For the reason of having choice, that's all you have to worry about. We're asking for information so we can choose, we're not inviting you to try to choose for us, or to tell us you disagree with our choices. We might also disagree with your choices.
He might just be admitting that if they can't convince the companies to do what they want, Congress will have to pass a law ordering them to stop trying, which will totally solve the problem.
He's not in Congress, he's in the Executive Branch, so there is no reason to think that he thinks he'd be choosing which type of legislation is needed to fix the problem. And anyways, according to the Constitution there might be only one direction that Congress can even move to settle it! They're certainly not going to pass a law telling us what content can be produced on a press.
The only thing that really concerns me about all of this is the fact that it's still leaking into the ocean...
If you go to a random spot in the ocean, near Japan, near Fukushima, the reason the radiation level is not uniform is that there is a lot more radiation near rocks. Same as everywhere else.
If you swam past naked, there would be little to no difference in your radiation exposure as if you swam past another spot somewhere else in the world with equal proximity to rocks. And it is nothing compared to the level of exposure you get from living in a brick or stone house.
The risks mostly impact people who breathed the air nearby, or live on land nearby. The difference in radiation in the air in California is less than the difference between living on the first floor of a building, or the second floor. Yes, the first floor has more radiation exposure because of its proximity to stone or dirt, but the difference doesn't lead to measurable differences in health outcomes.
False negatives are much less of a big deal in investing than false positives.
So you're saying that $1 of opportunity cost is less than $1 of operational losses?
If you said the exact opposite, it would be more true, because $1 of losses is a write-off, and $1 of opportunity cost is not. Opportunity cost is market share you'll never have another chance at!
Traditionally, an Oracle is a religious designation for a type of person who can listen to the words of the Gods, and translate them to human speech.
You don't do what the Oracle tells you because the Oracle is infallible, for the Gods are themselves neither infallible, nor guaranteed to be honest. You do it because you traveled all the way to the temple, already made the required donation, and it will make the Gods angry if you do not then heed their words. That's true regardless of if they chose to give you a useful answer, or not.
When the Oracle at Dephi was asked (by another person) if Socrates was the wisest man alive, and the Oracle said that Yes, he was, Socrates did not take this as proof of his wisdom; he instead sought out to disprove it! He felt that it was an affront to his dignity; the Gods were not speaking Truth through the Oracle, but merely making a joke of him. In the end he discovered the basis of science; that he was completely ignorant of everything other than his own ignorance; and that no purported wise men knew more! In fact, most were unaware even of their own ignorance. And so, by virtue of being the most aware of his own ignorance, the words of the Oracle might actually be true. And he was clearly a strong believer in the Gods; when his friend Xenophon asked his advice about joining a mercenary band, he advised to consult the same Oracle. And when Xenophon returned having asked merely which God to give sacrifice to in order to assure success, he chastised him for asking a leading question instead of asking if he should even go at all.
They don't need to do what the algorithm says because they believe it is infallible; if they treat it as an Oracle they merely need to be fearful that lack of respect for the System might have negative personal consequences, or believe that human wisdom is insufficient to provide adequate guidance.
A few years ago I spent $329 on a horizontal masticating juicer, from an existing brand that has been on the market for decades and has a late-generation product with a 15 year warranty.
If you want one that is a "cold press" instead of "masticating" juicer, you'll probably spend around $1500 or more. But the warranty will be good, and those are made by companies with long presence in the commercial kitchen machine sector.
Juicero, OTOH, was trying to sell packets of vegetables, with a model like the single-serve coffee pods. But to get it to actually work as quickly and conveniently as they wanted, they had to prep the vegetables before putting them in the pack; and then you don't even need the fancy machine. And yet, the machine was engineered to be able to really do the job; so it is expensive.
