This just seems like a very roundabout, tenuous way to find the altruism center. They used an extremely unreliable method -- survey responses -- and then had people play a computer game they *know* is pretend, which would just show how altruistic they are in fake scenarios, which isn't really altruism, just like my willingness to slaughter demons in Doom doesn't show a real "willingness to resort to violence".
Much cheaper way to accomplish the same thing:
-Scan Ayn Rand's brain (Peikoff would be a fine subsititute today if you need a living one). -Compare to an average human's brain. -Look for the most striking difference.
Yeah, how dare someone be able to get a peerage because of wealth. Everyone knows that's not how it's supposed to work. If this were to continue, well... completely undeserving people could get one!
Forest, trees. I reject *green recommendations* because those recommendations tend to have very poor cost-benefit analyses. Sure, fluorescent lights are better... if you don't factor in the irritation. Now, on what line is that included in your calculation? And where did you factor in the broader costs of this loss of labor -- labor which can be applied to R&D or emission abatement?
Oh... I see. Nevermind then... thought you had something worthwhile.
Very well put, but I want to point something out. For 99% of the history of HOA's, it has been very impractical for average people to invest in anything *other* than a home. Mutual funds weren't around until the 50's (and good luck finding one that didn't charge usurious rates), and index funds weren't around until '76, and it wasn't possible for someone with just $3000 to be able to invest it in those index funds from home with a few clicks until the late 90's. (Thank you, Vanguard.com.) For those reasons, HOA's arose to protect that very significant investment. So I think you're being unduly critical in mocking people who center their lives around home equity, due to this history.
You are correct that *now*, with the financial system advanced to the point that it has, in most cases, the average person with money to save is best off giving it to other people to invest (through e.g. an index fund) rather than trying to own and operate their own capital investments.
Look, if you're trying to convince me that I don't feel something that I believe do, you're likely going to fall short. I hope I won't sound rude if I assert without basis that I know my consciousness better than you know my consciousness. Even if, as a green, you are smarter than everyone.
I hate fluorescent lights, and every CFL I've tried. The debate ends there. Even if it's purely a placebo (anti-placebo?) effect, it doesn't matter. I don't have a way to cancel it, since I'll always know what I'm using.
Then, if you accept that I have loss of productivity or additional stress, you have to consider the ecological consequences of that. Production I don't accomplish is a loss to the labor pool, which is that much less that can't be used for researching better solutions or building them. My inability to relax at home means I'll have to find some other way to do it, which means driving around (that I wouldn't otherwise have to do).
There's really no excuse for not replacing a lot of your home's wasteful incandescent bulbs with CFLs,
Sure there is. How about, "I already have a way smaller ecological footprint than the median due to living in a 660 sq. ft. apartment, driving a fuel-efficient car, using ~300 kwh per month of electricity, and not requiring parkland for my recreational needs." ? Why the focus on whether I slavishly adhere to a hastily-thought-out rote process for reducing my energy usage, rather than on how much I'm actually using?
That would tell me what China *does*. It would not tell me what China "has to do". Are you saying that because the Chinese government officially believes something, it's probably true?
Actually, the reason so few people are green is because greens act like you're a terrorist if you suggest that maybe, just maybe, you might be irritated by fluorescent lights, even if you're willing to cut back in a zillion other ways, and even if the FL's would destroy productivity that could be used to research or construct earth saving solutions.
That said, keep in mind that $500,000 is the cost of one person doing it, the first time. Once returns to scale and all kick in, it would be less, and you have to figure in the relative dollar value you'd place on e.g. not depending on the grid or gas prices.
It is wrong to think of the mirrors as pixels. They are not read individually
Yes, they are. Only one's light can pass through the single pixel at a time, remember?
instead they are used to "integrate" the light of a given pattern. Then these "integrals" have to be reversed to gain the image.
I understand that. But you can already perform mathematical operations on the pixel arrays that a digital camera produces. So, the only thing this single-pixel camera does is read the mirrors separately rather than all at once, and then peform a mathematical operation on the data it gets. Nevertheless, its precision is still limited by the number of mirrors, each of which can only send it one pixel of data.
