Isn't that the selling point? To use the inner insulator to remove some of the excess heat, bringing it down to a perfect temperature? And once they're in thermal equilibrium, using further outer layers of insulation to maintain the two inner layers roughly in equilibrium?
A sunk cost is something you walk away from. That's why it's sunk. It shouldn't influence your future behavior. Continuing to throw money at it is known as "throwing good money after bad".
In economics and business decision-making, a sunk cost is a retrospective (past) cost that has already been incurred and cannot be recovered. Sunk costs are sometimes contrasted with prospective costs, which are future costs that may be incurred or changed if an action is taken.
In traditional microeconomic theory, only prospective (future) costs are relevant to an investment decision. Traditional economics proposes that economic actors should not let sunk costs influence their decisions. Doing so would not be rationally assessing a decision exclusively on its own merits.
Sunk costs should not affect the rational decision-maker's best choice. However, until a decision-maker irreversibly commits resources, the prospective cost is an avoidable future cost and is properly included in any decision-making processes.
Evidence from behavioral economics suggests this theory fails to predict real-world behavior. Sunk costs do, in fact, influence actors' decisions because humans are prone to loss aversion and framing effects.
I've never seen a Sigg bottle--do they also use a chemical insulator which changes phases and could potentially mix with the beverage? A bit of research on my part suggested that what DavidClarkeHR said is likely to also be true in the US, as consumer products are exempted from requiring MSDS's unless it's part of an employees function to handle some chemical. Amusingly, the FDA also states that any product emitting "any type of radiation" is under their purview. I wonder if they've ever heard of black-body radiation. (I know, now I'm just being ridiculous.)
I'm just worried about this miracle material that he refuses to disclose that might potentially wind up mixed with my coffee. The first person with an allergy to it is going to make headlines.
The insulator – which Maxwell won't identify but swears is non-toxic
I think this is a case where it most certainly needs to be disclosed in an MSDS and/or patent filing (though more likely in the MSDS, as the patent filing is allowed to be vague).
If you want a service guarantee like that, you pay out the ass for a service level agreement. Otherwise, they'll happily sell you unlimited unobtanium for $9.95/mo + regulatory fees.
The only fix for that is mandatory copper sharing. That forces the phone company to lease the customers' lines to any qualified competitor.
Did you miss the article yesterday where AT&T said they wouldn't lease to Google until they were qualified? If Google can't do it, your little homebrew shop is going to get squished.
More goalpost moving. Getting out the dictionary here (whichever one it is that Google sources from, but try any other):
faith:
complete trust or confidence in someone or something.
or
strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.
agnostic:
a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God.
"someone who says "I don't know if god exists, but I have faith" they are an agnostic." You're just flat out wrong.
No, for any given statement, either it or its negation is true.
"The following sentence is false. The preceding sentence is true."
The truth value of those statements is undefined, even if you negate them. Furthermore, it's useless trying to have this discussion with you. We might as well simply say, "welp, it's all turtles, all the way down", end of story. The reality of it is that a large number of people are able to work from a common set of assumptions, and do recognize the different between the commonly accepted meaning of fact and the commonly accepted meaning of opinion. You really like to move those goalposts.
I'd like to see you prove or disprove free will. Really, go ahead and try, because last I checked, there are equally valid arguments both ways. Most of modern math is premised upon the axiom of choice (equivalent to free will), but you can work from the axiom of determinacy (equivalent to the lack of free will). I've yet to see a proof of those, which you won't find, since they're axioms for a good reason. You're in need of an undergrad text on logic.
Yep, people can change, on the average, but you are remarkably dense, a perfect example of what I've been trying to get at, in various forms. Good day sir.
I thought I'd also leave you with this since you must be out of practice. There exist complete, formal proofs for both theorems. I'm not really sure where you picked up this misguided notion that they aren't theorems, but an appeal to authority ("I have studied") is useless when you don't back it up with a citation, unlike what I've done, from multiple sources now. Frankly, I won't believe a claimed authority on logic when they mix up theorems and theories.
Gödel's incompleteness theorems are two theorems of mathematical logic that establish inherent limitations of all but the most trivial axiomatic systems capable of doing arithmetic.
In mathematics, a theorem is a statement that has been proven on the basis of previously established statements, such as other theorems—and generally accepted statements, such as axioms. The proof of a mathematical theorem is a logical argument for the theorem statement given in accord with the rules of a deductive system. The proof of a theorem is often interpreted as justification of the truth of the theorem statement. In light of the requirement that theorems be proved, the concept of a theorem is fundamentally deductive, in contrast to the notion of a scientific theory, which is empirical.[2]
Either "rock is good" or "rock is not good" is a factual claim. One or the other is true, neither is provable.
Neither is "True". This is an opinion statement. Truth implies an objective basis on which to judge. Opinion is judged on a subjective basis. Facts can be quantitatively measured, while opinions are qualitative.
