Granted, I've been telemarketed by my fair share from across the globe, but as far as domestic telemarking goes, it's not THE worst thing that could be going on with the strength of the dollar and the unemployment rate like it is.
I really hope that's not what got you modded up.
When the harm you cause others is greater than the benefit you create for yourself, that is textbook economic inefficiency. It should be illegal. That's why we have laws against pollution. That's why we have laws against speeding. That's why we have countless laws against many things that a selfish individual would want to do, but which would harm others.
Yes, telemarketing falls in that class: a failed marketing call has inconvenienced the person who answered the phone. The marketer does not bear this cost.
And the state of the economy does not mean we should throw this principle out the window.
Nobody in the private industry seems to want to open their pocketbooks. Consumers aren't in the mood either.
Agreed. After they've been holding them upside down and shaking them for years, I guess their arms got tired! Seriously, this is what we get after letting things get out of hand (e.g. mortgages).
Would you rather they do nothing and let our economy sink into a huge downward spiral?
You're implying that if they do their something (effectively print money), then the economy won't sink into a huge downward spiral.
I'm curious what your idea is to get our economy moving?
My suggestions would be (1) avoid letting things get out of control in the first place, and (2) stick with sound basic economic principles. Too late to do the former. The latter includes increasing the money supply to make it easier for firms to borrow, which is already being done.
Of course, Joe American wants a solution now. And passing a welfare transfer bill under the guise of stimulus is going to make a lot of people think "something is being done".
I checked out the "Explaining OpenID" web site referenced in the article, and it didn't make a whole lot of sense.
Agree 100%. After wasting time plowing through the same front page you read, I finally found the five minute video (!) that makes me think this works similarly to Google Checkout: When you want to log in to site X, you are redirected to an OpenID site, and enter your single password there; then site X is told that it's really you.
It doesn't disturb me me that university owns the patent instead of the student, but what does disturb me is that the university owns the patent for research paid by public tax dollars.
As an economist, it disturbs me that someone is disturbed by this.
1. If you are willing to let universities receive tax dollars, why not let them receive patents in lieu of some of those tax dollars? These patents are just a form of money.
2. As a previous poster said, the universities apparently put them to better use than the federal agencies did. Put the patents where they do the most social benefit.
3. Understand incentives? If universities get to keep these patents, they have all the more incentive to create valuable output.
"CheckFree spokeswoman Melanie Tolley said users who visited the sites during the attack would have been redirected to a blank page that tried to install malware."
As GP says, this can happen at any hijacked site, financial-oriented or not.
But yes, one can imagine redirecting to a copycat site and stealing someone's financial info. Frighteningly, I use Checkfree for one utility bill, because for that utility, it is the only way to pay the bill other than by check and a stamp.
The union contracts are the single biggest anchor on the Big Three.
That's right. Let's make sure that the people who actually *make* the vehicles don't get compensated for making them. I'm sure the management class are the only people actually producing anything of worth.
Workers at the big 3 are getting about 28$/hour plus pension and benefits.
Did you even read your own link? GP called labor the "biggest anchor" on the big 3. Your link shows exactly that: hourly labor cost for Big 3: $70+/hr... for Japanese companies in the US: less than $50/hr! Frankly, that is an amazing difference.
Now you may or may not find that palatable, but you should be agreeing with the GP. Labor costs are a real issue here.
$4000 for 100 hours? $40 an hour? Really? Seems a bit high to me, but maybe that is the only way they can get people to participate.
Yes, you caught it. If you really want to teach young people that they should be paid for their volunteer work---no one seems to catch the contradiction there---then you do need to pay them a high enough rate.
Seriously, I am surrounded by conscientious people (mostly immigrants) who do solid work for a third of that rate, and have to feed their families.
There is a BIG difference between [proven and shown] as anyone within the Maths and the Sciences can tell you. I'm sorry, but people routinely get this wrong and it gets quite aggravating.
First, there is such a thing as proof by inspection. It may be considered inelegant by certain folks, but it's there nonetheless.
Second, it's just as aggravating (for those in certain fields) that computational results are not more valued. Sure, analytical results provide insight that computational results do not. But if you simply want to know the answer, why not accept a computational result?
Third, anticipating the old "how do we know the computer didn't make a mistake" comment: Theoretical proofs need to be proofread just as code does. So why not accept a computer program (and its verified output, as in the summary) as proof?
Besides the fact this was probably priced at cost, keep in mind that real income was much lower (around one-fourth what it is today**). People just didn't have disposable income like they do today, making this kind of purchase more costly than it appears.
(**I'm taking a stab at the one-fourth figure. You can see that real income roughly doubled in roughly 50 years here, so I guess I'm close.)
Backdoor? That's nothing. What if I log into a table (which seats 10 people) with 1 friend... or worse, 8 friends -- and then work as a team.
Others have mentioned how easy it is to spot this. What they haven't mentioned is that this kind of collusion is generally overrated by non-poker players. Comparing multiplayer collusion to a situation where you can see your opponents' hole cards is laughable. The latter is a license to print money. OTOH most people still couldn't beat the rake with the former, unless they were good enough to do so without cheating.