The advantage over a horizontal masticating juicer is simply that you save the 2 minutes of cleaning that is required immediately after using the machine. (If you don't take a masticating juicer apart and clean all the parts right away, it gets hard to clean it at all; that's the whole reason for there being a potential niche here) The problem is, the juice packets are them more expensive than just buying bottles of premium organic vegetable juice. Most of the value in spending $300+ on a masticating juicer is that you can get premium-quality juice out of any sort of vegetable including greens; the cheap juicers are "centrifugal" and only work well for certain things like carrots and apples, but can't really get juice out of greens. If you drink vegetable juice even once a week, you're saving money by buying the juicer. 12 ounces of carrot juice might cost $3 or more, but 10 lb of carrots
A masticating juicer can also make almond milk from almonds, peanut butter from peanuts, tahini from sesame seeds, etc. Even sorbet from frozen fruit. Tahini alone, it costs like $7 for a small jar, the same weight in sesame seeds costs $2. Add a few cents of olive oil, and that's close to $5 saved. It pays for itself if you don't mind a mandatory 2 minute cleanup routine that has to be completed before the residue dries.
So obviously, if all it does is make premium juice then the consumables have to beat the price of premium bottled juice, since that is the only product it is really competing with. Just like coffee pods are not really competing with brewed coffee, but with coffee shops. Even for businesses providing coffee in customer waiting rooms; the choices that customers appreciate are either the pods or a coffee service that delivers branded coffee to carafes daily. If they instead just have an employee brew a pot of coffee and leave it sitting on a burner, very few customers drink it, and none are impressed or feel like you provided any luxury or convenience. Most likely it is still half full when somebody turns off the pot and throws away the remnants because it smells so burnt.
Well, we know it doesn't have any inputs about, "Would it piss our users off if we change course abruptly? Did we make any representations to users about if they should use this, or avoid it because it is temporary?"
Or, to put it in terms bean-counters can understand: It doesn't even have an account to track Goodwill provisionally earned from past decisions!
You don't seem to have even considered what was said, you only considered what you believe and rephrased it, without any thought to what you're replying to.
That there exists a "specific economic tool" in the world is not in doubt. There are many of them. And yet, that doesn't change the meaning of English words. If you can't tell the difference between a tool, which by definition is not a simulation of reality but merely something literally incorrect that has some defined utility, and a discussion of what is actually happening, well then you won't succeed at adding anything to the conversation.
All you do is re-assert an assertion, but the actual assertion you're trying to use isn't an assertion of reality at all, it is an assertion of an contextual tool. Repeating it will not cause it to bridge over to reality and become a truism.
And of course in economics you get to totally ignore one side of something that is mutually subjective; the whole context of "economics" implies that one side has a fixed subjective perspective, and that you don't care about the perspective of the other side at all, only about their final behavior. Analysis tools for that context will never ever be relevant to general discussions that are considering the subjective perspectives of all the stakeholders. In economics that would always degrade your results, you're always going to want to be asserting a subjective perspective on one side, and measuring behavior on the other.
One of the reasons that English is such a popular language is that it is easy to talk about identity of both subject and object with arbitrary precision.
To add for anybody wondering, the actual answer is that in any of the cases where the logo doesn't get copyright, it is not because it is a logo, it has nothing to do with logos, the link above to archive.org even clarifies that nobody involved in that action was claiming that the trademark status, or the commercial use as a logo, is relevant. They all agree it is not relevant. So all these other links to stuff about logos are just horseshit designed to mislead people.
The logos that didn't get copyright didn't get it because they were not new images. That's it, that's the whole story; all images you create have copyright simply by being created, the copyright exists already as the artist is touching the page with the drawing instrument, or dragging the mouse across the input window. Some logos don't get copyright, because they were not created as new images. They simply don't count as new images that were created by the person who drew them. When I used the phrase above, "Any image created is copyrighted on creation," it obviously doesn't apply to things that were found not to be new images because they lacked novelty. Duh. That's in the simple English meaning of the words, there is nothing tricky or complicated about it.
And if you confront that situation, attempt to split hairs, and get the opposite answer, it might be time to throw the shovel in a free box.
So what do you call a person who scans the words and regurgitates spam? If they understood it, they'd discuss it, but they don't; the post spammy links that are highly unlikely to be consistent with the actual arguments they're making; categorically, because if they had an understanding of the subject they would have already been discussing it, and they'd be doing web searches to increase their own understanding, not to make half-assed stabs at argument from authority.
Try to understand the words that were said. I'll give you a huge hint; I'm not "low IQ" or "low English comprehension." Therefore, if my words sound "stupid" and "ignorant," perhaps the syntactic construction was confusing to you? Or perhaps you simply didn't believe that I meant what I literally said, perhaps my words sounded a little different than what the idiot on the street bleets, so you just guessed that I'm even more stupid?