Well, I was thinking, along the same lines, that this is semantics. The thousands of tiny mirrors redirecting the light are, in effect, the pixels for this camera, and it just reads them individually, aggregates them, and does some "complex" math transforms. People think of the "pixels" as the resolution, and the resolution is limited to what one mirror can put through the camera's "one pixel".
Imagine if the energy spent trying to hogtie the general (and 99%+ totally honest and willing to purchase) consumer were instead applied to making the technology even better?
Because then it would be easier to pirate, losing them (in their estimation) revenue, defeating the purpose of additional investment.
I'm 26, but I am saving like hell because I know that age discrimination is rife in this industry, and the more I save for retirement right now, the less I have to worry about such things.
That's good advice, regardless of the prevalance of age discrimination. As the economy gets more dynamic, the idea that your skill set will always be in demand, is going to get more and more archaic. It would be nice if there were a way to buy an insurance policy against falling demand for your skill set, but we already have the next best thing -- invest your money, while you can earn it, in the entire economy through an index fund, and if the world leaves you behind, at least that investment will be worth more. In 70 years, you could still be drawing (investment) income due to a job you had that no longer exists, simply because you saved *while* it existed.
So, don't think you have to be a victim -- you can do something about the uncertainty in the job market.
Before you laugh, that's basically what Microsoft's "Windows Defender" firewall would be like. "We'll remove the security vulnerabilities we gave you... for a price!"
"Mayo Clinic Research Center? Yes, name's Eric, got a great deal for you on some top-notch stem cells. And who am I speaking to?... Great, Mike, now let me tell you, this is some of the good stuff, can get you some great research, can I put you down for an order?... Aw, you're bustin' my balls, Mike, I got ten people on the other line who will pay more.... Well, the offer won't last Mike, so you better act fast. You don't want Johns Hopkins to get a hold of these, do you?"
I'm a bit confused. What is your alternate hypothesis for the failure of Air America and pretty much every other attempt at liberal radio?
Your link has a list of advertisers who won't run on Air America. Why not? If Air America can get listeners, why won't people want to advertise on them?
I hear you 100%. Nothing pisses me off more than the credit reporting system. They have a labyrinthine process to fix ANYTHING about it, yet somehow people manage to game it by having multiple fraudulent entries. Also, SOMEHOW, paying your rent, utilities, cable, and insurance on time says absolutely nothing about your creditworthiness so they ignore it (!). Meaning if you don't want to get in debt, the only way to have ANY credit at all is to get a credit card and pay the balance each month.
And let me tell you, "no credit" is MUCH MUCH WORSE than "bad credit". I recently tried to apply for a credit card. No debt at 24. I was turned down for it, on the basis that I had no credit. What the ****? For a CREDIT CARD? After two years of paying bills? FINALLY I was able to persuade them to deign to give me a limit equal to one paycheck.
Oh, and a home loan? Nevermind that it would be only 1/6 of my monthly gross and my only debt, banks will at best give me a 9.75% 3-year adjustable! (Luckily the credit union was reasonable.)
Actually, predicting how much of an initial shipment of a new product will sell, has a huge margin of error. If you know how to predict this number, people will pave you a road of gold if you tell them.
It's true that the method may be accurate in the long term... but we're not in the long term yet, hence the dissatisfaction with "shipped" as opposed to "sold".
I have a better idea. How about someone post one of these:
-A picture of an unsold Wii in a store. -A Wii ebay auction (not buy-it-now, an auction) ending at or below retail. -A PS3 ebay auction WITH ACTUAL BIDS ending above retail.
Slashdot Mirror
This just seems like a very roundabout, tenuous way to find the altruism center. They used an extremely unreliable method -- survey responses -- and then had people play a computer game they *know* is pretend, which would just show how altruistic they are in fake scenarios, which isn't really altruism, just like my willingness to slaughter demons in Doom doesn't show a real "willingness to resort to violence".
Much cheaper way to accomplish the same thing:
-Scan Ayn Rand's brain (Peikoff would be a fine subsititute today if you need a living one).
-Compare to an average human's brain.
-Look for the most striking difference.
