planet. Just showing that it is warming is completely and totally irrelevant. The important scientific question, and the one most difficult to answer, is how much humans have contributed.
Why does it matter? The fact is, it's getting warmer, and that might be really bad, and we have to deal with it sometime. It's interesting to see if we could have done it all by ourselves, but other than that, I don't see why it matters so damn much.
We might well be better off after a drastic climate change, but the transitionary period would be a bitch. If sea levels rose, all sorts of coastal infastructure and housing would be lost. Crops currently grown might not do too well with different temperatures and rainfall. There would probably have to be a huge migration of people to the newly habitable areas, and a few seasons to get the crops straightened out. Along with fucking up all the animals' habitats, of course.
If we were starting fresh as a civilization, warmer would be nicer. But I for one don't want to be here when we have to change mid-run.
Slashdot Mirror
Yup. I figure, oh, I don't know, parents should make sure kids don't go looking for porn, or at least sit down with them and say, "well Timmy, while you search for stuff, you might find things you weren't looking for, like pictures of people doing adult things. You're not to look at such things..."
Laws shouldn't replace parenting. That's just retarded.
The individual who was hired right out of college and is simply too young and inexperienced to have a well-developed sense of personal ethics.
I'm sorry, but this pissed me off. It implies that ethics is something we young and inexperienced folks lack, and must learn from our elders. If you don't have ethics by the time you're out of college, you probably won't by the time you retire. Good people usually stay good people, and bad people usually stay bad people. It's not like all young people are hellraisers who eventually learn the error of their ways. Sheesh.
Which of those ideas will make me a millionaire the fastest?
Well, clearly the caskets with built-in LCD monitors. Vampires have money, and they like to watch the news before bed too.
I bet you could get there on a scooter by the time your comment gets modded up.
Things don't evolve just for kicks. They evolve when there's pressure on them, and it's either survive or evolve. (And sometimes they don't survive, of course.) So if these guys found a niche that worked for them, why would they evolve anymore?
2 things wrong with that logic: first, there are people who have no cars, so society does not necessarily lose a car. Second, even if someone does junk their old car, the average quality of cars is increased.
Also, cars do last a long time, if properly cared for. It's quite easy to have a 10, 20, 30 year old car. The fact that some people like to "trade-up" every 2 or 3 years, well, that's their business, and it makes me that much better off when they do it.
But with people breaking windows, society has less *stuff* total, which is the measure economists use. When you buy a new car, you'll sell yours to someone else, not just junk it (unless it's quite old.) So you'll have a new car, and someone else will get your car. That's twice as many cars as there was before, and one's nicer. Cleary an improvement. With windows, there's just a replacement of the window, not anything new.
Also, people who "hoard" money also help the economy (well, today they do, since basically no one keeps it in a box buried in the backyard). They'll invest it in stocks, or bonds, or just put it in the bank, who'll then invest it. And investement is good for the economy.
In short, yes, all economists agree about the broken window fallacy.
So your solution is to prohibit alcohol? Look how well that worked... Besides, the comparison between alcohol and heroin is very tenuous. The violence caused by alcohol is pharmacological, the violence caused by heroin is sociological.
Overall I agree with you, but I just thougth I'd mention that some studies suggest that the link between alcohol and aggression is sociological as well - in a study I read, people who believed they consumed alcohol, whether they had or not, were more aggressive than people who didn't think they had consumed alcohol, whether they had or not.
I believe the proper order is from lowest UID to high...crap.
2140's - everyone realizes that who owns the huge corporation they work for doesn't really matter after all.
I think what happens is you have a bigger service field. More money = more managers, office workers = more jobs for people in restaurants, barbershops, luxury, etc.
All the examples you gave are examples were the other country has the comparative advantage compared to the USA. America should not be in those markets. They aren't the most efficient thing for America, its trading partners, or the world economy as a whole.
The problem is, some people want to be sheep farmers, and want to get paid well to do it.
