I always get that shit confused. So if demand remains constant (i.e. the demand curve remains where it is), and production/supply decreases for some reason, then price goes up. But this is where the demand curve itself shifts downward/left, which means it intersects the supply curve at a lower price.
Thanks for the economics lesson. I needed that. Now that I have the economics cleared up, it looks like the opposite what I thought is true, which is awesome.
I'm no economist, but what happens if this model of free wifi takes hold on a large scale, to people like me who want a static IP address and want control of my own router to manage traffic for various web/file/content servers, as well as remote (and secure) access to my machines?
Assuming demand for pay services like Comcast broadband drops significantly, does that mean prices will necessarily jump? Or is there some alternative outcome that I'm not seeing, that allows for prices to remain reasonable for the relatively few home broadband users who will still want to pay for their service (but who don't want to pay business user prices)?
Generally if there's a referral, the link will read:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/%5Bsome_num ber%5D/%5Bsomebody's_account_name%5D/%5Bpossibly_s ome_other_stuff%5D/
So if you see something after the ASIN number that looks like an account name, then it's a referral -- in this case it was particularly blatant because the account name (christorculve-20) looks a lot like the guy's/. ID. There are some other variants depending on the type of link, but generally that's what to look for.
I prefer an integrated mail/calendar app for one reason -- I'm always checking my mail, but I don't always check the calendar, and if the calendar is visible automatically when I'm checking/sending mail, then I don't forget to do the shit I tried to use the calendar to remind me. Otherwise, the calendar might sit dormant for a day because I don't think to check it, and then I miss an appointment that I'd forgotten about.
The 'slippery slope' argument is not a logical fallacy; in fact, it doesn't rely on logic for its forcefulness, but rather on empirical observations. Put another way, it is inductive rather than deductive -- there is no logical connection between drawing a line in the sand somewhere, and the likelihood that having done so will lead to moving that line in the future. There is, however, substantial empirical evidence to support the warning that making small concessions might lead to more substantial concessions in the future (or whatever the context); once a particular issue is converted into a non-binary format, it becomes much easier for people to move their preference another step or two along the spectrum -- or 'slippery slope.' As an example, once people grow comfortable letting the government listen in on certain phone conversations for certain limited purposes, they tend to become more likely to grow comfortable allowing the government to expand its ability to intrude in that way in the future.
To bring it back to the deductive/inductive distinction, it's like the classic example in logic class, that seeing 100 white swans doesn't make it logically any more likely that the next swan you see will be white. Of course, this is correct, as far as it goes. But that doesn't negate the usefulness of induction altogether; it merely distinguishes it from deduction. As a matter of fact, induction can be quite instructive -- I can assure you that if I observe 100 swans and observe that all of them are white, and have a chance to bet on the color of the next random swan that I will see, I will eagerly put my money on white. The likelihood that I'm going to be right may not be grounded in logic, but that doesn't make it irrational to expect to be right. Rather than logic, I am, instead, relying on the likelihood that my observation of the repetition of some fact is the result of some underlying principle that I haven't yet uncovered. Or in the case of the slippery slope, I am relying on past observations of human behavior, and the likelihood that it will continue to be as I have observed it to be in the past -- namely, that once people give a little on an issue, they will be more likely to give a little more in the future, than they would be if they held firm from the start.
In summary, the slippery slope argument is not logical, but neither is it fallacious.
Re:tobacco still sucks - canabis
on
Safe Cigarettes?
·
· Score: 0, Troll
You, sir, are the moron. The poster's point is that pot smokers would prefer not to have to add a damaging, addictive substance to their relatively harmless smoke. Nicotine is far more harmful than marijuana, and many pot smokers are attuned to this fact.
As a side note, I hope you don't vote, because you're a goddamn fascist, coupled with the fact that you're ill-informed.
Slashdot Mirror
You must live in a depressing place. Jesus.
Did the fact that he was hispanic figure into the judgment?
I always get that shit confused. So if demand remains constant (i.e. the demand curve remains where it is), and production/supply decreases for some reason, then price goes up. But this is where the demand curve itself shifts downward/left, which means it intersects the supply curve at a lower price.
Thanks for the economics lesson. I needed that. Now that I have the economics cleared up, it looks like the opposite what I thought is true, which is awesome.
I'm no economist, but what happens if this model of free wifi takes hold on a large scale, to people like me who want a static IP address and want control of my own router to manage traffic for various web/file/content servers, as well as remote (and secure) access to my machines?
Assuming demand for pay services like Comcast broadband drops significantly, does that mean prices will necessarily jump? Or is there some alternative outcome that I'm not seeing, that allows for prices to remain reasonable for the relatively few home broadband users who will still want to pay for their service (but who don't want to pay business user prices)?
Generally if there's a referral, the link will read: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/%5Bsome_num ber%5D/%5Bsomebody's_account_name%5D/%5Bpossibly_s ome_other_stuff%5D/
So if you see something after the ASIN number that looks like an account name, then it's a referral -- in this case it was particularly blatant because the account name (christorculve-20) looks a lot like the guy's /. ID. There are some other variants depending on the type of link, but generally that's what to look for.
I prefer an integrated mail/calendar app for one reason -- I'm always checking my mail, but I don't always check the calendar, and if the calendar is visible automatically when I'm checking/sending mail, then I don't forget to do the shit I tried to use the calendar to remind me. Otherwise, the calendar might sit dormant for a day because I don't think to check it, and then I miss an appointment that I'd forgotten about.
The 'slippery slope' argument is not a logical fallacy; in fact, it doesn't rely on logic for its forcefulness, but rather on empirical observations. Put another way, it is inductive rather than deductive -- there is no logical connection between drawing a line in the sand somewhere, and the likelihood that having done so will lead to moving that line in the future. There is, however, substantial empirical evidence to support the warning that making small concessions might lead to more substantial concessions in the future (or whatever the context); once a particular issue is converted into a non-binary format, it becomes much easier for people to move their preference another step or two along the spectrum -- or 'slippery slope.' As an example, once people grow comfortable letting the government listen in on certain phone conversations for certain limited purposes, they tend to become more likely to grow comfortable allowing the government to expand its ability to intrude in that way in the future.
To bring it back to the deductive/inductive distinction, it's like the classic example in logic class, that seeing 100 white swans doesn't make it logically any more likely that the next swan you see will be white. Of course, this is correct, as far as it goes. But that doesn't negate the usefulness of induction altogether; it merely distinguishes it from deduction. As a matter of fact, induction can be quite instructive -- I can assure you that if I observe 100 swans and observe that all of them are white, and have a chance to bet on the color of the next random swan that I will see, I will eagerly put my money on white. The likelihood that I'm going to be right may not be grounded in logic, but that doesn't make it irrational to expect to be right. Rather than logic, I am, instead, relying on the likelihood that my observation of the repetition of some fact is the result of some underlying principle that I haven't yet uncovered. Or in the case of the slippery slope, I am relying on past observations of human behavior, and the likelihood that it will continue to be as I have observed it to be in the past -- namely, that once people give a little on an issue, they will be more likely to give a little more in the future, than they would be if they held firm from the start.
In summary, the slippery slope argument is not logical, but neither is it fallacious.
You, sir, are the moron. The poster's point is that pot smokers would prefer not to have to add a damaging, addictive substance to their relatively harmless smoke. Nicotine is far more harmful than marijuana, and many pot smokers are attuned to this fact. As a side note, I hope you don't vote, because you're a goddamn fascist, coupled with the fact that you're ill-informed.