RE: Follow-up: are you able to avoid Kim Kardashian if you stay offline?
Barely, if you avert your eyes from the tabloids at the check-out counter.
318 posts • joined 20 Aug 2009
Barely, if you avert your eyes from the tabloids at the check-out counter.
Alexander Cockburn wrote in The Nation many years ago (you can tell how many by the example) the following [paraphrased]:
The difference between Republicans and Democrats is, if a Contra were raping a nun, the Republican would say, "Go for it!" and the Democrat would say, "Now, you know that's not right. Ask her nicely and if she says 'no,' I'll help you."
"It's also clear that Georgia did not put its finest lawyers on the case…"
What makes you think so?
"apple have lost 90% of the smartphone market."
...and yet rake in over 90% of the profits in that market, so I'm not sure your stat is correct,
BTW: watch those caps!
Assuming (and we all know what 'to assume' does...) they succeed, would they then employ the droids in all oil and gas circumstances, given that it is cheaper in long run (or so they assume...)? Oil and gas fracking has driven a lot of new employment in these here United States, such as the boom in North Dakota, which previously employed but a few bachelor farmers, used car salesmen and a sheriff or two.
What will happen to the roughnecks? Think of the children!
Get a sense of humor, Dude!
On top of that, you are mathematically wrong.
Let's assume, for sake of discussion, that the wasters' net worth is ridiculously, egregiously low —say, $1,000 each (bearing in mind that a higher value would just bring up the average). That's just a rounding error in Bill Gates' $79.5 billion net worth. <http://www.forbes.com/profile/bill-gates/>.
So, the mean average is (1000+1000+79.5B)/3=2650000066.666666666666667
The median average is (79.5B-1000)/2=39749999500
The only average that doesn't give a result in the billions is the seldom-used modal average [more people have value x than any other]. With that, the average is $1,000.
@John Brown (no body)
Then I suppose the installation of suicide nets at Foxconn was replicated in all these other companies you mention, like Pegatron?
As for Apple bashing, I'm not one to do that, as I wouldn't be where I am today (wherever that is) without Apple.
Two wasters are sitting in a bar when Bill Gates walks in. "Hurrah!" shouts one, "Drinks for everyone!"
"What are you doing?" asks his friend.
"Our average net worth is now several billion dollars!"
This could point to the state of your Chinese factory worker, who — while better off than when he was in his village, else why would he be there? — is by no means flush. Look back, too, to the stories of overwork, dormitory living and suicides at Foxconn. And this, too, could well be exported.
But apparently, even they are getting too expensive, so 'let's go hire cheaper Indian labor!' Yes, theoretically when the global supply of exploitable and cheap labor is gone, all pays will have to rise. But even that is not a panacea, as the cost of living rises, sometimes and in some places more than the increase in pay. Until then, it's a race to the bottom, with the glorious capitalists trying to make us all rich beyond the wildest dreams of a Bangladeshi dirt farmer.
National Public Radio reports this morning that T-Mobile wants to slurp Dish Network.
Q: If Achilles covers half the distance to his destination every day, when does he arrive?
(Of course, at some point the distance is so small as to be negligible, and impossible in the physical world not to negotiate...)
Even giving the 'inventor' the benefit of the doubt, eventually the charge will be so small, it won't power your phone for the smallest fraction of a picosecond.
First, I'm amazed and gratified that Record Store Day has spread across the pond (and who knows where else) after having been started by my local retailer, Bull Moose Music.
Second, if you're so old (like me) as to have a system from back in the day (mine includes a Thorens TD 160), there are devices like iRecord that are analog-to-digital converters that can be used to put digital files on computers, iThings and flash drives from anything with RCA plugs, including video as well.
Google:Obama=Enron:Bush. At least Google does less harm to society AKA "Don't Be [too] Evil"
I don't see the problem here. St. Ronnie Reagan told us the Government is our enemy and we should all be entrepreneurs...
In 1990, the world population was 5.2 billion or so. Today, it's approaching (if not passed) 7 billion. therefore, 1.91 billion was was 36.7% of the world, roughly. Today's 1 billion is about 7%. Progress, indeed! Now, what per cent of the world in 1990 was 'developing' compared with today?
