For a good example of what this would look like, anyone can take a look at a picture of M104-the Sombrero Galaxy. Of course, there are many other spiral galaxies that one can observe, as well. The point is, the universe is very fractal in nature. We can compare the classical view of an atom to that of the solar system. Why can we not simply extend this to a view of a galaxy?
You just did... And, because the universe is very fractal in nature, I submit that purple geese are analogous to slashdot. My point is it might be true that the behavior and existence of spiral galaxies are analogous to those of our solar system, but is is not true *because* the universe is very fractal in nature.
The event horizon is something that any object with mass has, as well. Of course, not on the same scale as a black hole, yet, come to close to the sun and you are doomed. A comet slammed in to Jupiter and disappeared. It will never be seen again. Our moon is stuck to the earth. Without adding energy to the system, the moon will always be a part of the system. The event orizon of a black hole is important because light cannot ever leave the system once inside this critical boundary. That does not mean that other systems possess no event horizon.
No, any object with mass has the same type of thing as an event horizon, but an event horizon is a special case. Any object(though I'm not sure about low-mass low-density objects) with mass has a locus of points beyond which certain other masses at certain speeds can not move back across. An event horizon is the same except it is the locus of points past which nothing can escape. Event in the name speaks of what people generally consider the interesting conclusion that information of events can not escape.
The reason that it is so "easy" to accept the concept of a black hole is simply the fact that as the diameter of a body decreases while retaining mass, there is no choice but to have the system collapse to a singularity--given enough mass.
Perhaps this is true, but it is the validity of this statement which is under question. It seems that a number of people would disagree with your statement about there being "no choice but to have the system collapse to a singularity."
Heh, looks like you got into the wrong area. I know a high school math teacher(also head of department) who makes ~80k. He has a masters, over a decade of experience, and doesn't have many classes. There's another math teacher on the same campus who makes ~110k. He doesn't have a masters or nearly the experience of the head of department, but he also teaches at a local community college. This is in a public school in Orange County, California. The benefits that come with these jobs must not be forgotten, though. They're worth quite a lot.
*thinks to self* Cool, wonder how fast he had to go... 2400mi/22hr = ~109mi/hr. Even cooler(unless I'm naive and that didn't actually hapeen. Nah, couldn't be.) =D
I don't. And... he didn't read the fine print well enough on the thing he signed to get a parking permit for the school parking lot. Said they could conduct searches of cars for w/e reason. One could, of course, argue that w/o a parent signature it was worthless.
Rumour spreadin a-round in that texas town
bout that shack outside la grange
And you know what Im talkin about.
Just let me know if you wanna go
To that home out on the range.
They gotta lotta nice girls.
Have mercy.
A haw, haw, haw, haw, a haw.
A haw, haw, haw.
Well, I hear its fine if you got the time
And the ten to get yourself in.
A hmm, hmm.
And I hear its tight most evry night,
But now I might be mistaken.
Hmm, hmm, hmm, hmm.
What I want to know is what happened to my country.
Seriously? You don't know? I think you do. It went down the shitter. Also, it was quite a long ways there when you were in high school, just not in high schools. The government had public roads and utilities and had been intervening in the economy. There was the Federal Reserve System already, too. The government has no power except what the people allow it to have. Who destroyed your country? You and many of the US citizens at the time, before your time, and now. There are, of course, some who resisted, but we have lost lots of ground. Of course, you're probably wondering why I would insult you by naming you as one of the perpetrators. By refusing to see what was happening, lying to yourself about the situation, and doing nothing about it, you aided in the great destruction.
Heh, a kid recently got expelled from his district(Meaning, he can't go to school in his county EVER again.) when they searched his car for no reason. Why? They found a fillet knife in his trunk that he'd left there from a fishing trip.
Besides, these policies aren't the only thing stopping kids from learning. The government schools simply don't give a rat's ass about learning. They walk around talking about how they "Have $5,000 they need to spend" (emphasis mine). In that case, what was meant was, even with all the wasteful ways we've spent our science department budget, we've somehow managed to come in under the amount of money alloted to us. In order for us to recieve the same amount of money next year(hopefully more) we need to come up w/ a way to blow this money. That was gathered from the continued conversation...
Anyways, and more on topic, this whole issue wouldn't exist if government schools didn't exist. I'm not saying this is a reason they shouldn't exist, but simply another problem that is created by their existence. There is no reason for them to exist in the first place. It seems a vast majority of the population supports government schools, and, yet, probably 90 percent of them think ill of communism/socialism/that type of thing.
