OK, you believe in quackery. Yeah, you can take a look at the man behind antineoplastons and see someone who is eager to take advantage of anyone who is gullible enough to give him money. First clue that he is a quack, nobody else can reproduce his results. He is the sort of guy who was pushing laetrile in the 70s.
Because businesses are not going to be too happy to update to an already obsolete OS. My company started working on upgrading to Windows 7 almost as soon as it released. We will probably be rolling it out right about the time that Windows 8 comes out. It is not going to go over well with management that the new OS we will be rolling out is already replaced.
And our current rate of population growth isn't making that job any easier for anyone.
You obviously have not been paying attention. Every first world country has reason to be concerned about how slow their population is growing. Europe has negative population growth. Additionally, every industrialized nation has structured their retirement systems on the assumption that those working will provide the resources for those who have retired to live a comfortable life.
You, also, seem to be under the impression that once a disease is cured that no one will ever get it again. When we develop a cure for cancer, you will continually have people who need that cure. Cancer is not going to disappear when a cure is developed. It is just that people who get it will get cured. The other problem with your way of thinking is that you seem to think that someone who has been cured of cancer will never get it again. Since cancer is primarily the result of a person's own cells going rogue, that seems improbable.
As an example, antibiotics are the cure for pneumonia yet people still get pneumonia all the time. Some people get it more than once in their lifetime.
The problem with this "more frequent release" model is that it is going to push businesses to some other OS. The company I work for should have just about completed the process of preparing to migrate to Windows 7 by the time Windows 8 comes out. This is a result of having to ensure that everything that is essential to business operations will work on Windows 7 before starting to roll it out. They do not want to be in the position of having to support multiple versions of the OS depending on what software the users need. In addition, because of regulatory requirements it is not practical to just upgrade the software to a version that is compatible with the new OS version.
It is far more profitable to treat diseases than to cure them...
Even if this is true (which I am not convinced that it is), it overlooks one very important point. If Company A supresses research into curing BIG DISEASE so that it can continue to profit from treating BIG DISEASE, it runs the risk that Company B will develop a cure for that disease. If the latter happens, no only will Company A not make money from selling the cure for BIG DISEASE, they will no longer make money from treating BIG DISEASE. Additionally, they will have lost out on the opportunity for the positive PR of being the company that developed the cure for BIG DISEASE.
That was because when Cingular bought AT&T Wireless they only bought AT&T Wireless (which if I recall correctly had already been split off from the rump of AT&T that still existed at that time) and did not have the naming rights to use AT&T on any of the stores that they did not acquire with AT&T Wireless. A few months later, Cingular's parent company bought the rest of AT&T's corpse and renamed themselves AT&T.
Modern AT&T is not the same company as the original AT&T. A significant part of its corporate culture is inherited from the companies that were never part of AT&T. That being said, it appears that modern AT&T inherited many of the negative parts of the original AT&T corporate culture and none of the positive aspects. It then combined those aspects with the negative parts of the corporate culture of its other progenitor companies to give us the modern AT&T.
Any reasonably competent lawyer could argue you out of any charges on this on first amendment grounds. Not primarily the freedom of speech part, although that enters in, but the "right of the people to...petition the government for redress of grievances" part.
If they can design a "TV" that is true 3D and does not need glasses, it might be such a step up. It would have to be something that when I move, I can see what is behind something in the foreground. It would completely change the way that TV shows and movies are filmed. I am not sure it would turn out to be an improvement because of the way it would change filming (it would make it harder for the director to hide, or emphasize, minor details that are significant to the plot).
But there was something faster, the steam locomotive. But even without that there was a desire to be able to move faster. The question is, what do you desire from TV that can be solved by a technological improvement? Not necessarily something you think is practical, just what technology (even if it is just a fantasy) would improve the TV experience? I cannot think of anything (although I would not be surprised if someone else could).
From the way the summary frames the discussion (which I am assuming it gets from the article), both telephones and horse drawn carriages were "broken" at the times you specified. With horse drawn carriages there were two problems that automobiles solved. First, you had to fuel/feed your horse, even if you weren't going anywhere, an automobile you only have to fuel if you want to use it. Second, horse drawn carriages had a maximum sustainable speed that made travel of any significant distance (more than a few miles) a serious undertaking. As for telephones, people had to know specifically where you were and the number of the nearest telephone in order to get a hold of you. If you were someone who spent a good deal of time going from one place to another that made reaching you problematic.
