If you are not viewing their ads, you are not making them money.

You are as much a loss to them as I would be to BMW if I wanted a BMW but didn't want to pay for it. No loss.

The whole point of debt, and in particular of investor imposing high interest rates, is that there is a chance that you will default. If Greece is not allowed to default, then they shouldn't be saddled with high interest payment.

If Greece has a primary surplus, and more importantly, a balance of payments surplus, then they should default, or force a restructuring of their debt. However, they will then know that no one, not even Greek investors, will want to buy any new bonds they issue.

This battery could power a smaller sized home for a whole day. Kind of thing that can make solar energy viable.

Love him or loather him, but Musk is changing the world.

You are going remarkably offtopic!

I did not discuss the food pyramid, proteins vs carbs, the amount of fat people should be eating etc. And I don't know of anyone forcing anyone to eat off a food pyramid. You are getting rather hysterical about that. And the bit about where I got my argument from, it's from my brain. It's called logic - try it some time.

Anyway, back on topic, the only point I made was that the prime cause of people being obese is them eating too much. Too much is _obviously_ relative.

You countered by saying this was because they do not do enough exercise. I disagreed, and showed you a chart showing, as an _EXAMPLE_, that Americans eat much more than the Japanese, and that - surprise surprise - they are more obese. In fact, so are the Brits and the Germans.

The point I made is pretty simple, one should not eat more than they need to, otherwise they become obese. If you become obese, it is because you are eating more than your body needs, and your body just stores the excess as fat. I think this is beyond obvious.

If you are a professional athlete your calories needs are obviously greater than those of an office worker. The solution isn't for the office worker to eat as much as a football player and then exercise as much. it is to eat less. The amount you eat should be informed by your energy needs.

This is the point that I was making, perhaps too subtly for you. I made the point that exercise is not a substitute for not over-eating. You shouldn't exercise to get rid of calories you shouldn't have eaten in the first place. You should exercise to remain healthy, and eat enough to allow a healthy amount of exercise. If you can't understand that last point, then there is no point discussing this further.

And most people are not bodybuilders.And I wouldn't call bodybuilders healthy either.

Individuals might be able to do enough exercise to burn off the excess food that you eat, but why do that (except to have a healthy level of physical activity)? If you are exercising just to get rid of the excess food, then maybe the most efficient way to go about it is to eat less. You should be eating enough to maintain a healthy lifestyle, not using exercise as a way to get rid of food you shouldn't have eaten in the first place.

For the amounts that most obese people eat, they are not going to be able to do enough exercise to get rid of the excess food. So they gain weight instead.

I have actually been to Japan, and one thing they don't do is to eat large quantities of food. Oh, and they don't eat over-cook either - the body doesn't expend as much energy digesting cooked food than it does raw food. You certainly don't get 2 litre sodas with your food in Japan. They eat much more healthily than in the west, and in shows in their waistlines.

And if you don't believe me, check this out.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L...

It's quite obvious than, for example, Americans eat a lot more than the Japanese - about 34% more. is it any wonder the US is one of the most obese countries on the planet?

The average Japanese person also walks a lot more than the average American person, in part because they use public transport a lot more, and are much more likely to cycle to work etc.

Obesity is not caused by lack of exercise. It is caused by eating too much.

Exercise is not a good way to reduce weight. Eating less (and better) is.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/heal...

The metric has you! Hahahahaha!

Why not just hide any information on bids and offers that are not accepted? Basically, if all quote and volume information was made secret, then that information couldn't be gamed. The only information that should be made public is order fulfilment.

The problem is that these bids and offers are public knowledge, when they shouldn't be. People with stocks to sell should say how much stock they want to sell, and the minimum price they are prepared to accept. Folks who want to buy stocks should say what stocks they are willing to buy and what is the maximum they are prepared to pay.The system should then match buyers and seller at the market clearing price, i.e. sell at the highest price that would match buyers and sellers.

This would reduce liquidity, but would get rid of the market manipulation. Yes, it wouldn't get rid of speculators, but might just make HFT not very worthwhile, which would be a good thing in my book.

Because when people spring such things up on you without consulting you, they are not worthy of the courtesy of you bothering to turn up.

If, when invited, the judges had been made aware of the fact that there was a plan to get Assange to address the conference, they would have made an informed decision whether to attend or not, and/or asked for Assange's exact participation so they could avoid any of his talks or lectures.

When people spring this up at a legal conference, they are either rank amateurs who don't understand the legal system (which I find unlikely), or they are trying to turn this conference political.

