Deforestation and burning of fossil fuels. Just compare the effect that humans have had with whatever previous effects you can imagine, ie natural effects. Are human effects insignificant compared the natural effects when it comes to changing the environment on a global scale?
This is something that is studied by scientists in a scientific (ie critical and fact based) manner, and then considered and debated by other scientists in the field of study. And you think it's not science?
You can't experiment on the planet as a whole, but
- measure the levels of ozone and see a reduction
- measure the levels of CFC output and see an increase
- determine through experiments (or simple chemical knowledge) that CFCs reaction with ozone
and deduce that the increased levels of CFC are decreasing levels of ozone. That's science, through and through.
But is your $70 000 a true average salary for the USA? I seriously doubt it. Try http://www.census.gov/statab/www/income.html. The median household income is $44 400, plus a little inflation.
No doubt plenty of people earn $70 000, but in the UK plenty of people earn well over £50 000. The average male earnings at the end of 2005 were in fact £31 500 (http://www.incomesdata.co.uk/report/view942.htm).
It's quite common knowledge that UK incomes are relatively high, coupled with higher living costs. And following on from that, their opportunity cost of buying a console at an exchange-rate equivalent price will be considerably lower.
But I can still buy new PS2 games today that work on my PS2 as well as anyone elses. Try buying a new PC game that will run on your 6 year old PC. I'd be surprised if you can even run it on lowest settings etc, let alone in full detail as intended.
I don't see the problem with using a phone with a USB hub.
Video out obviously won't be USB, but it's relatively easy - there's already a video decoder in the phone in order to display on the screen. You'd need a video output such as those you see on digital cameras, and then an improved video decoder if you want a decent resolution, but it would still be accomplished with an analogue connection.
Audio, keyboard, mouse, printing... I currently use USB for all of these on my home computer. You can get large USB harddrives, or put 512MB memory in the phone. I've used USB for networking in the past (a USB modem?), but if it became common to use a phone as a PC you'd probably just use GSM for networking.
It's not a great idea, but it could function on current phones, and could be made to function very well with only minor changes to current phones. There are people who have Mac Minis who unplug and take it to work and back home every day. Rather than just having a portable harddrive/storage, why not a portable computer?
Upgradeable is a big downside - it means eventually you will have to upgrade. On the flipside, I'll never have to get a new CPU for my PS2. I'll never have to get more RAM. It will always work with any PS2 game.
The concern with current machines is the 'add-on' - the harddrive on the Xbox 360 and the PS3, for example. These sort of options mean that eventually there may be bigger and better options. And that in turn means that you may actually need those options in order to play the newest games.
Presto you're back at PC gaming with the constant upgrade problem.
The article refers to the 'post PC era' not in the sense that the PC is finished, but rather that the PC is no longer the driving force behind IT innovation and growth. It's not that we are 'post-PC' (ie finished with the PC), but that we are 'post PC era' - finished with the PC era.
I agree. We are moving out of the PC era, as IT and computers become ever more pervasive. Computers are definitely not confined to desks anymore.
The first quote doesn't contradict anything I said. Pareto efficient means optimal satisfaction - and to move from optimal satisfaction to anything else will lead to someone being worse off, by definition.
For the second example, if the means to generate maximum wealth is for alll resources to go to the dictator then it is Pareto efficient. Assume he generates, say, $100 wealth with all of the resources. To determine if this is a Pareto optimised situation, compare with alternatives. Let's say that he only got 90% of the resources and made $90. The other 10% went to the plebians who - through shitty processes - only got $7. That leads to $97 from the same resources. It's less efficient. If the most efficient system )ie that which generates most wealth) is when the dictator has all the resources, then it is Pareto efficient.
Think of Pareto efficient to simply mean 'most efficient', or getting the most return on investment. There's only one 'most' efficient outcome from any situation, by definition.