I have never heard of any place with a mailbox that UPS/FEDEX will not deliver to. That being said, I am not a proponent of eliminating the Post Office (considering that it is one of the functions of the federal government specified in the Constitution).
I know very few people who oppose voluntary socialism. Of course, I know very few proponents of socialism who are willing to settle for voluntary socialism. As soon as the government gets involved, it is no longer voluntary. As I pointed out in my original post, progressives try to distort the picture of people voluntarily of their own free will cooperating for the common good to provide support for some government funtionary coercing people to work for what that funtionary claims to be the common good (but which usually only serves the interests of that functionary or his cronys).
Except that the example given is of people who privately own a company making a choice to allow their employees to take time off to serve a community function (firefighting). None of the things in the definition you gave apply: "cooperatve enterprises, common ownership, autonomous public ownership or state ownership". Nope, the companies are privately owned and the owner chooses to give the volunteer firefighters time off to fight fires.
"relatively equal power-relations and the reduction or elimination of hierarchy in the management of economic...affairs" Nope, the guy who owns the company is very clearly the boss and if you do not do what he says, you're fired.
That is an interesting question. The area where I work was not only rural, but definitely the sticks 100 years ago. Today it is fairly densely populated (similar to the what the popuation density was of the nearest city 100 years ago), although by no means urban. There are other areas of the state that 100 years ago had a population density that was similar to the population density of this area at the time that are practically unpopulated today.
The OP seems to be under the impression that people who live out in the sticks are reliant on the government for running water. Not only are they not dependent on the government for running water, they are not dependent on the government for firefighters. The key word in the part of what I wrote that you quoted was "sometimes", not "oftentimes", nor "always". When the local volunteer fire companies near me need new equipment they will apply with various government agencies for a grant to purchase it. However, if they are denied the grant, they will run fundraisers to raise the money to buy the equipment. Actually, most of the time, they will start running the fundraisers about the same time they start applying for grants, when enough funds, from either source, come in, they purchase the equipment.
I would not mind the anonymous holds if they had a one-time, limited length (let's say someone is nominated and a Senator has heard a rumor about something inappropriate in that nominee's background that would be fairly significant for the post, but is somewhat farfetched. The Senator wants a little time--say 30 days--to find out if there is anything to the allegation before going on record opposing the nominee).
No, they are not an example of socialism, because everyone involved voluntarily makes whatever sacrifice they make. As far as I am aware, there are no laws requiring employers to allow firefighters to leave the job to go fight fires. This is the mistake that progressives make all the time, they think that being forced to do something is interchangeable with doing so voluntarily.
OK, a couple of points. First people who live out in the sticks probably are not paying for your firefighters (unless your firefighters are paid out of state funds, they are not in my state). Fire companies in most rural communities are voluntary, non-profit organizations that are not run by the local government. Generally, their operational expenses come from donations (although they sometimes get grants from various government agencies to buy new equipment). Another point, U.S. society is actually less spread out today than it was 100 years ago (that is a larger percentage of the population lives in cities today than did then). As for running water, very few, if any, people living in rural areas are dependent on the government for running water and they like it that way.
How is the fact that you send packages by USPS (United States Postal Service) with nothing but good things to say about your in contrast with their comments about negative experience sending things UPS (United Parcel Service)?
Part of the problem (only a part) was that the West focused on "democracy" in Russia (and the rest of Eastern Europe) after the fall of the Soviet Union, when what they should have focused on was rule of law. If one looks at history, one discovers that democracy without rule of law inevitably ends up in some sort of authoritarian system (whether it maintains the trappings of democracy or not depends on other factors). On the other hand, any country that follows rule of law governance ends up as some sort of actual democracy sooner or later. Of course even if the West had pushed rule of law rather than "democracy" the factors that led Russia to where it is now may have ended up dominating, but some of Russia's internal reformers might have been more aware of the danger and been able to prevent it.
I would agree with that interpretation. However, my point still stands, most of the things that are "undetermined" are really things that the Framers intended the federal government to have no power over so they saw no reason to define the federal government's role. Well, actually, they thought they had defined the federal government's role as being no role.
Yes, but if our only choice was IOS-like phones, we probably would not know about it yet. Then it would be sitting there waiting to be activated at some point. The fact that it was on the Iphones suggests that Apple would have turned it on at some point (not that Apple should be condemned, just that one should not get too comfortable with the fact that they had it turned off by default at this time).
Slashdot Mirror
People said the same thing about laetrile.
