Retailers are liable for fraudulent transactions, not the credit card companies. The credit card company simply tells the retailer the offer was made in bad faith and the money is taken back. I've worked for several online retailers and a bank error is never in your favor, even if it's not your fault.
Rewards cards are part of the landscape now... get used to it, or (as an industry, collectively) grow a pair and do something about it. What the "market failure" whiners fail to account for is the massive investment Visa and Mastercard made across the last 40 years to roll out their system worldwide. Of course they're entrenched, they would have been irresponsible stewards of their investors' capital if they didn't entrench themselves along the way.
So, just suck it up and take it? Forget all that blather about competitive markets promoting meritocracy and efficiency because those CEO's have "worked hard" to stifle innovation form gentleman's agreements about pricing?
It's one thing to recognize that corruption exists and will never go away. It's entirely another to condone it and tell those "whiners" to shut up because things will never get better. Large and difficult goals are achievable over time time if enough people work towards them. The amazing advantages we enjoy in society today is proof of that.
The real split here in the US is bigger government versus smaller government. The old French model doesn't apply here, since both left and right wing were in favor of strong governments they just had different ideas about who the leaders of the strong government should be.
If you honestly believe that you are a fool. Both parties are still big gov't. Both parties are still biggest gov't. Who supports NationalID? Who created the DHS? Who has promoted military and security spending until it dwarfs any other spending, including the separate revenue stream of social security?
Hell, one could argue the surplus from social security taxes of the Clinton era were sacked to continue paying ridiculous amounts of money for defense. Defense spending is the elephant in the room that none of the politicians will touch. If by some stroke of luck Republicans carve a quarter from discretionary spending they'll turn around and spend it on miserable failures like the joint strike fighter. Big government describes the two parties perfectly.
As long as you have the money to go after the patent in court because,
Excluded from the bill was a controversial amendment, backed by many tech companies, that would have eased the process for initiating an in-house administrative review process at the Patent Office for challenges to patents that have been granted, a measure billed as a less costly alternative to private litigation.
IMHO this bill is a disaster; it's regulatory capture and not reform.
It most certainly is a Republican/Democrat position. The difference is that Republicans who don't understand something dismiss is altogether, while OTOH as the Sokal incident pointed out, some Democrats held too much faith in scientists. I would hope that, in matters of science, politicians have more faith in scientists and in, say, religion. I mean, this is pretty chilling.
I'm torn on Sokal's hoax. I don't dismiss that there is potential confirmation bias among some publishers, but the hoax itself wasn't conducted in a scientific way. He submitted his hoax paper to a single non-peer reviewed journal, and there's a fair argument it was published more on the basis of his reputation than on confirmation bias. Coincidentally, one could say he's proving his own point by using his own confirmation bias to provide evidence for other confirmation bias.
Well I'm not going to say that position is right or wrong, but it is defensible. Microsoft, Apple, and Amazon have used these types of powers do enforce copyright, not provide better service to the users. Google has not (yet).
Personally, if Microsoft or Apple had done this I would say it is the correct use of a kill switch, but be worried about the precedent of using it. I feel pretty much the same way about Google using it.
I just picked up this series a month or two ago for similar reasons and it is definitely worth the read. It is very well written and the only series in the fantasy genre that I think is better is Patrick Rothfuss's Kingkiller Chronicles.
The two series are very different though and the real defining feature of GRRM's series is that it is epic in the truest sense of the word while still keeping very organized separate plot lines that interact in meaningful ways. I enjoyed the sci-fi books "The Dragon Never Sleeps", and some of the later Dune series, but they suffered from poor organization and it made keeping track of everything a chore.
I'd be really surprised if the the court couldn't all ready do this. There isn't much difference between this and subpoenaing phone records.
Due process is being observed; the defendant is in court and evidence is being gathered. This isn't police warrantlessly fishing through these records. Just because the internet is involved doesn't mean "everything's changed!" That's the battlecry of those who would use it to diminish current due process rights.
