The G8 is focused on economic activity, so discussion of the wars is pretty much right out.
Inflation is not a global problem, so why should countries not having inflation problems make it a primary matter on the agenda?
The agenda for the summit is defined by the host country (whose representative is the president for the year).
Also note that global climate change is being addressed by the G8+5, and was a major topic last year.
Finally, the G8 is not meeting for a week just to discuss IP and piracy. There are many other items on the agenda.
You should proceed to get your panties unbunched, and then bother to find out what the complete agenda is.
I agree that there are items of far bigger concern, but you should note that the G8 summit typically focuses on economic issues, not on things like war or violent crime -- though they are often linked to economics.
I can't agree more. One of my pet peeves is people using those terms interchangeably and then thinking they are the same thing (ie interweb). I can't believe someone on Slashdot even got that wrong.
They didn't even invent, let alone UTILIZE the wheel...
And yet, the wheel would have been largely useless to them, as they had no sizable draft animal and the terrain was largely unsuitable to wheeled vehicles.
Just sayin... the lack of the wheel had little to do with their potential for engineering.
I think your point revolves around the cost of doing the project. Most people don't upgrade their computers because they don't have the know-how, or value other things the could do with their time much more. Sometimes people are just lazy.
However, if these projects turn into an appliance-style project, then the apparent cost goes way down. Imagine if every electrical outlet, in addition to two "power-our" sockets, also had a "power-in" socket. Now imagine the following appliances:
A stationary bike with a power-out line. The curtains from this article. An anti-slam device on a door that uses some of the resistance to generate electricity.
Each of these is a project to install -- but if you're building a new house, or decorating a house you're moving into, or replacing the slam-protector on your door, why not just pay an extra couple bucks and get the eletricity generating version? Then there is no labor required, it's just purely about cost.
Sure, lots of people can't afford the capital outlay. And lots of other people won't do the CBA to determine if it's worthwhile. But bringing "green" DIY projects to the level of an appliance makes it much more likely for people to adopt.
One other thing -- how come I've never seen, anywhere, the idea of putting a hydroelectric turbine in a sewer line? Is it because the power generated would be miniscule? I'd love to capture some of the energy lost when my 3rd-floor shower drains all the way to below ground-level.
It's not possible* for the HIV virus to adapt to this, as it requires two different binding sites. If you remove one of the sites, binding and insertion is impossible.
As for changing the genetic code, that's not what you're doing. Instead you are putting out a honeypot to attract the virus. The virus can still infect normal cells, but the modified cells can't be infected -- if you have enough of them, then the normal cells can go about their business. Here's a very simplified model:
Say each generation of HIV has an infection success rate of 50%, and produces three viruses when it lyses its host cell. Each generation would then result in a 50% increase in number of viruses (N*0.5*3). Let's say that you have a 1:1 ratio of normal cells to modified cells. Any viruses that try to infect the modified cells fail, and are taken out of circulation. Now each generation will have a population of only 75% of the prior generation (N*0.5*0.5*3). You can practically get rid of the virus over many successive generations.
* By not possible, I mean very very unlikely. It would require wholesale change of the virus structure.
Sorry, I was just making a pretty poor attempt at subtle humor. If I had ever given my wife a computer (or any tech stuff) for V-day, she would have beat me over the head with it.
But this technology may provide a way to defend against this virus. By changing the "shape" of our T-cells it will prevent the virus from recognizing its target. This would render it ineffective and be effective against the numerous variants
This does not make the T-cell invisible to HIV, it sets a trap.
T Cell (in sexy voice): How about it, Mr. HIV, do you want to come into my place? HIV: Om nom nom let me put my arms around you baby... wait, where the fuck do I put my left arm? I can't penetrate without both arms around you! T cell: All your binding proteins are belong to me. HIV: I'm going to go hit on someone else. Let go of my right arm, you bastard! T cell: Om nom nom
Well ok, it's a stretch, the T cell doesn't eat the virus at the end.
But the zinc fingers don't disguise the T-cell, they keep the T-cell from expressing one of the antigens on its surface. So instead of the two binding sites needed for the T-cell to be infected, it only shows one.
