I think the GP would understand that oil production will peak, the problem is in assessing when it will happen. People have been making these predictions since the 70s (possibly longer than that), however technology keeps increasing the efficiency of vehicles, the efficiency of creation and finding more sources.
Unfortunately it's not so cut and dry. Although we would consider that the buyer was mis-led into thinking they bought something it said it doesn't. The buyer will not always feel that way. So although they don't have "perfect information", no one ever does in any transaction, in even a socialist system.
What the free market does, is remove the "this product is safe/accurate because otherwise it would have been sued/similar" with uncertainty and insecurity in purchases such that people that enter these transactions must either have a lot of blind faith/cash to waste or similar, or they will not partake in this transaction. Given enough people operate this way, then the product will not be able to exist in the free market.
This is similar logic to the Montana No Speed Limit Paradox, in that when people aren't assured of safety, on average they tend to be more cautious.
Are you telling me, that I could output/dev/random to a file, place it on my friends hard drive, say it contains valuable information pertaining to a case and he could go to jail or be fined for not revealing the password/key?
This gives me an idea!
Either way, if you need to you can get around this with TrueCrypt by taking some precautions such as:
1) Not naming it with the default extension (.tc) 2) Put it somewhere inconspicuous and name it appropriately 3) Making sure that it's a hidden encrypted volume 4) Open it through TrueCrypt and don't save the history, or passwords, or as automount, or similar
Shit, that was a typo, I meant to type FIRST POST!!!
You see this is exactly why Windows is winning. Linux is still yet to provide a credible botnet to face off against the Windows botnet. There's just no comparison, Windows wins every time!
"And it's news that the Pharms would prefer to treat the symptoms rather than cure a disease? There's no money in cures."
Man I hate hearing this sort of bullshit. There is more money in cures than anything else. It comes down to two factors:
1) People are always willing to pay heaps more for a cure....and more importantly...
2) If you're the first to market with a cure, you are going to make a lot of money from that market, and remove the opportunity from your competition.
This would generate a HUGE competitive advantage for your company, not to mention the intangible benefits of being the first company to cure X (Free publicity, word-a-mouth, goodwill, etc).
Holy shit, man. Not only did you most likely RTFA, you wrote way too much for the average Slashdoter to read.
What I have a problem with is...
"This is because they are not bringing new drugs to market. I said that Big Pharma was not bringing new drugs to market. I blame this on the profit-centred, corporate-minded groupthink that has been running Big Pharma. In a nutshell, Big Pharma has been mismanaged."
A mismanaged company will inevitably fall to competition, unless there are other environmental forces, forcing companies into this mismanagement. In this instance, the primary force is Government (The FDA).
They have removed the competitive need to be first to market, with the competitive need to be the first to patent.
I didn't read the rest of your post, it was too long for my interest in this topic. Hell, all I wanted to read was a series of about 20 "Frist Psot" comments and some jokes, with a side of business/economic/political rhetoric.
So in conclusion... thanks for ruining it for me... jerk!:-)
Exactly. And furthermore all of these people who stumble across exploits in computer systems and then alert someone about it, should also have to pay the cost of a full audit. (Sarcasm)
Don't be like the RIAA/MPAA and confuse virtual crimes with real crimes.
I think it has been exclaimed many times before, security is their job, not the governments. The most they could and should do is expel the students and take greater precautions.
First of all yes, games do teach you a skill set, however they teach you a game specific skill set, this includes strategy. To obtain a strategic skill set similar to the "finest leaders" you would need to continually change games to understand the various strategic incentives.
Second of all I'm currently looking at finishing up my MBA, I have studied with a lot of people of various ages. Very few of us play games, we are more likely to engage in chat/organizing warez groups/etc. The games we choose to play, are not the large scale time consuming MMORPG's, it's the instant gratification multi-player FPS games, like Counter-Strike, TF or the single player Hitman style game.
I am sure that there would be a lot of people who now a days play games, or consider themselves to play games which could be why they came up with the seemingly arbitrary metric of 80% of managers play games. More so, who did they poll, did they poll the "finest leaders" or did they poll middle managers? In my experience middle managers are often comprised more of promote through the system/fall into this job kind of guys, and they along with the actual workers, seem to be more composed of gamers.