I requested something very general and you've made it very specific. But since we're having this discussion I'll break it into three separate requests of varying difficulty:
1.) A notable libertarian that proclaims controlling widely accepted market externalities (your fist in my face) is necessary to functioning libertarian governance.(this should be easy I think)
2.) A notable libertarian that proclaims maximized competition is achieved through a regulated market rather than a laissez-faire market.(maybe oil and water, this one)
3.) A notable libertarian that proclaims global climate change has a non-trivial chance of breaking the fist/face rule for a large number of people according to scientific study, and therefore CO2 emissions should be curbed, or investment should be made into more carbon neutral technologies.(if libertarians actually follow the fist/face rule then this should be findable as well)
Personally, I think David Brin would fit the last one if he didn't have such a penchant for praising Democrat policies.
That's what we have now, but the problem is they carefully ignore the pies they both have their hands in. This will get investigated if one or the other can be smeared with it. Not both.
You've misconstrued my intentions for asking my question. I don't blame you for it because I didn't provide much context, but I was hoping the "this is not a jibe" would be sufficient.
The Libertarian philosophy summarized is that the worst aggression and rights abuses stem from gov't actions and that as little power as possible should be given to the gov't to avoid worst case scenarios. The idea that markets can externalize costs that need to be regulated is not a new one, but it is absent from the rhetoric of the libertarian "heroes" I see currently quoted. To restate my question, are there any notable libertarians who want a fair market rather than an absolutely free one.
What notable libertarians have espoused the philosophy you describe? That statement seems more aligned with an Adam Smith/neo-Keynesian approach of "liberalism" rather than the Laissez-faire/neo-Classical arguments that Libertarianism and modern "conservatism" makes.
With a title like that I expected the cause to be some Byzantine handshake by the invisible hand of the free market, but it's just old-fashioned gov't regulation.
I learned this years ago: Don't get into an online pissing contest. Just don't. Both sides inevitably lose.
Hard to see how the Anon side lost here. Their prestige is up, their deadly rep is more solid than ever, and still nobody knows who they are IRL. So maybe the lesson should be, "don't get into an online pissing contest, unless you really are the most badass hacker gang in history."
And a gov't connected security agency has logs and logs of data that were collected during the attack. This may not have been an intentional honey pot, but that doesn't mean it can't still be used that way unless the attackers were really good.
You mean like the outrage over various private companies disassociating themselves with wikileaks, including them having to find a new host? Hardly. A small minority cared, but the vast majority agreed or didn't care.
Are freedom and profit inherently mutually exclusive?
Sometimes yes sometimes no, if a large private entity were to offer a major ISP a large sum of money to deny access to a number of sites then protecting the freedom of a user to view that information would be mutually exclusive to profit from that revenue stream. And once that revenue stream is open the laws of market competition strongly encourage other ISPs to follow suit if they want to stay competitive and keep market share.
Of course that's just the theoretical case, the real life case is much worse. Senators, the current administration, and other influential people will remember the ISPs that helped them and Net Neutrality will be a few votes shy of passing. ISPs get to keep their current regulatory capture, and the gov't gets to keep its shadow influence on internet content while the two major parties consolidate their base. The Republicans will kowtow to the conservatives explaining they had to vote against it to avoid nasty gov't regulation and more regulatory capture and the Democrats will throw up their hands in mock defeat saying there just isn't the support for such a "liberal" policy, but "we'll get them next year".
It's interesting how you lump in generic slanted ideological statements and random "elitist" smears with your liberal fears. I think you would have been better off if you stuck to the first four as they actually are issues that some liberals hold unnecessary fears about.
When you include non-DoD defense spending the total amount spent on defense far outstrips any anything else for 2010.
I think these guys do a good job of showing where the money goes on a macro level without losing too much detail. http://www.wallstats.com/blog/death-and-taxes-2010-released/
Nuclear is not a magic bullet. The plants have a high upfront cost to build and require a lot of skilled supervision to maintain safely. And that's before you even start talking about the waste that comes out of them.
Slashdot Mirror
And Republicans spent 150 million taxpayer dollars to find this out.
Retailers are liable for fraudulent transactions, not the credit card companies. The credit card company simply tells the retailer the offer was made in bad faith and the money is taken back. I've worked for several online retailers and a bank error is never in your favor, even if it's not your fault.