Sanskrit is a written, not spoken language.
("It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so.")
TW's article is clear — and just a tad obvious, to anyone who follows these things. However, I must niggle at his characterization of the US insurance market as non-competitive. As a Brit, he can be forgiven and does indeed know there are various state regulators. However, there are extreme differences from state to state. For instance, Massachusetts actually sets the rates, so everyone pays the same if fall into the same group, and the state requires (again for instance) every driver to carry insurance. No real competition there — insurers must compete on things like service (gasp!). In neighboring New Hampshire, the state does not set rates and the premiums for any given policy will vary from company to company. There is a small market in Massachusetts residents trying to figure out how to register their cars in New Hampshire, even though Massachusetts is a 'No Fault' state...
Similar variances abound.
...even if it has a snowball's chance, given the Repuglican control of the Congress. Still however, physician — heal thyself!
Unsharp Masking produces a result that is different, often resulting in unwanted color or highlight variations, in my experience.
PS: I've been a graphic designer since before computers and started using Photoshop with v. 1.07
Here's a trick for those who like and/or use this kind of thing:
•Duplicate a layer (be it a flat background or otherwise) and run Find Edges on the duplicate.
•Select All and copy
•Create a new channel and paste
•Delete the duplicate layer
•Select the new channel from the Select menu
•Go back to the original image layer with the new channel (alpha) selected
•Run Gaussian Blur on the selection
I call this Gaussian Sharpen and have created an action to do this
PS: It's also good for some artistic purposes, but I leave that to you...
"Men like Schiaparelli watched the red planet--it is odd, by-the-bye, that for countless centuries Mars has been the star of war--but failed to interpret the fluctuating appearances of the markings they mapped so well. All that time the Martians must have been getting ready.
During the opposition of 1894 a great light was seen on the illuminated part of the disk, first at the Lick Observatory, then by Perrotin of Nice, and then by other observers. English readers heard of it first in the issue of Nature dated August 2. I am inclined to think that this blaze may have been the casting of the huge gun, in the vast pit sunk into their planet, from which their shots were fired at us. Peculiar markings, as yet unexplained, were seen near the site of that outbreak during the next two oppositions.
The storm burst upon us six years ago now. As Mars approached opposition, Lavelle of Java set the wires of the astronomical exchange palpitating with the amazing intelligence of a huge outbreak of incandescent gas upon the planet. It had occurred towards midnight of the twelfth; and the spectroscope, to which he had at once resorted, indicated a mass of flaming gas, chiefly hydrogen, moving with an enormous velocity towards this earth. This jet of fire had become invisible about a quarter past twelve. He compared it to a colossal puff of flame suddenly and violently squirted out of the planet, "as flaming gases rushed out of a gun." "
In RE, Adam Smith's pin factory:
[from my book, The Root of All Evil, available on Noise Trade as an e-book]
Adam Smith, in his Wealth of Nations, illustrating how the division of labor results in greater productivity, famously used the example of a pin maker. He described how a solitary pin maker might make but one and no more than twenty pins in a day. That man would have to draw out the wire, straighten it, point it, prepare and set the head, whiten the pin and place it in its paper. He would also (though Smith does not mention it) have to procure materials, find customers and sell to them, deliver the goods and keep accounts. All this speaks of broad (if not deep) knowledge of all aspects of pin making.
Smith goes on to describe how if each of these tasks were assigned to a different individual, a group of maybe ten might make 4,800 pins in a day — far more than if those ten were solitary pin makers. Unfortunately, each of these ‘assembly line’ workers would not need to (and probably would not) have all the knowledge required to make and sell pins. They might well be more productive, but they would be lesser men. Despite being more productive, they could be paid less. Henry Ford liked this idea a lot.
In later days, technology replaced these men with pin making machinery that might produce as many as 100,000 pins in a day. But then, no one would know how to make pins. That’s considered acceptable, even though the men are all out of work, except for the guy who throws the switch and the one who occasionally must come in to work on the machine, since we can have all the pins we want.