If you're going to claim insane stuff like, "this guy I don't know can't learn, `cause I can't understand `im," then just go the fuck away. That's just stupid. Don't choose an arrogant insult of if you didn't comprehend the relevant literal meaning of the words you're replying to. And why the heck would anybody click links you provide in that context? Or even look at what domains you linked to? That's how far I am from caring about argument-from-authority-from-ignorance.
You can't possibly argue that I don't know, but you do. We have the exact same information. Exact.
I generally like lawyers, but some don't understand that outside of the courtroom, honesty is a virtue; and casual honesty is a requirement for people to continue engaging in conversation with you. If you're trying to advocate for an argument, instead of sharing analysis of the issues, then nobody wants to hear you burp and blather up.
Do these dummies have any idea that the words they're saying are not going to discourage anybody making decisions, but simply encourage them to increase investments?!
If that is the goal, they could also probably do it honestly by talking about the benefits.
If you use a word like "disrupt" or "destabilizing" to an average person on the street, they might think the word sounds bad, but people who dream of ruling the world don't feel the same way about these words.
My son is a phone addict. And he is struggling at school because he can't sit down and study for a few hours. Smartphones should be treated like asbestos.
I agree.
What is the appropriate type of punishment for parents who intentionally expose their children to asbestos?
From now on instead of just shouting, "HANG UP AND DRIVE!!!" all the time, I'm going to alternate between that and, "OH! IT'S MR BEAN! MR BEAN! MR BEAN!"
Slashdot Mirror
Sarcasm is a crutch for weak minded people with little to say and no idea how to say it.
My words were my words, and your words were not.
For the reason of having choice, that's all you have to worry about. We're asking for information so we can choose, we're not inviting you to try to choose for us, or to tell us you disagree with our choices. We might also disagree with your choices.
The higher sugar content is literally why they are too fragile for most stores to want to sell.
For the same reasons that an unripe fruit is hard and starchy.
You're not going to get a firm, easy to ship strawberry with a sweet flavor unless you add some weird stuff to it.
He might just be admitting that if they can't convince the companies to do what they want, Congress will have to pass a law ordering them to stop trying, which will totally solve the problem.
He's not in Congress, he's in the Executive Branch, so there is no reason to think that he thinks he'd be choosing which type of legislation is needed to fix the problem. And anyways, according to the Constitution there might be only one direction that Congress can even move to settle it! They're certainly not going to pass a law telling us what content can be produced on a press.
I still have a hoard of dried kelp, too.
The only thing that really concerns me about all of this is the fact that it's still leaking into the ocean...
If you go to a random spot in the ocean, near Japan, near Fukushima, the reason the radiation level is not uniform is that there is a lot more radiation near rocks. Same as everywhere else.
If you swam past naked, there would be little to no difference in your radiation exposure as if you swam past another spot somewhere else in the world with equal proximity to rocks. And it is nothing compared to the level of exposure you get from living in a brick or stone house.
The risks mostly impact people who breathed the air nearby, or live on land nearby. The difference in radiation in the air in California is less than the difference between living on the first floor of a building, or the second floor. Yes, the first floor has more radiation exposure because of its proximity to stone or dirt, but the difference doesn't lead to measurable differences in health outcomes.
I thought the headline should have been, "French win snobs use physics to prove they hate California."
Also, the editors screwed up the flag; the French flag is vertical bars of blue, white, and red.
Yeah, your comment is what happens when you let computer nerds talk about storytelling, though.
So they could easily have done worse.
Sorry, it was supposed to be: "but 10 lb of carrots... only costs $4."
False negatives are much less of a big deal in investing than false positives.
So you're saying that $1 of opportunity cost is less than $1 of operational losses?
If you said the exact opposite, it would be more true, because $1 of losses is a write-off, and $1 of opportunity cost is not. Opportunity cost is market share you'll never have another chance at!
Traditionally, an Oracle is a religious designation for a type of person who can listen to the words of the Gods, and translate them to human speech.
You don't do what the Oracle tells you because the Oracle is infallible, for the Gods are themselves neither infallible, nor guaranteed to be honest. You do it because you traveled all the way to the temple, already made the required donation, and it will make the Gods angry if you do not then heed their words. That's true regardless of if they chose to give you a useful answer, or not.
