Thank you AC for pointing out that people who don't know what they are talking about should be ignored. Just because there are not a lot of blinking lights does not mean that you're collecting bad data. I think / feel / guess / hope / pray / have a vested interest (remaking world economic order) / etc should be ignored because they don't provide high quality quantitative data like thousands of rubber ducks in the ocean.
PS: How would you suggest building a better system? What is a better instrument for studding ocean currents (on the surface over time) than 10,000+ floating objects dropped from a specific point? Now we could make some floats with GPS etc but most electronics are not going to survive 17 years in the ocean and people are not going to notice big rubber balls so the classic duck is basically the prefect design for such an experiment because people will notice them and report large numbers of ducks suddenly showing up. Now we might want to have more drop sites but the novelty promotes people reporting as soon as the ducks show up so increasing the number of drops lowers the quality of the data.
Did you bother to read the OP? Here's what YOU quoted from his post:
When a big pile of rubber ducks floating around on the ocean can give oceanographers compelling new insights into how the earth works
Where is the OP denigrating the usefullness of the duck data? In his next sentence, he says that it complements other data collected by scientists using electronic and other means. But, and I agree with him, how does new information about ocean currents support the AGW hypothesis? Did you even pause to consider that the date the ducks were dropped, and the subsequent timing of the El Nino and La Nina events might give a result this time that would be completely different if the ducks were dropped again with different timing for those events? No respectable scientist takes one result and declares "This is truth"; he knows that repetition of the effect represents proof. All he has right now is a single data point which he claims "proves" his hypothesis.
Finally, to get back to the OP's major point, the Kyoto scam will transfer billions of dollars from the developed world to the third world (and make Al Gore rich through his CO2 credit trading firm; gee, do you think he has a vested interest in hyping AGW?). Canada has one of the coldest climates of any developed country; of course we have to use more energy than, say, Gambia, just to stay alive. Why should we send them billions of dollars because we have snow and they don't?
And as other posters have noted, all the reductions by the western world WON'T MATTER because China, India, Malaysia, and Indonesia will spew more new CO2 into the atmosphere than our reductions will take out. Why we should sacrifice billions of dollars and millions of jobs for a futile gesture is beyond me.
I can only imagine it being marginally workable if the "bullets" were large (along the lines of a 12 gauge slug) and the gas was actually combined with some other misting/fogging agent to allow it to hang in the air sufficiently to be inhaled, and only then if it was fired in enough quantity to create a large enough impact area to affect a crowd. Even then, the short duration would make it generally ineffective.
Yes, when I read the article, I wondered why they don't use the same delivery method they use for tear gas? A canister that releases a large cloud into the crowd seems to be a much more efficient delivery method than a bunch of bullets, and I doubt there would be as much chance of injury. For example, no matter how "harmless" the proposed bullets are, I would venture that getting one in the eye would not be a pleasant experience.
Oh, really, please blow it out your rectum. I remember buying my first Honda Civic in 1975 - every time I passed another one on the street, BOTH of us would honk horns and wave with big silly grins on our faces.
Our society lacks enthusiasm in just about every area. Ennui rules, which is one reason why drug use continues to rise. I'd rather see people get pumped up over a new technology that just may make their lives easier and less stressful, and I'd rather see employees who actually are excited about their products than the completely bored losers slowly ambling towards me with my Big Mac and fries when I have a 30-minute lunch hour.
Why do you think Toyota is taking over as the world's biggest carmaker? Do you think maybe singing the company song each morning and doing some basic exercises to pump up employees makes a tiny bit of difference compared to the listless, overweight UAW workers slouching into GM plants?
I've worked at companies where the employees were enthusiastic, and we did great things. I've worked at companies where employees couldn't care less, and most of them are out of business.
In general, all of the reviews (save fox) on nearly all of Moores films have been that he is correct with his figures.