In today’s world, such productive technology is reversing the trend and moving us back in the direction of the solitary artisan. Only twenty-five years ago, if one wanted a full color publication with photographs, he would need a writer, a photographer, a typesetter, a graphic designer, a color separator, a stripper, a plate maker, a printer and a binder, at a minimum. (This doesn’t include paper and ink merchants or distribution and delivery people, either.) All along the process, these nine people would be fully capable of identifying errors made by others previously. It served as a check to ensure quality workmanship. Such an operation is an art, a craft and a science.
Now, however, a solitary designer can call up stock photography on the internet, place it in the article he’s written in his page-layout document on his computer, impose and output color separations, then send it all off by e-mail to a computer-to-plate automated printing press. One artisan can easily produce what was once the work of nine. Nine people can produce nine times as much. That artisan is responsible for knowing the full process. Why, inside of a few short hours, he can produce 45,000 full color, bound books —of the wrong thing! And many of the specialist craftsmen have become graphic artists, responsible for their own projects, thus driving their pay down as their number increase.
Additionally, one might think from TW's article that centralized power generation and the concomitant distribution lines is the way to go — after all, there's an example where a few can generate for the many and free the many up for more useful and/or profitable work. Really? I can think of a couple of things wrong with that: 1) a centralized power plant, say a nuclear station like my local Seabrook, makes a fine target, 2) should all or part of the system go down, everyone involved is down and 3) distributed power generation, such as having solar panels on everyone's roof will prevent problems 1 and 2, while increasing the wealth of the owner. (Yes, I know they're inefficient, but they are getting better and cheaper. At the current state of the art, I could wipe out my entire electric bill. [Truth in Advertising: last time I looked (a few years ago), such a system would cost me $17,000, which at my current usage and assuming (hilariously) that there will be no rate increases, would take 15 years to pay off, leaving me with perhaps 5—10 years of free electricity, given the life span of the unit. I probably will not be in this house then.])
Lastly, a quote from my haftorah:
Q: Who is rich?
A: He who rejoices in what he has.
the music sounds more Soviet than Chinese...
Why— we've known about this for yonks! Yonks of plonk!
Dat zij hebben vertaalen geleerde? Och, aye...
that Joseph Stiglitz won his Nobel for showing that perfect information in markets is unobtainable — one party almost always knows something his/her counterpart does not.
On another matter, we sometimes have conditions where Governments (and even corporations) a) know the true price of a given commodity or service because they fix it and b) the massive purchase of said commodities or services helps regulate those prices. There are social values to this. The US Government has steadfastly refused to bargain for the price of pharmaceuticals used by its services (Medicare, for the elderly and disabled), the VA (for veterans), etc. The result is we have the highest prices in the world. (No mention here of the lobbying and campaign funds provided by pHarma, headed by former powerful Congresscreature, Billy Tauzin...)
"...arguing for massive government and economic action, action which people would not take voluntarily - that is action which will make people poorer, then."
Really? Here in the states, while there is a government subsidy (which is paid for by the tax-payers), it is entirely voluntary and if you should decide to take advantage of it and reduce the cost of a solar array, you may very well wipe out your electric bill (according to the late, lamented roofrays.com, I would), which at worst would be a wash, and might even make you richer, as electric rates keep going up (15% this year alone, here). But don't fret about the poor downtrodden corporate utilities. They want you to pump the free solar energy back into the grid (to run your meter backward). Should you pump in more than you use, they don't pay you for it, no — they get free power to charge others for!
In America, the concept of 'world + dog' would generally be rendered as 'everyone and his brother.'
spelling AND usage
Q: What is the greatest problem in America, today — apathy or ignorance?
A: I don't know and I don't care!
but as e'er, eschew obfuscation!
True that in these here Benighted States, anyone can sue anyone for anything. Often that means only extra stress, more crowded court calendars and richer lawyers. In this case, if this guy has standing, I'll eat my hat. (Fortunately, I don't wear one...)
In the 50's, economic activity returned after being constrained by the war (not counting the war machine). Men returning from war had either jobs or the GI Bill, while women generally left the workforce to raise families, etc. (That's a gloss, but you get the idea).