He specifically asks whether a Kona card or an M-Audio multichannel will work on Windows, not on a Mac. That's the opposite of what you're talking about. He's merely suggesting that because SCSI won't work with the Mac, and Kona won't work with Windows, you may have further unanticipated problems with peripherals working in both environments. And it's not a bad point.
This Kona/M-Audio line doesn't point to the sarcasm. And it's not sarcasm - it's 'tongue-in-cheek'. He still means what he's saying, he's just presenting it in a hyperbolic manner.
In fact, I'm blaming [Apple] for a wide-range of habits espoused by supposedly "creative people." I'll bet it's responsible for tattoos, piercings, and the wide-spread adoption of the phrase "no worries." In fact, I believe that most of today's societal ills can be either indirectly or directly attributed to Apple. Widespread hearing loss? Blame the iPod. Carpal tunnel? Blame the Newton. Upswing in hernias? That Infinite Loop idiot who decided to put a handle on the first iMac--and started the whole luggable trend. No, Boot Camp is just the latest diabolical piece of Steve Jobs's grand plan to dumb us down and mangle our bodies.
What's with the British acting as if they own sarcasm? I'm Australian, and I think that we do deadpan sarcasm far better than they do.
I've not heard comments like that with regard to microeconomics before. The 'study' of microeconomics is dubious, but only in the same way as the study of the 'accounting' is dubious - it has a handful of principles and the rest of it's narrow realm of influence is derived from those principles.
But I've always considered it quite undeniable. Macroeconomics is awash with speculation (which makes it much more interesting) but microeconomics is simplistic and straightforward. In what sense would you regard it with considerable scepticism?
I wouldn't mind paying a lot of tax if it paid for a decent society. Free (and quality) health, education, public facilities. Maybe some national media outlet for non-commercial interests. General support for anything without enough mainstream support to be profitable - be it the artistic or scientific.
The only place I've ever worked where sick days where taken 'at ones discretion' was Australia Post. Working there in the late 90s was like a throwback to 1980.
It's not really culturally acceptable to take sick days off anymore, nor has it been since the late 80s. Most colleagues at any place I've ever worked frown quite heavily upon it, being having a day off when the business is busy will simply put more pressure on others.
Australians also work a lot of unpaid overtime. In 2002, 47% of full time employees regularly worked unpaid overtime, at an average of 7.9 hours per week. (http://www.actu.asn.au/public/news/1032745393_321 60.html). The only place that you won't work unpaid overtime is government or, as you've said, plant/factory type work. The last two bastions of the unionised workforce.
Firstly, I don't know of any respected economist who ever thought that free markets would slow the concentration of wealth in the hands of a few. A regulated market keeps things more 'even' - a free market allows the better player to dominate.
I don't support free market economics, and I don't think that the rich need to continue becoming richer. But I also don't deny that it exists and functions efficiently.
No one claims that the oil industry is a free market, either. Only a fool would assume that when a single body completely controls the vast majority of supply could a market be anything like 'free'. The restrictions on the supply of oil and oil products, as well as the government interference, make it a long way from free. It's similar to diamond traders - because it's relatively difficult to get the product at a good price (you have to buy in bulk), they can sell the product for whatever they want. Same with drug dealers, really.
Do you believe that raising the problems of international oil trade will disprove the existence of free markets? If I point out that humans can't breathe underwater without assistance then will you believe humans can't live on earth?
Maybe you believe in 'the market' rather than the actuality - millions of markets existing, interwoven around the world. Some markets are a long way from the ideal free, as you've pointed out. But there are free markets - free of restriction, free of supply controls. Look at domestic services, gardeners or tradespeople. Look at clothing. Look at restaurants or fast food. Or obviously enough, look at retail.
If a single entity can be so success as to control a dominant piece of the marketshare, then they might distort the market in unnatural ways. If this happens it's unfortunate but it's only at the fault of consumers. It may happen in isolated places, but across the vast majority of the USA, Walmart exists in a free market. There are dozens of competitors to it, who may or may not choose to compete head-on against it on price alone. Their choice.