In fact, I would go out on a limb and say that everybody now a days is exposed to some level of gaming, however the "finest leaders" might well be found either not playing games, or at least not high involvement games.
From the other comments, it seems I'm just beating the same drum as what other people have said, however if this is really the conclusion of "Goebel, Govender and Drake"'s paper, I hope they fail, as this is a quite poorly thought out report.
It's simple why this is done and why this will always be done. It's the same in Australia, UK, Bali, and the US. The logic goes like this:
People decide that speeding is bad.
Limits are put in place.
These limits need to be regulated and so the police are tasked to do this. Most cops (at least all of the ones I know (Which are in Australia)), absolutely HATE doing this, it's a chore and isn't considered "real" police work.
Because the police don't want to do it, they need to be forced to do it with quota's and similar incentives.
The limits are arbitrarily defined and do not account for traffic, vehicle, person, etc. So they are usually setup to appeal to the lowest common denominator (Which there is no such thing, it basically means as low as they can so a civil case isn't brought against them).
Since the limits are unreasonable, people get used to going over the limit when they feel safe. So cops need to patrol the safe area's more than the unsafe areas as they are able to meet their quota's easier, and get on with their "real" job.
Because of this, 90% (Arbitrary value my friends use) of the tickets they dispense are people that are in a safe area doing a safe speed, and are in absolutely no danger nor putting other people in danger.
The South Australian government recognized this problem and tried to rectify it by employing "near retirement cops" to man vehicles (These aren't cop cars and don't chase, just take photos) with cameras whose only purpose was to catch people driving unsafely. These cars are told to be at a specific place at a specific time, for a specific duration, to ensure that they don't game the system like the cops did. Initially they were used in areas where it was historically unsafe to speed (Places where accidents occur regularly), and where you would actually want speed cameras. However, 99% of people drove through these areas safely, and so not many tickets were distributed. Without catching people, the program could not "prove" it's efficacy (and would be axed if it couldn't), so very quickly the program started mimicking precisely what the police were doing, and precisely what the program was started to combat.
This is a problem which can not be gotten around. The system will always be gamed.
What I would like to see, is an abolishment of all speed limits, then have dynamic flashing special limits for dangerous areas (such as schools, etc) which can be turned on at appropriate times, and which include automated systems which monitor and fine people for exceeding the limit when the sign is on and flashing. This way people will not become desensitized to the signs and limits, and it will actually monitor the only areas which need monitoring and eliminate gaming from the system.
IANAP however it sounds as if this could have some affect on the Dark Matter/Energy theories. Since Dark Matter/Energy I believe was invented to balance out seemingly correct equations on a cosmic scale? Perhaps this accounts for the extra gravity holding a system together?
Yes, if only I could charge the Doctor or the Lawyer what he charges me when I fix his computer.
You wish you could charge the Doctor or Lawyer, when this Doctor or Lawyer has gone out of his way to let you fix his computer and has charged you for the privilege (Rightfully so)!
or
You wish you could charge the Doctor or Lawyer what he charges you, when you fix his computer. (Makes sense... when there's a comma in there.)
However, I'm going to assume there was not supposed to be a comma.
Interestingly enough, all of my mum's friends have been asking me about which Apple laptop to get, citing that they don't want a Vista laptop, but don't want to be running old technology.
I generally advise they just find a laptop which has XP.
I think their logic goes like this... Vista is the latest and greatest, meaning XP is old and inherently bad. However Vista sucks, so if I want something with all the latest technology, then I'm going to need to move to Apple. Given the only thing they really use are Office which is on Apple, they haven't had any problems moving, unlike I would.
I've never heard of an accident resulting purely from speed, I have heard of accidents resulting from poor judgement. Good drives, I define as having good judgement and experience handling at the speeds they do.
Good drives slow down where they can not (within reason) assure safety, for them and the other motorists.
If you read the article, you can see these guys were majorly on the lookout, slowing for rises and similar. These men made the trip safely, they obviously exercised good judgement throughout the trip, and were obviously safe throughout the trip.
The example you show of your friends and their baby, is an example of bad drivers, they made an action with poor judgement.