One time I even bought a girl a computer for Valentine's Day just so I could talk to her while I was at my ISP tech support job; we ended up getting married.
Oh, so that's how to solve that puzzle. I tried the flowers, champagne, dinner, jewelry methods.
A system that needs people to control it is destined to fail. A system that controls itself is robust.
Whatever, HAL.
A system that controls itself is only as robust as the initial designers made it.
A process that needs people to take action is destined to have problems. A system that consists of actions taken by people cannot control itself, and is destined to have problems.
You should be modded redundant because this is now the third time in this discussion I've had to tear down this ideological pop-economic BULLSHIT.
And you should be moidded redundant because this is the third time you've made the same fallacy in your responses.
The supply of a good means that which is available. You know, available for use. Which is what is of concern to those who use that good as a raw material.
Economics determines how much of a commodity is produced. Economics therefore determines the supply of these commodities. Yes, there may be absolute limits based upon how much of a rare element is accessible to us... but the cost of extraction and the demand for the element will determine how much is produced. Which determines what the market supply of that element is.
If you are a true economist, then fuck off and play with your stock markets and leave actual science to actual scientists.
Just because you don't understand it doesn't mean it doesn't exist, and doesn't mean it doesn't affect you. Go ahead and choose to remain ignorant of economics, and then you can come crying when you can't get commodity goods (such as rare elements) for your "actual science". Go ahead and ignore the implications when you can't get funding for your "actual science" because costs have gone up, because no one invested in refining infrastructure because no one paid attention to the economists who predicted demand growth and supply stagnation.
So you know what, maybe I will go play with stock markets and trade in some commodities. And when you have no $RAREELEMENT, you can pay out the nose because you chose to ignore the actual science of economics.
Check out the staff lists for the good graduate schools in economics, there's a starting point.
The problem is that the top economic research is very dry reading, and usually pretty esoteric, so you probably won't find it useful even if it is comprehensible.
You have a horrible interpretation of how economic theory really works.
Like other sciences, it relies on the scientific method. Those economists who use the method you describe are crackpots (and yes, there are many of them, just like there are in any scientific field).
Real economic research is done by postulating a theory which is then tested against evidence. There is no "rationalising" of the theory by manipulating the evidence, except by crackpots.
The problem with the economics field is that the crackpots hold a lot of sway because they confirm the what people want to believe. They serve their market very well.
Economics generally can only explain things after they happen, and when it tries to explain things before they happen and gets it wrong, nobody changes their views on things.
Again, your lack of exposure to real economics colors your view. I suggest you become more familiar with academic economic research, rather than substitute the "research" done by various special interest groups (like industry-funded think tanks, or by people with an agenda to push). But, like most advanced sciences, it's very hard to understand without the right knowledge... so I'd anticipate that there is NO way you could ever be convinced since you lack the background to understand the science.
Your view is just like that of the ID theorists who, lacking the backround to understand science, and lacking the will to try to understand, claim that scientists spout hogwash in support of evolutionary theory... that biologists start with the theory and then cherrypick "evidence" to support their claims.
As for not changing when evidence contradicts their claims, perhaps you should look at the "hard" sciences, you'll find much of the same. Usually when evidence contradicts a theory, scientists (whether economists or chemists or physicists) will look for something they have missed in their theory that will explain the discrepancy. Revision of theory is important part of all sciences, and for you to claim that economists do not revise their theories is plain and simply incorrect.
But anyway, your main problem is that you equate armchair and agenda-driven economists with academic economists... do you do that with researchers in other fields too? Perhaps all climatologists are full of shit because some of them take money from oil and coal companies and then publish "research" that shows that there is no greenhouse effect, or that CO2 levels in the atmosphere do not contribute to it, or that CO2 generated by man does not contribute to atmospheric CO2?
Seriously... maybe you should consider all scientific fields quackery, since there are quacks in all fields. Then you can just resort to "known facts", like the ones in the bible.
Sorry to compare you to an ID proponent, but your lack of understanding of economic theory and academic economics is nearly a direct parallel.