Please point out the unnatural distortion in Walmart's market, and I might consider that it's not relatively and extremely free. No market is completely free, just as no market is completely 'unfree'. But as far as they go, Walmart exists in one of the most competitive, least restrictive and most free markets around.
I don't agree. Those who will suffer are those with lower motivation. High motivation and strong conviction won't be damaged, but even the most ingenious child can be deterred if they suffer from lack of motivation. Everything is too easy, why bother trying. Smoke some dope, and so forth.
In a free market, success comes from popularity with customers. To relate a free market to a repressive system of any type is unfair. Walmart is popular, hence cannot be so bad.
Your 'premises' are simply perspectives using emotive words like 'crushed'. Each of your points could be written from the other perspective:
a policy of simplifying and improving workforce efficiency often at their own cost. Achieving best possible supply prices through hard negotiations. Minimising operating costs. Sourcing the cheapest materials and products with an open mind. Reduced overheads due maximising use of public infrastructure.
That's bias. Pretty easy, really. The arguments aren't concrete solid, but they are still 'facts'. However they are not neutrally presented facts.
Non bias minimises the bullshit spin that goes along with facts being presented. Your challenge is to rewrite my premises with a different spin.
A journalist is not an encyclopedia, nor vice versa. A journalist should present a viewpoint, and take a stand for or against that viewpoint. Nice story about Al Gore but it's not relevant to an encyclopedia.
An encyclopedia is supposed to present unbiased and balanced facts. It one viewpoint is favoured over another, that's bias - by definition. Bias is present when you present a case with favour given to one side, whether that favour be justified or not!
You write as if there were an objective truth about Walmart.
a policy of annihilating unions, shutting down entire stores to do so. It has crushed suppliers into a no-win situations. It has dropped wages overall. It has pumped manufacturing overseas. It has passed health care costs onto the taxpayers.
Don't forget that they also employ many people, purchase many products from many suppliers, and provide a valued service to consumers - valued enough to allow Walmart to become the biggest revenue taker in the world.
I don't think that the article is quite balanced: given the apparent numbers of anti-Walmart activists, this viewpoint should be more prominent in the article. Perhaps. But then the wikipedia article on George W Bush doesn't mention popular opinion of his slow witted, unintelligent nature. Opinions always take second place to figures and background.
What people think of something is not as concrete as what can be measured. If Walmart were such a terrible place, would it be so successful?
I think, just maybe, that the article is stating that Wikipedia is not "telling the truth about a bad company that exploits its workers and the taxpayer at the same time", like we would expect.
Slashdot Mirror
Deforestation and burning of fossil fuels. Just compare the effect that humans have had with whatever previous effects you can imagine, ie natural effects. Are human effects insignificant compared the natural effects when it comes to changing the environment on a global scale?
This is something that is studied by scientists in a scientific (ie critical and fact based) manner, and then considered and debated by other scientists in the field of study. And you think it's not science?
You can't experiment on the planet as a whole, but
- measure the levels of ozone and see a reduction
- measure the levels of CFC output and see an increase
- determine through experiments (or simple chemical knowledge) that CFCs reaction with ozone
and deduce that the increased levels of CFC are decreasing levels of ozone. That's science, through and through.
No doubt plenty of people earn $70 000, but in the UK plenty of people earn well over £50 000. The average male earnings at the end of 2005 were in fact £31 500 (http://www.incomesdata.co.uk/report/view942.htm).
It's quite common knowledge that UK incomes are relatively high, coupled with higher living costs. And following on from that, their opportunity cost of buying a console at an exchange-rate equivalent price will be considerably lower.
Good point, because they don't pay tax in the USA. And I also believe that the average salary in the USA is easily $70,000, without a doubt.
But I can still buy new PS2 games today that work on my PS2 as well as anyone elses. Try buying a new PC game that will run on your 6 year old PC. I'd be surprised if you can even run it on lowest settings etc, let alone in full detail as intended.