If other people made bad decisions based on their driving, that is NOT their fault. Since poor decisions can be made at any speed, would you always place the blame on the indirect person, who drove safely?
Here's an idea, how's about everybody stop phrasing the question as...
"Would artists (READ: Businesses) make the same sort of profits if this model was more common place?"
with
"Would customers (READ: The world) receive the greatest amount of benefit if this model was more common place?"
and lets not get into the ludicrous concept of "a lack of incentives" (Such as "But if artists don't make lots of money they wont do it"), since there are enormous incentives both tangible and intangible, even if you free this market.
I think you've gone crazy and forgotten that rules are NOT laws! The franchise does NOT have every right to find out who is reselling them. However, (to some extent) they do have the right to cut them off, if they believe it was resold.
If rules were laws then business would have a field day, especially the MPAA and RIAA.
Just because someone invented it, does not necessarily mean they have maximised the inventions benefits to man kind. If they have maximised their benefits to man kind then they would have gotten paid for it, and there would be no need for a patent anyway, as this would merely reduce the overall benefit people could receive from this invention.
So which comes first, benefiting man kind or benefiting individual inventors/lawyers/patent trolls at the expense of everyone?
You haven't mentioned anything about economics. Removing religion does not "break down a city". In fact religion can be seen to create a vast amount of the hardships seen.
Proponents of positive liberty have created some of the worst atrocities known to man, from genocide to stoning people and bombing abortions. Now to undertake these tasks is quite uneconomical because people don't want you to do these things, so to undertake them you can either use Government (Such as in your Communist example) to enact these making it economical, or you can use religion where decisions like these are rationalized in the name of god and so are economical in the next world... of course.
However you are correct but it does not back up your argument. Religion does serve to enforce societal norms, it's just if the societal norms were worthy then there would be sufficient economics incentives for it to be undertaken without the need of religion, the only societal norms which require religion to be sustained are those which aren't in the benefit of people.
You've stated that this is "fact", however this is far from fact and has been proven wrong time and time again. Even the most religious people I know still concede that throughout time the greatest atrocities have been committed due to religion.
<flame>This has been proudly brought to you by common sense.</flame>
This is the exact reason why I am leaving Australia. Business over here is punished for generating profit. Because of this, business don't come down here unless they are interested in Mining or being a retailer. Additionally we have a culture which on the whole, hates immigration and so we aren't able to develop the markets that would counter balance this activity with competition.
Australia is the new Florida of the world. In that, this is where people come to complain about things, and die.
It's a bloody shame, but because the Australian government keeps us from being competitive, I don't have a single friend who is going to stay in the country to earn money, and this is representative of almost everyone I have talked to who has Graduated from University.
Either way, the message is clear, unless you want to be in mining, retail or an industry which supports these industries... go elsewhere!
In Australia the speed of light is measured in kilometres so the American (READ: Imperial) speed of light hasn't been broken, just the Australian speed of light.
Just so you know, breaking the speed of light in Australia is no big deal, we do it all the time.
It's like watching a dog trying to talk, he is making noises, but he doesn't know what he's saying and it doesn't make sense.
Seriously though, if you are actually into this topic, you need to go and study it. Everything you're talking about requires a certain way of looking at it, to ensure that you can describe the entire system and it's obvious you don't understand that. Just do even the introductory course of an Economics program at any University and you'll understand what I mean.
It's been amusing reading your rhetoric. Feel free to keep in touch.
WOW! You're great at commenting. I'm used to arguing with idiots, so I'll almost always reply, until I'm bored of your ignorance.
How did Government enable me to criticize Government? So if we lived in total anarchy I wouldn't be able to criticize Government (Besides it not existing)? You're a genius!
You really don't understand how value is derived? You can't figure out how a civilization can create things such as networks, without Government?
Then you must be the lowest worker of them all, someone unable to fathom how or why someone would do something without being told to.
It saddens me that you are unable to understand the most basic of economic principles.
Slashdot Mirror
Tell me more about Alan Touring?
I think the GP would understand that oil production will peak, the problem is in assessing when it will happen. People have been making these predictions since the 70s (possibly longer than that), however technology keeps increasing the efficiency of vehicles, the efficiency of creation and finding more sources.