Today's greater demand, due to a larger customer base, is met by 1) more productive workers (largely due to technology), so fewer are needed 2) automation, requiring a much smaller workforce 3) low-cost foreign workers displacing high-cost locals. Where manufacturing, etc is returning ("on-shoring"), those workers are required to work at salaries and benefits significantly inferior to those of previous generations. I'm speculating about numbers, but I suspect that for every Google engineer driving up costs in San Francisco, there are at least a thousand WalMart and Amazon employees who, despite working full time, are thrown onto Government largesse due to the differential between what they're paid and the cost of living.
Banks appear more interested in their own profit than in benefiting society. The debacle of 2008 should be proof of that. Contrast that with the attitude exemplified by "It's a Wonderful Life" <http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0038650/>. The bank no longer carries your loan — it slices and dices it and serves it up as a derivative. On that score, the derivatives market exceeds the actual economy (global GDP) by a factor of 10!
So here we run up against a question of whether the consensual fiction of money is more important than actual flesh and blood persons; whether corporations are more important than a living planet.
As a dedicated cruciverbalist, I often run into the word 'olio,' which might be defined as a mishmash — a good definition for the thinking behind this article. There are so many unconsidered factors that trying make it jibe with reality is a stretch. I haven't got much time, so here are just a couple.
Regardless of GDP or productivity rates (which in any event are as dependent on the level of technology as anything else), big unions (in the US at least) allowed many — especially those with lesser educations — to make a decent middle-class living. The death of unions was coupled with automation and off-shoring and led to a mass decline in living standards. Look at Detroit. Who, ultimately, didn't suffer? The top 10% and even more so, the top 1%. Here, they like to fancy themselves job-creators and makers, but given that actual labor and production is done by someone else, you could as easily think them economic vampires, and (with regard to automation and off-shoring) job-craters. Real wages for most have not increased in 40 years.
Speaking of technology, remember that computers started as a means for better artillery calculation — surely a wartime advance. One needn't look too far to see how that blossomed into a productivity engine.
Then we have the matter of standard of living. Lots of things are better. In the forties, no one had a TV nor a Cuisinart nor any of a thousand other advances. It's easy to make the case that social factors have declined — families have disintegrated, in many places children no longer are familiar with nature, neighborhoods are vastly in decline, along with the support groups they fostered, (suggest reading: Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community <http://www.amazon.com/Bowling-Alone-Collapse-American-Community/dp/0743203046/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1419181527&sr=1-1&keywords=bowling+alone+the+collapse+and+revival+of+american+community>) Medical care and knowledge has surely advanced. On that score (again in the US) medical care is the largest cause of bankruptcy. BigPhRMA provides these miracles at an unaffordable cost. Look at the cost of early AIDS medication or more recently, Gilead Sciences hepatitis cure.
Worldwide, where once poor backward countries were the rule, now everyone aspires to the American lifestyle. There are matters of competition, supply and demand to consider, now over a MUCH larger base. One hundred yeas ago, world population was about 1 billion, and that largely rural. Today, it's pushing 7 billion from one side or the other and most are urban. Economic stresses from this alone make me goggle.
OK, out of time, so one last technical point — when you try to compare rates over time periods, it's misleading to lay a 26 year period against an array of 6—10 year periods. Go read "How to Lie with Statistics' <http://www.amazon.com/How-Lie-Statistics-Darrell-Huff/dp/0393310728/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1419181214&sr=1-1&keywords=how+to+lie+with+statistics>
Yeah, hate it. Too much white space BS. You guys getting old and NEED BIGGER TYPE? I may be able to navigate after I find everything, but IMHO, 'if it ain't broke, don't fix it.' Back, back you crazy beasts! BTW, need "print article"
The Canadian sci-fi show Continuum posited a health bracelet called Halo that not only monitored health but could be programmed to deliver pharmaceuticals at need. The corrupt chief cop loved the idea (he was on the board of the manufacturing company) because you could quell disturbances with the push of a button. POOF! Miscreants tranquilized!
I think this must be more widespread. I have witnessed birds eating fermented fruit and falling of branches. As we all know, birds are direct descendants of dinosaurs, so it's possible there was prehistoric boozing...