Who ever gave the government the right to start schools? Constitutionally it doesn't have this right, and rightly so. However, it does have the right because it was allowed to happen.
That doesn't make any sense. Perhaps, it isn't a good idea. So? You've made no point except that it is a bad idea. Unless you meant to suggest that we outlaw things that are bad ideas? (Or, that we already have.)
Anyways, I think gun carrying is a damn fine idea. I carry a knife on me pretty much always. I carry it at work, too. Oh, and by the way, it's also a lethal weapon, even "when used accidentally," and so is the keyboard I'm typing on right now and the fingers that are finging it.
You first hit... and missed. But, the second time you struck the heart of it but didn't know it. You say that "the problem is that is does not function effectively in representing the body politic." It is true to an extent, but it isn't the heart of the matter, more on that in a second. You then say that "our society and culture seems to have bought into the idea that everything will be fine if only someone ELSE can take care of it for us." Are the beliefs of "our society and culture" not those of the body politic? The heart of the matter is that the government *is* fairly effectively representing the body politic and the absurd beliefs of the body politic are the real problem.
On another note, the fact that people, in general, have assumed the belief that someone ELSE will take care of things is indicative of deeper, more serious logical faults which allowed the people to believe such a ridiculous thing. And, those faults lead to other illogical behaviors besides the "someone ELSE" one.
You are absolutely correct. But, consider how they have such power. It is the people of the United States who have given it to them. An interesting way that the government gains power is by assumption and acquiescence. If the government begins acting with power it does not have and the people acquiesce, the government has a new power as nothing is stopping it from acting so. And, if it did it in the first place, it is corrupt enough to do it if no one keeps it from doing it. If a thief goes about stealing and no one stops the thief, the thief now has the power to steal, that is, until such time as something is done. And, that is the same with the government. Something can be done. More work becomes necessary the for each moment that nothing is done, however.
Also, you should reconsider your position on political parties. You say that you are a Republican and those "in the White House" are not. But, what, precisely, is a Republican? What it means to be a Republican has changed a great many times over the years. The meaning of Republican is simply a function of the beliefs of those who label themselves Republican. To determine if you are a Republican or not, you must look at what those who claim to be Republicans think. It is quite obvious that you do not agree with the "party line," so you are not a Republican. But, when you say you are a Republican, you don't mean it in the sense that I have laid out. I understand that. You rather have a static set of beliefs that you think of as Republican beliefs and they are yours. So, in your own definition, you are a Republican.
But, that is a flawed definition, as that is not how Republican is defined. If you look at the wikipedia article for the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Party_(Uni ted_States)Republican Party of the United States, there is no set of beliefs that are Republican. (Of course, we must not lose sight of the fact that, not speaking of beliefs, you are a Republican if that is what you're registered as. That is obvious, but, you speak of beliefs. Thus, do I.) Though, the article does speak of historic beliefs, actions, etc. up to the present. Rather than trying to identify with a party in order to speak of what you believe, why do you not merely state what it is you believe? Of course, you can use peoples' understanding of the belief of various political parties as a shortcut, but that is different than identifying yourself as a member, as that says that you follow the party. To quickly give people the gist of my beliefs, I say that I generally agree with the beliefs of the Libertarian party. And, if elaboration is necessary, I will elaborate. But, what I do not say, is that I'm a Libertarian.
There is a difference between sharing the beliefs of a party and following the beliefs of the party. That is, there is a difference between a party's beliefs happening to describe yours, and a party's beliefs defining yours. You quite obviously do not follow the latter, as you have a set of beliefs and are sticking to them. But, though that is true, you still attempt to have the party define yours by making the party beliefs be your own. All this party business is ridiculous. What is the point of a party? I am not of a party.
I'm not bashing you, by the way. I'm just trying to help you sort out the party nonsense. From your comments on the current situation, you seem a rational person, which is somewhat rare.
The primary evidence that people use to suggest Millikan knew what he was looking for were vague margin notes about particular data being close or some similar phrase. If I recall, they could simply be quick notes about how well he thought he performed the experiment for a given datum. I think he ended up taking the measurement he liked the most rather than averaging them or something like that. Meh, this is all stuff I gleaned from one of those Discovery shows or the like about him... Though, I really wasn't awake through most of it, anyways... So, have a heapin' helpin' of salt w/ this one...
Also, the contraption he used for his experiment is quite a sight, though a cursory search didn't turn it up...
Well, the whole thing is conjecture. But as to the involvement of parabolic mirrors, some have the idea that an array of flat mirrors arranged in a parabolic shape and that the array was somehow quickly and smoothly able to be changed so its focus changed. At least, that's one story I've heard about parabolic mirrors in relation to the ship burning device.