The profession of shaman has many advantages. It offers high status with a safe livelihood free of work in the dreary, sweaty sense. In most societies it offers legal privileges and immunities not granted to other men. But it is hard to see how a man who has been given a mandate from on High to spread tidings of joy to all mankind can be seriously interested in taking up a collection to pay his salary; it causes one to suspect that the shaman is on the moral level of any other con man. But it is a lovely work if you can stomach it.
Agnosticism is NOT the belief in a divine being. It is the concept that we can't know if there is one or not, and refuse to assign a truth value to it. Nowhere in there does that statement equate to "I believe in a deity, but I can't personally know it."
From Merriam-Webster: "a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god"
My point here is that human language is often insufficient to bridge this gap by itself. In linguistics, where we differentiate between the symbol used to represent a concept and the concept itself. When you speak to me, I necessarily (and unavoidably) perceive your concept through the filter of your training in language, filtered through my training in language, and ultimately this translates into some concept in my mind, potentially and often not the same one as you intended. There is no human language capable of skipping the two filters in the middle. There is no perfect method of communication.
Replying again, since I should've requoted this: "Furthermore, you falsely take agnosticism (a non-denominational, non-religious, concept) to be the inverse of Gnosticism."
What part of me saying that they're not opposites (but the parent of my prior post treated them as such, and that was what I argued against) did you not grok? I believe us to be in violent agreement, at least on the point of Gnosticism vs agnostic.
Agnostic (from Ancient Greek - (a-), meaning "without", and (gnsis), meaning "knowledge") was used by Thomas Henry Huxley in a speech at a meeting of the Metaphysical Society in 1869[9] to describe his philosophy which rejects all claims of spiritual or mystical knowledge. Early Christian church leaders used the Greek word gnosis (knowledge) to describe "spiritual knowledge". Agnosticism is not to be confused with religious views opposing the ancient religious movement of Gnosticism in particular; Huxley used the term in a broader, more abstract sense.[10] Huxley identified agnosticism not as a creed but rather as a method of skeptical, evidence-based inquiry.[11]
Amusing, since the assertion here is that you're competent to judge the competence of others. I just made a post explaining how I deal with people who disagree with me, and you ignored all but the last line.
Slashdot Mirror
cool down your coffee.
Isn't that the selling point? To use the inner insulator to remove some of the excess heat, bringing it down to a perfect temperature? And once they're in thermal equilibrium, using further outer layers of insulation to maintain the two inner layers roughly in equilibrium?
In economics and business decision-making, a sunk cost is a retrospective (past) cost that has already been incurred and cannot be recovered. Sunk costs are sometimes contrasted with prospective costs, which are future costs that may be incurred or changed if an action is taken.
In traditional microeconomic theory, only prospective (future) costs are relevant to an investment decision. Traditional economics proposes that economic actors should not let sunk costs influence their decisions. Doing so would not be rationally assessing a decision exclusively on its own merits.
Sunk costs should not affect the rational decision-maker's best choice. However, until a decision-maker irreversibly commits resources, the prospective cost is an avoidable future cost and is properly included in any decision-making processes.
Evidence from behavioral economics suggests this theory fails to predict real-world behavior. Sunk costs do, in fact, influence actors' decisions because humans are prone to loss aversion and framing effects.
Wet, rough, and wobbling all over? Oh god it burns...
I've never seen a Sigg bottle--do they also use a chemical insulator which changes phases and could potentially mix with the beverage? A bit of research on my part suggested that what DavidClarkeHR said is likely to also be true in the US, as consumer products are exempted from requiring MSDS's unless it's part of an employees function to handle some chemical. Amusingly, the FDA also states that any product emitting "any type of radiation" is under their purview. I wonder if they've ever heard of black-body radiation. (I know, now I'm just being ridiculous.)
I'm just worried about this miracle material that he refuses to disclose that might potentially wind up mixed with my coffee. The first person with an allergy to it is going to make headlines.
The insulator – which Maxwell won't identify but swears is non-toxic
I think this is a case where it most certainly needs to be disclosed in an MSDS and/or patent filing (though more likely in the MSDS, as the patent filing is allowed to be vague).
If you want a service guarantee like that, you pay out the ass for a service level agreement. Otherwise, they'll happily sell you unlimited unobtanium for $9.95/mo + regulatory fees.
The only fix for that is mandatory copper sharing. That forces the phone company to lease the customers' lines to any qualified competitor.
Did you miss the article yesterday where AT&T said they wouldn't lease to Google until they were qualified? If Google can't do it, your little homebrew shop is going to get squished.
English is not a system of bivalent logic.
faith:
complete trust or confidence in someone or something.
or
strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.
agnostic:
a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God.