Well, in "Sicko", Moore makes this assertion a steaming pile of excrement.Moore goes to a London, Ontario, Canada hospital, and claims waiting times in the ER are "never" more than 45 minutes. I live just north of Toronto, Canada, and after having chest pains on Thursday night, I went to the ER at my local hospital at 6:30 am. There were only a few people there, and the triage nurse told me I would be seen next. I was sent to an exam room at 9:30 am, by which time the ER waiting room was full, and the triage nurse was telling incoming patients to expect a seven hour - yes, that was SEVEN HOURS - wait.
I have also lived in London, Ontario (20 years ago), and had to take a friend to the ER on a Friday night after a (drunken) fall. We arrived about 12:30 am, and it took almost 45 minutes just to see the triage nurse, let alone a doctor. We didn't get out of the place until after 7:00 am.
So Moore is basically a lying piece of crap who will mix in a few facts with numerous lies and distortions to make his slanted point of view seem reasonable. If he really wanted to fix the American health system, why doesn't he go after the biggest cause of trouble - the malpractice vulture lawyers, who try to turn every tiny error into a million dollar claim?
In my single experience with US healthcare, I was in a car accident, and had a broken foot. I was also knocked out for 10 minutes from the airbag (those things hurt!). Even though all my vital signs - respiration, pulse, temperature, lucidity, vision - were perfectly normal, they ordered a chest X-ray. When that found nothing, they ordered an MRI. When that found nothing, they shot me full of barium contrast, and gave me another MRI. When that found nothing, they finally discharged me, with a bill for $30,000. Why did they do this? Defensive medicine - even though everything looked OK, if something surfaced later, these doctors knew one of the vultures would be after them like white on rice. So they do thousands of dollars in unnecessary tests to cover their butts. That's what prevents insurance companies from offering more comprehensive coverage. Take away contingency fees (or reduce the percentage from the obscene 66% to a more reasonable 10%), and you'll find fewer cases clogging the courts, lower insurance costs, and more affordable insurance for everyone.
I don't know; my wife installed Office 2007 beta when it was available, and the real thing when it was released. Recently, she brought her lap top home, and asked me to install some macros I'd written for her. I was completely lost. I remember the rules for interface design back when GUI's were just being introduced: simple, obvious, revealing, intuitive, fun. And as much as everyone likes to bash M$, I'd have to say that they did a very good job of this on Office 2003. But they completely changed the paradigm with Office 2007, and I can't see for what reason. It's not as simple, not as obvious, not as intuitive, and definitely not fun.
BTW, I asked my wife where VisBasic was found in 2007; she didn't have a clue either.
I have a Nokia with a 2 megapixel camera, and an added memory card. I store some pictures on it, and some music, but I make sure everything is backed up that night. So at most, I might lose an afternoon's pictures. Good data security depends on both the system administrator and the user. In this case, you are both.
The ironic thing is that, should hell freeze over and Ron Paul wins the presidency, the aftermath is likely to be economic chaos. Paul would start unwinding the massive debt/money creation fraud that is the Federal Reserve, and this would throw the world's economies into turmoil. I believe this will happen sooner or later, which is why a significant portion of my family's assets are in gold, but if Paul were to be elected, it would happen sooner. At some point, you have to wipe the slate clean and start over, but that's a painful process. The best thing for us is, unfortunately, the thing we want to happen least.
I seriously disagree with Eisenhower. I can think of 2 contributions he made to our society. First was the interstate highway system. But that wasn't his idea. It just so happened that he was President while it happened.
You need to do more reading. Ike was a junior officer in the 20's when he was tasked with taking an army group across the country. It took something like six weeks, and left an indelible impression on him. He was convinced that an efficient defense required an efficient transport network, and he set up the interstate system specifically to expedite defense movements; that it had great impact on civilian transport was a secondary benefit to him.
I'm glad you got an A+; too bad you didn't get the concept. I suppose when Ben Bernarke refers to "dropping money out of helicopters", you're going to look to the sky? "printing money" is about the only term the average econ-ignorant American would understand, as opposed to, say, Greenspan's "measured increases in money of zero maturity".