Of course others have proposed that parabolic mirrors were used to focus onto single flat mirros... and if that doesn't sound like it would work, good because it wouldn't.
The only feasible arrangement of parabolic mirrors whereby a device is created that can quickly change its focus is one which involves two parabolic mirros and a flat mirror that is on a moving mount. The one parabolic mirror focuses light onto the flat mirror(or partiaally focuses it depending on specifics) the flat mirror is mounted in front of the other parabolic mirror such that the focused light from the first is reflected onto the second parabolic mirror. This arrangment is similar to a parabolic transmitting dish. The flat mirror must be mounted so that it can move towards and away from the second parabolic mirror and the first parabolic mirror must be mounted so that it's angle can be altered to track the flat mirror.
In this set up, moving the flat mirror out moves the focus of the light inward and moving the flat mirror inwards moves the focus out.
I don't claim this is efficient, good enough to burn ships, what was used(if it was actually done at all), or that the tech existed at the time to do it. But, it is a method using parabolic mirrors to focus light at an arbitrary distance.
Of course, as I don't claim efficiency and the like, this doesn't apply to your claim that it is unlikely. In fact, I agree. I just thought it was an interesting arrangment...
You didn't say capitalism had a goal. I shouldn't have mentioned my own evaluation of the likelihood that you thought that. It popped into my mind and spurred the line of thought about capitalism having a goal. It had no bearing on the matter, though. And ultra-right? I didn't think that sounded neofascist...
A chance to gather my thoughts on things and get in some writing practice. That's the primary fuel. Also, it's a subject I enjoy discussing.
It appears that I agree with you on supply and demand. I just have an odd way of interpreting and saying things. It is always the cost of the sellers that determines the price of a product, unless one is going to steal it. If the cost of a product from a sole supplier is X, X is the consumer price. If this price is too high above demand, the business will probably not remain in business long. Now, if someone else begins to supply this product, and they supply it too far below their costs, they won't remain in business long either. So, the price for a product which is in demand and able to be supplied by a wide variety of people, will tend towards the marginal cost plus a bit to keep the supplier supplying this product rather than doing whatever everyone else is doing.
The perhaps verbose conditions are necessary. If some person is the only one able to supply some product and decides to charge too much for the demand, that person, again, will likely not remain in business long. But, while that person is supplying that product and after that person stops supplying, there's no one else to supply it. So, the cost that person sets, is the cost for that product. Of course, such cases as these which fall outside of the conditions of my statement are not the majority, so the market does indeed tend to the marginal cost and a bit... through interaction of supply and demand.
Also, as prices of everything are determined by sellers, no matter what influences them -- demand or otherwise -- prices are determined by sellers. If prices are too high for demand, the market for a product, and the market, in general, will adjust, meaning some combination of prices lowering and demand increasing(negative values a possibility;D). However, even though the demand of the consumer is a primary motivation in these adjustments, it is, in the end, the will of sellers which adjusts prices. Consumers who take up selling because they see an opportunity are now sellers and can choose what they want to demand in return for their product.
It's ridiculous; I know. But, that's how I see it, and, in the end, it agrees with your statements about supply and demand except on very fine points.
I didn't intend to say I was a monopolist in the labor market, but, rather, a monopolist on the commodity which is me. I may not be in very high demand(in fact, i might be negatively demanded haha), but, nonetheless, I am still hold a monopoly over me.
It depends what is meant by consumer, antitrust, and labor protections. Proper enforcement of the constitution would solve all these issues. Any more laws are superfluous. For instance, consider union laws. I generally disagree with unions, but they have my full support in their right to exist and act unrestrained. If they negotiate a contract with a company that says, for example, that the company will hire only union members. Great. That should be enforced. If it makes a contract that the company will only deal with the union and never with individuals. That's cool, too. Now, labor laws. If you mean laws like the minimum wage, I don't agree. The government has no authority to create such laws and they do not make a market function better or be more free or allow competition. Simply going by the supply-demand thoughts about things, that doesn't make sense(not that I'm saying you agree with these laws. I don't know). Why the work of a single person should be treated differently than any other service or product, I can't understand(not that I'm saying you think they should be treated differently).
Perhaps he ignored your original post and my quote of it and simply took my statement of what I thought you meant by that and used it as the basis of his argument.
And, my interpretation of your original post assumed that you meant what most other people mean by "free of anti-competitive influences," meaning free of trusts, monopolies, etc. I think that kind of market is competition-free(and, actually, not free at all). Hence, my statement that you should term it a competition-free market. If you don't get it, it's probably safe to disregard it all as BS coming from layers upon layers of retarded interpretations.
