If anyone knows about what a monopoly is it's Microsoft.
I know that we all despise our Monopolizing Micro$oft overlords and such, but that does not invalidate their argument. Imagine that the complaint was coming from a small company with a solid innovation that was getting pulverized by Google, would you at least hear out the small company?
That said, I agree, it is funny to hear microsoft whining about monopolies. Just try to remember that their past does not, in itself, make them wrong.
You don't have to store Solar Energy. My array is grid-connected (with optional battery backup). It's called net-metering.
It means that the power I generate during the day, reverses my meter and my electric company pays me wholesale price for the electricity that I'm putting into the grid. At night, I'll use their electricity and the net net of my utility bill will be close to nothing. They pay me during the day for the excess power I generate and I pay them for usage at night. Anything extra that I generate (during long summer days), goes into my pocket (it's rare, but it can happen if I just add a few more panels to my array).
It is a false economy. Your electric company pays you for the electricity that you return to the grid since they are obligated to by law, and, as a bonus, it provides some nice PR. Otherwise, they couldn't give a crap about the electricity that you produce. Their cost to produce electricity is essentially identical, irregardless of whether your solar panels are feeding juice into the grid.
Two concepts...
(1) Infrastructure Costs vs. Fuel Costs: Take, for example, a nuclear power plant. There is the cost of building and maintaining the power plant. These costs are present no matter how much power the plant happens to be producing. If the plant was sitting idle on a breezy June day, it would still require the staff to be paid, the building to be maintained, the building costs to be paid off, etc. etc. Then there are the fuel costs, where, as the plant produces more power, more fuel must be purchased. In this case, the infrastructure costs substantially outweigh the fuel costs, so allowing a nuclear power plant to produce less energy than it is able to does not really save all that much.
If you applied this analysis to a hydroelectric plant, then the fuel costs shrink even more.
(2) Peak Demand: Ah hah! you say, if enough people start feeding solar cell energy into the grid, then we can build fewer power plants, and we have indeed actually saved money, the environment, the planet, and our holy souls. Unfortunately, solar energy is not reliable. Neither, for that matter, is wind power. Power companies must be able to respond to peak demand. So (fictional numbers coming up), if country A figures that the most power they will need this year will be 50GW of power, and the country can reasonably expect to be able to import 10GW of power from a neighboring nation, then they had better make sure that they have at least 40GW of production capacity. (Frankly, they should probably have the entire 50GW, but it isn't vital).
So, now, Green Gary comes along and says that him and his 2000 friends can produce 15GW of solar energy... when the sun is shining. Can the country build less than 40GW of production capacity now? Of course not! If they only built 25GW of capacity, hoping that Green Gary and buddies would come up with the remaining 15GW and that neighborly neighbors would pony up the final 10GW, the country would be in trouble on that dark, cold day.
The point? If you are causing a coal or oil power plant to use less fuel, then using solar is probably helping the environment and saving money. However, if you are just causing a nuclear or hydro plant to scale back, then you certainly aren't saving the country any money, and, all said, you probably aren't even helping the environment all that much either.
If it's quarter slots no, if it's $1M a pull, possibly. That statistics work in the long run, and often the games are setup so the machines will be retired before they achieve their theoretical payout.
What I should have said in the grandparent post was that a billionaire playing slots that had a payout of 98% would inevitably lose money if he played long enough. This was as opposed to the comment that claimed that a "bigger bankroll" could somehow be used to improve the probability of winning.
Obviously, one pull of the slot machine could easily be a winner, so there is no point in talking about short-term results.
Now, however, what do you mean by "games are set up so that they will be retired before they achieve their theoretical outputs". Are you saying that there are slot machines out there that pay more than 100%, but, by taking off the casino early, we somehow lower the amount that they pay out such that it falls below the theoretical payout?
That would not work of course, if you took a group of 2000 machines with a 102% payout, and removed them from the casino after 5 months (or whatever arbitrary time that is before the machine achieves its theoretical results), some machines will have paid out more than 102%, while other will have paid out less. Overall, the aggregate amount that the machines underpaid would probably be very close to that which was overpaid.
As you said, statistics work in the long run, and casinos only think in the long run. A casino would never hope to make a profit from a machine that gave a 102% payout, no matter how long that machine was in service.
The featured article discusses an online slot machine emulator that they used as part of their research. This emulator is on a website that, once you feel you have won an appropriate number of credits, lets you "enter a sweepstakes" with those winnings. Needless to say, while playing the emulator, it is almost impossible not to end up ahead after a reasonable number of plays, since the company wants you to enter their sweepstakes.
The article then goes on to say that this emulator formed a good part of the author's research into slot machines. With research like that, how can you go wrong?
With the right mix a slot machine can net money even when the customer has the advantage. For example you could have a machine with 102% payout, yet it will net the slot machine owner money because the house has the advantage of deeper pockets to take advantage of streaks.
By your logic, a billionaire playing a slot that gives 98% payout would eventually come out ahead.
Do you work for the casinos? I will not be taken in by your deceitful ways!