Fuck the debate. Go back and READ what Paul has written. You'll find he's intelligent, and one of the few congressmen who actually understands the Constitution's ban on any money other than gold or silver. If you're going to judge a guy based on 90 seconds of TV time rather than a lifetime of writing and debate in the house, god help America.
Could someone explain why no many people hate Hillary Clinton, is it just personality or is there something else?
Honestly, and I'm not trolling here, I think it's because she is a powerful woman. She doesn't mesh well with certain people's concept of what a wife and mother should be, and so the aggresive personality she has rubs them the wrong way.
Um, could the blatant hypocrisy be a possible cause? Doesn't anyone remember the quaint picture of her and Bill having a quick snog at Camp David a few days after the Lewinsky case hit the papers? As if the Secret Service would allow a bunch of photographers to encroach on their "private" walk unless it was specifically ordered to do so. In fact, the entire photo-op was a cynically staged, politically motivated piece of theatre.
I've been married for almost 20 years; I can tell you, if the local papers were publishing headlines that I was screwing some 20-year old, there's no way my wife would be kissing me in public three days later. Throwing knives would be a likelier outcome. That picture showed me how much Hillary would stomach to get to where she wants to go. So, sorry, I don't believe a word the woman says - like, say, she's a fan of NY baseball teams - and think everything she says and does is coldly calculated to advance her politically.
Sorry, didn't impress me during the debates. He doesn't seem to me to know what he's talking about.
"Inflation is caused by printing too much money"
Well, yeah, if you're in a limited economy in which printed money is the majority of the money supply. Currency is a relatively small percentage of the money supply in the U.S.
Well, you certainly don't impress me. "Printing money" is econ-geek speak for increasing the money supply. Of course in today's economy, most money is created electronically. When the Fed issues a few billion dollars in new Treasury bills, they don't bother to print up 500 million new Jacksons, you dolt. It's all entries in bank accounts and debit books, but it has the same damn effect. Now go away, and study macro econ 101, or I shall taunt you a second time.
I'm Canadian, so I don't get a vote, but I will admit I started out as a fan of the Bush presidency. I think taking the war to Afghanistan and Iraq was the right thing to do; better to fight them there than here, and by any standards, there has been less American blood shed in these two wars than in any other they have fought.
That said, over the last five years, I have watched with increasing dismay as Bush et al have eroded your civil liberties, instituted a virtual police state, and generally made air travel an enormous PITA. As others note below, the only sensible candidate on either side is Ron Paul; of course, he has zero chance of getting elected. sigh
What I really want to know is why, up till 20 or so years back were there not these auctions?
That's pretty easy. When the great cellular build out was in place in the mid 1980's, the FCC wanted to make sure that there was service in rural areas, and not just heavily populated urban sites. Once companies figured out the extortionate roaming fees that were available (god, I remember when you had to pay $5/day just to sign on to the service, and then had to pay $1.50-$2.00 a minute for each call), they wanted the rights to service. The FCC, in addition to seeing this as a cash grab I'm sure, rationalized the decision by deciding that auctions for spectrum would ensure that firms would build out as rapidly as possible, to recoup their investment, and thus ensure service would be available.
As I recall, the lawyers made tons of money (as usual) by producing boiler plate proposals for would be bidders (you had to qualify technically to have your bid accepted into the auction). IIRC, in some cases where the owners expected heavy traffic (like, say I-75 through northern Ohio - not many people live there but tons of trucks go through, plus a lot of car traffic going to Florida), up to 600 bids would be received.
Hang on, you have that as the complete opposite of history - Thatcher was pushing for co-existance
Well, the following is from Wikipedia, so you can take it with a grain of salt if you like:
On 19 January 1976, she made a speech in Kensington Town Hall in which she made a scathing attack on the Soviet Union. The most famous part of her speech ran:
"The Russians are bent on world dominance, and they are rapidly acquiring the means to become the most powerful imperial nation the world has seen. The men in the Soviet Politburo do not have to worry about the ebb and flow of public opinion. They put guns before butter, while we put just about everything before guns."
