Shouldn't the major condition for lucrative contracts be low cost and high per? Frankly, I want to pay the least taxes necessary to do the job that my elected representatives have decided must be done well, and I don't give one hell of a damn who they hire.
Giving Americans preferential treatment against cost and performance implies that we somehow deserve jobs more then the rest of the world, can you give me any reason why this is so?
Imagine if Ipods cost 100 dollars more in Canada then they did in the US. Mass smuggling of Ipods would commence until the price imbalance became too negligible to make up for transport cost. In today's world, Labor is a commodity similar to Ipods, so we will see the cost of labor collapse world wide to the prices found in China.
Attempting to stop this is futile when the price gap between Chinese and American labor prices is so large. We can attempt to place tariffs, but all this will do is encourage smuggling. We can attempt to punish offending corporations, but this will just lead to complicated subcontracting.
The only thing we can do is educate our children and retrain our workers to perform the jobs that Americans actually do better.
If I assume that pi is normaly distributed in an arbitrary base b(widely believed), then the probability that the digits of pi will be pallindrimic after 2*n digits is the probability that an arbitraty string of length n with b letters will be picked(A arbitrary string appears, it must be repeated). This probability is 1/b^n. For odd legth sequences 2*n+1, n digits are picked, any digit can go in the middle, and the n sequence must be repeated. Because there are b ways to pick the middle digit, the probability will be b/b^n=1/b^(n-1).
So lets sum from n=1 to infinity 1/b^n. Basic Calculus returns a value of 1/(b-1) This is the probability that the partial digits of pi will be a pallindrome, for base 10, the probability is 1/9. Though it is almost certainly true for binary.
For the existence of a odd length Pallindrome, I exclude the trivial singleton of length one. So as from two to infinity. This comes out to 1/(b-1).
Democracy is not really the way to handle economic decisions, at least not with our current voting method. Voters, at large, do not have the free time necessary to monitor all of the government's actions in multiple industries to insure efficiency, growth, and lack of corruption.
For this reason, government administration should be avoided except where absolutely necessary.
As a honest question, where is pre-martial sex prohibited in the bible. I scanned Leviticus(where most of these weird regulations are) and did not see anything.
Price elasticity only matters in monopolistic markets. In a competitive market, price falls close to cost of marginal production, regardless of price elasticity. The real problem is that the US health care industry is not competitive. It is almost impossible to quote prices, doctors routinely raise their bill after the service, etc. If this is corrected, it would go a long way toward improving the US heath care system.
Saudi Aramco is nationalized too, they control 100% of Saudi oil. Though I do not see the relevance.
Nationalized companies usually have their profits diverted for political purposes, instead of re-investment(see how Venezuela's oil output is decaying exponentially) . They are often used as a arm of economic policy, so they drastically over-employ, wasting large amounts of money(See pre-90's China). They tend to react very slowly to market trends, so while the rest of the world is enjoying some new fiber optics technology that boosts output a hundred fold, we will refuse to switch because of a old boys supplier network.
Why doesn't this happen with companies? It does, but when it does, competitors knock them out of business. Unless they have a monopoly. And here lies the problem. We need break up companies so that every major area in the country has multiple options. Until we do so, ISPs will limit supply in order to raise prices. This seems to be exactly what we are seeing.
"What, the potential advertiser doesn't already have a website of their own? If people need to consider the area of work of an advertiser, they'd go looking for it of their own accord! The advertiser would be an annoyance to the general user & spoil the non-profit ideal & presentation of Wiki. Anyhow, when was the last time the better-informed web user went on a clickthrough? Once the less competent web users are trained up & 'streetwise', web ads will be profitless, useless & if the potential advertiser really wants to fling money around, they may as well give it away. Ergo, donations only from now on, to save bigger structural trouble later. Ads are sub-Web 2.0."
Advertising is information transfer. I would not go to their website, because I did not know it exists, that is the purpose of advertising. When was the last time a better informed web-user went on through a clickthrough? I know I did last week. I was shopping for a Pogo-stick for a friend, and knew little about the market. I looked at the google ads and got a good idea of the major companies, then made a informed decision based on price.
