Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> Though come to think of it, presumably /building/ a house will always be 
> more expensive than merely /buying/ one, so that gives us a lower bound 
> on price...

  If that were true, then the builder would be losing money. It wouldn't
make sense. Why sell at less than the cost of building?

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 16/09/2011 04:37 PM, Warp wrote:
> Invisible<voi### [at] devnull>  wrote:
>> Though come to think of it, presumably /building/ a house will always be
>> more expensive than merely /buying/ one, so that gives us a lower bound
>> on price...
>
>    If that were true, then the builder would be losing money. It wouldn't
> make sense. Why sell at less than the cost of building?

Presumably building twenty identical houses is cheaper than building 
just one house. Cheaper per unit, anyway. And that's how commercial 
entities make their money.

Plus, the vast majority of all house purchases are for existing houses. 
It wouldn't surprise me if *new* houses are more expensive just because 
they're new.

Post a reply to this message

On 9/15/2011 3:12, Invisible wrote:
> (Which is /obviously/ what I asked in the first place, to anybody who
> actually understands how evolution works.)

The problem is that the actual answer to your question is "mu", the answer 
that unasks the question. The very question you're asking is nonsensical, so 
no amount of disclaiming the phrasing of it is going to get you a reasonable 
answer. I.e., you're asking the wrong question, and people are picking on 
your wording to try to illustrate that the very concept behind the question 
is nonsensical.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   How come I never get only one kudo?

Post a reply to this message

On 9/16/2011 1:03, Invisible wrote:
> Isn't that just the cost to buy another already-existing house of a similar
> type?

No. For one thing, you're no longer mass-producing the house.

> Though come to think of it, presumably /building/ a house will always be
> more expensive than merely /buying/ one, so that gives us a lower bound on
> price...

Buying a house costs whatever the seller is willing to sell it for. Plus, 
you're also buying the land, which at least around here is almost always far 
more expensive than the house itself.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   How come I never get only one kudo?

Post a reply to this message

> Am 15.09.2011 21:32, schrieb Orchid XP v8:
>
>>> Are lay people warned to...
>>>
>>> a) not eat self-collected fungi that have a certain well-known look, or
>>> b) not eat /any/ self-collected fungi unless they're /absolutely/ sure
>>> of what they are?
>>>
>>> Is this because...
>>>
>>> a) the toxic species of fungi are so few that they can easily be
>>> described and remembered, or
>>> b) the toxic species of fungi are too many to be easily described or
>>> remembered?
>>
>> How about
>>
>> c) Most of the toxic species have no known antidote and are usually
>> very, very fatal.
>>
>> People are also advised to drive at 30 MPH in areas where people live,
>> even if there are no people there.
>>
>> Alternatively,
>>
>> d) Most fungi actually look pretty similar to each other, and you need
>> specialist equipment to tell them apart.
>
> Note your use of the word "most" here, implying a significant number of
> toxic fungi in both cases, hence indicating that a) can be ruled out at
> any rate.
>
> That aside, AFAIK c) is not true (only few fungi must be classified as
> "very, very fatal", at least in the sense of being frequently fatal even
> with good medical care), and neither is d) (I've never heard of any
> toxic fungi that need specialist /equipment/ to distinguish them from
> any edible species of fungi; AFAIK, the most that is required is a good
> deal of attention to visual details, and of course profound knowledge
> about the similarities and differences between edible fungi and their
> toxic look-alikes).
>
>
> (Disclaimer: I Am Not A Fungi Expert, so don't rely on the above.)

Some deadly mushrooms are indeed very dificult to distinguish from 
delicious and nutritive ones. It's to the point that, in some cases, 
even peoples who regularly collect them may pick the wrong one.

That's for macro mushrooms. For micro mushrooms, or fungi, you usualy 
need to observe them in a microscope or use sepcific reactants to make 
the difference.

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 16 Sep 2011 08:59:59 +0100, Invisible wrote:

>>> Yes, and when I say "Word 2003 doesn't understand files saved by Word
>>> 2010", I do not for one minute intend imply that Word is actually a
>>> concious, thinking, comprehending entity. Of course I *know* that Word
>>> is merely a construction of op-codes, a sequence of instructions
>>> blindly executed by a mindless automaton, an inanimate machine. I know
>>> that there is no "thinking" or "understanding" involved. IT'S A FIGURE
>>> OF SPEACH!!!
>>>
>>> Sheesh...
>>
>> It's not a figure of speech, it's an inaccurate statement that those
>> proponents of so-called "intelligent design" latch onto like leeches
>> and say "see, see, there IS a creator!"
> 
> And I really don't care if those fools want to purposely misunderstand
> me. They aren't my intended audience.

Propagating a misconception doesn't help all the same.  It's important to 
choose words with care.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 16 Sep 2011 11:32:26 -0400, Warp wrote:

> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> >   OTOH, it also depends how exactly you define "design".
> 
>> The verb "to design" implies one who designs.  "Design" is not
>> "emergence".
> 
>   Well, I think one could *colloquially* (iow. not scientifically) say
> something like "evolution has designed birds to fly", even though the
> "designing" process was not made be any conscious being, but was simply
> a consequence of undirected natural phenomena. (Of course this may be a
> bit of a poor way of phrasing it because "design" could be interpreted
> so that there was a target towards which evolution aimed at, and
> directed changes towards that target. Naturally this isn't the case, and
> the "design" as a concept can only be applied retrospectively. However,
> attacking the use of the word "design" may be seen as needlessly
> pedantic.)

Evolution doesn't design, though.  It selects advantageous features over 
an extended period of time.  That's entirely different than design.

>   Now, if the argument is "we shouldn't be using the word 'design' in
>   this
> context because it easily gets associated with the ID movement", than
> that's a completely different issue.

It's partially the same issue.  It's about being clear in what is said.

We already have a problem with a misunderstanding (intentional or not) 
over the meaning of the word "Theory" in "Theory of Evolution".  Let's 
not cloud the issue further by claiming that evolution "designs" things.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 16 Sep 2011 09:03:16 +0100, Invisible wrote:

> Isn't that just the cost to buy another already-existing house of a
> similar type?

Not necessarily.  Replacement cost sometimes does include construction 
(ie, actual replacement).

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> It's not a figure of speech, it's an inaccurate statement that those 
> proponents of so-called "intelligent design" latch onto like leeches and 
> say "see, see, there IS a creator!"

  If you want to have a fun evening, try searching for youtube videos
"disproving" evolution. You can start eg. with these:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UXVNJXu4R1c
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A7kJP08fF9w

  Those are so bad that it's very hard to distinguish them from poes,
but AFAIK they are being serious.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> Evolution doesn't design, though.  It selects advantageous features over 
> an extended period of time.  That's entirely different than design.

  Actually evolution is descent with modification. Evolution itself doesn't
select anything. Natural selection does. Evolution is just change.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message