Also from Wikipedia:
n the Cold War, Mrs. Thatcher supported United States President Ronald Reagan's policies of deterrence against the Soviets. This contrasted with the policy of détente which the West had pursued during the 1970s, and caused friction with allies who still adhered to the idea of détente. US forces were permitted by Mrs. Thatcher to station nuclear cruise missiles at British bases, arousing mass protests by the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament.
However, I will agree with you that when Gorby came to power, she famously said "He is a man we can do business with". But perhaps she sensed that Gorby was a man who could be talked into the sort of reforms that were needed to break up the Soviet bloc. I'm not on intimate speaking terms with the lady, so I'll never know for sure.
At any rate, I never suggested she wanted to go to war with the Soviets, just that she wanted to put up a strong front againt them, while practically every other country in Europre was begging to make some deal with the Soviets that would have kept the entire Warsaw pact intact.
Not that you're an ignorant fool, but from 1975-1990, when Thatcher was PM, British GDP increased from 100,000 million pounds to 557,000 million pounds.
That's about 11% per year on average, and far from "destroying prosperity", I think most countries would consider that pretty good economic performance. The changes she made made it more inviting for other companies to come and invest in Britain. For example, the company I was working for in 1979 when Thatcher came to power, Mitel Corp, built two plants in Britain. Later, when Terry Mathews left Mitel and started Newbridge Networks, he built more plants in Britain, creating thousands of jobs. I remember sitting in on a management meeting a few years after Thatcher came in, and Mathews was asked if he would have invested in Britain under a Labour government. He just snorted derisively and said "No".
Yes, she only broke the destructive unions that were impoverishing Britain, won a war that many thought was impossible to win, and was a staunch ally of
the US in the fight against communist totalitarianism, despite severe criticism of that policy from the weedy left, who were all preaching detente and co-existence. Thanks in part to her help, over 100 million Eastern Europeans are now living free and better lives. Yes, what a loathsome witch.
Well, according to a 2004 study, there are over 7.5 million millionaires in the US alone. With the recovery of the stock market, I'm sure the number is higher now. I'm equally sure there are almost as many millionairess in Europe, and in China, the number is growing every day. So, I'd say with a market of 20 million or so, there will be some fools who will want to do this.
Investor: "So, it sounds to me that what you are looking for is someone to put money into an unproven company, that may never actually bring a product to market, and that if you do somehow manage to bring it to market, no one may care. Does that sum it up?"
Me: "Er..."
Investor: "Do I have the word 'DUMBFUCK' tattooed on my forehead?"
Me: "Err... no (under breath: fucking lawyers!)".
I understand the whole concept of not allowing companies to make absurd claims that ignorant sheep will buy into to, but having to essentially emasculate your company is, well... emasculating.
Which is why, last year, more money for IPO's was raised in Europe than was raised on Wall Street. The fees are lower, and the process less strenuous, due in great part that instead of a battalion of lawyers being involved, only a company is.
so where are you getting that it is costing the oil companies $2.15 to collect the oil and refine it into that gallon of gas?
Not that you're an arithmetically challenged moron, but a barrel of oil costs $66 today. Each barrel produces about 30 gallons of gasoline (some estimates are even lower, down to 20 gallons/barrel). Add in transportation costs and refining, and yes, $2.15 is a fair price. I'm sure the big oil companies have hedged in costs, so their effective cost is less than $66/barrel. But even if they are paying $45/barrel, that's still $1.50/gallon before transport and refining. But go here, and see the California Energy Commissions estimate for refining costs: it was about $0.60/gallon early this year, now it's over $1.00. http://www.energy.ca.gov/gasoline/margins/index.ht ml#1-2 I'm not some fanboi for the oil industry, but let's get a little sanity and reality into the debate, OK?