When the Oracle at Dephi was asked (by another person) if Socrates was the wisest man alive, and the Oracle said that Yes, he was, Socrates did not take this as proof of his wisdom; he instead sought out to disprove it! He felt that it was an affront to his dignity; the Gods were not speaking Truth through the Oracle, but merely making a joke of him. In the end he discovered the basis of science; that he was completely ignorant of everything other than his own ignorance; and that no purported wise men knew more! In fact, most were unaware even of their own ignorance. And so, by virtue of being the most aware of his own ignorance, the words of the Oracle might actually be true. And he was clearly a strong believer in the Gods; when his friend Xenophon asked his advice about joining a mercenary band, he advised to consult the same Oracle. And when Xenophon returned having asked merely which God to give sacrifice to in order to assure success, he chastised him for asking a leading question instead of asking if he should even go at all.
They don't need to do what the algorithm says because they believe it is infallible; if they treat it as an Oracle they merely need to be fearful that lack of respect for the System might have negative personal consequences, or believe that human wisdom is insufficient to provide adequate guidance.
They probably only check the box, and then let the computer "decide."
If you adapt it into a new Stargate spinoff it might be good.
I'd definitely rent the DVD from the library in 5 years, or just download it.
--NoTVGuy
A few years ago I spent $329 on a horizontal masticating juicer, from an existing brand that has been on the market for decades and has a late-generation product with a 15 year warranty.
If you want one that is a "cold press" instead of "masticating" juicer, you'll probably spend around $1500 or more. But the warranty will be good, and those are made by companies with long presence in the commercial kitchen machine sector.
Juicero, OTOH, was trying to sell packets of vegetables, with a model like the single-serve coffee pods. But to get it to actually work as quickly and conveniently as they wanted, they had to prep the vegetables before putting them in the pack; and then you don't even need the fancy machine. And yet, the machine was engineered to be able to really do the job; so it is expensive.
The advantage over a horizontal masticating juicer is simply that you save the 2 minutes of cleaning that is required immediately after using the machine. (If you don't take a masticating juicer apart and clean all the parts right away, it gets hard to clean it at all; that's the whole reason for there being a potential niche here) The problem is, the juice packets are them more expensive than just buying bottles of premium organic vegetable juice. Most of the value in spending $300+ on a masticating juicer is that you can get premium-quality juice out of any sort of vegetable including greens; the cheap juicers are "centrifugal" and only work well for certain things like carrots and apples, but can't really get juice out of greens. If you drink vegetable juice even once a week, you're saving money by buying the juicer. 12 ounces of carrot juice might cost $3 or more, but 10 lb of carrots
A masticating juicer can also make almond milk from almonds, peanut butter from peanuts, tahini from sesame seeds, etc. Even sorbet from frozen fruit. Tahini alone, it costs like $7 for a small jar, the same weight in sesame seeds costs $2. Add a few cents of olive oil, and that's close to $5 saved. It pays for itself if you don't mind a mandatory 2 minute cleanup routine that has to be completed before the residue dries.
So obviously, if all it does is make premium juice then the consumables have to beat the price of premium bottled juice, since that is the only product it is really competing with. Just like coffee pods are not really competing with brewed coffee, but with coffee shops. Even for businesses providing coffee in customer waiting rooms; the choices that customers appreciate are either the pods or a coffee service that delivers branded coffee to carafes daily. If they instead just have an employee brew a pot of coffee and leave it sitting on a burner, very few customers drink it, and none are impressed or feel like you provided any luxury or convenience. Most likely it is still half full when somebody turns off the pot and throws away the remnants because it smells so burnt.
I thought the purpose was to redistribute high quality machine parts of a size useful to the maker community to the salvage market?
Well, we know it doesn't have any inputs about, "Would it piss our users off if we change course abruptly? Did we make any representations to users about if they should use this, or avoid it because it is temporary?"
Or, to put it in terms bean-counters can understand: It doesn't even have an account to track Goodwill provisionally earned from past decisions!
Darmok and Jalad, at Tanagra.
Obviously.
You don't seem to have even considered what was said, you only considered what you believe and rephrased it, without any thought to what you're replying to.