In a properly working market, the price is the determined by the costs of the sellers, not the desires of the buyers. In most circumstances, this means marginal cost plus fair return on investment.
That is correct.
whoever taught you your economics, they should be fired.
That is incorrect. No cookie for you! You are probably one of those people that think competition is the goal of capitalism. That is, of course, wrong, for two reasons. First being, capitalism has no goal; it is just a term used to describe uncoerced trade. It can't have a goal. People who believe in capitalism can have goals. But saying capitalism has a goal is a logical fallacy. It is a confusion of capitalism with those who believe in it. Secondly, I realize that it is unnecessary to continue decrying the thought that competition is the the goal of capitalism as I've already shown it is not true, but it is important that one realizes the relation between competition and capitalism.
If you believed the other relation, you clearly are confused about the matter. Competition can be thought of as a beneficial side-effect of capitalism. It is, generally, one of the consequences of free trade, and it, generally, is beneficial to the market.
"marginal cost plus fair return on investment." The market is most stable when it is so. If everyone who produces/has anything to offer anything(basically everyone) cannot make enough to recover the marginal costs of the service they offer, everything goes to shit. Likewise, if they are merely able to break even, it stagnates. If they are able to make more, the economy flourishes. This is just what happens. I'm merely speaking observed results here. Government enforcement or any form of regulation in order to "ensure" this is preposterous.
And monopolies are fine. Stop whining about them. Do yourself a favor, go out and make yourself useful to yourself. You're wasting your time.
By the way, I have a monopoly on myself and my property. Also, I am a conspiracy in restraint of the trade of myself and my property. I have often refused work and other trade, such as trade in my property. Also, I recognize you as one of the many threats to my person. Please, attempt to understand what I have said here. It is in your best interest and mine. And, by that I mean, it is in my best interest if you and others realize the asshat stuff you're doing as it helps me be free. That is also one of the reasons that is in your best interest.
I'll take my offtopic, trolling, tin-foil-hat man mod now, please. Thanks.
'free market' (that is, a market free of anti-competative influences, which is not at all the same as being able to do whatever the fuck you want)
The rest of your post clarifies things, but, here, you obfuscate everything. If you mean "a market free of anti-competative influences" why don't you say that or, for a shorter version, competition-free market? That way you don't have to explain yourself. Though, I'm glad you had enough foresight to provide that explanation to keep people from basing arguments on a misinterpretation of your post.
I am not ignorant of those effects, and I don't value any a one. Why should I value that which makes me a slave?
Naturally, the right to organize is good, but it existed prior to the labor movement. It went away for a time and returned, and it is a good thing which came from the labor movement(even though it partially caused it to be need to be regained). But, this is another case of flawed logic. Because something good came from an action does not mean that the action itself was good.
If one makes an agreement with another, be it a company or a person, one is bound to the terms of the agreement. How else should it work? I don't want any of this "Oh, it's a gray area!" and "It's not as simple as that!" bullshit. Everything is simple and clear. And, you may apply that statement to itself; it means what it says. It is true without reservation.
Unlike others, however, I am not hypocritical in my application of freedom; I also do not agree with the "right-to-work" legislation. If a company makes an agreement with a union that it will only hire union members, it may only hire union members. When an agreement is made, it must be adhered to... by all parties.
If I am not free to make agreements or to have agreements upheld by the law, I am not free; I am a slave to that which controls which agreements I make and which will be upheld. I am a slave of the government.
Not only do you demand submission, you demand willful submission. You claim others' lives as your right.
I am not ignorant of those effects, and I don't value any a one. Why should I value that which makes me a slave?
Naturally, the right to organize is good, but it existed prior to the labor movement. It went away for a time and returned, and it is a good thing which came from the labor movement(even though it partially caused it to be need to be regained). But, this is another case of flawed logic. Because something good came from an action does not mean that the action itself was good.
If one makes an agreement with another, be it a company or a person, one is bound to the terms of the agreement. How else should it work? I don't want any of this "Oh, it's a gray area!" and "It's not as simple as that!" bullshit. Everything is simple and clear. And, you may apply that statement to itself; it means what it says. It is true without reservation.
Unlike others, however, I am not hypocritical in my application of freedom; I also do not agree with the "right-to-work" legislation. If a company makes an agreement with a union that it will only hire union members, it may only hire union members. When an agreement is made, it must be adhered to... by all parties.