Officer #1: Sir! Murder in progress! Supervisor: Ignore that, we are not allowed to act on that information. Officer #1: But sir! The victim is alive and crawling away... slowly... unseen for now... Supervisor: Nope, terror only boy, terror only.
Meanwhile...
Officer #2: Sir! A turban-wearing terrorist is driving a car within 20km of the airport! Supervisor: How do you know it is a terrorist? Officer #2: Why else would a single man drive a car to the airport? Supervisor: Good point... Supervisor: CODE RED CODE RED! TERROR ATTACK IN PROGRESS. SCRAMBLE CHOPPERS, NUKE THE CAR!
In that case, would it not make sense to require a PIN for any transaction that was sensitive or that was over x dollars? If somebody rips off my identity to purchase a stereo system, that is something with which I can deal. It is only when my identity is used to purchase a car or a house that I begin to have some serious issues...
Borrowing money is a horrible system... the little scams like car loans. Paying cash for those kinds of things is so much cheaper. Indeed, paying cash is certainly cheaper if you have the ability to do so. However, here in the real world, it does not always work out that way. I needed a car to get to my job. Public transit was not available to this location, and taxis are prohibitively expensive. I did not happen to have $4000 cash on me, not to mention the associated repair bills that are part and parcel of buying a cheap used car.
The car loan allows me to work, which allows me to draw a salary which means that, hopefully in the future, I will be lucky enough to live in that nice place where I have enough cash to pay for everything that I need. Until then, I am glad that we live in a society that allows me to access as much credit as I feel I can handle, so that I can make my own reasonable and responsible choices when it comes to my personal finances.
Perhaps I am misunderstanding the situation, but I have a question. Presumably, the idea behind the credit freeze is to stop those who have stolen your identity from doing naughty things with it. However, if the would-be thief has the wherewithal to abscond with thousands of dollars under your name, would this same thief not also have the ability to remove the freeze?
Thief: I would like to borrow $100,000 from Knave's account please. Clueless Customer Rep: Sorry sir, Knave has put a freeze on the account. Thief: I see...
(4 minutes later, with a different clueless customer rep)
Thief: Knave here, I would like to remove the freeze on my account, I'm buying myself a sweet car. Clueless Customer Rep: Very good sir, freeze ovah. Thief: Thanks!
Wiping a dog's face in it's own feces doesn't work for a number of reasons.
1) Dog's have poor memories. Unless you react almost immediately, they simply will not make the connection.
2) Even if they do make the connection, the lesson they will likely learn is "elimination should be done when the human is not around in a place the human won't find right away". The logical leap of "feces in nose" to "should eliminate outside" might occur, but is unlikely.
3) Most importantly, dogs don't really mind feces as much as we do. Many of them eat it happily.
Slashdot Mirror
If anyone knows about what a monopoly is it's Microsoft.
I know that we all despise our Monopolizing Micro$oft overlords and such, but that does not invalidate their argument. Imagine that the complaint was coming from a small company with a solid innovation that was getting pulverized by Google, would you at least hear out the small company?
That said, I agree, it is funny to hear microsoft whining about monopolies. Just try to remember that their past does not, in itself, make them wrong.
Yeah, you sure showed that teacher whatfor.
The question is though, have the bloggers (or Burma) actually gained anything through their risky activities?
The world has noticed the situation in Burma, but we have not actually done anything to stop the oppression.
You don't have to store Solar Energy. My array is grid-connected (with optional battery backup). It's called net-metering.
It means that the power I generate during the day, reverses my meter and my electric company pays me wholesale price for the electricity that I'm putting into the grid. At night, I'll use their electricity and the net net of my utility bill will be close to nothing. They pay me during the day for the excess power I generate and I pay them for usage at night. Anything extra that I generate (during long summer days), goes into my pocket (it's rare, but it can happen if I just add a few more panels to my array).
It is a false economy. Your electric company pays you for the electricity that you return to the grid since they are obligated to by law, and, as a bonus, it provides some nice PR. Otherwise, they couldn't give a crap about the electricity that you produce. Their cost to produce electricity is essentially identical, irregardless of whether your solar panels are feeding juice into the grid.
Two concepts...
(1) Infrastructure Costs vs. Fuel Costs: Take, for example, a nuclear power plant. There is the cost of building and maintaining the power plant. These costs are present no matter how much power the plant happens to be producing. If the plant was sitting idle on a breezy June day, it would still require the staff to be paid, the building to be maintained, the building costs to be paid off, etc. etc. Then there are the fuel costs, where, as the plant produces more power, more fuel must be purchased. In this case, the infrastructure costs substantially outweigh the fuel costs, so allowing a nuclear power plant to produce less energy than it is able to does not really save all that much.
If you applied this analysis to a hydroelectric plant, then the fuel costs shrink even more.
(2) Peak Demand: Ah hah! you say, if enough people start feeding solar cell energy into the grid, then we can build fewer power plants, and we have indeed actually saved money, the environment, the planet, and our holy souls. Unfortunately, solar energy is not reliable. Neither, for that matter, is wind power. Power companies must be able to respond to peak demand. So (fictional numbers coming up), if country A figures that the most power they will need this year will be 50GW of power, and the country can reasonably expect to be able to import 10GW of power from a neighboring nation, then they had better make sure that they have at least 40GW of production capacity. (Frankly, they should probably have the entire 50GW, but it isn't vital).
