You aren't big on live and let live, are you? I agree that it is a bit silly but the point is it isn't a big deal, and it isn't an attack on your patriotism.
You appear to be bolstering the parent's arguments:
"[moving the explosives was] a major undertaking" (i.e. more noticeable, easier to disrupt than minor looting)
"[we had the capability to] bomb...anything on the roads" (which seems to imply the U.S. had the capability to stop the "10-30 trailers worth of explosives" in transit)
Yet, your tone implies that you disagree. Sir, I must then ask you, what is your point?
Said Kerry: "If I'm president of the United States, there won't be a draft." He qualified his statement by saying that if, and only if, World War II-like conditions come to exist would he have no other choice.
It's called gambler's ruin. Since the house has effectively an infinite purse, they can afford to keep playing the odds until those statistical outliers revert to the mean. And the mean is invariably at the advantage of the casino. (i.e. the expected payoff is always 1)
If you exploit a market to exhaustion (hunt a species to extinction, pump oil to exhaustion, pollute oceans, etc.) then you actually destroy that market
Yes, and this happens all the time in unregulated markets. It's called the "Tragedy of the Commons". http://dieoff.org/page95.htm
As a rational being, each herdsman seeks to maximize his gain. Explicitly or implicitly, more or less consciously, he asks, "What is the utility to me of adding one more animal to my herd?" This utility has one negative and one positive component.
1. The positive component is a function of the increment of one animal. Since the herdsman receives all the proceeds from the sale of the additional animal, the positive utility is nearly + 1.
2. The negative component is a function of the additional overgrazing created by one more animal. Since, however, the effects of overgrazing are shared by all the herdsmen, the negative utility for any particular decisionmaking herdsman is only a fraction of - 1.
I don't understand how people get the idea that they can actually prosper at the expense of everyone else - ultimately that's a huge lie.
I agree with you completely. The problem is that without some form of regulation there is no way to internalize negative externalities that society as a whole pays the price for. If I cause $100 million in environmental damage to extract $50 million in economic value, it is a net win for me if society bears 90% of the impact and I as an individual only bear 10%. Take a look at what is happening in China, land of spectacular GDP growth. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/arti cles/A310 72-2004Sep18.html
There is also a seperate issue which exacerbates the problem--human beings in general do not think long term. The CEO only cares about hitting his goals in the next few quarters, your Senator wants things to go smoothly until the next election, Joe Blow only cares that his annualized return is 10% until he retires. No one is thinking 100 years down the line, and you can bet the people polluting/deforesting/depopulating livestock today won't be around to be held accountable then.
They have the choice to install a generator. Or a photovoltaic system. Or some other method of generating off-grid power. Oh, wait - that costs way more than the power they'd get from the grid?
You are building your own trap. Let's say for the sake of argument that the "discount" you get for using grid electricity against alternative sources is 50%. In an unregulated economy, there is nothing to prevent the producer from increasing their prices up to 100%, because they will STILL be cheaper than the alternative! That's what a monopoly is--if the only alternatives are not fiscally prudent, then there aren't any viable alternatives.
Make sure the chairman of your campaign is also the vote countin' woman and that her state has hired a company that's gonna knock voters off the rolls who aren't likely to vote for you.
It seems clear and concise to me. You can infer a lot more, but I think the statement is ipso facto pretty interesting.
In court, this type of argument would be tossed out. It's nothing. There is no substance provided, instead, insuiations are drawn and the viewer/reader left to conjure about what might have happened.
I think you are getting all lathered up over nothing. This isn't a court of law. No one is being accused of a crime. The usual standard is whethere there exists "the appearance of impropriety". I think it is clear to the unbiased reader that there is at least the possibility that Katherine Harris' actions could meet that standard. Since you are given the relevant sources, the reader can make up their mind.
Moore's movie, just like Bowling for Columbine, is hardly a documentary.
Actually, I was pretty impressed at how Moore debunked the myth that Canada has less gun violence due to having less guns. If he were really spreading baseless propaganda he would never have included that segment, because it challenges one of the major arguments for gun control.