I mean look at her statements. I mean for instance when she talks about her son beeing deployed in Iraq. Isn't it frightening to see an aspiring political leader buy into peasants propaganda?
When an elected official's son goes to Iraq, it's "peasant propaganda"? Well, when he doesn't, it's someone else's propaganda. I guess they're screwed either way!
I absolutely do not understand the "no harm no foul" concept applied anywhere outside of a playground.
Suppose I play Russian Roulette, but aim at you instead of myself. You watch me spin the cylinder, aim at you, squeeze the trigger, and... nothing happens. Whew, No harm no foul! I'm glad you won't press charges against me for endangering your life.
Suppose I drive home with triple the blood-alcohol limit, but I don't hit anything. "Gee occifer, no farm no houl!" No, that won't get me off the hook, and it shouldn't!
Now perhaps the most appropriate analogy: Suppose after I break into someone's home, I don't find anything worth stealing. I sneak back out before anyone notices my presence, and leave no damage behind. Should I be considered guilty of a crime? Of course! Even if I tell the homeowner his back door is a little loose? Of course!
"I wonder if things will get as far as a price-fixing investigations?"
You need evidence that they actually met and discussed the issue of price.
Equal prices themselves are not evidence of price fixing. (You'd expect equal prices in a competitive market without collusion.) Prices can move in parallel without breaking the law. Think airline industry.
So no, if they already had evidence of explicit price fixing (e.g., wiretaps of conversations), you can bet that they wouldn't start off with a friendly letter from a Senator. They'd get right to the headline....err, to the point, and start criminal investigations.
Slashdot Mirror
You are absolutely free to harass others in the theater.
Good thing there's no law against harassment. If there were, I wonder what they'd call it.
Granted, I've been telemarketed by my fair share from across the globe, but as far as domestic telemarking goes, it's not THE worst thing that could be going on with the strength of the dollar and the unemployment rate like it is.
I really hope that's not what got you modded up.
When the harm you cause others is greater than the benefit you create for yourself, that is textbook economic inefficiency. It should be illegal. That's why we have laws against pollution. That's why we have laws against speeding. That's why we have countless laws against many things that a selfish individual would want to do, but which would harm others.
Yes, telemarketing falls in that class: a failed marketing call has inconvenienced the person who answered the phone. The marketer does not bear this cost.
And the state of the economy does not mean we should throw this principle out the window.
Nobody in the private industry seems to want to open their pocketbooks. Consumers aren't in the mood either.
Agreed. After they've been holding them upside down and shaking them for years, I guess their arms got tired! Seriously, this is what we get after letting things get out of hand (e.g. mortgages).
Would you rather they do nothing and let our economy sink into a huge downward spiral?
You're implying that if they do their something (effectively print money), then the economy won't sink into a huge downward spiral.
I'm curious what your idea is to get our economy moving?
My suggestions would be (1) avoid letting things get out of control in the first place, and (2) stick with sound basic economic principles. Too late to do the former. The latter includes increasing the money supply to make it easier for firms to borrow, which is already being done.
Of course, Joe American wants a solution now. And passing a welfare transfer bill under the guise of stimulus is going to make a lot of people think "something is being done".
Why would Bush have anything to hide? Only criminals require privacy.
Congratulations, you've reached a level of irony we thought to be unattainable.
It was sitting right next to the joke.
If your sport requires special on-screen aids to understand what's happening it's probably overdue for a rethink.
And if it doesn't, it requires nothink! :)
I checked out the "Explaining OpenID" web site referenced in the article, and it didn't make a whole lot of sense.
Agree 100%. After wasting time plowing through the same front page you read, I finally found the five minute video (!) that makes me think this works similarly to Google Checkout: When you want to log in to site X, you are redirected to an OpenID site, and enter your single password there; then site X is told that it's really you.
I got none of that from the front page.
It doesn't disturb me me that university owns the patent instead of the student, but what does disturb me is that the university owns the patent for research paid by public tax dollars.
As an economist, it disturbs me that someone is disturbed by this.
1. If you are willing to let universities receive tax dollars, why not let them receive patents in lieu of some of those tax dollars? These patents are just a form of money.
2. As a previous poster said, the universities apparently put them to better use than the federal agencies did. Put the patents where they do the most social benefit.
3. Understand incentives? If universities get to keep these patents, they have all the more incentive to create valuable output.
That's a great example of sample bias. The answer to FAQ #15 states that Game! doesn't work well in IE.
I think GP made the mistake of reading TFA:
"CheckFree spokeswoman Melanie Tolley said users who visited the sites during the attack would have been redirected to a blank page that tried to install malware."
As GP says, this can happen at any hijacked site, financial-oriented or not.
But yes, one can imagine redirecting to a copycat site and stealing someone's financial info. Frighteningly, I use Checkfree for one utility bill, because for that utility, it is the only way to pay the bill other than by check and a stamp.