If I am not free to make agreements or to have agreements upheld by the law, I am not free; I am a slave to that which controls which agreements I make and which will be upheld. I am a slave of the government.
Not only do you demand submission, you demand willful submission. You claim others' lives as your right.
Slashdot Mirror
For a good example of what this would look like, anyone can take a look at a picture of M104-the Sombrero Galaxy. Of course, there are many other spiral galaxies that one can observe, as well. The point is, the universe is very fractal in nature. We can compare the classical view of an atom to that of the solar system. Why can we not simply extend this to a view of a galaxy?
You just did... And, because the universe is very fractal in nature, I submit that purple geese are analogous to slashdot. My point is it might be true that the behavior and existence of spiral galaxies are analogous to those of our solar system, but is is not true *because* the universe is very fractal in nature.
The event horizon is something that any object with mass has, as well. Of course, not on the same scale as a black hole, yet, come to close to the sun and you are doomed. A comet slammed in to Jupiter and disappeared. It will never be seen again. Our moon is stuck to the earth. Without adding energy to the system, the moon will always be a part of the system. The event orizon of a black hole is important because light cannot ever leave the system once inside this critical boundary. That does not mean that other systems possess no event horizon.
No, any object with mass has the same type of thing as an event horizon, but an event horizon is a special case. Any object(though I'm not sure about low-mass low-density objects) with mass has a locus of points beyond which certain other masses at certain speeds can not move back across. An event horizon is the same except it is the locus of points past which nothing can escape. Event in the name speaks of what people generally consider the interesting conclusion that information of events can not escape.
The reason that it is so "easy" to accept the concept of a black hole is simply the fact that as the diameter of a body decreases while retaining mass, there is no choice but to have the system collapse to a singularity--given enough mass.
Perhaps this is true, but it is the validity of this statement which is under question. It seems that a number of people would disagree with your statement about there being "no choice but to have the system collapse to a singularity."
Heh, looks like you got into the wrong area. I know a high school math teacher(also head of department) who makes ~80k. He has a masters, over a decade of experience, and doesn't have many classes. There's another math teacher on the same campus who makes ~110k. He doesn't have a masters or nearly the experience of the head of department, but he also teaches at a local community college. This is in a public school in Orange County, California. The benefits that come with these jobs must not be forgotten, though. They're worth quite a lot.
*thinks to self* Cool, wonder how fast he had to go... 2400mi/22hr = ~109mi/hr. Even cooler(unless I'm naive and that didn't actually hapeen. Nah, couldn't be.) =D
I don't. And... he didn't read the fine print well enough on the thing he signed to get a parking permit for the school parking lot. Said they could conduct searches of cars for w/e reason. One could, of course, argue that w/o a parent signature it was worthless.
Funny... but not what was alluded to.
ZZ Top - La Grange
Seriously? You don't know? I think you do. It went down the shitter. Also, it was quite a long ways there when you were in high school, just not in high schools. The government had public roads and utilities and had been intervening in the economy. There was the Federal Reserve System already, too. The government has no power except what the people allow it to have. Who destroyed your country? You and many of the US citizens at the time, before your time, and now. There are, of course, some who resisted, but we have lost lots of ground. Of course, you're probably wondering why I would insult you by naming you as one of the perpetrators. By refusing to see what was happening, lying to yourself about the situation, and doing nothing about it, you aided in the great destruction.
So, shut up or put up.
Heh, a kid recently got expelled from his district(Meaning, he can't go to school in his county EVER again.) when they searched his car for no reason. Why? They found a fillet knife in his trunk that he'd left there from a fishing trip.
Besides, these policies aren't the only thing stopping kids from learning. The government schools simply don't give a rat's ass about learning. They walk around talking about how they "Have $5,000 they need to spend" (emphasis mine). In that case, what was meant was, even with all the wasteful ways we've spent our science department budget, we've somehow managed to come in under the amount of money alloted to us. In order for us to recieve the same amount of money next year(hopefully more) we need to come up w/ a way to blow this money. That was gathered from the continued conversation...
Anyways, and more on topic, this whole issue wouldn't exist if government schools didn't exist. I'm not saying this is a reason they shouldn't exist, but simply another problem that is created by their existence. There is no reason for them to exist in the first place. It seems a vast majority of the population supports government schools, and, yet, probably 90 percent of them think ill of communism/socialism/that type of thing.
Who ever gave the government the right to start schools? Constitutionally it doesn't have this right, and rightly so. However, it does have the right because it was allowed to happen.
That doesn't make any sense. Perhaps, it isn't a good idea. So? You've made no point except that it is a bad idea. Unless you meant to suggest that we outlaw things that are bad ideas? (Or, that we already have.)