What makes you think that, for practical purposes, rare elements will always be available for use? What makes you think that the definition of "supply" means all the stock of an element on the planet?
"Supply" in this sense is used to refer to the stock of a material available for use. Do you seriously think (for example) that all the gallium used in consumer electronics is recoverable? Or that it's cost-effective to do so?
Are you retarded enough to think that economics cannot be used to analyze the markets for raw materials used for production of electronics, and that the available supply of a raw material does not affect the price people will pay for that raw material, and that this will not affect the cost and availability of finished goods that use that raw material?
Or are you saying that cost of recovery of a raw material is meaningless?
Why does crap such as you wrote keep getting modded insightful? Presumably it's by the armchair logicians who equate total amount of an element on the planet with the amount available for use (the supply).
You may not like that they are doing terrible things to try to stop people from breaking the law, but their business model is not the problem.
Anyone who studies microeconomics would disagree with you. Artificially restraining supply creates a black market for the good. They are attempting to make the cost of the black market good higher by increasing penalties for being caught.
The problem is that they are waging a losing battle. They can't make uncrackable DRM, and they can't overcome a unit cost of production equal to zero.
Every time I'm tempted to buy a CD, I think about first finding a store that lets me listen before I buy, then thinking about spending at least an hour going through albums aimlessly as I have no good way to find what's related to things I already like,/i>.
Pandora would be a big help there. Seriously. Free access to streaming music, with a pretty good algorithm for finding music that has lots in common with the music you already know you like. Plus the ability to create stations and share them with others...
I'm not sure what kind of commentary that is on our social structures...
I, for one, am married, and that means I think of boobies *more* often. Of course, now, some of the time I'm wondering how much milk they hold. Which doesn't really help when we're discussing solid spheres.
Aside from all the opinions on Powell's character, he's a Republican
Ever wonder how much of a Republican he really is? He is, after all, pretty dove-ish.
Powell would tie-break for the Republicans every time
Assuming he's part of the machine.
I wonder if he would be a man who would put the country's interests ahead of party politics... but it doesn;t matter, since he would decline a nomination from either side, I'm sure.
It's correct to say that patents and copyrights do not exist in a free market.
True. But who says that a purely free market is the best market?
Trade secrets would replace patents... great. So now we either waste resources reverse-engineering, or we lose knowledge when people die unexpectedly. And we have fewer resources allocated to design and devlopment. Wonderful.
Patents are useful things, it's a shame they have been so royally screwed up.
Except in your example instead of the vendors moving more towards the center they are moving closer to the edge and telling everyone that the other vendor is serving rat poison in his ice cream.
Heh. I think you'd have both vendors moving towards the center, but claiming the other person was so far out that they were falling off the boardwalk. Or they move towards the center on issues they affect, but move towards the edges on issues they can't, so they can appear to be on one side while still serving their ice-cream-manufacturing overlords.
Slashdot Mirror
sqrt(-boobs) == eromanga/cartoon porn.
log(boobs) == scheisseporn/cleveland steamer.
ln(boobs) == amateur scheisseporn/cleveland steamer.
(boobs)^2 == lesbian porn.
1/(boobs) == acrobatic porn.
Do a little background reading, please.
The G8 is focused on economic activity, so discussion of the wars is pretty much right out.
Inflation is not a global problem, so why should countries not having inflation problems make it a primary matter on the agenda?
The agenda for the summit is defined by the host country (whose representative is the president for the year).
Also note that global climate change is being addressed by the G8+5, and was a major topic last year.
Finally, the G8 is not meeting for a week just to discuss IP and piracy. There are many other items on the agenda.
You should proceed to get your panties unbunched, and then bother to find out what the complete agenda is.
I agree that there are items of far bigger concern, but you should note that the G8 summit typically focuses on economic issues, not on things like war or violent crime -- though they are often linked to economics.
Why is that?
Which "costs" more to the economies (read: businesses and campaign contributions) of the participating nations?
If this were a summit of PacRim & SE Asian countries, you might have a point.
Now you just need to normalize by access to high-speed internet, and you've got a better picture.