OK, you believe in quackery. Yeah, you can take a look at the man behind antineoplastons and see someone who is eager to take advantage of anyone who is gullible enough to give him money. First clue that he is a quack, nobody else can reproduce his results. He is the sort of guy who was pushing laetrile in the 70s.
Because businesses are not going to be too happy to update to an already obsolete OS. My company started working on upgrading to Windows 7 almost as soon as it released. We will probably be rolling it out right about the time that Windows 8 comes out. It is not going to go over well with management that the new OS we will be rolling out is already replaced.
And our current rate of population growth isn't making that job any easier for anyone.
You obviously have not been paying attention. Every first world country has reason to be concerned about how slow their population is growing. Europe has negative population growth. Additionally, every industrialized nation has structured their retirement systems on the assumption that those working will provide the resources for those who have retired to live a comfortable life.
You, also, seem to be under the impression that once a disease is cured that no one will ever get it again. When we develop a cure for cancer, you will continually have people who need that cure. Cancer is not going to disappear when a cure is developed. It is just that people who get it will get cured. The other problem with your way of thinking is that you seem to think that someone who has been cured of cancer will never get it again. Since cancer is primarily the result of a person's own cells going rogue, that seems improbable.
As an example, antibiotics are the cure for pneumonia yet people still get pneumonia all the time. Some people get it more than once in their lifetime.
The problem with this "more frequent release" model is that it is going to push businesses to some other OS. The company I work for should have just about completed the process of preparing to migrate to Windows 7 by the time Windows 8 comes out. This is a result of having to ensure that everything that is essential to business operations will work on Windows 7 before starting to roll it out. They do not want to be in the position of having to support multiple versions of the OS depending on what software the users need. In addition, because of regulatory requirements it is not practical to just upgrade the software to a version that is compatible with the new OS version.
So you're saying they're no longer run by Prof Moriarty, but by people who are much worse?
And not nearly as smart.
It is far more profitable to treat diseases than to cure them...
Even if this is true (which I am not convinced that it is), it overlooks one very important point. If Company A supresses research into curing BIG DISEASE so that it can continue to profit from treating BIG DISEASE, it runs the risk that Company B will develop a cure for that disease. If the latter happens, no only will Company A not make money from selling the cure for BIG DISEASE, they will no longer make money from treating BIG DISEASE. Additionally, they will have lost out on the opportunity for the positive PR of being the company that developed the cure for BIG DISEASE.
That was because when Cingular bought AT&T Wireless they only bought AT&T Wireless (which if I recall correctly had already been split off from the rump of AT&T that still existed at that time) and did not have the naming rights to use AT&T on any of the stores that they did not acquire with AT&T Wireless. A few months later, Cingular's parent company bought the rest of AT&T's corpse and renamed themselves AT&T.
Modern AT&T is not the same company as the original AT&T. A significant part of its corporate culture is inherited from the companies that were never part of AT&T. That being said, it appears that modern AT&T inherited many of the negative parts of the original AT&T corporate culture and none of the positive aspects. It then combined those aspects with the negative parts of the corporate culture of its other progenitor companies to give us the modern AT&T.
Any reasonably competent lawyer could argue you out of any charges on this on first amendment grounds. Not primarily the freedom of speech part, although that enters in, but the "right of the people to...petition the government for redress of grievances" part.
If they can design a "TV" that is true 3D and does not need glasses, it might be such a step up. It would have to be something that when I move, I can see what is behind something in the foreground. It would completely change the way that TV shows and movies are filmed. I am not sure it would turn out to be an improvement because of the way it would change filming (it would make it harder for the director to hide, or emphasize, minor details that are significant to the plot).
But there was something faster, the steam locomotive. But even without that there was a desire to be able to move faster. The question is, what do you desire from TV that can be solved by a technological improvement? Not necessarily something you think is practical, just what technology (even if it is just a fantasy) would improve the TV experience? I cannot think of anything (although I would not be surprised if someone else could).
From the way the summary frames the discussion (which I am assuming it gets from the article), both telephones and horse drawn carriages were "broken" at the times you specified. With horse drawn carriages there were two problems that automobiles solved. First, you had to fuel/feed your horse, even if you weren't going anywhere, an automobile you only have to fuel if you want to use it. Second, horse drawn carriages had a maximum sustainable speed that made travel of any significant distance (more than a few miles) a serious undertaking. As for telephones, people had to know specifically where you were and the number of the nearest telephone in order to get a hold of you. If you were someone who spent a good deal of time going from one place to another that made reaching you problematic.