"someone who says "I don't know if god exists, but I have faith" they are an agnostic." You're just flat out wrong.
No, for any given statement, either it or its negation is true.
"The following sentence is false. The preceding sentence is true."
The truth value of those statements is undefined, even if you negate them. Furthermore, it's useless trying to have this discussion with you. We might as well simply say, "welp, it's all turtles, all the way down", end of story. The reality of it is that a large number of people are able to work from a common set of assumptions, and do recognize the different between the commonly accepted meaning of fact and the commonly accepted meaning of opinion. You really like to move those goalposts.
I notice a distinct lack of argument.
I'd like to see you prove or disprove free will. Really, go ahead and try, because last I checked, there are equally valid arguments both ways. Most of modern math is premised upon the axiom of choice (equivalent to free will), but you can work from the axiom of determinacy (equivalent to the lack of free will). I've yet to see a proof of those, which you won't find, since they're axioms for a good reason. You're in need of an undergrad text on logic.
Maybe people make hyperbolic statements and you're incapable of detecting them. The first paragraph is straightforward, try reading it again.
Yep, people can change, on the average, but you are remarkably dense, a perfect example of what I've been trying to get at, in various forms. Good day sir.
I thought I'd also leave you with this since you must be out of practice. There exist complete, formal proofs for both theorems. I'm not really sure where you picked up this misguided notion that they aren't theorems, but an appeal to authority ("I have studied") is useless when you don't back it up with a citation, unlike what I've done, from multiple sources now. Frankly, I won't believe a claimed authority on logic when they mix up theorems and theories.
Gödel's incompleteness theorems are two theorems of mathematical logic that establish inherent limitations of all but the most trivial axiomatic systems capable of doing arithmetic.
In mathematics, a theorem is a statement that has been proven on the basis of previously established statements, such as other theorems—and generally accepted statements, such as axioms. The proof of a mathematical theorem is a logical argument for the theorem statement given in accord with the rules of a deductive system. The proof of a theorem is often interpreted as justification of the truth of the theorem statement. In light of the requirement that theorems be proved, the concept of a theorem is fundamentally deductive, in contrast to the notion of a scientific theory, which is empirical.[2]
Either "rock is good" or "rock is not good" is a factual claim. One or the other is true, neither is provable.
Neither is "True". This is an opinion statement. Truth implies an objective basis on which to judge. Opinion is judged on a subjective basis. Facts can be quantitatively measured, while opinions are qualitative.
Scientists formulate things the other way around. You would start by asserting that the LNM does not exist, and then seek to disprove that hypothesis.
The profession of shaman has many advantages. It offers high status with a safe livelihood free of work in the dreary, sweaty sense. In most societies it offers legal privileges and immunities not granted to other men. But it is hard to see how a man who has been given a mandate from on High to spread tidings of joy to all mankind can be seriously interested in taking up a collection to pay his salary; it causes one to suspect that the shaman is on the moral level of any other con man. But it is a lovely work if you can stomach it.
-RAH
They can also code. If you don't try, nobody will ever have the opportunity to use it.
Agnosticism is NOT the belief in a divine being. It is the concept that we can't know if there is one or not, and refuse to assign a truth value to it. Nowhere in there does that statement equate to "I believe in a deity, but I can't personally know it."
From Merriam-Webster: "a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god"
My point here is that human language is often insufficient to bridge this gap by itself. In linguistics, where we differentiate between the symbol used to represent a concept and the concept itself. When you speak to me, I necessarily (and unavoidably) perceive your concept through the filter of your training in language, filtered through my training in language, and ultimately this translates into some concept in my mind, potentially and often not the same one as you intended. There is no human language capable of skipping the two filters in the middle. There is no perfect method of communication.
Replying again, since I should've requoted this: "Furthermore, you falsely take agnosticism (a non-denominational, non-religious, concept) to be the inverse of Gnosticism." What part of me saying that they're not opposites (but the parent of my prior post treated them as such, and that was what I argued against) did you not grok? I believe us to be in violent agreement, at least on the point of Gnosticism vs agnostic.
Agnostic (from Ancient Greek - (a-), meaning "without", and (gnsis), meaning "knowledge") was used by Thomas Henry Huxley in a speech at a meeting of the Metaphysical Society in 1869[9] to describe his philosophy which rejects all claims of spiritual or mystical knowledge. Early Christian church leaders used the Greek word gnosis (knowledge) to describe "spiritual knowledge". Agnosticism is not to be confused with religious views opposing the ancient religious movement of Gnosticism in particular; Huxley used the term in a broader, more abstract sense.[10] Huxley identified agnosticism not as a creed but rather as a method of skeptical, evidence-based inquiry.[11]
You need to learn some history.
Amusing, since the assertion here is that you're competent to judge the competence of others. I just made a post explaining how I deal with people who disagree with me, and you ignored all but the last line.