If everyone sticks to something they do well, it'll work out. Instead, people do things they want to. That's fine, I beliece in making your own choices. Just don't whine when there's no money in.
So basically it comes down to whether your first allegience is to your nation or to your species.
If all other things are equal, lower priced goods do mean a higher standard of living. The argument is whether or not lower priced goods combined with the other factors leads to an overall better situation. And if so, better for whom.
Based on your post, I assume you take no deductions for anything when filling out your tax forms. Is this true? Do you blindly submit as much of your income to the governement as they as for? Or do you take the standard deductions, the ones for charitable contributions, the ones because you're married and have x dependents, etc. etc.
I agree with you in a lot of ways. People who go out of their way to avoid taxes are jerks, imo. But governments who waste tax dollars on wars on nouns and on useless crap to get themselves re-elected are jerks of a higher order, so it's hard to be on their side. If taxes went more to schools and roads and cops and firemen and healthcare, and less to huge military spending and kickbacks, I'd be a lot more willing to pay every penny they asked for.
Besides which, if GP takes the money out of the corporation, he's taxed on it, isn't he? Lower rate than if it was a salary, maybe, but he's still taxed. You can't hide from the taxman.
As children age they get more cavities. They also learn more words. Thus both cavities and vocabularly are effects of age; of course they are correlated. But the "cause" in this case is incorrect.
The first thing I thought of was the family's income. (Which is correlated to such things as dental insurance and the # of books in the house.) Anyway, my point is just that one has to be very, very careful at going from correlation to cause. In this example, both the child's age and the family income could work, or a combination, or a different variable entirely. Experimenting with this kind of thing is difficult, to say the least.
I just did a quick search, and regular diesel is around $2.25-$2.75. That's a significant difference, maybe not for the average consumer, but for things like shipping companies, that's a big cost. The fact is, if everyone was willing to pay a fair bit more for everything to have cleaner air, we'd have it. People aren't.
An abstract noun. Beautiful, non?
You would need to have an average of 25 meltdowns a year for nuclear power to kill as many people.
Or just one a little too close to a big city to kill a couple hundred thousand.
Regarding this, do you hold copyright on a work if you don't claim it? I mean, if you don't have a little "Copyright 2006 Raoul666" at the bottom of, say, a web page you write, can you sue someone for infringement if they stumble on it and put it somewhere? I'm genuinely curious.
I'd also argue that google is not stealing their product, or devalueing it in any way. To get the full size image, you must get it from the source. Clicking on the picture leads you to the page it was found. All you get from google is a small pic that gives you the general idea what you're looking at, not incredible detail. I think it's reasonably analagous to displaying a clip from a movie or a sentance from a book, which is generally allowed.
Sewer access?
While we're on the subject of "ulimited" being deceptive, let's also sue ISPs for offering "unlimited" internet access. I wanted to have 800 hours of interent access in January, but because of my ISP's "throttling", I was unable to exceed 744 hours of internet access, a far cry from the "unlimited" they advertised.
So you wanted the ISP to add 2 more days to the month of January? I knew they were getting a little too powerful, but that's just ridiculous.
I commented about that here: http://hardware.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=17700 1&cid=14691168
The fundamental question is how much has humanity effected the global warming of this planet. Just showing that it is warming is completely and totally irrelevant. The important scientific question, and the one most difficult to answer, is how much humans have contributed.
Why does it matter? The fact is, it's getting warmer, and that might be really bad, and we have to deal with it sometime. It's interesting to see if we could have done it all by ourselves, but other than that, I don't see why it matters so damn much.
We might well be better off after a drastic climate change, but the transitionary period would be a bitch. If sea levels rose, all sorts of coastal infastructure and housing would be lost. Crops currently grown might not do too well with different temperatures and rainfall. There would probably have to be a huge migration of people to the newly habitable areas, and a few seasons to get the crops straightened out. Along with fucking up all the animals' habitats, of course.
If we were starting fresh as a civilization, warmer would be nicer. But I for one don't want to be here when we have to change mid-run.