Slashdot Mirror
Did you bother to read the OP? Here's what YOU quoted from his post:
When a big pile of rubber ducks floating around on the ocean can give oceanographers compelling new insights into how the earth works
Where is the OP denigrating the usefullness of the duck data? In his next sentence, he says that it complements other data collected by scientists using electronic and other means. But, and I agree with him, how does new information about ocean currents support the AGW hypothesis? Did you even pause to consider that the date the ducks were dropped, and the subsequent timing of the El Nino and La Nina events might give a result this time that would be completely different if the ducks were dropped again with different timing for those events? No respectable scientist takes one result and declares "This is truth"; he knows that repetition of the effect represents proof. All he has right now is a single data point which he claims "proves" his hypothesis.
Finally, to get back to the OP's major point, the Kyoto scam will transfer billions of dollars from the developed world to the third world (and make Al Gore rich through his CO2 credit trading firm; gee, do you think he has a vested interest in hyping AGW?). Canada has one of the coldest climates of any developed country; of course we have to use more energy than, say, Gambia, just to stay alive. Why should we send them billions of dollars because we have snow and they don't?
And as other posters have noted, all the reductions by the western world WON'T MATTER because China, India, Malaysia, and Indonesia will spew more new CO2 into the atmosphere than our reductions will take out. Why we should sacrifice billions of dollars and millions of jobs for a futile gesture is beyond me.
Silly rabbit. Didn't you read TFA? They came from China.
Obviously, they're Peking Ducks.
Well, I only read the Mail because I can't get the Sunday Sport online...
Yes, when I read the article, I wondered why they don't use the same delivery method they use for tear gas? A canister that releases a large cloud into the crowd seems to be a much more efficient delivery method than a bunch of bullets, and I doubt there would be as much chance of injury. For example, no matter how "harmless" the proposed bullets are, I would venture that getting one in the eye would not be a pleasant experience.
In this context, shouldn't it be gas masks?
Our society lacks enthusiasm in just about every area. Ennui rules, which is one reason why drug use continues to rise. I'd rather see people get pumped up over a new technology that just may make their lives easier and less stressful, and I'd rather see employees who actually are excited about their products than the completely bored losers slowly ambling towards me with my Big Mac and fries when I have a 30-minute lunch hour.
Why do you think Toyota is taking over as the world's biggest carmaker? Do you think maybe singing the company song each morning and doing some basic exercises to pump up employees makes a tiny bit of difference compared to the listless, overweight UAW workers slouching into GM plants?
I've worked at companies where the employees were enthusiastic, and we did great things. I've worked at companies where employees couldn't care less, and most of them are out of business.
Killjoy.
Well, in "Sicko", Moore makes this assertion a steaming pile of excrement.Moore goes to a London, Ontario, Canada hospital, and claims waiting times in the ER are "never" more than 45 minutes. I live just north of Toronto, Canada, and after having chest pains on Thursday night, I went to the ER at my local hospital at 6:30 am. There were only a few people there, and the triage nurse told me I would be seen next. I was sent to an exam room at 9:30 am, by which time the ER waiting room was full, and the triage nurse was telling incoming patients to expect a seven hour - yes, that was SEVEN HOURS - wait.
I have also lived in London, Ontario (20 years ago), and had to take a friend to the ER on a Friday night after a (drunken) fall. We arrived about 12:30 am, and it took almost 45 minutes just to see the triage nurse, let alone a doctor. We didn't get out of the place until after 7:00 am.
So Moore is basically a lying piece of crap who will mix in a few facts with numerous lies and distortions to make his slanted point of view seem reasonable. If he really wanted to fix the American health system, why doesn't he go after the biggest cause of trouble - the malpractice vulture lawyers, who try to turn every tiny error into a million dollar claim?