Rewards cards are part of the landscape now... get used to it, or (as an industry, collectively) grow a pair and do something about it. What the "market failure" whiners fail to account for is the massive investment Visa and Mastercard made across the last 40 years to roll out their system worldwide. Of course they're entrenched, they would have been irresponsible stewards of their investors' capital if they didn't entrench themselves along the way.
So, just suck it up and take it? Forget all that blather about competitive markets promoting meritocracy and efficiency because those CEO's have "worked hard" to stifle innovation form gentleman's agreements about pricing?
It's one thing to recognize that corruption exists and will never go away. It's entirely another to condone it and tell those "whiners" to shut up because things will never get better. Large and difficult goals are achievable over time time if enough people work towards them. The amazing advantages we enjoy in society today is proof of that.
Except neither creationism nor Antisyzygy's statement is a theory. They are unsupported and untestable speculation.
The real split here in the US is bigger government versus smaller government. The old French model doesn't apply here, since both left and right wing were in favor of strong governments they just had different ideas about who the leaders of the strong government should be.
If you honestly believe that you are a fool. Both parties are still big gov't. Both parties are still biggest gov't. Who supports NationalID? Who created the DHS? Who has promoted military and security spending until it dwarfs any other spending, including the separate revenue stream of social security?
Hell, one could argue the surplus from social security taxes of the Clinton era were sacked to continue paying ridiculous amounts of money for defense. Defense spending is the elephant in the room that none of the politicians will touch. If by some stroke of luck Republicans carve a quarter from discretionary spending they'll turn around and spend it on miserable failures like the joint strike fighter. Big government describes the two parties perfectly.
Excluded from the bill was a controversial amendment, backed by many tech companies, that would have eased the process for initiating an in-house administrative review process at the Patent Office for challenges to patents that have been granted, a measure billed as a less costly alternative to private litigation.
IMHO this bill is a disaster; it's regulatory capture and not reform.
That it has the backing of Facebook.
It most certainly is a Republican/Democrat position. The difference is that Republicans who don't understand something dismiss is altogether, while OTOH as the Sokal incident pointed out, some Democrats held too much faith in scientists. I would hope that, in matters of science, politicians have more faith in scientists and in, say, religion. I mean, this is pretty chilling.
I'm torn on Sokal's hoax. I don't dismiss that there is potential confirmation bias among some publishers, but the hoax itself wasn't conducted in a scientific way. He submitted his hoax paper to a single non-peer reviewed journal, and there's a fair argument it was published more on the basis of his reputation than on confirmation bias. Coincidentally, one could say he's proving his own point by using his own confirmation bias to provide evidence for other confirmation bias.
Well I'm not going to say that position is right or wrong, but it is defensible. Microsoft, Apple, and Amazon have used these types of powers do enforce copyright, not provide better service to the users. Google has not (yet).
Personally, if Microsoft or Apple had done this I would say it is the correct use of a kill switch, but be worried about the precedent of using it. I feel pretty much the same way about Google using it.
I just picked up this series a month or two ago for similar reasons and it is definitely worth the read. It is very well written and the only series in the fantasy genre that I think is better is Patrick Rothfuss's Kingkiller Chronicles.
The two series are very different though and the real defining feature of GRRM's series is that it is epic in the truest sense of the word while still keeping very organized separate plot lines that interact in meaningful ways. I enjoyed the sci-fi books "The Dragon Never Sleeps", and some of the later Dune series, but they suffered from poor organization and it made keeping track of everything a chore.
I'd be really surprised if the the court couldn't all ready do this. There isn't much difference between this and subpoenaing phone records.
Due process is being observed; the defendant is in court and evidence is being gathered. This isn't police warrantlessly fishing through these records. Just because the internet is involved doesn't mean "everything's changed!" That's the battlecry of those who would use it to diminish current due process rights.
The part where a lost all my money.
Aaaand it's gone.