Google ads are a major source of revenue for some of the large blogs, I cannot think of a more informed web-savvy segment of the population, save Slashdot. If ads collapse, then the web goes with it. There is no other viable revenue model.
"The content would be affected - content would have adverts in it & maintainers would lose interest through the improper profit of others. Including adverts in articles negates the purpose of freely given knowledge intended for a non-financial benefit. In essence, Wiki would be in a breach of contract to their suppliers of donated information. If Wiki wishes to be non-profit, Wiki's got to behave accordingly."
Maintainers who donated their efforts in the name of free information who stopped contributing because of ads are not logically consistent. Wikipedia is about distributing information around the world for free. Someone who stops working toward that goal because of the enrichment of a third party is irrational, or at least very vindictive.
"So what have they, recently, been doing asking for it?"
What I mean is that Wikipedia can support itself with advertising.
"The holder of the money is entitled to disperse their own money or keep it as they see fit, within law. Go & bash Bill Gates et al harder, they've got it to give away."
But the money they spend on Wikipedia could be spent elsewhere, on causes that desperately need the money.
"People wouldn't be donating to keep Wiki free of ads, but to keep Wiki, itself, free & non-profit. Once again, the holder of the money is entitled to disperse their own money or keep it as they see fit."
Wikipedia can be free and non-profit, while have ads. Then we would not need their money, and it can be redirected elsewhere.
"...but it's pointless, to the advertiser, if the viewer is blocking the advert. So, the advertiser (who's not getting seen) may as well just donate the money."
Wikipedia is now the 10th most visited website in the world. The vast majority of people do not block ads. So an advertiser has much to gain by buying an ad.
"Advertising (for an advertiser which is a profit-making organization) equates with expecting something in return, rather than as a pure gift/donation. Advertisers would be attempting to profit off the back of viewings of donated/gifted knowledge"
Wikipedia has a charitable goal. This goal requires money, if someone else profits off Wikipedia content, I don't care, as long as Wikipedia gets money and the content itself is not affected.
Wikipedia does not need donor's money, and it is wrong to divert money from worthy causes that will never be able to support themselves, such as Malaria Vaccination, to important causes that can support themselves.
By itself, Wikipedia is a worthy cause worth spending money on. But keeping Wikipedia free of ads is not a worthy cause worth donating to, at least not on the scale of other projects.
I'm in college now, but my Highschool had a Pizza Hut also. I don't see the problem, parents can just hold money back from their kids if they don't want them eating pizza.
Slashdot Mirror
Nope, not at all.
Giving Americans preferential treatment against cost and performance implies that we somehow deserve jobs more then the rest of the world, can you give me any reason why this is so?
Attempting to stop this is futile when the price gap between Chinese and American labor prices is so large. We can attempt to place tariffs, but all this will do is encourage smuggling. We can attempt to punish offending corporations, but this will just lead to complicated subcontracting.
The only thing we can do is educate our children and retrain our workers to perform the jobs that Americans actually do better.
Paying workers more then what they are worth is a very stupid activity, and is part of the reason american car companies are doing so badly.
You might not realise this, but labor is about as expensive in Dubai as it is in Houston.
This is true, the distinction is importent
So lets sum from n=1 to infinity 1/b^n. Basic Calculus returns a value of 1/(b-1)
This is the probability that the partial digits of pi will be a pallindrome, for base 10, the probability is 1/9. Though it is almost certainly true for binary.
For the existence of a odd length Pallindrome, I exclude the trivial singleton of length one. So as from two to infinity. This comes out to 1/(b-1).
Good will and charity are unstable in the long term, and it would be foolish to base national policy off expectations of altruism.
Because individuals nearly always seek profit, the two are almost indistinguishable.
How do you say one phone system is better than another?
Have you considered that gas prices have doubled over the last decade because of other factors, such as increasing energy prices and inflation?
For this reason, government administration should be avoided except where absolutely necessary.
You are clearly not a guy.
As a honest question, where is pre-martial sex prohibited in the bible. I scanned Leviticus(where most of these weird regulations are) and did not see anything.