Yeah, how dare someone be able to get a peerage because of wealth. Everyone knows that's not how it's supposed to work. If this were to continue, well ... completely undeserving people could get one!
It's not doable; it's possible or achievable.
Forest, trees. I reject *green recommendations* because those recommendations tend to have very poor cost-benefit analyses. Sure, fluorescent lights are better ... if you don't factor in the irritation. Now, on what line is that included in your calculation? And where did you factor in the broader costs of this loss of labor -- labor which can be applied to R&D or emission abatement?
... I see. Nevermind then ... thought you had something worthwhile.
Oh
Very well put, but I want to point something out. For 99% of the history of HOA's, it has been very impractical for average people to invest in anything *other* than a home. Mutual funds weren't around until the 50's (and good luck finding one that didn't charge usurious rates), and index funds weren't around until '76, and it wasn't possible for someone with just $3000 to be able to invest it in those index funds from home with a few clicks until the late 90's. (Thank you, Vanguard.com.) For those reasons, HOA's arose to protect that very significant investment. So I think you're being unduly critical in mocking people who center their lives around home equity, due to this history.
You are correct that *now*, with the financial system advanced to the point that it has, in most cases, the average person with money to save is best off giving it to other people to invest (through e.g. an index fund) rather than trying to own and operate their own capital investments.
Look, if you're trying to convince me that I don't feel something that I believe do, you're likely going to fall short. I hope I won't sound rude if I assert without basis that I know my consciousness better than you know my consciousness. Even if, as a green, you are smarter than everyone.
I hate fluorescent lights, and every CFL I've tried. The debate ends there. Even if it's purely a placebo (anti-placebo?) effect, it doesn't matter. I don't have a way to cancel it, since I'll always know what I'm using.
Then, if you accept that I have loss of productivity or additional stress, you have to consider the ecological consequences of that. Production I don't accomplish is a loss to the labor pool, which is that much less that can't be used for researching better solutions or building them. My inability to relax at home means I'll have to find some other way to do it, which means driving around (that I wouldn't otherwise have to do).
There's really no excuse for not replacing a lot of your home's wasteful incandescent bulbs with CFLs,
Sure there is. How about, "I already have a way smaller ecological footprint than the median due to living in a 660 sq. ft. apartment, driving a fuel-efficient car, using ~300 kwh per month of electricity, and not requiring parkland for my recreational needs." ? Why the focus on whether I slavishly adhere to a hastily-thought-out rote process for reducing my energy usage, rather than on how much I'm actually using?
That would tell me what China *does*. It would not tell me what China "has to do". Are you saying that because the Chinese government officially believes something, it's probably true?
How many troops does Singapore have deployed to defend its access to oil? Switzerland? China? India? Japan? South Africa?
Move to a neighborhood without a draconian HOA.
And use a secure version of Windows, an honest attorney, or a Hooters franchise that doesn't debase women.
Actually, the reason so few people are green is because greens act like you're a terrorist if you suggest that maybe, just maybe, you might be irritated by fluorescent lights, even if you're willing to cut back in a zillion other ways, and even if the FL's would destroy productivity that could be used to research or construct earth saving solutions.
That said, keep in mind that $500,000 is the cost of one person doing it, the first time. Once returns to scale and all kick in, it would be less, and you have to figure in the relative dollar value you'd place on e.g. not depending on the grid or gas prices.
Nanomachines have already been used to perform surgery. For example, Dr. Victor Niguel developed them to attack the Pempti strain in 2018.
It is wrong to think of the mirrors as pixels. They are not read individually
Yes, they are. Only one's light can pass through the single pixel at a time, remember?
instead they are used to "integrate" the light of a given pattern.
Then these "integrals" have to be reversed to gain the image.
I understand that. But you can already perform mathematical operations on the pixel arrays that a digital camera produces. So, the only thing this single-pixel camera does is read the mirrors separately rather than all at once, and then peform a mathematical operation on the data it gets. Nevertheless, its precision is still limited by the number of mirrors, each of which can only send it one pixel of data.
Well, I was thinking, along the same lines, that this is semantics. The thousands of tiny mirrors redirecting the light are, in effect, the pixels for this camera, and it just reads them individually, aggregates them, and does some "complex" math transforms. People think of the "pixels" as the resolution, and the resolution is limited to what one mirror can put through the camera's "one pixel".