Video out obviously won't be USB, but it's relatively easy - there's already a video decoder in the phone in order to display on the screen. You'd need a video output such as those you see on digital cameras, and then an improved video decoder if you want a decent resolution, but it would still be accomplished with an analogue connection.
Audio, keyboard, mouse, printing... I currently use USB for all of these on my home computer. You can get large USB harddrives, or put 512MB memory in the phone. I've used USB for networking in the past (a USB modem?), but if it became common to use a phone as a PC you'd probably just use GSM for networking.
It's not a great idea, but it could function on current phones, and could be made to function very well with only minor changes to current phones. There are people who have Mac Minis who unplug and take it to work and back home every day. Rather than just having a portable harddrive/storage, why not a portable computer?
The concern with current machines is the 'add-on' - the harddrive on the Xbox 360 and the PS3, for example. These sort of options mean that eventually there may be bigger and better options. And that in turn means that you may actually need those options in order to play the newest games.
Presto you're back at PC gaming with the constant upgrade problem.
Which bus is that? The universal serial bus? If the CPU, RAM, etc is all inside the phone then I can't imagine why there'd be a lag problem.
The article refers to the 'post PC era' not in the sense that the PC is finished, but rather that the PC is no longer the driving force behind IT innovation and growth. It's not that we are 'post-PC' (ie finished with the PC), but that we are 'post PC era' - finished with the PC era.
I agree. We are moving out of the PC era, as IT and computers become ever more pervasive. Computers are definitely not confined to desks anymore.
For the second example, if the means to generate maximum wealth is for alll resources to go to the dictator then it is Pareto efficient. Assume he generates, say, $100 wealth with all of the resources. To determine if this is a Pareto optimised situation, compare with alternatives. Let's say that he only got 90% of the resources and made $90. The other 10% went to the plebians who - through shitty processes - only got $7. That leads to $97 from the same resources. It's less efficient. If the most efficient system )ie that which generates most wealth) is when the dictator has all the resources, then it is Pareto efficient.
Think of Pareto efficient to simply mean 'most efficient', or getting the most return on investment. There's only one 'most' efficient outcome from any situation, by definition.
This Kona/M-Audio line doesn't point to the sarcasm. And it's not sarcasm - it's 'tongue-in-cheek'. He still means what he's saying, he's just presenting it in a hyperbolic manner.
In fact, I'm blaming [Apple] for a wide-range of habits espoused by supposedly "creative people." I'll bet it's responsible for tattoos, piercings, and the wide-spread adoption of the phrase "no worries." In fact, I believe that most of today's societal ills can be either indirectly or directly attributed to Apple. Widespread hearing loss? Blame the iPod. Carpal tunnel? Blame the Newton. Upswing in hernias? That Infinite Loop idiot who decided to put a handle on the first iMac--and started the whole luggable trend. No, Boot Camp is just the latest diabolical piece of Steve Jobs's grand plan to dumb us down and mangle our bodies.
What's with the British acting as if they own sarcasm? I'm Australian, and I think that we do deadpan sarcasm far better than they do.
Two types of Pareto optimisation may occur, but only one may occur in each instance/market.
But I've always considered it quite undeniable. Macroeconomics is awash with speculation (which makes it much more interesting) but microeconomics is simplistic and straightforward. In what sense would you regard it with considerable scepticism?
You can always tell a comment is going to be a terrific winner when it starts with the word 'Um'.
I'm just going to spend my money on crap anyway.
I wish my speeding fines were based on 'damage done'. That'll be $0, thanks!
It's not really culturally acceptable to take sick days off anymore, nor has it been since the late 80s. Most colleagues at any place I've ever worked frown quite heavily upon it, being having a day off when the business is busy will simply put more pressure on others.