You may be Christian, but you clearly do not watch the news often.
In this case, we are examining purchasing power. I think a GDP deflater would probably be more appropriate, but I think the answer comes out the same.
If we split up the Internet companies, Net Neutrality will become moot.
"Lisa! In this house we observe the laws of thermodynamics!"
Or, we can vanquish the monopoly. Then, AT&T would be about as threatening as Burger King.
Price elasticity only matters in monopolistic markets. In a competitive market, price falls close to cost of marginal production, regardless of price elasticity. The real problem is that the US health care industry is not competitive. It is almost impossible to quote prices, doctors routinely raise their bill after the service, etc. If this is corrected, it would go a long way toward improving the US heath care system.
Nationalized companies usually have their profits diverted for political purposes, instead of re-investment(see how Venezuela's oil output is decaying exponentially) . They are often used as a arm of economic policy, so they drastically over-employ, wasting large amounts of money(See pre-90's China). They tend to react very slowly to market trends, so while the rest of the world is enjoying some new fiber optics technology that boosts output a hundred fold, we will refuse to switch because of a old boys supplier network.
Why doesn't this happen with companies? It does, but when it does, competitors knock them out of business. Unless they have a monopoly. And here lies the problem. We need break up companies so that every major area in the country has multiple options. Until we do so, ISPs will limit supply in order to raise prices. This seems to be exactly what we are seeing.
tiny nitpick, by definition, 50% of people make less than median income. I think you are confusing median with average.
Advertising is information transfer. I would not go to their website, because I did not know it exists, that is the purpose of advertising. When was the last time a better informed web-user went on through a clickthrough? I know I did last week. I was shopping for a Pogo-stick for a friend, and knew little about the market. I looked at the google ads and got a good idea of the major companies, then made a informed decision based on price.
Google ads are a major source of revenue for some of the large blogs, I cannot think of a more informed web-savvy segment of the population, save Slashdot. If ads collapse, then the web goes with it. There is no other viable revenue model.
"The content would be affected - content would have adverts in it & maintainers would lose interest through the improper profit of others. Including adverts in articles negates the purpose of freely given knowledge intended for a non-financial benefit. In essence, Wiki would be in a breach of contract to their suppliers of donated information. If Wiki wishes to be non-profit, Wiki's got to behave accordingly."
Maintainers who donated their efforts in the name of free information who stopped contributing because of ads are not logically consistent. Wikipedia is about distributing information around the world for free. Someone who stops working toward that goal because of the enrichment of a third party is irrational, or at least very vindictive.
"So what have they, recently, been doing asking for it?"
What I mean is that Wikipedia can support itself with advertising.
"The holder of the money is entitled to disperse their own money or keep it as they see fit, within law. Go & bash Bill Gates et al harder, they've got it to give away."
But the money they spend on Wikipedia could be spent elsewhere, on causes that desperately need the money.
"People wouldn't be donating to keep Wiki free of ads, but to keep Wiki, itself, free & non-profit. Once again, the holder of the money is entitled to disperse their own money or keep it as they see fit."
Wikipedia can be free and non-profit, while have ads. Then we would not need their money, and it can be redirected elsewhere.
Wikipedia is now the 10th most visited website in the world. The vast majority of people do not block ads. So an advertiser has much to gain by buying an ad.
"Advertising (for an advertiser which is a profit-making organization) equates with expecting something in return, rather than as a pure gift/donation. Advertisers would be attempting to profit off the back of viewings of donated/gifted knowledge"
Wikipedia has a charitable goal. This goal requires money, if someone else profits off Wikipedia content, I don't care, as long as Wikipedia gets money and the content itself is not affected.
Wikipedia does not need donor's money, and it is wrong to divert money from worthy causes that will never be able to support themselves, such as Malaria Vaccination, to important causes that can support themselves.
By itself, Wikipedia is a worthy cause worth spending money on. But keeping Wikipedia free of ads is not a worthy cause worth donating to, at least not on the scale of other projects.
I'm in college now, but my Highschool had a Pizza Hut also. I don't see the problem, parents can just hold money back from their kids if they don't want them eating pizza.