In my single experience with US healthcare, I was in a car accident, and had a broken foot. I was also knocked out for 10 minutes from the airbag (those things hurt!). Even though all my vital signs - respiration, pulse, temperature, lucidity, vision - were perfectly normal, they ordered a chest X-ray. When that found nothing, they ordered an MRI. When that found nothing, they shot me full of barium contrast, and gave me another MRI. When that found nothing, they finally discharged me, with a bill for $30,000. Why did they do this? Defensive medicine - even though everything looked OK, if something surfaced later, these doctors knew one of the vultures would be after them like white on rice. So they do thousands of dollars in unnecessary tests to cover their butts. That's what prevents insurance companies from offering more comprehensive coverage. Take away contingency fees (or reduce the percentage from the obscene 66% to a more reasonable 10%), and you'll find fewer cases clogging the courts, lower insurance costs, and more affordable insurance for everyone.
BTW, I asked my wife where VisBasic was found in 2007; she didn't have a clue either.
Really? Wiiiii!
I have a Nokia with a 2 megapixel camera, and an added memory card. I store some pictures on it, and some music, but I make sure everything is backed up that night. So at most, I might lose an afternoon's pictures. Good data security depends on both the system administrator and the user. In this case, you are both.
The ironic thing is that, should hell freeze over and Ron Paul wins the presidency, the aftermath is likely to be economic chaos. Paul would start unwinding the massive debt/money creation fraud that is the Federal Reserve, and this would throw the world's economies into turmoil. I believe this will happen sooner or later, which is why a significant portion of my family's assets are in gold, but if Paul were to be elected, it would happen sooner. At some point, you have to wipe the slate clean and start over, but that's a painful process. The best thing for us is, unfortunately, the thing we want to happen least.
You need to do more reading. Ike was a junior officer in the 20's when he was tasked with taking an army group across the country. It took something like six weeks, and left an indelible impression on him. He was convinced that an efficient defense required an efficient transport network, and he set up the interstate system specifically to expedite defense movements; that it had great impact on civilian transport was a secondary benefit to him.
Fuck the debate. Go back and READ what Paul has written. You'll find he's intelligent, and one of the few congressmen who actually understands the Constitution's ban on any money other than gold or silver. If you're going to judge a guy based on 90 seconds of TV time rather than a lifetime of writing and debate in the house, god help America.
Honestly, and I'm not trolling here, I think it's because she is a powerful woman. She doesn't mesh well with certain people's concept of what a wife and mother should be, and so the aggresive personality she has rubs them the wrong way.
Um, could the blatant hypocrisy be a possible cause? Doesn't anyone remember the quaint picture of her and Bill having a quick snog at Camp David a few days after the Lewinsky case hit the papers? As if the Secret Service would allow a bunch of photographers to encroach on their "private" walk unless it was specifically ordered to do so. In fact, the entire photo-op was a cynically staged, politically motivated piece of theatre.
I've been married for almost 20 years; I can tell you, if the local papers were publishing headlines that I was screwing some 20-year old, there's no way my wife would be kissing me in public three days later. Throwing knives would be a likelier outcome. That picture showed me how much Hillary would stomach to get to where she wants to go. So, sorry, I don't believe a word the woman says - like, say, she's a fan of NY baseball teams - and think everything she says and does is coldly calculated to advance her politically.
Well, you certainly don't impress me. "Printing money" is econ-geek speak for increasing the money supply. Of course in today's economy, most money is created electronically. When the Fed issues a few billion dollars in new Treasury bills, they don't bother to print up 500 million new Jacksons, you dolt. It's all entries in bank accounts and debit books, but it has the same damn effect. Now go away, and study macro econ 101, or I shall taunt you a second time.
That said, over the last five years, I have watched with increasing dismay as Bush et al have eroded your civil liberties, instituted a virtual police state, and generally made air travel an enormous PITA. As others note below, the only sensible candidate on either side is Ron Paul; of course, he has zero chance of getting elected. sigh
Funniest Slashdot post ever!