If you hand in the same paper twice in school, you are probably running afoul of the plagiarism rules, even if the first paper was your original work. In the same sense, posting the same comment verbatim on slashdot in two places is pretty questionable. The usual (and preferred) practice would be to write an explanatory introduction and cite the original.
"X" is a fact. (link here) "Y" is a fact. (link here) "Z" is a fact. (link here)
However, when you then say that "X->Y->Z and therefore W is true, and see the links that backup X, Y, and Z for proof."
Don't expect to be spoonfed everything. The movie itself is the conclusion; the linked source material has been published after the fact to allow you, the reader, to make your own analysis. Whether or not those conclusions are justified is up to you to decide; it would be absurd for Moore to offer his opinion in this context.
Unfortunately, of the 78 "approved" lines, only 11 are actually available and usable, and ALL of the approved lines are contaminated with mouse feeder cells, rendering them useless in human trials.
Where did I get this information? Not from a bunch of liberals, but from a letter written by 11 Republican congressmembers asking President Bush to rethink his policies.
No, the Bush administration just wants you to think that the issue is clouded. In fact, the stem cell "ban" is even more far reaching than you might think, because it stipulates that no federal money can be used to perform research on unapproved lines.
This is like doing clean-room code development: That means a researcher can't use that brand-spanking new medical facility that has a 10% federal grant, or petri dishes from the regular supply room, etc. etc.
It forces research institutions to duplicate a lot of their facilities/materials if they wish to do stem-cell research, which has the effect of drastically increasing the overhead. And they also have to consider the potential liability of a researcher accidentally or delibrately using federally funded materials -- how many schools are willing to tangle with losing millions in grants?
Instead, they simply choose not to do stem cell research.
No one seemed to mind that Clinton dodged Vietnam. Why is it such a big deal now.
Let's forget for a moment that Clinton's draft dodging WAS in fact an issue that got a lot of airtime by Republican commentors and realize:
It's called hypocrisy, that's why. Bush has made his platform the fact that he is a "war president" and has impugned the military record of his opponent, despite not having served himself.
You may disagree with the criticism he is getting, but you should hardly be surprised.
I think there is a legal point we are missing. There is nothing illegal in Google offering a lowball price; people who don't accept it haven't suffered any damages, so how could they sue for relief?
It's not clear to me why suing is necessary; if the shares are legally tradable (post IPO) and Google cannot compel shareholders to sell them at 1% of their value, won't they just sit on them?
The only decent out-of-box networked player I've found that plays WAV is the Play@TV. It does pretty much everything that the Gateway does (except play discs - network only) and the UI is supposed to be a bit better. Price is comparable. I will probably try one out sometime soon.
What about WAV? That is sort of a common file format, and unsupported! That is the only thing holding me back from buying one of these -- I want an uncompressed jukebox.
Slashdot Mirror
You aren't big on live and let live, are you? I agree that it is a bit silly but the point is it isn't a big deal, and it isn't an attack on your patriotism.
Woah there fella. He is just avoiding offending Canadians/Mexicans/etc by using the term American. No need to fly off the rocker.
Whiff
- "[moving the explosives was] a major undertaking" (i.e. more noticeable, easier to disrupt than minor looting)
- "[we had the capability to] bomb...anything on the roads" (which seems to imply the U.S. had the capability to stop the "10-30 trailers worth of explosives" in transit)
Yet, your tone implies that you disagree. Sir, I must then ask you, what is your point?Evidence:
http://abcnews.go.com/wire/Po
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/
That should be <1
It's called gambler's ruin. Since the house has effectively an infinite purse, they can afford to keep playing the odds until those statistical outliers revert to the mean. And the mean is invariably at the advantage of the casino. (i.e. the expected payoff is always 1)
Yes, and this happens all the time in unregulated markets. It's called the "Tragedy of the Commons".
http://dieoff.org/page95.htm
I agree with you completely. The problem is that without some form of regulation there is no way to internalize negative externalities that society as a whole pays the price for. If I cause $100 million in environmental damage to extract $50 million in economic value, it is a net win for me if society bears 90% of the impact and I as an individual only bear 10%. Take a look at what is happening in China, land of spectacular GDP growth.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/art
There is also a seperate issue which exacerbates the problem--human beings in general do not think long term. The CEO only cares about hitting his goals in the next few quarters, your Senator wants things to go smoothly until the next election, Joe Blow only cares that his annualized return is 10% until he retires. No one is thinking 100 years down the line, and you can bet the people polluting/deforesting/depopulating livestock today won't be around to be held accountable then.