Or if I being charitable, they wanted to spice up what would ordinarily be a staid conference, and were very naive about asking a fugitive to address judges some of whom may have been party to the cases against said fugitive.

Does the chief justice of Scotland have any outstanding warrants for his arrest in Iran? And is the chief justice planning to address Iranians in Iran?

If both of these are true, then Iranian judges would be well within their right, and perhaps following their obligations, to boycott any conference that the chief justice of Scotland is to present to.

But that is not the case here. Assange is a fugitive from the UK, where he absconded a lawful order for his detention and extradition. He firmly placed himself on the wrong side of the law in the UK, and it is entirely appropriate that judges in the UK do not appear to give legitimacy as someone who can opine on UK laws while simultaneously refusing to be subject to UK laws.

I don't disagree that Intel had illegal business practices. But as you also point out, it was better for Intel to strong arm its "partners" to not deal with AMD in the long run, and they bet on AMD continuing to take them on in a game they could not win.

If AMD, by making its own computers, had been able to get an additional (completely made up) $25 per PC sold, they might have been making a billion or so dollars extra a year, which would have been a big deal for them, and might have given them the revenue to compete with Intel.

It might even have helped them rationalise their product line. At some point ,they were manufacturing half a dozen or more processor varieties (Duron (or later Sempron) Athlon XP, Athlon 64, Opteron etc). They were also trying to manufacture for every price point that Intel was manufacturing for, which really allowed Intel to take advantage of their size. Intel had products for every price point that its partners wanted to sell product (Dell, HP, Acer, Gateway, IBM/Lenovo) and AMD had to try and compete with that. it was never going to work out.

Look at what Steve Jobs did at Apple. He got rid of the mentality of making products for every conceivable market segment and concentrated on the segments where he could make most money and that is what saved Apple.

AMD lacked a CEO with such a vision, and kept trying to catch up with Intel. Every decision they have made has meant they fell further behind. Some of the decisions were reasonable e.g. selling their foundry business (they were never going to compete with Intel on foundries) so they could control their losses, but they lacked the big decision that would affect how much money they actually could make.

AMD could never capitalise on their lead for long enough because Intel ultimately had more money, could spend more on R&D and would eventually catch up to and surpass. They were also leaders in process technology - AMD never caught up with them in that department, and were able to squeeze out more performance from what was a worse architecture. Ultimately, the likes of Dell, although they might have, of their own volition, used AMD, were always going to be Intel shops. AMD was always one step away from disaster, and their obsession with getting OEM deals was a huge blind spot.

As I said, AMD were trying to be like Intel, only smaller. That strategy was never likely to work. If AMD had packaged their own kit, they could have developed a strong brand as the maker of reasonably powerful PCs, and at times the outright most powerful PCs. They could have achieved much better brand recognition that way, may have been able to produce bigger profits, and had more money to invest.

AMD has played a losing strategy for as long as I have can remember. It is sad, but I remember my first few PCs were all AMD machines. I bought AMD on principle, and because they were price/performance leaders. They were even outright leaders for a while, but failed to capitalise on that. I think, however, that the whole Sledgehammer/Clawhammer phase has ultimately ruined them. Obviously, those processors were streets ahead of the Intel offerings at the time, but it was always a long term losing strategy, in particular if they were depending on selling CPUs to make money. Their obsession with OEM deals also hurt them.

AMD could have done one of a few things, in my opinion, to reinvent themselves.
  - They could have become a whole-hog PC builder, using their own chips and pricing their laptops and desktops accordingly.
  - When Android happened, AMD, without as much baggage as Intel, could have produced an Android phone and Android tablets, and gone to market with that, using their chip making expertise to develop offerings that would have been more competitive than Qualcomm, Samsung etc.

AMD was obsessed with being a mini Intel, which was never going to work out for them.

AMD should have taken a page out of Apple's playbook. At best, they might be taken over by a Chinese company, otherwise they are doomed to irrelevance.

Here is an idea. Reddit should just publish their salaries. That way both men and women know what they should expect to be offered.

Other than that, company makes offer, and I tell them I either don't accept it (because I am already earning more than that, or enough to not bother moving), and company makes me a higher offer anyway, or negotiations just happen on the sly, you know, off the record.

But a tax is the people (through their government) setting their price to allow the negative externality. You pay the tax, and you can pollute as much as you want to (until we raise the taxes again).

Of course taxes can be badly designed, but he basic idea is sound.

A tax is a market mechanism, with the people (the government) being the only "seller" of "pollution credits".

Only people who have a very limited (and sometimes deliberately so) understanding of markets deny that taxes are sometimes an essential market correction.