On the other hand, good luck getting rid of Windows Messenger. It's even hidden in Add/Remove Programs and fixing that requires a hack well beyond most users.
Not anymore. I remember having to use the "hack" way to get rid of it in the past, but in newer times (SP2 ?) it can just be uninstalled like a regular application.
Sounds like global economic growth. It may be huge, but it's only about 4 %.
I'd much rather have 4% of the global economy's worth than 100% of my current net worth.
The global economy literally means a friggin big amount of money.
Explain to me how any country, company or individual that grows slower than the global average is not a loser in this game.
So if a $10^12 country grows only by 3% a year, it must be a loser compared to all the $10^9 countries that manage a 15% growth ?
We're also in danger of finding tiny stars that orbit humungous stars such that their barycenter lies within the diameter of the bigger star - and we could end up having to call those things planets!
Having a fusion reaction going on definitely excludes an object from being a planet.
I expect that if somebody made a cocktail of tylenol, motrin and benadryl and told everybody they could only take it for a month so they wouldn't get hooked, people would say it was the best pain controller they every took!
And they'll also shoot their kidneys and livers straight to hell.
Addiction is psychological and not tied to how long you take a drug.
Sorry, but pretty much any physician/biochemist/physiology textbook will disagree with you. Receptor downregulation is very much not a psychological effect.
If you think you have resisted actual physical addiction by sheer willpower, then I have good news for you: You weren't physically addicted yet.
That is basicly a zero sum game in regards to the ocean level..
.. to the average ocean level. However, just build your house/city so that it is on dry land when the ocean level is average and see what happens. Bring a life vest, too.
If we manage to figure out a way to move Earth away from the sun before it goes red giant, it will most likely involve leaving any unnecessary baggage (like orbiting balls of rock) behind.
Also, the difference between 1 atmosphere of pressure (i.e. ground level) and some fraction of an atmosphere (at cruising altitude) is an order of magnitude or so smaller than the difference between ground level and the bottom of the ocean.
Several orders of magnitude, as long as the bottom of the ocean is deeper than about 100 meters.
Why make a recon aircraft that can fly faster/higher when you can just upgrade the optics and imager on a satellite and get improved results, less risk of intelligence asset loss, and greater ground coverage from a bunch of satellites?
Because it annoys the living **** out of them commies.
Re:Read "The origins of exceptional abilities"
on
The Expert Mind
·
· Score: 1
Mozart did not write any music worth listening to before after about a decade of hard training.
However, for every single Mozart there's probably several orders of magnitude more people who will not write any music worth listening to, no matter how long they train.
As they say... don't try to teach a pig to sing. It wastes your time and annoys the pig.
If it takes them days to spot the inconsistency in this (i.e., if any liquids are dangerous, why not those in baby bottles? And if those can be safely allowed in, why prevent time with other liquids?), then I'm rather worried.
How about the inconsistency about the terrorist walking up to the check-in counter with a full suitcase (~40 pounds) of explosives and shrapnel and the resulting carnage ?
If the terrorist gets to the airport with his bomb, it's already too late and any measures should be considered "damage control" instead of "hooray we're keeping terrorism in check by forcing people to throw their water bottles away!".
No, you don't. You just need to prove your original hypothesis, instead of conveniently switching it out for a different one in the middle of the discussion.
Here's your original statement (minus the typo):
"a capitalist can only be as wealthy as the people he sells to"
You can't get rich unless you can sell your goods.
Agreed. Completely irrelevant for the hypothesis, however, since there is nothing in here that says that the seller cannot become richer than the buyers.
And the more goods you can sell the richer you can get.
Again, agreed. Also completely irrelevant, since there is still no statement that says that the seller cannot be richer than the buyers. You might even deduce the complete opposite - how rich the seller becomes depends on how large the customer base is, not on big each of the transactions are.
Look at your own silly example. Your options are sell the luxury car for $100,000 and make $20,000 profit, or sell the candy bars and make $20,000 profit. Wouldn't you rather sell 100,000 luxury cars? So why don't you? Because there aren't enough buyers with that much wealth. But if there were, you would be making $20,000 X 100,000 = more than $20,000.
You're coming dangerously close to refuting your own hypothesis here.
So clearly, obviously (pick your additional adverbs) it makes more sense for the capitalist to want everyone's wealth to increase.
Of course. Because the more customers the seller has, the richer (also in relation to each of his customers) he will become. With enough customers, he will become richer by several orders of magnitude than each of his customers.
That's all I'm saying.
That's what you're saying now, and it is all 100% correct, and 0% related to the original statement that was the starting point for this discussion.
At the very worst it's the enshrinement of enlightened self-interest, and that means that every good capitalist wants the best for every other human so that they can all generate the most wealth.
I would guess that "good" capitalists (who want the best for everyone, instead of the most for themselves) are about as rare as "good" communists (who want the best for everyone, instead of taking everything away from everyone). Human nature (mainly "short term thinking" and "self interest") stands in the way of either kind of utopia.
This isn't "absurd", it's cold, hard economic fact. You can't get money if you can't sell goods.
Oh, hm, yeah. And what does this have to do with how wealthy the seller is vs how wealthy the buyers are ?
Let me guess: Nothing. It's a completely unrelated bit of information that does not answer the question.
If you sell some rich dude a luxury car for $100,000 and make $20,000 profit is the same as selling 100,000 $1 candy bars to 100,000 kids at $0.20 profit per candy bar in terms of money. The capitalist has his $20,000 profit in both cases, but the "wealth" of the buyers will be drastically different. Which route you should chose mainly depends on whether you're good at making cars or (candy bars + marketing).