You are building your own trap. Let's say for the sake of argument that the "discount" you get for using grid electricity against alternative sources is 50%. In an unregulated economy, there is nothing to prevent the producer from increasing their prices up to 100%, because they will STILL be cheaper than the alternative! That's what a monopoly is--if the only alternatives are not fiscally prudent, then there aren't any viable alternatives.
Exactly. Without access to the debt markets, virtually no one could afford the initial investment to buy real estate.
This is a valuable, factual response which clarifies the issue considerably.
If you hand in the same paper twice in school, you are probably running afoul of the plagiarism rules, even if the first paper was your original work. In the same sense, posting the same comment verbatim on slashdot in two places is pretty questionable. The usual (and preferred) practice would be to write an explanatory introduction and cite the original.
Don't expect to be spoonfed everything. The movie itself is the conclusion; the linked source material has been published after the fact to allow you, the reader, to make your own analysis. Whether or not those conclusions are justified is up to you to decide; it would be absurd for Moore to offer his opinion in this context.
Aa, naruhodo. Doumo.
"jakiru hakusei to haido shi" to iu no wa, dou iu imi desu ka? ideomu desu ka?
Unfortunately, of the 78 "approved" lines, only 11 are actually available and usable, and ALL of the approved lines are contaminated with mouse feeder cells, rendering them useless in human trials.
Where did I get this information? Not from a bunch of liberals, but from a letter written by 11 Republican congressmembers asking President Bush to rethink his policies.
Bush ignored their request.
Text of letter
No, the Bush administration just wants you to think that the issue is clouded. In fact, the stem cell "ban" is even more far reaching than you might think, because it stipulates that no federal money can be used to perform research on unapproved lines.
This is like doing clean-room code development: That means a researcher can't use that brand-spanking new medical facility that has a 10% federal grant, or petri dishes from the regular supply room, etc. etc.
It forces research institutions to duplicate a lot of their facilities/materials if they wish to do stem-cell research, which has the effect of drastically increasing the overhead. And they also have to consider the potential liability of a researcher accidentally or delibrately using federally funded materials -- how many schools are willing to tangle with losing millions in grants?
Instead, they simply choose not to do stem cell research.
No one seemed to mind that Clinton dodged Vietnam. Why is it such a big deal now.
Let's forget for a moment that Clinton's draft dodging WAS in fact an issue that got a lot of airtime by Republican commentors and realize:
It's called hypocrisy, that's why. Bush has made his platform the fact that he is a "war president" and has impugned the military record of his opponent, despite not having served himself.
You may disagree with the criticism he is getting, but you should hardly be surprised.
I think there is a legal point we are missing. There is nothing illegal in Google offering a lowball price; people who don't accept it haven't suffered any damages, so how could they sue for relief?
It's not clear to me why suing is necessary; if the shares are legally tradable (post IPO) and Google cannot compel shareholders to sell them at 1% of their value, won't they just sit on them?
Can someone explain this? Why would shareholders sell ~28 million shares to Google for ~$1 each when the IPO price is above $100?
This CNN article values the shares at the IPO price, up to 3.1 BILLION dollars, a bit more than 25 million.
Thanks for the compliment. ;)
The only decent out-of-box networked player I've found that plays WAV is the Play@TV. It does pretty much everything that the Gateway does (except play discs - network only) and the UI is supposed to be a bit better. Price is comparable. I will probably try one out sometime soon.
> lack of WPA support
What about WAV? That is sort of a common file format, and unsupported! That is the only thing holding me back from buying one of these -- I want an uncompressed jukebox.