Much like broadband.
It seems you're writing a pro Vista comment...
We don' like yo' type 'roun' 'ere, yew best keep moving.
Man, I hope I got my punctuation of the accent correct, or I am going to get reamed by Grammar Nazi's.
Unfortunately it's not so cut and dry. Although we would consider that the buyer was mis-led into thinking they bought something it said it doesn't. The buyer will not always feel that way. So although they don't have "perfect information", no one ever does in any transaction, in even a socialist system.
What the free market does, is remove the "this product is safe/accurate because otherwise it would have been sued/similar" with uncertainty and insecurity in purchases such that people that enter these transactions must either have a lot of blind faith/cash to waste or similar, or they will not partake in this transaction. Given enough people operate this way, then the product will not be able to exist in the free market.
This is similar logic to the Montana No Speed Limit Paradox, in that when people aren't assured of safety, on average they tend to be more cautious.
Are you telling me, that I could output /dev/random to a file, place it on my friends hard drive, say it contains valuable information pertaining to a case and he could go to jail or be fined for not revealing the password/key?
This gives me an idea!
Either way, if you need to you can get around this with TrueCrypt by taking some precautions such as:
1) Not naming it with the default extension (.tc)
2) Put it somewhere inconspicuous and name it appropriately
3) Making sure that it's a hidden encrypted volume
4) Open it through TrueCrypt and don't save the history, or passwords, or as automount, or similar
Shit, that was a typo, I meant to type FIRST POST!!!
We've got that... and no.
What it does do is:
1) Remove jobs from people who need the work, and do a good job of it.
2) Give jobs to people who don't want to work, and do a bad job of it.
3) Provides incentives for employers to pay less for the work being done. (In the instances where the Government is outsourcing)
Trust me, it does not work any well and they find ways to get around it. You end up getting less, for more cost!
You see this is exactly why Windows is winning. Linux is still yet to provide a credible botnet to face off against the Windows botnet. There's just no comparison, Windows wins every time!
"And it's news that the Pharms would prefer to treat the symptoms rather than cure a disease? There's no money in cures."
...and more importantly...
Man I hate hearing this sort of bullshit. There is more money in cures than anything else. It comes down to two factors:
1) People are always willing to pay heaps more for a cure.
2) If you're the first to market with a cure, you are going to make a lot of money from that market, and remove the opportunity from your competition.
This would generate a HUGE competitive advantage for your company, not to mention the intangible benefits of being the first company to cure X (Free publicity, word-a-mouth, goodwill, etc).
Holy shit, man. Not only did you most likely RTFA, you wrote way too much for the average Slashdoter to read.
:-)
What I have a problem with is...
"This is because they are not bringing new drugs to market. I said that Big Pharma was not bringing new drugs to market. I blame this on the profit-centred, corporate-minded groupthink that has been running Big Pharma. In a nutshell, Big Pharma has been mismanaged."
A mismanaged company will inevitably fall to competition, unless there are other environmental forces, forcing companies into this mismanagement. In this instance, the primary force is Government (The FDA).
They have removed the competitive need to be first to market, with the competitive need to be the first to patent.
I didn't read the rest of your post, it was too long for my interest in this topic. Hell, all I wanted to read was a series of about 20 "Frist Psot" comments and some jokes, with a side of business/economic/political rhetoric.
So in conclusion... thanks for ruining it for me... jerk!
Exactly. And furthermore all of these people who stumble across exploits in computer systems and then alert someone about it, should also have to pay the cost of a full audit. (Sarcasm)
Don't be like the RIAA/MPAA and confuse virtual crimes with real crimes.
I think it has been exclaimed many times before, security is their job, not the governments. The most they could and should do is expel the students and take greater precautions.
I'm going to have to call bullshit on this one.
First of all yes, games do teach you a skill set, however they teach you a game specific skill set, this includes strategy. To obtain a strategic skill set similar to the "finest leaders" you would need to continually change games to understand the various strategic incentives.
Second of all I'm currently looking at finishing up my MBA, I have studied with a lot of people of various ages. Very few of us play games, we are more likely to engage in chat/organizing warez groups/etc. The games we choose to play, are not the large scale time consuming MMORPG's, it's the instant gratification multi-player FPS games, like Counter-Strike, TF or the single player Hitman style game.