Anyways, I think gun carrying is a damn fine idea. I carry a knife on me pretty much always. I carry it at work, too. Oh, and by the way, it's also a lethal weapon, even "when used accidentally," and so is the keyboard I'm typing on right now and the fingers that are finging it.
The free market is about freedom; it's about people doing as they please in a manner which does not restrict the freedom of others.
I don't want to start any blasphemous rumours But I think that God's got a sick sense of humor. And when I die I expect to find him laughing
Hm... Makes sense seeing as "haste makes waste"
You first hit... and missed. But, the second time you struck the heart of it but didn't know it. You say that "the problem is that is does not function effectively in representing the body politic." It is true to an extent, but it isn't the heart of the matter, more on that in a second. You then say that "our society and culture seems to have bought into the idea that everything will be fine if only someone ELSE can take care of it for us." Are the beliefs of "our society and culture" not those of the body politic? The heart of the matter is that the government *is* fairly effectively representing the body politic and the absurd beliefs of the body politic are the real problem.
On another note, the fact that people, in general, have assumed the belief that someone ELSE will take care of things is indicative of deeper, more serious logical faults which allowed the people to believe such a ridiculous thing. And, those faults lead to other illogical behaviors besides the "someone ELSE" one.
You are absolutely correct. But, consider how they have such power. It is the people of the United States who have given it to them. An interesting way that the government gains power is by assumption and acquiescence. If the government begins acting with power it does not have and the people acquiesce, the government has a new power as nothing is stopping it from acting so. And, if it did it in the first place, it is corrupt enough to do it if no one keeps it from doing it. If a thief goes about stealing and no one stops the thief, the thief now has the power to steal, that is, until such time as something is done. And, that is the same with the government. Something can be done. More work becomes necessary the for each moment that nothing is done, however.
Also, you should reconsider your position on political parties. You say that you are a Republican and those "in the White House" are not. But, what, precisely, is a Republican? What it means to be a Republican has changed a great many times over the years. The meaning of Republican is simply a function of the beliefs of those who label themselves Republican. To determine if you are a Republican or not, you must look at what those who claim to be Republicans think. It is quite obvious that you do not agree with the "party line," so you are not a Republican. But, when you say you are a Republican, you don't mean it in the sense that I have laid out. I understand that. You rather have a static set of beliefs that you think of as Republican beliefs and they are yours. So, in your own definition, you are a Republican.
But, that is a flawed definition, as that is not how Republican is defined. If you look at the wikipedia article for the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Party_(Uni ted_States)Republican Party of the United States, there is no set of beliefs that are Republican. (Of course, we must not lose sight of the fact that, not speaking of beliefs, you are a Republican if that is what you're registered as. That is obvious, but, you speak of beliefs. Thus, do I.) Though, the article does speak of historic beliefs, actions, etc. up to the present. Rather than trying to identify with a party in order to speak of what you believe, why do you not merely state what it is you believe? Of course, you can use peoples' understanding of the belief of various political parties as a shortcut, but that is different than identifying yourself as a member, as that says that you follow the party. To quickly give people the gist of my beliefs, I say that I generally agree with the beliefs of the Libertarian party. And, if elaboration is necessary, I will elaborate. But, what I do not say, is that I'm a Libertarian.
There is a difference between sharing the beliefs of a party and following the beliefs of the party. That is, there is a difference between a party's beliefs happening to describe yours, and a party's beliefs defining yours. You quite obviously do not follow the latter, as you have a set of beliefs and are sticking to them. But, though that is true, you still attempt to have the party define yours by making the party beliefs be your own. All this party business is ridiculous. What is the point of a party? I am not of a party.
I'm not bashing you, by the way. I'm just trying to help you sort out the party nonsense. From your comments on the current situation, you seem a rational person, which is somewhat rare.
The primary evidence that people use to suggest Millikan knew what he was looking for were vague margin notes about particular data being close or some similar phrase. If I recall, they could simply be quick notes about how well he thought he performed the experiment for a given datum. I think he ended up taking the measurement he liked the most rather than averaging them or something like that. Meh, this is all stuff I gleaned from one of those Discovery shows or the like about him... Though, I really wasn't awake through most of it, anyways... So, have a heapin' helpin' of salt w/ this one...
Also, the contraption he used for his experiment is quite a sight, though a cursory search didn't turn it up...