We don't live in Total Recall world, and a walk through scanner that can detect a capsule of liquid shoved up someone's ass doesn't exist - nor is it likely to exist in the near future.
It could exist. However, I think most airline passengers will object to being X-rayed every time they pass security.
Slashdot Mirror
Remember, this is a civil lawsuit and not a criminal trial. There is no "innocent" or "guilty" in a civil suit, just "liable" or "not liable".
No. Erm, wait. Do they have oil ?
Methane ? Close enough.
Oh yeah, and couple billion tons of mass as development aid wouldn't hurt, either.
Neptune has more than enough gravity to munch up anything in its vicinity that's not in an orbit.
On the other hand, good luck getting rid of Windows Messenger. It's even hidden in Add/Remove Programs and fixing that requires a hack well beyond most users.
Not anymore. I remember having to use the "hack" way to get rid of it in the past, but in newer times (SP2 ?) it can just be uninstalled like a regular application.
I'd much rather have 4% of the global economy's worth than 100% of my current net worth.
The global economy literally means a friggin big amount of money. Explain to me how any country, company or individual that grows slower than the global average is not a loser in this game.
So if a $10^12 country grows only by 3% a year, it must be a loser compared to all the $10^9 countries that manage a 15% growth ?
*BZZZZZT*
Please look at your textbook again.
Having a fusion reaction going on definitely excludes an object from being a planet.
And they'll also shoot their kidneys and livers straight to hell.
Because his relatives might still vote.
Sorry, but pretty much any physician/biochemist/physiology textbook will disagree with you. Receptor downregulation is very much not a psychological effect.
If you think you have resisted actual physical addiction by sheer willpower, then I have good news for you: You weren't physically addicted yet.
Pretty much any physician/biochemist will disagree with you. Receptor downregulation is very much not psychological.
If you think you can resist actual physical addiction by sheer willpower, then I have good news for you: You're not really physically addicted yet.
... if, somehow, it gets ejected from the solar system. Not a completely unlikely event.
In a few billion years, if the system survives,
If we manage to figure out a way to move Earth away from the sun before it goes red giant, it will most likely involve leaving any unnecessary baggage (like orbiting balls of rock) behind.
Several orders of magnitude, as long as the bottom of the ocean is deeper than about 100 meters.
Actually, you should do that whenever you fly, out of consideration for the other passengers. Especially if it's a 6-hour flight. Thank you.
Because it annoys the living **** out of them commies.
However, for every single Mozart there's probably several orders of magnitude more people who will not write any music worth listening to, no matter how long they train.
As they say
Actually, there's mostly one punishment. Death.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostasy_in_Islam
But yes, I'm fairly sure he's been made aware of whatever he needs to know in case he goes to the area.
Hopefully, he's aware that he needs to stay away from any place where anything close to Islamic law is in effect.
How about the inconsistency about the terrorist walking up to the check-in counter with a full suitcase (~40 pounds) of explosives and shrapnel and the resulting carnage ?
If the terrorist gets to the airport with his bomb, it's already too late and any measures should be considered "damage control" instead of "hooray we're keeping terrorism in check by forcing people to throw their water bottles away!".
Hopefully he is aware of the punishments Muslim countries have for apostasy. He should think twice about travelling to Mecca.
No, you don't. You just need to prove your original hypothesis, instead of conveniently switching it out for a different one in the middle of the discussion.
Here's your original statement (minus the typo):
" a capitalist can only be as wealthy as the people he sells to "
You can't get rich unless you can sell your goods.
Agreed. Completely irrelevant for the hypothesis, however, since there is nothing in here that says that the seller cannot become richer than the buyers.
And the more goods you can sell the richer you can get.
Again, agreed. Also completely irrelevant, since there is still no statement that says that the seller cannot be richer than the buyers. You might even deduce the complete opposite - how rich the seller becomes depends on how large the customer base is, not on big each of the transactions are.
Look at your own silly example. Your options are sell the luxury car for $100,000 and make $20,000 profit, or sell the candy bars and make $20,000 profit. Wouldn't you rather sell 100,000 luxury cars? So why don't you? Because there aren't enough buyers with that much wealth. But if there were, you would be making $20,000 X 100,000 = more than $20,000.
You're coming dangerously close to refuting your own hypothesis here.
So clearly, obviously (pick your additional adverbs) it makes more sense for the capitalist to want everyone's wealth to increase.
Of course. Because the more customers the seller has, the richer (also in relation to each of his customers) he will become. With enough customers, he will become richer by several orders of magnitude than each of his customers.
That's all I'm saying.
That's what you're saying now, and it is all 100% correct, and 0% related to the original statement that was the starting point for this discussion.
At the very worst it's the enshrinement of enlightened self-interest, and that means that every good capitalist wants the best for every other human so that they can all generate the most wealth.
I would guess that "good" capitalists (who want the best for everyone, instead of the most for themselves) are about as rare as "good" communists (who want the best for everyone, instead of taking everything away from everyone). Human nature (mainly "short term thinking" and "self interest") stands in the way of either kind of utopia.
Oh, hm, yeah. And what does this have to do with how wealthy the seller is vs how wealthy the buyers are ?
Let me guess: Nothing. It's a completely unrelated bit of information that does not answer the question.
If you sell some rich dude a luxury car for $100,000 and make $20,000 profit is the same as selling 100,000 $1 candy bars to 100,000 kids at $0.20 profit per candy bar in terms of money. The capitalist has his $20,000 profit in both cases, but the "wealth" of the buyers will be drastically different. Which route you should chose mainly depends on whether you're good at making cars or (candy bars + marketing).
It could exist. However, I think most airline passengers will object to being X-rayed every time they pass security.