Australians also work a lot of unpaid overtime. In 2002, 47% of full time employees regularly worked unpaid overtime, at an average of 7.9 hours per week. (http://www.actu.asn.au/public/news/1032745393_321 60.html). The only place that you won't work unpaid overtime is government or, as you've said, plant/factory type work. The last two bastions of the unionised workforce.
I don't support free market economics, and I don't think that the rich need to continue becoming richer. But I also don't deny that it exists and functions efficiently.
No one claims that the oil industry is a free market, either. Only a fool would assume that when a single body completely controls the vast majority of supply could a market be anything like 'free'. The restrictions on the supply of oil and oil products, as well as the government interference, make it a long way from free. It's similar to diamond traders - because it's relatively difficult to get the product at a good price (you have to buy in bulk), they can sell the product for whatever they want. Same with drug dealers, really.
Do you believe that raising the problems of international oil trade will disprove the existence of free markets? If I point out that humans can't breathe underwater without assistance then will you believe humans can't live on earth?
Maybe you believe in 'the market' rather than the actuality - millions of markets existing, interwoven around the world. Some markets are a long way from the ideal free, as you've pointed out. But there are free markets - free of restriction, free of supply controls. Look at domestic services, gardeners or tradespeople. Look at clothing. Look at restaurants or fast food. Or obviously enough, look at retail.
If a single entity can be so success as to control a dominant piece of the marketshare, then they might distort the market in unnatural ways. If this happens it's unfortunate but it's only at the fault of consumers. It may happen in isolated places, but across the vast majority of the USA, Walmart exists in a free market. There are dozens of competitors to it, who may or may not choose to compete head-on against it on price alone. Their choice.
Please point out the unnatural distortion in Walmart's market, and I might consider that it's not relatively and extremely free. No market is completely free, just as no market is completely 'unfree'. But as far as they go, Walmart exists in one of the most competitive, least restrictive and most free markets around.
I don't agree. Those who will suffer are those with lower motivation. High motivation and strong conviction won't be damaged, but even the most ingenious child can be deterred if they suffer from lack of motivation. Everything is too easy, why bother trying. Smoke some dope, and so forth.
In a free market, success comes from popularity with customers. To relate a free market to a repressive system of any type is unfair. Walmart is popular, hence cannot be so bad.
Your 'premises' are simply perspectives using emotive words like 'crushed'. Each of your points could be written from the other perspective: a policy of simplifying and improving workforce efficiency often at their own cost. Achieving best possible supply prices through hard negotiations. Minimising operating costs. Sourcing the cheapest materials and products with an open mind. Reduced overheads due maximising use of public infrastructure. That's bias. Pretty easy, really. The arguments aren't concrete solid, but they are still 'facts'. However they are not neutrally presented facts. Non bias minimises the bullshit spin that goes along with facts being presented. Your challenge is to rewrite my premises with a different spin.
Whichever one they are trying to hide from me, man!
Did Walmart invent the concept of importing Chinese products?
An encyclopedia is supposed to present unbiased and balanced facts. It one viewpoint is favoured over another, that's bias - by definition. Bias is present when you present a case with favour given to one side, whether that favour be justified or not!
You write as if there were an objective truth about Walmart.
a policy of annihilating unions, shutting down entire stores to do so. It has crushed suppliers into a no-win situations. It has dropped wages overall. It has pumped manufacturing overseas. It has passed health care costs onto the taxpayers.
Don't forget that they also employ many people, purchase many products from many suppliers, and provide a valued service to consumers - valued enough to allow Walmart to become the biggest revenue taker in the world.
I don't think that the article is quite balanced: given the apparent numbers of anti-Walmart activists, this viewpoint should be more prominent in the article. Perhaps. But then the wikipedia article on George W Bush doesn't mention popular opinion of his slow witted, unintelligent nature. Opinions always take second place to figures and background.
What people think of something is not as concrete as what can be measured. If Walmart were such a terrible place, would it be so successful?
That's the source of criticism, see?