Well, the whole thing is conjecture. But as to the involvement of parabolic mirrors, some have the idea that an array of flat mirrors arranged in a parabolic shape and that the array was somehow quickly and smoothly able to be changed so its focus changed. At least, that's one story I've heard about parabolic mirrors in relation to the ship burning device.
Of course others have proposed that parabolic mirrors were used to focus onto single flat mirros... and if that doesn't sound like it would work, good because it wouldn't.
The only feasible arrangement of parabolic mirrors whereby a device is created that can quickly change its focus is one which involves two parabolic mirros and a flat mirror that is on a moving mount. The one parabolic mirror focuses light onto the flat mirror(or partiaally focuses it depending on specifics) the flat mirror is mounted in front of the other parabolic mirror such that the focused light from the first is reflected onto the second parabolic mirror. This arrangment is similar to a parabolic transmitting dish. The flat mirror must be mounted so that it can move towards and away from the second parabolic mirror and the first parabolic mirror must be mounted so that it's angle can be altered to track the flat mirror.
In this set up, moving the flat mirror out moves the focus of the light inward and moving the flat mirror inwards moves the focus out.
I don't claim this is efficient, good enough to burn ships, what was used(if it was actually done at all), or that the tech existed at the time to do it. But, it is a method using parabolic mirrors to focus light at an arbitrary distance.
Of course, as I don't claim efficiency and the like, this doesn't apply to your claim that it is unlikely. In fact, I agree. I just thought it was an interesting arrangment...
You didn't say capitalism had a goal. I shouldn't have mentioned my own evaluation of the likelihood that you thought that. It popped into my mind and spurred the line of thought about capitalism having a goal. It had no bearing on the matter, though. And ultra-right? I didn't think that sounded neofascist...
A chance to gather my thoughts on things and get in some writing practice. That's the primary fuel. Also, it's a subject I enjoy discussing.
It appears that I agree with you on supply and demand. I just have an odd way of interpreting and saying things. It is always the cost of the sellers that determines the price of a product, unless one is going to steal it. If the cost of a product from a sole supplier is X, X is the consumer price. If this price is too high above demand, the business will probably not remain in business long. Now, if someone else begins to supply this product, and they supply it too far below their costs, they won't remain in business long either. So, the price for a product which is in demand and able to be supplied by a wide variety of people, will tend towards the marginal cost plus a bit to keep the supplier supplying this product rather than doing whatever everyone else is doing.
The perhaps verbose conditions are necessary. If some person is the only one able to supply some product and decides to charge too much for the demand, that person, again, will likely not remain in business long. But, while that person is supplying that product and after that person stops supplying, there's no one else to supply it. So, the cost that person sets, is the cost for that product. Of course, such cases as these which fall outside of the conditions of my statement are not the majority, so the market does indeed tend to the marginal cost and a bit... through interaction of supply and demand.
Also, as prices of everything are determined by sellers, no matter what influences them -- demand or otherwise -- prices are determined by sellers. If prices are too high for demand, the market for a product, and the market, in general, will adjust, meaning some combination of prices lowering and demand increasing(negative values a possibility ;D). However, even though the demand of the consumer is a primary motivation in these adjustments, it is, in the end, the will of sellers which adjusts prices. Consumers who take up selling because they see an opportunity are now sellers and can choose what they want to demand in return for their product.
It's ridiculous; I know. But, that's how I see it, and, in the end, it agrees with your statements about supply and demand except on very fine points.
I didn't intend to say I was a monopolist in the labor market, but, rather, a monopolist on the commodity which is me. I may not be in very high demand(in fact, i might be negatively demanded haha), but, nonetheless, I am still hold a monopoly over me.
It depends what is meant by consumer, antitrust, and labor protections. Proper enforcement of the constitution would solve all these issues. Any more laws are superfluous. For instance, consider union laws. I generally disagree with unions, but they have my full support in their right to exist and act unrestrained. If they negotiate a contract with a company that says, for example, that the company will hire only union members. Great. That should be enforced. If it makes a contract that the company will only deal with the union and never with individuals. That's cool, too. Now, labor laws. If you mean laws like the minimum wage, I don't agree. The government has no authority to create such laws and they do not make a market function better or be more free or allow competition. Simply going by the supply-demand thoughts about things, that doesn't make sense(not that I'm saying you agree with these laws. I don't know). Why the work of a single person should be treated differently than any other service or product, I can't understand(not that I'm saying you think they should be treated differently).
Perhaps he ignored your original post and my quote of it and simply took my statement of what I thought you meant by that and used it as the basis of his argument.