That's pretty easy. When the great cellular build out was in place in the mid 1980's, the FCC wanted to make sure that there was service in rural areas, and not just heavily populated urban sites. Once companies figured out the extortionate roaming fees that were available (god, I remember when you had to pay $5/day just to sign on to the service, and then had to pay $1.50-$2.00 a minute for each call), they wanted the rights to service. The FCC, in addition to seeing this as a cash grab I'm sure, rationalized the decision by deciding that auctions for spectrum would ensure that firms would build out as rapidly as possible, to recoup their investment, and thus ensure service would be available.
As I recall, the lawyers made tons of money (as usual) by producing boiler plate proposals for would be bidders (you had to qualify technically to have your bid accepted into the auction). IIRC, in some cases where the owners expected heavy traffic (like, say I-75 through northern Ohio - not many people live there but tons of trucks go through, plus a lot of car traffic going to Florida), up to 600 bids would be received.
Well, the following is from Wikipedia, so you can take it with a grain of salt if you like:
On 19 January 1976, she made a speech in Kensington Town Hall in which she made a scathing attack on the Soviet Union. The most famous part of her speech ran: "The Russians are bent on world dominance, and they are rapidly acquiring the means to become the most powerful imperial nation the world has seen. The men in the Soviet Politburo do not have to worry about the ebb and flow of public opinion. They put guns before butter, while we put just about everything before guns."
Also from Wikipedia:
n the Cold War, Mrs. Thatcher supported United States President Ronald Reagan's policies of deterrence against the Soviets. This contrasted with the policy of détente which the West had pursued during the 1970s, and caused friction with allies who still adhered to the idea of détente. US forces were permitted by Mrs. Thatcher to station nuclear cruise missiles at British bases, arousing mass protests by the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament.
However, I will agree with you that when Gorby came to power, she famously said "He is a man we can do business with". But perhaps she sensed that Gorby was a man who could be talked into the sort of reforms that were needed to break up the Soviet bloc. I'm not on intimate speaking terms with the lady, so I'll never know for sure.
At any rate, I never suggested she wanted to go to war with the Soviets, just that she wanted to put up a strong front againt them, while practically every other country in Europre was begging to make some deal with the Soviets that would have kept the entire Warsaw pact intact.
Not that you're an ignorant fool, but from 1975-1990, when Thatcher was PM, British GDP increased from 100,000 million pounds to 557,000 million pounds. That's about 11% per year on average, and far from "destroying prosperity", I think most countries would consider that pretty good economic performance. The changes she made made it more inviting for other companies to come and invest in Britain. For example, the company I was working for in 1979 when Thatcher came to power, Mitel Corp, built two plants in Britain. Later, when Terry Mathews left Mitel and started Newbridge Networks, he built more plants in Britain, creating thousands of jobs. I remember sitting in on a management meeting a few years after Thatcher came in, and Mathews was asked if he would have invested in Britain under a Labour government. He just snorted derisively and said "No".
Twit.
Well, according to a 2004 study, there are over 7.5 million millionaires in the US alone. With the recovery of the stock market, I'm sure the number is higher now. I'm equally sure there are almost as many millionairess in Europe, and in China, the number is growing every day. So, I'd say with a market of 20 million or so, there will be some fools who will want to do this.
Which is why, last year, more money for IPO's was raised in Europe than was raised on Wall Street. The fees are lower, and the process less strenuous, due in great part that instead of a battalion of lawyers being involved, only a company is.
OK, perhaps you'll think this snarky but why don't you think about partnering with Otis?
Not that you're an arithmetically challenged moron, but a barrel of oil costs $66 today. Each barrel produces about 30 gallons of gasoline (some estimates are even lower, down to 20 gallons/barrel). Add in transportation costs and refining, and yes, $2.15 is a fair price. I'm sure the big oil companies have hedged in costs, so their effective cost is less than $66/barrel. But even if they are paying $45/barrel, that's still $1.50/gallon before transport and refining. But go here, and see the California Energy Commissions estimate for refining costs: it was about $0.60/gallon early this year, now it's over $1.00. http://www.energy.ca.gov/gasoline/margins/index.ht ml#1-2 I'm not some fanboi for the oil industry, but let's get a little sanity and reality into the debate, OK?