Have you heard of T. Boone Pickens? That oil billionaire invested heavily in wind power, though by own admission, it was the right investment at the wrong time. http://hotair.com/archives/2012/04/11/t-boone-pickens-ive-lost-my-a-in-wind-power/
How about Tom Steyer? Apart from his (currently) larger footprint in politics, he and his wife, Kat Taylor, have donated tens of millions of dollars to alma maters Stanford and Yale for "advanced energy" research. http://www.forbes.com/profile/thomas-steyer/
...and I know the very thought makes you bulimic, but how about Generation Investment, founded by David Blood and Al Gore? (Always liked 'Blood and Gore'...) http://www.generationim.com/
As for Government intervention in new technologies, have you heard of the internet?
Speaking as an American, living in America, most people are not upset by the quality of their electric service. It's actually pretty good — and I live in a small city in a fairly rural state. Now Comcast is another issue entirely. I spoke to an employee of theirs who said most of the calls he gets are for disconnections. The quality of their product is decent (but nowhere near as good, say, as S. Korea for internet...). It's their service, billing and everything else that turns customers against them. (Some years ago, the FCC held a hearing in Boston to find out what the problems were, and Comcast brought in street people to fill (and nap in) the seats.) Personally, I use a small, local company (that is in the process of being bought out by a slightly larger local company, so we'll see how that goes...) that is friendly, competent and consistent in it's billing. They do not throttle or prioritize. And by the way, most Americans do want regulation, to judge by the number of comments. Perhaps there's a majority that hasn't been heard from and doesn't give a s#*t, but how would we (and you) know?
How many Fairphones would $4bn (if that's even the correct figure) buy? Why are they not subsidized and touted by the major carriers?
NB: I know nothing of the specs of said phone.
The line item complained about is the most minor part of the act. If you wish to junk Dodd-Frank solely on this score, you're throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Laws are subject to amendment, and if one part is not doing the job, it can be removed or changed.
30+ years ago, Alan Watts foresaw that machines would (as they had been) increasingly do the work of men. He proposed that we be paid for the work machines do for us!
On another front, the premise had always been that with increased automation, leisure would increase. Plainly this has not proved to be the case (unless you want to count unemployment as leisure) — we seem to have less time than we did 50 years ago, even with vastly increased productivity and population. It is said that, in New York, "you look rested" is an insult...
is not causation!
"…overturning the standard (and very widely agreed) convention in economics that we don't really want to be taxing capital or the returns to it.'
that is, widely agreed to by those with capital and returns thereon...
What did you expect?
that as the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere increases, vegetation will grow larger and faster, but have less nutritive value — essentially hollowed out. If the 'men who stare at goats' are correct, then coupled with less nutritive food, we may well be looking at yet another extinction.
You may want to console yourself that the climate isn't changing, and anyway puny man could never do it,* but Pew Oceans said over ten years ago that 92% of large ocean fish were already extinct. Audubon claims 1,300 bird species are facing extinction. According to the World Wildlife Fund's newly released Living Planet Report, based on the Living Planet Index, which is a database maintained by the Zoological Society of London, 52% of all wildlife has been lost since 1970, with 76% loss in rivers and other freshwater systems.
RECOMMENDED READING: The Sixth Extinction
*In case you've forgotten, or are otherwise unaware, the three stages of denial are:
1) It's not happening
2) OK, it's happening but it's not as bad as you say
3) OK, it's happening and it's as bad as you say, but it's somebody else's fault
can be found/heard here:
First, if utility has no more of a distinct definition than happiness, then either as an economic goal (or is that gaol?) is, in your quaint term, bollocks. "'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean-neither more nor less.' [Lewis Carroll]" Economics, as unscientific as it is, is an attempt to describe what people do and demonstrate their philosophy in action, rather than some stricture we should be guided by.
Second, it's hardly one or the other. One may put oneself in a position where they will be 'unhappy' in order, say, to make money 'utilitarianly' to send back to the family, which will make them 'happy,' or certainly happier than knowing their family is starving...
Lastly, though somewhat anecdotally, let's look at Detroit — that quintessentially rustbelt city — where one can buy a lovely house (architecturally speaking) for $500. Why are people not flocking in droves to move to Detroit? Because they'd be living in Detroit, where crime is rampant, so is unemployment and the city is cutting off people's water because they can't pay the bills and knocking down abandoned properties right and left. They are actively trying to shrink the city.
You can mean your words to mean whatever you want, but the facts on the ground, apparently, don't have to agree...