So, now, Green Gary comes along and says that him and his 2000 friends can produce 15GW of solar energy... when the sun is shining. Can the country build less than 40GW of production capacity now? Of course not! If they only built 25GW of capacity, hoping that Green Gary and buddies would come up with the remaining 15GW and that neighborly neighbors would pony up the final 10GW, the country would be in trouble on that dark, cold day.
The point? If you are causing a coal or oil power plant to use less fuel, then using solar is probably helping the environment and saving money. However, if you are just causing a nuclear or hydro plant to scale back, then you certainly aren't saving the country any money, and, all said, you probably aren't even helping the environment all that much either.
What I should have said in the grandparent post was that a billionaire playing slots that had a payout of 98% would inevitably lose money if he played long enough. This was as opposed to the comment that claimed that a "bigger bankroll" could somehow be used to improve the probability of winning. Obviously, one pull of the slot machine could easily be a winner, so there is no point in talking about short-term results. Now, however, what do you mean by "games are set up so that they will be retired before they achieve their theoretical outputs". Are you saying that there are slot machines out there that pay more than 100%, but, by taking off the casino early, we somehow lower the amount that they pay out such that it falls below the theoretical payout?
That would not work of course, if you took a group of 2000 machines with a 102% payout, and removed them from the casino after 5 months (or whatever arbitrary time that is before the machine achieves its theoretical results), some machines will have paid out more than 102%, while other will have paid out less. Overall, the aggregate amount that the machines underpaid would probably be very close to that which was overpaid.
As you said, statistics work in the long run, and casinos only think in the long run. A casino would never hope to make a profit from a machine that gave a 102% payout, no matter how long that machine was in service.
The featured article discusses an online slot machine emulator that they used as part of their research. This emulator is on a website that, once you feel you have won an appropriate number of credits, lets you "enter a sweepstakes" with those winnings. Needless to say, while playing the emulator, it is almost impossible not to end up ahead after a reasonable number of plays, since the company wants you to enter their sweepstakes.
The article then goes on to say that this emulator formed a good part of the author's research into slot machines. With research like that, how can you go wrong?
With the right mix a slot machine can net money even when the customer has the advantage. For example you could have a machine with 102% payout, yet it will net the slot machine owner money because the house has the advantage of deeper pockets to take advantage of streaks.
By your logic, a billionaire playing a slot that gives 98% payout would eventually come out ahead.
Do you work for the casinos? I will not be taken in by your deceitful ways!
[Deep in the top secret control room]
Officer #1: Sir! Murder in progress!
Supervisor: Ignore that, we are not allowed to act on that information.
Officer #1: But sir! The victim is alive and crawling away... slowly... unseen for now...
Supervisor: Nope, terror only boy, terror only.
Meanwhile...
Officer #2: Sir! A turban-wearing terrorist is driving a car within 20km of the airport!
Supervisor: How do you know it is a terrorist?
Officer #2: Why else would a single man drive a car to the airport?
Supervisor: Good point...
Supervisor: CODE RED CODE RED! TERROR ATTACK IN PROGRESS. SCRAMBLE CHOPPERS, NUKE THE CAR!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Yeah, this is going to work well.
In that case, would it not make sense to require a PIN for any transaction that was sensitive or that was over x dollars? If somebody rips off my identity to purchase a stereo system, that is something with which I can deal. It is only when my identity is used to purchase a car or a house that I begin to have some serious issues...
The car loan allows me to work, which allows me to draw a salary which means that, hopefully in the future, I will be lucky enough to live in that nice place where I have enough cash to pay for everything that I need. Until then, I am glad that we live in a society that allows me to access as much credit as I feel I can handle, so that I can make my own reasonable and responsible choices when it comes to my personal finances.
Perhaps I am misunderstanding the situation, but I have a question. Presumably, the idea behind the credit freeze is to stop those who have stolen your identity from doing naughty things with it. However, if the would-be thief has the wherewithal to abscond with thousands of dollars under your name, would this same thief not also have the ability to remove the freeze?
Thief: I would like to borrow $100,000 from Knave's account please.
Clueless Customer Rep: Sorry sir, Knave has put a freeze on the account.
Thief: I see...
(4 minutes later, with a different clueless customer rep)
Thief: Knave here, I would like to remove the freeze on my account, I'm buying myself a sweet car.
Clueless Customer Rep: Very good sir, freeze ovah.
Thief: Thanks!
What am I missing?
Wiping a dog's face in it's own feces doesn't work for a number of reasons. 1) Dog's have poor memories. Unless you react almost immediately, they simply will not make the connection. 2) Even if they do make the connection, the lesson they will likely learn is "elimination should be done when the human is not around in a place the human won't find right away". The logical leap of "feces in nose" to "should eliminate outside" might occur, but is unlikely. 3) Most importantly, dogs don't really mind feces as much as we do. Many of them eat it happily.