He hasn't actually built one, so the only way we would know whether or not he has successfully reconstructed the design would be if someone who actually designs nuclear bombs today were to look at his plans and say that, "Yes, that would result in a functional atomic bomb." Or if someone were to follow his plans, build an atomic bomb and set it off. It is distinctly possible that he has successfully reconstructed the plans, At this point, all we have is his claim that what he put in his book would be sufficient to build a functional atomic bomb.
One of the biggest problems with economics is that I don't know if you have noticed, but every time a new economic indicator has come out in the last year or so the headline is that it is "unexpectedly" bad. Don't you think after a couple of those people would start to expect those numbers to be bad?
They are commodity items and can't be sold for massive profits...
Who besides Philips makes them? My guess would be, no one, since you note they are "Philips energy-saving bulbs". If the only company that makes them is Philips, they are not commodity items.
The thing is, the fact that they could have gotten the information from a quick domain lookup does not change the fact that the blogger in question has logs showing that they did not get the information in that manner. They may have used a domain lookup to confirm the info after they became aware of it from his blog, but his logs make it improbable that they found the info that way in the first place.
No, I don't think people behave rationally, but I don't think a small group of people is any more likely to behave rationally than a large group of individuals.
And both subject the will of the individual to the will of the group (whether that will is determined by a few leaders or some majority, it still looks the same to the individual).
As I said to someone else, if fascism is the right wing of your political spectrum and communism is the left wing, there are no acceptable alternatives on your political spectrum.
I find it funny that you say that the more you reduce the influence of government in society the more powerful corporations grow. I really can't speak to that, because I have never seen the influence of government in society reduced. But I can tell you this, over my lifetime, as the influence of government in society has grown, the more powerful corporations have become.
Then calling the Tea Party "right wing" is completely out of line, because they are not on that political spectrum at all. If fascist are right wing and communists are left wing, then your entire political spectrum is composed of demons. From where I stand, fascists and communists are right next to one another. They both make the same mistake. They think that the economy can be centrally managed efficiently.
Do you think most people make decisions taking into account long term monetary costs and environmental externalities?
Or do people perhaps look for the cheapest bulb on the shelf and buy that?
And why is that any of my or your business? How do you know that the externalities that you considered are the only ones that matter to the situation? How do you know that there are not other externalities (or just plain other factors) that influence people's buying decisions that, at least for those people, are more important than the ones you want them to decide on the basis of?
Socialism subjugates the individual to the group. Fascism subjugates the individual to the group. I disagree with your definition of capitalism. Capitalism is an economic system based on the voluntary exchange of goods and services. Socialism on the other hand is an economic system based on the exchange of goods and services at the determination of the group.
Fascism is totalitarian, but it is not extreme right. Both fascism and communism sacrifice the individual for the group. The only useful political continuum runs from complete individualism to complete subjugation of the individual to the group (totalitarianism is the most likely expression of this).
All political attempts to redistribute wealth will fail. They will either result in collapse of society or they will result in greater concentration of wealth in the hands of the few (often times the second followed by the former).
The only way to stop the tendency of wealth to concentrate in the hands of the politically connected is to reduce the role the government plays in deciding winners and losers in the economy.
So, do you support the law or oppose it?
I have no problem with people advocating that I use CFLs as opposed to traditional incandescent light bulbs. They make some good arguments and every couple of years, I try a new CFL to see if it works better for me than the previous one I tried. So far, incandescents work better for me when I compare durability, cost and light produced. I object to people trying to force me to make the same choice sthey make (which is what this law does).
No, authoritarianism is not on both ends of the spectrum. Authoritarianism is one end of the political spectrum. Anarchy is the other end. Anarchy is arguably as bad as totalitarianism, but it is not the same as totalitarianism. And yes, a totalitarian may take over a society that was in anarchy, but that does not make totalitarianism a logical extension of anarchy.