Imagine if the energy spent trying to hogtie the general (and 99%+ totally honest and willing to purchase) consumer were instead applied to making the technology even better?
Because then it would be easier to pirate, losing them (in their estimation) revenue, defeating the purpose of additional investment.
I'm 26, but I am saving like hell because I know that age discrimination is rife in this industry, and the more I save for retirement right now, the less I have to worry about such things.
That's good advice, regardless of the prevalance of age discrimination. As the economy gets more dynamic, the idea that your skill set will always be in demand, is going to get more and more archaic. It would be nice if there were a way to buy an insurance policy against falling demand for your skill set, but we already have the next best thing -- invest your money, while you can earn it, in the entire economy through an index fund, and if the world leaves you behind, at least that investment will be worth more. In 70 years, you could still be drawing (investment) income due to a job you had that no longer exists, simply because you saved *while* it existed.
So, don't think you have to be a victim -- you can do something about the uncertainty in the job market.
Before you laugh, that's basically what Microsoft's "Windows Defender" firewall would be like. "We'll remove the security vulnerabilities we gave you ... for a price!"
Heck, they could launch it in Europe this month -- just ship 'em all the unsold PS3's here.
"Mayo Clinic Research Center? Yes, name's Eric, got a great deal for you on some top-notch stem cells. And who am I speaking to? ... Great, Mike, now let me tell you, this is some of the good stuff, can get you some great research, can I put you down for an order? ... Aw, you're bustin' my balls, Mike, I got ten people on the other line who will pay more. ... Well, the offer won't last Mike, so you better act fast. You don't want Johns Hopkins to get a hold of these, do you?"
I believe I asked for an auction ending below retail, not a list of the auctions in progress.
Sigh...
Let me try this again:
Ich glaube, ich habe eine erledigte Auktion geboten, nicht einen Zettel von jetztigen Auktionen.
I'm a bit confused. What is your alternate hypothesis for the failure of Air America and pretty much every other attempt at liberal radio?
Your link has a list of advertisers who won't run on Air America. Why not? If Air America can get listeners, why won't people want to advertise on them?
I hear you 100%. Nothing pisses me off more than the credit reporting system. They have a labyrinthine process to fix ANYTHING about it, yet somehow people manage to game it by having multiple fraudulent entries. Also, SOMEHOW, paying your rent, utilities, cable, and insurance on time says absolutely nothing about your creditworthiness so they ignore it (!). Meaning if you don't want to get in debt, the only way to have ANY credit at all is to get a credit card and pay the balance each month.
And let me tell you, "no credit" is MUCH MUCH WORSE than "bad credit". I recently tried to apply for a credit card. No debt at 24. I was turned down for it, on the basis that I had no credit. What the ****? For a CREDIT CARD? After two years of paying bills? FINALLY I was able to persuade them to deign to give me a limit equal to one paycheck.
Oh, and a home loan? Nevermind that it would be only 1/6 of my monthly gross and my only debt, banks will at best give me a 9.75% 3-year adjustable! (Luckily the credit union was reasonable.)
I swear, credit reporting is such an anachronism.
Which would leave the Wii in a much better position. My only message to Nintendo is this: Don't get cocky!
... *Wii*
Nintendo
That ship has already sailed.
Actually, predicting how much of an initial shipment of a new product will sell, has a huge margin of error. If you know how to predict this number, people will pave you a road of gold if you tell them.
... but we're not in the long term yet, hence the dissatisfaction with "shipped" as opposed to "sold".
It's true that the method may be accurate in the long term
I have a better idea. How about someone post one of these:
-A picture of an unsold Wii in a store.
-A Wii ebay auction (not buy-it-now, an auction) ending at or below retail.
-A PS3 ebay auction WITH ACTUAL BIDS ending above retail.
Who really cares how many consoles have been "shipped" ?
I care -- if the console you're talking about is the Wii, which has been selling out everywhere with no end in sight.
Luckily, I got one at launch, but what's keeping Nintendo from meeting the demand?