I am sure that there would be a lot of people who now a days play games, or consider themselves to play games which could be why they came up with the seemingly arbitrary metric of 80% of managers play games. More so, who did they poll, did they poll the "finest leaders" or did they poll middle managers? In my experience middle managers are often comprised more of promote through the system/fall into this job kind of guys, and they along with the actual workers, seem to be more composed of gamers.
In fact, I would go out on a limb and say that everybody now a days is exposed to some level of gaming, however the "finest leaders" might well be found either not playing games, or at least not high involvement games.
From the other comments, it seems I'm just beating the same drum as what other people have said, however if this is really the conclusion of "Goebel, Govender and Drake"'s paper, I hope they fail, as this is a quite poorly thought out report.
</rhetoric>
Because of this, 90% (Arbitrary value my friends use) of the tickets they dispense are people that are in a safe area doing a safe speed, and are in absolutely no danger nor putting other people in danger.
The South Australian government recognized this problem and tried to rectify it by employing "near retirement cops" to man vehicles (These aren't cop cars and don't chase, just take photos) with cameras whose only purpose was to catch people driving unsafely. These cars are told to be at a specific place at a specific time, for a specific duration, to ensure that they don't game the system like the cops did. Initially they were used in areas where it was historically unsafe to speed (Places where accidents occur regularly), and where you would actually want speed cameras. However, 99% of people drove through these areas safely, and so not many tickets were distributed. Without catching people, the program could not "prove" it's efficacy (and would be axed if it couldn't), so very quickly the program started mimicking precisely what the police were doing, and precisely what the program was started to combat.
This is a problem which can not be gotten around. The system will always be gamed.
What I would like to see, is an abolishment of all speed limits, then have dynamic flashing special limits for dangerous areas (such as schools, etc) which can be turned on at appropriate times, and which include automated systems which monitor and fine people for exceeding the limit when the sign is on and flashing. This way people will not become desensitized to the signs and limits, and it will actually monitor the only areas which need monitoring and eliminate gaming from the system.
This also addresses the Montana No Speed Limit Safety Paradox and also addresses a lot of these concerns http://usww.com/homepage/starteam/speed.html
Anyhow, this off topic rant has come to a conclusion.
IANAP however it sounds as if this could have some affect on the Dark Matter/Energy theories. Since Dark Matter/Energy I believe was invented to balance out seemingly correct equations on a cosmic scale? Perhaps this accounts for the extra gravity holding a system together?
Can any physicists elaborate on this for us.
Thanks.
You wish you could charge the Doctor or Lawyer, when this Doctor or Lawyer has gone out of his way to let you fix his computer and has charged you for the privilege (Rightfully so)!
or
You wish you could charge the Doctor or Lawyer what he charges you, when you fix his computer. (Makes sense... when there's a comma in there.)
However, I'm going to assume there was not supposed to be a comma.
Hrmmm... let me think this through, to establish a TCP connection you need to do a three way handshake, so here we go...
me: SYN sent to them
them: SYN-ACK sent to spoofed IP
me: WHERE THE FUCK IS MY SYN-ACK BITCH!?!?!? You rude lil' prick! I'm a cut you!
them: Close connection
Nope, I don't see why you can't spoof a connection. Can you elaborate please?
Interestingly enough, all of my mum's friends have been asking me about which Apple laptop to get, citing that they don't want a Vista laptop, but don't want to be running old technology.
I generally advise they just find a laptop which has XP.
I think their logic goes like this... Vista is the latest and greatest, meaning XP is old and inherently bad. However Vista sucks, so if I want something with all the latest technology, then I'm going to need to move to Apple. Given the only thing they really use are Office which is on Apple, they haven't had any problems moving, unlike I would.
http://phors.locost7.info/contents.htm
I've never heard of an accident resulting purely from speed, I have heard of accidents resulting from poor judgement. Good drives, I define as having good judgement and experience handling at the speeds they do.
Good drives slow down where they can not (within reason) assure safety, for them and the other motorists.
If you read the article, you can see these guys were majorly on the lookout, slowing for rises and similar. These men made the trip safely, they obviously exercised good judgement throughout the trip, and were obviously safe throughout the trip.