Per capita means nothing when less than 10% of a country has access to high-speed internet.
What I'd really like to see is how many people downloaded the Windows version, compared to the installed Windows base, per country.
YMBNH.
And yet, the wheel would have been largely useless to them, as they had no sizable draft animal and the terrain was largely unsuitable to wheeled vehicles.
Just sayin... the lack of the wheel had little to do with their potential for engineering.
I think your point revolves around the cost of doing the project. Most people don't upgrade their computers because they don't have the know-how, or value other things the could do with their time much more. Sometimes people are just lazy.
However, if these projects turn into an appliance-style project, then the apparent cost goes way down. Imagine if every electrical outlet, in addition to two "power-our" sockets, also had a "power-in" socket. Now imagine the following appliances:
A stationary bike with a power-out line.
The curtains from this article.
An anti-slam device on a door that uses some of the resistance to generate electricity.
Each of these is a project to install -- but if you're building a new house, or decorating a house you're moving into, or replacing the slam-protector on your door, why not just pay an extra couple bucks and get the eletricity generating version? Then there is no labor required, it's just purely about cost.
Sure, lots of people can't afford the capital outlay. And lots of other people won't do the CBA to determine if it's worthwhile. But bringing "green" DIY projects to the level of an appliance makes it much more likely for people to adopt.
One other thing -- how come I've never seen, anywhere, the idea of putting a hydroelectric turbine in a sewer line? Is it because the power generated would be miniscule? I'd love to capture some of the energy lost when my 3rd-floor shower drains all the way to below ground-level.
It's not possible* for the HIV virus to adapt to this, as it requires two different binding sites. If you remove one of the sites, binding and insertion is impossible.
As for changing the genetic code, that's not what you're doing. Instead you are putting out a honeypot to attract the virus. The virus can still infect normal cells, but the modified cells can't be infected -- if you have enough of them, then the normal cells can go about their business. Here's a very simplified model:
Say each generation of HIV has an infection success rate of 50%, and produces three viruses when it lyses its host cell. Each generation would then result in a 50% increase in number of viruses (N*0.5*3). Let's say that you have a 1:1 ratio of normal cells to modified cells. Any viruses that try to infect the modified cells fail, and are taken out of circulation. Now each generation will have a population of only 75% of the prior generation (N*0.5*0.5*3). You can practically get rid of the virus over many successive generations.
* By not possible, I mean very very unlikely. It would require wholesale change of the virus structure.
Sorry, I was just making a pretty poor attempt at subtle humor. If I had ever given my wife a computer (or any tech stuff) for V-day, she would have beat me over the head with it.
You lucky bastard.
This does not make the T-cell invisible to HIV, it sets a trap.
T Cell (in sexy voice): How about it, Mr. HIV, do you want to come into my place?
HIV: Om nom nom let me put my arms around you baby... wait, where the fuck do I put my left arm? I can't penetrate without both arms around you!
T cell: All your binding proteins are belong to me.
HIV: I'm going to go hit on someone else. Let go of my right arm, you bastard!
T cell: Om nom nom
Well ok, it's a stretch, the T cell doesn't eat the virus at the end.
But the zinc fingers don't disguise the T-cell, they keep the T-cell from expressing one of the antigens on its surface. So instead of the two binding sites needed for the T-cell to be infected, it only shows one.
Oh, so that's how to solve that puzzle. I tried the flowers, champagne, dinner, jewelry methods.
BTW, was it a girl you already knew?
--thanks in advance for the relationship advice.
Try a US-based proxy. It might help.
You're right about stores, but there's a reason why B&M shops for digital goods will go the way of the dodo.
Whatever, HAL.
A system that controls itself is only as robust as the initial designers made it.
A process that needs people to take action is destined to have problems. A system that consists of actions taken by people cannot control itself, and is destined to have problems.
And you should be moidded redundant because this is the third time you've made the same fallacy in your responses.
The supply of a good means that which is available. You know, available for use. Which is what is of concern to those who use that good as a raw material.