The union contracts are the single biggest anchor on the Big Three.
That's right. Let's make sure that the people who actually *make* the vehicles don't get compensated for making them. I'm sure the management class are the only people actually producing anything of worth.
Workers at the big 3 are getting about 28$/hour plus pension and benefits.
Did you even read your own link? GP called labor the "biggest anchor" on the big 3. Your link shows exactly that: hourly labor cost for Big 3: $70+/hr... for Japanese companies in the US: less than $50/hr! Frankly, that is an amazing difference.
Now you may or may not find that palatable, but you should be agreeing with the GP. Labor costs are a real issue here.
Never dealt with the government before? An "8+ year battle" involves something like 20 days of fighting interspersed among 2900+ days of waiting.
"There's nearly 2,000 shorter words"
Ironically, the word "are" can be typed with the left hand....
This being slashdot, and your mouse occupying your right hand, I'll just draw the obvious conclusion.
And why have a Korean play a Japanese character (Sulu)? WTF?
Yeah, they've never done something like that before.
$4000 for 100 hours? $40 an hour? Really? Seems a bit high to me, but maybe that is the only way they can get people to participate.
Yes, you caught it. If you really want to teach young people that they should be paid for their volunteer work---no one seems to catch the contradiction there---then you do need to pay them a high enough rate.
Seriously, I am surrounded by conscientious people (mostly immigrants) who do solid work for a third of that rate, and have to feed their families.
There is a BIG difference between [proven and shown] as anyone within the Maths and the Sciences can tell you. I'm sorry, but people routinely get this wrong and it gets quite aggravating.
First, there is such a thing as proof by inspection. It may be considered inelegant by certain folks, but it's there nonetheless.
Second, it's just as aggravating (for those in certain fields) that computational results are not more valued. Sure, analytical results provide insight that computational results do not. But if you simply want to know the answer, why not accept a computational result?
Third, anticipating the old "how do we know the computer didn't make a mistake" comment: Theoretical proofs need to be proofread just as code does. So why not accept a computer program (and its verified output, as in the summary) as proof?
But uh, mind if I ask: exactly what kind of pictures are you planning on taking on your vacation? ;-)
A subtle "if you have nothing to hide then you have nothing to fear" poke. Haha.
Oddly, I thought the ;-) indicated it to be a not-so-subtle bit of humor.
Or, just ignore that, post a generic "It's nobody's business!" comment, and ride the mod-wave all the way to shore. ;-)
Besides the fact this was probably priced at cost, keep in mind that real income was much lower (around one-fourth what it is today**). People just didn't have disposable income like they do today, making this kind of purchase more costly than it appears.
(**I'm taking a stab at the one-fourth figure. You can see that real income roughly doubled in roughly 50 years here, so I guess I'm close.)
Backdoor? That's nothing. What if I log into a table (which seats 10 people) with 1 friend... or worse, 8 friends -- and then work as a team.
Others have mentioned how easy it is to spot this. What they haven't mentioned is that this kind of collusion is generally overrated by non-poker players. Comparing multiplayer collusion to a situation where you can see your opponents' hole cards is laughable. The latter is a license to print money. OTOH most people still couldn't beat the rake with the former, unless they were good enough to do so without cheating.
Absolutely right. And here's the textbook.
I mean look at her statements. I mean for instance when she talks about her son beeing deployed in Iraq. Isn't it frightening to see an aspiring political leader buy into peasants propaganda?
When an elected official's son goes to Iraq, it's "peasant propaganda"? Well, when he doesn't, it's someone else's propaganda. I guess they're screwed either way!
I absolutely do not understand the "no harm no foul" concept applied anywhere outside of a playground.
Suppose I play Russian Roulette, but aim at you instead of myself. You watch me spin the cylinder, aim at you, squeeze the trigger, and... nothing happens. Whew, No harm no foul! I'm glad you won't press charges against me for endangering your life.
Suppose I drive home with triple the blood-alcohol limit, but I don't hit anything. "Gee occifer, no farm no houl!" No, that won't get me off the hook, and it shouldn't!
Now perhaps the most appropriate analogy: Suppose after I break into someone's home, I don't find anything worth stealing. I sneak back out before anyone notices my presence, and leave no damage behind. Should I be considered guilty of a crime? Of course! Even if I tell the homeowner his back door is a little loose? Of course!
No, GP's joke was much funnier.
"I wonder if things will get as far as a price-fixing investigations?"
You need evidence that they actually met and discussed the issue of price.
Equal prices themselves are not evidence of price fixing. (You'd expect equal prices in a competitive market without collusion.) Prices can move in parallel without breaking the law. Think airline industry.
So no, if they already had evidence of explicit price fixing (e.g., wiretaps of conversations), you can bet that they wouldn't start off with a friendly letter from a Senator. They'd get right to the headline....err, to the point, and start criminal investigations.
The shocking thing was the spaghetti and duck meatballs with porcini mushrooms. How'd they ever fit that in there?