One of the problems we have in these discussion is combining economic systems with political systems. While there is overlap, they are two separate types of systems. The other problem is not making a distinction between governments that follow rule of law vs governments that follow rule of edict. I beleive that if you have a strong repsect for the idea of rule of law, you will not end up with a totalitarian government, but as respect for rule of law diminishes the likelihood of totalitarianism rises. One of the problems with rule of law is that as the number of laws and regulations rises, there are more and more special cases that need exceptions until there are more people who fall under one or more of the exceptions to the general laws than those to whom they all apply. When that happens, people no longer view the law that applies equally to everyone (because it doesn't) and then it becomes a battle to be one of those to whom the law does not apply.
If decision making is dispersed, why was this law passed? You are correct that the system in America currently allows the power to fall into the hands of the few. And you know what, every time they pass one of the laws or regulations that you support, it gets worse.
Since you talk about being bound by the society you live in, I guess you have no problems with making partial birth abortion illegal? And I am sure, you do not support "homosexual marriage"?
The problem is this law does not reflect the "collective will" of society. If this law on light bulbs reflected the collective will of U.S. society, it would not serve any purpose, people would be migrating to energy efficient light bulbs anyway.
So, I don't care which one you think is better. Why do you get to tell me which one I have to choose?
My wife hates CFLs. She made me take the one I put in one of our lamps out and replace it with an incandescent (she didn't know it was a CFL, it was covered by a shade. She just didn't like the light it gave off). And before you say, "Well that is because you bought one of the cheap ones. You should have bought a more expensive bulb." Why should I buy a more expensive bulb when a cheap incandescent does the job perfectly well?
They have banned traditional incandescent bulbs because traditional incandescent bulbs do not meet those standards.
If CFLs are truly superior technology, they do not need this regulation. When the government interferes in the market in this manner (picking winners and losers), the results are always to the detriment of the common man.
You are correct. The correct term for "corporate socialism" is fascism (not corporate fascism). Of course the difference between fascism and socialism is just one of degree. Both believe that some policy wonk knows better than you what is best for you. There is nothing about socialism that involves democracy, although socialism could be established in a democracy where the people elect who tells them how to live their lives The biggest success of the left was defining fascism as the opposite end of the spectrum from communism, leaving all of the true alternatives to state control completely off of the political spectrum.
I have a simpler idea. You can't patent software. You can only patent a physical object. The problem with software patents is that if it looks the same (or even similar) it is very hard to prove that it is functionally different. For example, if I patent a machine that uses a saw to cut widgets out of a sheet of metal, that patent does not apply to your machine that cuts widgets out of a sheet of metal using a laser (ok, if all you did was put a cutting laser where I had a saw it might, but in all probability you would use a different feed mechanism if you were using a laser vs a saw).
And that I have a problem with. It is not Comcast's (or any other ISP) business what I do with my Internet connection. The only thing this is a valid use for is to make customers aware if they have a virus on their system.
The correct response when told what the user was doing was not:
"I was bittorrenting some TV shows."
It would be:
"I was downloading some files."
If they ask what files, the answer is, "I'm sorry that is privileged information that you have no legal basis for asking. If you still feel that you need to know, please have your lawyers contact me. If you do not restore my connection at this time, I will have my lawyers contact you."
So, the way to overcome that contrarian streak is to use force? Most contrarians I know resist change more the harder you push them to change. The best way I know to get contrarians to change is to just back off and wait for them to reach the conclusion you want on their own, stepping up the pressure on them to make the decision you want only makes them less likely to do so.
BTW, I hope you like mercury in landfils, because I'm not going to dispose of CFLs any other than the way I dispose of incandescents and I suspect that is true of most other Americans.
So, basically, you are saying that those people for whom regular incandescents are better are just out of luck because you want people to adopt CFLs? I am not convinced that the interests of the group are actually better served by forcing people to buy something other than incandescent when their judgement of their situation says that incandescents are the best choice (if they do not believe that incandescents are the best choice, why would you have to force them to buy something else?).
NO, I am picturing Jeffrey Immelt getting a job working for the Obama Administration after betting GE's future on "green" technology.
If it is really better lighting, why do people need to be pushed towards it? Won't they adopt it as they become convinced that it is better? Further, how do you know it is better for all situations?
This basically comes down to some people thinking they know what is best for other people and using the power of government to force those people to behave according to their wishes. What happens when people who think they know what's best decide to force you to do something you don't want to do?