Economics determines how much of a commodity is produced. Economics therefore determines the supply of these commodities. Yes, there may be absolute limits based upon how much of a rare element is accessible to us... but the cost of extraction and the demand for the element will determine how much is produced. Which determines what the market supply of that element is.
Just because you don't understand it doesn't mean it doesn't exist, and doesn't mean it doesn't affect you. Go ahead and choose to remain ignorant of economics, and then you can come crying when you can't get commodity goods (such as rare elements) for your "actual science". Go ahead and ignore the implications when you can't get funding for your "actual science" because costs have gone up, because no one invested in refining infrastructure because no one paid attention to the economists who predicted demand growth and supply stagnation.
So you know what, maybe I will go play with stock markets and trade in some commodities. And when you have no $RAREELEMENT, you can pay out the nose because you chose to ignore the actual science of economics.
The trick is to stay away from popular economics.
Check out the staff lists for the good graduate schools in economics, there's a starting point.
The problem is that the top economic research is very dry reading, and usually pretty esoteric, so you probably won't find it useful even if it is comprehensible.
Like other sciences, it relies on the scientific method. Those economists who use the method you describe are crackpots (and yes, there are many of them, just like there are in any scientific field).
Real economic research is done by postulating a theory which is then tested against evidence. There is no "rationalising" of the theory by manipulating the evidence, except by crackpots.
The problem with the economics field is that the crackpots hold a lot of sway because they confirm the what people want to believe. They serve their market very well.
Speaking of retards...
What makes you think that, for practical purposes, rare elements will always be available for use? What makes you think that the definition of "supply" means all the stock of an element on the planet?
"Supply" in this sense is used to refer to the stock of a material available for use. Do you seriously think (for example) that all the gallium used in consumer electronics is recoverable? Or that it's cost-effective to do so?
Are you retarded enough to think that economics cannot be used to analyze the markets for raw materials used for production of electronics, and that the available supply of a raw material does not affect the price people will pay for that raw material, and that this will not affect the cost and availability of finished goods that use that raw material?
Or are you saying that cost of recovery of a raw material is meaningless?
Why does crap such as you wrote keep getting modded insightful? Presumably it's by the armchair logicians who equate total amount of an element on the planet with the amount available for use (the supply).
They are preventing competitors from entering the business, thereby removing te possibility of any supplier offering the product at a different price.
I shouldn't have said restraining supply, I should have said fixing price on supply, sorry.
Anyone who studies microeconomics would disagree with you. Artificially restraining supply creates a black market for the good. They are attempting to make the cost of the black market good higher by increasing penalties for being caught.
The problem is that they are waging a losing battle. They can't make uncrackable DRM, and they can't overcome a unit cost of production equal to zero.
Pandora would be a big help there. Seriously. Free access to streaming music, with a pretty good algorithm for finding music that has lots in common with the music you already know you like. Plus the ability to create stations and share them with others...
The single guys think of boobies.
The married guy thinks of balls.
I'm not sure what kind of commentary that is on our social structures...
I, for one, am married, and that means I think of boobies *more* often. Of course, now, some of the time I'm wondering how much milk they hold. Which doesn't really help when we're discussing solid spheres.
*cough*Reagan*cough*
*cough*Hell*cough*
*cough*You can still be President when you're senile at 81*cough*
Just sayin'...
Ever wonder how much of a Republican he really is? He is, after all, pretty dove-ish.
Assuming he's part of the machine.
I wonder if he would be a man who would put the country's interests ahead of party politics... but it doesn;t matter, since he would decline a nomination from either side, I'm sure.
It's correct to say that patents and copyrights do not exist in a free market.
True. But who says that a purely free market is the best market?
Trade secrets would replace patents... great. So now we either waste resources reverse-engineering, or we lose knowledge when people die unexpectedly. And we have fewer resources allocated to design and devlopment. Wonderful.
Patents are useful things, it's a shame they have been so royally screwed up.
Heh. I think you'd have both vendors moving towards the center, but claiming the other person was so far out that they were falling off the boardwalk. Or they move towards the center on issues they affect, but move towards the edges on issues they can't, so they can appear to be on one side while still serving their ice-cream-manufacturing overlords.