I have never heard of any place with a mailbox that UPS/FEDEX will not deliver to. That being said, I am not a proponent of eliminating the Post Office (considering that it is one of the functions of the federal government specified in the Constitution).
I know very few people who oppose voluntary socialism. Of course, I know very few proponents of socialism who are willing to settle for voluntary socialism. As soon as the government gets involved, it is no longer voluntary. As I pointed out in my original post, progressives try to distort the picture of people voluntarily of their own free will cooperating for the common good to provide support for some government funtionary coercing people to work for what that funtionary claims to be the common good (but which usually only serves the interests of that functionary or his cronys).
Except that the example given is of people who privately own a company making a choice to allow their employees to take time off to serve a community function (firefighting). None of the things in the definition you gave apply: "cooperatve enterprises, common ownership, autonomous public ownership or state ownership". Nope, the companies are privately owned and the owner chooses to give the volunteer firefighters time off to fight fires.
"relatively equal power-relations and the reduction or elimination of hierarchy in the management of economic...affairs" Nope, the guy who owns the company is very clearly the boss and if you do not do what he says, you're fired.
That is an interesting question. The area where I work was not only rural, but definitely the sticks 100 years ago. Today it is fairly densely populated (similar to the what the popuation density was of the nearest city 100 years ago), although by no means urban. There are other areas of the state that 100 years ago had a population density that was similar to the population density of this area at the time that are practically unpopulated today.
The OP seems to be under the impression that people who live out in the sticks are reliant on the government for running water. Not only are they not dependent on the government for running water, they are not dependent on the government for firefighters. The key word in the part of what I wrote that you quoted was "sometimes", not "oftentimes", nor "always". When the local volunteer fire companies near me need new equipment they will apply with various government agencies for a grant to purchase it. However, if they are denied the grant, they will run fundraisers to raise the money to buy the equipment. Actually, most of the time, they will start running the fundraisers about the same time they start applying for grants, when enough funds, from either source, come in, they purchase the equipment.
I would not mind the anonymous holds if they had a one-time, limited length (let's say someone is nominated and a Senator has heard a rumor about something inappropriate in that nominee's background that would be fairly significant for the post, but is somewhat farfetched. The Senator wants a little time--say 30 days--to find out if there is anything to the allegation before going on record opposing the nominee).
Do you have any idea how hard it is to duplicate individual handwriting?
No, they are not an example of socialism, because everyone involved voluntarily makes whatever sacrifice they make. As far as I am aware, there are no laws requiring employers to allow firefighters to leave the job to go fight fires. This is the mistake that progressives make all the time, they think that being forced to do something is interchangeable with doing so voluntarily.
OK, a couple of points. First people who live out in the sticks probably are not paying for your firefighters (unless your firefighters are paid out of state funds, they are not in my state). Fire companies in most rural communities are voluntary, non-profit organizations that are not run by the local government. Generally, their operational expenses come from donations (although they sometimes get grants from various government agencies to buy new equipment). Another point, U.S. society is actually less spread out today than it was 100 years ago (that is a larger percentage of the population lives in cities today than did then). As for running water, very few, if any, people living in rural areas are dependent on the government for running water and they like it that way.
How is the fact that you send packages by USPS (United States Postal Service) with nothing but good things to say about your in contrast with their comments about negative experience sending things UPS (United Parcel Service)?
Part of the problem (only a part) was that the West focused on "democracy" in Russia (and the rest of Eastern Europe) after the fall of the Soviet Union, when what they should have focused on was rule of law. If one looks at history, one discovers that democracy without rule of law inevitably ends up in some sort of authoritarian system (whether it maintains the trappings of democracy or not depends on other factors). On the other hand, any country that follows rule of law governance ends up as some sort of actual democracy sooner or later. Of course even if the West had pushed rule of law rather than "democracy" the factors that led Russia to where it is now may have ended up dominating, but some of Russia's internal reformers might have been more aware of the danger and been able to prevent it.
I would agree with that interpretation. However, my point still stands, most of the things that are "undetermined" are really things that the Framers intended the federal government to have no power over so they saw no reason to define the federal government's role. Well, actually, they thought they had defined the federal government's role as being no role.
Yes, but if our only choice was IOS-like phones, we probably would not know about it yet. Then it would be sitting there waiting to be activated at some point. The fact that it was on the Iphones suggests that Apple would have turned it on at some point (not that Apple should be condemned, just that one should not get too comfortable with the fact that they had it turned off by default at this time).