That there exists a "specific economic tool" in the world is not in doubt. There are many of them. And yet, that doesn't change the meaning of English words. If you can't tell the difference between a tool, which by definition is not a simulation of reality but merely something literally incorrect that has some defined utility, and a discussion of what is actually happening, well then you won't succeed at adding anything to the conversation.
All you do is re-assert an assertion, but the actual assertion you're trying to use isn't an assertion of reality at all, it is an assertion of an contextual tool. Repeating it will not cause it to bridge over to reality and become a truism.
And of course in economics you get to totally ignore one side of something that is mutually subjective; the whole context of "economics" implies that one side has a fixed subjective perspective, and that you don't care about the perspective of the other side at all, only about their final behavior. Analysis tools for that context will never ever be relevant to general discussions that are considering the subjective perspectives of all the stakeholders. In economics that would always degrade your results, you're always going to want to be asserting a subjective perspective on one side, and measuring behavior on the other.
My words were accurately explained to you by the other coward above. You're being willfully ignorant, is all.
Perhaps you forgot about the existence of identity? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
One of the reasons that English is such a popular language is that it is easy to talk about identity of both subject and object with arbitrary precision.
To add for anybody wondering, the actual answer is that in any of the cases where the logo doesn't get copyright, it is not because it is a logo, it has nothing to do with logos, the link above to archive.org even clarifies that nobody involved in that action was claiming that the trademark status, or the commercial use as a logo, is relevant. They all agree it is not relevant. So all these other links to stuff about logos are just horseshit designed to mislead people.
The logos that didn't get copyright didn't get it because they were not new images. That's it, that's the whole story; all images you create have copyright simply by being created, the copyright exists already as the artist is touching the page with the drawing instrument, or dragging the mouse across the input window. Some logos don't get copyright, because they were not created as new images. They simply don't count as new images that were created by the person who drew them. When I used the phrase above, "Any image created is copyrighted on creation," it obviously doesn't apply to things that were found not to be new images because they lacked novelty. Duh. That's in the simple English meaning of the words, there is nothing tricky or complicated about it.
And if you confront that situation, attempt to split hairs, and get the opposite answer, it might be time to throw the shovel in a free box.
So what do you call a person who scans the words and regurgitates spam? If they understood it, they'd discuss it, but they don't; the post spammy links that are highly unlikely to be consistent with the actual arguments they're making; categorically, because if they had an understanding of the subject they would have already been discussing it, and they'd be doing web searches to increase their own understanding, not to make half-assed stabs at argument from authority.
Try to understand the words that were said. I'll give you a huge hint; I'm not "low IQ" or "low English comprehension." Therefore, if my words sound "stupid" and "ignorant," perhaps the syntactic construction was confusing to you? Or perhaps you simply didn't believe that I meant what I literally said, perhaps my words sounded a little different than what the idiot on the street bleets, so you just guessed that I'm even more stupid?
If you're going to claim insane stuff like, "this guy I don't know can't learn, `cause I can't understand `im," then just go the fuck away. That's just stupid. Don't choose an arrogant insult of if you didn't comprehend the relevant literal meaning of the words you're replying to. And why the heck would anybody click links you provide in that context? Or even look at what domains you linked to? That's how far I am from caring about argument-from-authority-from-ignorance.
You can't possibly argue that I don't know, but you do. We have the exact same information. Exact.
I generally like lawyers, but some don't understand that outside of the courtroom, honesty is a virtue; and casual honesty is a requirement for people to continue engaging in conversation with you. If you're trying to advocate for an argument, instead of sharing analysis of the issues, then nobody wants to hear you burp and blather up.
Do these dummies have any idea that the words they're saying are not going to discourage anybody making decisions, but simply encourage them to increase investments?!
If that is the goal, they could also probably do it honestly by talking about the benefits.
If you use a word like "disrupt" or "destabilizing" to an average person on the street, they might think the word sounds bad, but people who dream of ruling the world don't feel the same way about these words.
My son is a phone addict. And he is struggling at school because he can't sit down and study for a few hours. Smartphones should be treated like asbestos.
I agree.
What is the appropriate type of punishment for parents who intentionally expose their children to asbestos?
From now on instead of just shouting, "HANG UP AND DRIVE!!!" all the time, I'm going to alternate between that and, "OH! IT'S MR BEAN! MR BEAN! MR BEAN!"