I requested something very general and you've made it very specific. But since we're having this discussion I'll break it into three separate requests of varying difficulty:
1.) A notable libertarian that proclaims controlling widely accepted market externalities (your fist in my face) is necessary to functioning libertarian governance.(this should be easy I think)
2.) A notable libertarian that proclaims maximized competition is achieved through a regulated market rather than a laissez-faire market.(maybe oil and water, this one)
3.) A notable libertarian that proclaims global climate change has a non-trivial chance of breaking the fist/face rule for a large number of people according to scientific study, and therefore CO2 emissions should be curbed, or investment should be made into more carbon neutral technologies.(if libertarians actually follow the fist/face rule then this should be findable as well)
Personally, I think David Brin would fit the last one if he didn't have such a penchant for praising Democrat policies.
That's what we have now, but the problem is they carefully ignore the pies they both have their hands in. This will get investigated if one or the other can be smeared with it. Not both.
You've misconstrued my intentions for asking my question. I don't blame you for it because I didn't provide much context, but I was hoping the "this is not a jibe" would be sufficient.
The Libertarian philosophy summarized is that the worst aggression and rights abuses stem from gov't actions and that as little power as possible should be given to the gov't to avoid worst case scenarios. The idea that markets can externalize costs that need to be regulated is not a new one, but it is absent from the rhetoric of the libertarian "heroes" I see currently quoted. To restate my question, are there any notable libertarians who want a fair market rather than an absolutely free one.
This is not a jibe, but honest curiosity.
What notable libertarians have espoused the philosophy you describe? That statement seems more aligned with an Adam Smith/neo-Keynesian approach of "liberalism" rather than the Laissez-faire/neo-Classical arguments that Libertarianism and modern "conservatism" makes.
This is exactly what the FCC intended.
Yeah, really dumb title.
With a title like that I expected the cause to be some Byzantine handshake by the invisible hand of the free market, but it's just old-fashioned gov't regulation.
I learned this years ago: Don't get into an online pissing contest. Just don't. Both sides inevitably lose.
Hard to see how the Anon side lost here. Their prestige is up, their deadly rep is more solid than ever, and still nobody knows who they are IRL. So maybe the lesson should be, "don't get into an online pissing contest, unless you really are the most badass hacker gang in history."
And a gov't connected security agency has logs and logs of data that were collected during the attack. This may not have been an intentional honey pot, but that doesn't mean it can't still be used that way unless the attackers were really good.
More likely, he doesn't get the same benefits for "quitting" that he would get for being "fired".
It means it's larger than the European Hummingbird but smaller than the African Hummingbird...
You mean like the outrage over various private companies disassociating themselves with wikileaks, including them having to find a new host? Hardly. A small minority cared, but the vast majority agreed or didn't care.
Are freedom and profit inherently mutually exclusive?
Sometimes yes sometimes no, if a large private entity were to offer a major ISP a large sum of money to deny access to a number of sites then protecting the freedom of a user to view that information would be mutually exclusive to profit from that revenue stream. And once that revenue stream is open the laws of market competition strongly encourage other ISPs to follow suit if they want to stay competitive and keep market share.
Of course that's just the theoretical case, the real life case is much worse. Senators, the current administration, and other influential people will remember the ISPs that helped them and Net Neutrality will be a few votes shy of passing. ISPs get to keep their current regulatory capture, and the gov't gets to keep its shadow influence on internet content while the two major parties consolidate their base. The Republicans will kowtow to the conservatives explaining they had to vote against it to avoid nasty gov't regulation and more regulatory capture and the Democrats will throw up their hands in mock defeat saying there just isn't the support for such a "liberal" policy, but "we'll get them next year".
It's interesting how you lump in generic slanted ideological statements and random "elitist" smears with your liberal fears. I think you would have been better off if you stuck to the first four as they actually are issues that some liberals hold unnecessary fears about.
When you include non-DoD defense spending the total amount spent on defense far outstrips any anything else for 2010.
I think these guys do a good job of showing where the money goes on a macro level without losing too much detail. http://www.wallstats.com/blog/death-and-taxes-2010-released/
Nuclear is not a magic bullet. The plants have a high upfront cost to build and require a lot of skilled supervision to maintain safely. And that's before you even start talking about the waste that comes out of them.