And, my interpretation of your original post assumed that you meant what most other people mean by "free of anti-competitive influences," meaning free of trusts, monopolies, etc. I think that kind of market is competition-free(and, actually, not free at all). Hence, my statement that you should term it a competition-free market. If you don't get it, it's probably safe to disregard it all as BS coming from layers upon layers of retarded interpretations.
That is correct.
whoever taught you your economics, they should be fired.That is incorrect. No cookie for you! You are probably one of those people that think competition is the goal of capitalism. That is, of course, wrong, for two reasons. First being, capitalism has no goal; it is just a term used to describe uncoerced trade. It can't have a goal. People who believe in capitalism can have goals. But saying capitalism has a goal is a logical fallacy. It is a confusion of capitalism with those who believe in it. Secondly, I realize that it is unnecessary to continue decrying the thought that competition is the the goal of capitalism as I've already shown it is not true, but it is important that one realizes the relation between competition and capitalism.
If you believed the other relation, you clearly are confused about the matter. Competition can be thought of as a beneficial side-effect of capitalism. It is, generally, one of the consequences of free trade, and it, generally, is beneficial to the market.
"marginal cost plus fair return on investment." The market is most stable when it is so. If everyone who produces/has anything to offer anything(basically everyone) cannot make enough to recover the marginal costs of the service they offer, everything goes to shit. Likewise, if they are merely able to break even, it stagnates. If they are able to make more, the economy flourishes. This is just what happens. I'm merely speaking observed results here. Government enforcement or any form of regulation in order to "ensure" this is preposterous.
And monopolies are fine. Stop whining about them. Do yourself a favor, go out and make yourself useful to yourself. You're wasting your time.
By the way, I have a monopoly on myself and my property. Also, I am a conspiracy in restraint of the trade of myself and my property. I have often refused work and other trade, such as trade in my property. Also, I recognize you as one of the many threats to my person. Please, attempt to understand what I have said here. It is in your best interest and mine. And, by that I mean, it is in my best interest if you and others realize the asshat stuff you're doing as it helps me be free. That is also one of the reasons that is in your best interest.
I'll take my offtopic, trolling, tin-foil-hat man mod now, please. Thanks.
The rest of your post clarifies things, but, here, you obfuscate everything. If you mean "a market free of anti-competative influences" why don't you say that or, for a shorter version, competition-free market? That way you don't have to explain yourself. Though, I'm glad you had enough foresight to provide that explanation to keep people from basing arguments on a misinterpretation of your post.
Keep lucid
I am not ignorant of those effects, and I don't value any a one. Why should I value that which makes me a slave?
Naturally, the right to organize is good, but it existed prior to the labor movement. It went away for a time and returned, and it is a good thing which came from the labor movement(even though it partially caused it to be need to be regained). But, this is another case of flawed logic. Because something good came from an action does not mean that the action itself was good.
If one makes an agreement with another, be it a company or a person, one is bound to the terms of the agreement. How else should it work? I don't want any of this "Oh, it's a gray area!" and "It's not as simple as that!" bullshit. Everything is simple and clear. And, you may apply that statement to itself; it means what it says. It is true without reservation.
Unlike others, however, I am not hypocritical in my application of freedom; I also do not agree with the "right-to-work" legislation. If a company makes an agreement with a union that it will only hire union members, it may only hire union members. When an agreement is made, it must be adhered to... by all parties.
If I am not free to make agreements or to have agreements upheld by the law, I am not free; I am a slave to that which controls which agreements I make and which will be upheld. I am a slave of the government.
Not only do you demand submission, you demand willful submission. You claim others' lives as your right.
I am not ignorant of those effects, and I don't value any a one. Why should I value that which makes me a slave? Naturally, the right to organize is good, but it existed prior to the labor movement. It went away for a time and returned, and it is a good thing which came from the labor movement(even though it partially caused it to be need to be regained). But, this is another case of flawed logic. Because something good came from an action does not mean that the action itself was good. If one makes an agreement with another, be it a company or a person, one is bound to the terms of the agreement. How else should it work? I don't want any of this "Oh, it's a gray area!" and "It's not as simple as that!" bullshit. Everything is simple and clear. And, you may apply that statement to itself; it means what it says. It is true without reservation. Unlike others, however, I am not hypocritical in my application of freedom; I also do not agree with the "right-to-work" legislation. If a company makes an agreement with a union that it will only hire union members, it may only hire union members. When an agreement is made, it must be adhered to... by all parties. If I am not free to make agreements or to have agreements upheld by the law, I am not free; I am a slave to that which controls which agreements I make and which will be upheld. I am a slave of the government. Not only do you demand submission, you demand willful submission. You claim others' lives as your right.