The example you show of your friends and their baby, is an example of bad drivers, they made an action with poor judgement.
If other people made bad decisions based on their driving, that is NOT their fault. Since poor decisions can be made at any speed, would you always place the blame on the indirect person, who drove safely?
Here's an idea, how's about everybody stop phrasing the question as...
"Would artists (READ: Businesses) make the same sort of profits if this model was more common place?"
with
"Would customers (READ: The world) receive the greatest amount of benefit if this model was more common place?"
and lets not get into the ludicrous concept of "a lack of incentives" (Such as "But if artists don't make lots of money they wont do it"), since there are enormous incentives both tangible and intangible, even if you free this market.
I think you've gone crazy and forgotten that rules are NOT laws! The franchise does NOT have every right to find out who is reselling them. However, (to some extent) they do have the right to cut them off, if they believe it was resold.
If rules were laws then business would have a field day, especially the MPAA and RIAA.
Just because someone invented it, does not necessarily mean they have maximised the inventions benefits to man kind. If they have maximised their benefits to man kind then they would have gotten paid for it, and there would be no need for a patent anyway, as this would merely reduce the overall benefit people could receive from this invention.
So which comes first, benefiting man kind or benefiting individual inventors/lawyers/patent trolls at the expense of everyone?
You haven't mentioned anything about economics. Removing religion does not "break down a city". In fact religion can be seen to create a vast amount of the hardships seen.
Proponents of positive liberty have created some of the worst atrocities known to man, from genocide to stoning people and bombing abortions. Now to undertake these tasks is quite uneconomical because people don't want you to do these things, so to undertake them you can either use Government (Such as in your Communist example) to enact these making it economical, or you can use religion where decisions like these are rationalized in the name of god and so are economical in the next world... of course.
However you are correct but it does not back up your argument. Religion does serve to enforce societal norms, it's just if the societal norms were worthy then there would be sufficient economics incentives for it to be undertaken without the need of religion, the only societal norms which require religion to be sustained are those which aren't in the benefit of people.
You've stated that this is "fact", however this is far from fact and has been proven wrong time and time again. Even the most religious people I know still concede that throughout time the greatest atrocities have been committed due to religion.
<flame>This has been proudly brought to you by common sense.</flame>
This is the exact reason why I am leaving Australia. Business over here is punished for generating profit. Because of this, business don't come down here unless they are interested in Mining or being a retailer. Additionally we have a culture which on the whole, hates immigration and so we aren't able to develop the markets that would counter balance this activity with competition.
Australia is the new Florida of the world. In that, this is where people come to complain about things, and die.
It's a bloody shame, but because the Australian government keeps us from being competitive, I don't have a single friend who is going to stay in the country to earn money, and this is representative of almost everyone I have talked to who has Graduated from University.
Either way, the message is clear, unless you want to be in mining, retail or an industry which supports these industries... go elsewhere!
In Australia the speed of light is measured in kilometres so the American (READ: Imperial) speed of light hasn't been broken, just the Australian speed of light.
Just so you know, breaking the speed of light in Australia is no big deal, we do it all the time.
(Disclaimer: I am Australian, mate.)
HAHAHA, best logic ever! Man, you're classic.
It's like watching a dog trying to talk, he is making noises, but he doesn't know what he's saying and it doesn't make sense.
Seriously though, if you are actually into this topic, you need to go and study it. Everything you're talking about requires a certain way of looking at it, to ensure that you can describe the entire system and it's obvious you don't understand that. Just do even the introductory course of an Economics program at any University and you'll understand what I mean.
It's been amusing reading your rhetoric. Feel free to keep in touch.
WOW! You're great at commenting. I'm used to arguing with idiots, so I'll almost always reply, until I'm bored of your ignorance.
How did Government enable me to criticize Government? So if we lived in total anarchy I wouldn't be able to criticize Government (Besides it not existing)? You're a genius!
You really don't understand how value is derived? You can't figure out how a civilization can create things such as networks, without Government?
Then you must be the lowest worker of them all, someone unable to fathom how or why someone would do something without being told to.
It saddens me that you are unable to understand the most basic of economic principles.