When you have a device that has a thousand different vital functions, when that device fails you lose a thousand different vital functions.
This is ultimately the problem with some centralized ID system. What happens when something goes wrong with that system? In particular, what happens when that system says that some particular individual does not exist? Or that person A is not person A? How do you fix it, when there is not multiple other ID systems that you can appeal to for verification of who you are? Currently in the U.S., there are multiple ways I can authenticate my ID (although we could use a few more online authentication methods), if one of them becomes corrupted, I can use one or more of the others to prove who I am and get the one that is wrong corrected.
Slashdot Mirror
He hasn't actually built one, so the only way we would know whether or not he has successfully reconstructed the design would be if someone who actually designs nuclear bombs today were to look at his plans and say that, "Yes, that would result in a functional atomic bomb." Or if someone were to follow his plans, build an atomic bomb and set it off. It is distinctly possible that he has successfully reconstructed the plans, At this point, all we have is his claim that what he put in his book would be sufficient to build a functional atomic bomb.
One of the biggest problems with economics is that I don't know if you have noticed, but every time a new economic indicator has come out in the last year or so the headline is that it is "unexpectedly" bad. Don't you think after a couple of those people would start to expect those numbers to be bad?
They are commodity items and can't be sold for massive profits ...
Who besides Philips makes them? My guess would be, no one, since you note they are "Philips energy-saving bulbs". If the only company that makes them is Philips, they are not commodity items.
The thing is, the fact that they could have gotten the information from a quick domain lookup does not change the fact that the blogger in question has logs showing that they did not get the information in that manner. They may have used a domain lookup to confirm the info after they became aware of it from his blog, but his logs make it improbable that they found the info that way in the first place.
No, I don't think people behave rationally, but I don't think a small group of people is any more likely to behave rationally than a large group of individuals.
And both subject the will of the individual to the will of the group (whether that will is determined by a few leaders or some majority, it still looks the same to the individual).
As I said to someone else, if fascism is the right wing of your political spectrum and communism is the left wing, there are no acceptable alternatives on your political spectrum.
I find it funny that you say that the more you reduce the influence of government in society the more powerful corporations grow. I really can't speak to that, because I have never seen the influence of government in society reduced. But I can tell you this, over my lifetime, as the influence of government in society has grown, the more powerful corporations have become.
In socialism, what happens when the individual disagrees with the group?
Then calling the Tea Party "right wing" is completely out of line, because they are not on that political spectrum at all. If fascist are right wing and communists are left wing, then your entire political spectrum is composed of demons. From where I stand, fascists and communists are right next to one another. They both make the same mistake. They think that the economy can be centrally managed efficiently.
Do you think most people make decisions taking into account long term monetary costs and environmental externalities?
Or do people perhaps look for the cheapest bulb on the shelf and buy that?
And why is that any of my or your business? How do you know that the externalities that you considered are the only ones that matter to the situation? How do you know that there are not other externalities (or just plain other factors) that influence people's buying decisions that, at least for those people, are more important than the ones you want them to decide on the basis of?
Socialism subjugates the individual to the group. Fascism subjugates the individual to the group. I disagree with your definition of capitalism. Capitalism is an economic system based on the voluntary exchange of goods and services. Socialism on the other hand is an economic system based on the exchange of goods and services at the determination of the group.
Fascism is totalitarian, but it is not extreme right. Both fascism and communism sacrifice the individual for the group. The only useful political continuum runs from complete individualism to complete subjugation of the individual to the group (totalitarianism is the most likely expression of this).
All political attempts to redistribute wealth will fail. They will either result in collapse of society or they will result in greater concentration of wealth in the hands of the few (often times the second followed by the former).
The only way to stop the tendency of wealth to concentrate in the hands of the politically connected is to reduce the role the government plays in deciding winners and losers in the economy.
So, do you support the law or oppose it?
I have no problem with people advocating that I use CFLs as opposed to traditional incandescent light bulbs. They make some good arguments and every couple of years, I try a new CFL to see if it works better for me than the previous one I tried. So far, incandescents work better for me when I compare durability, cost and light produced. I object to people trying to force me to make the same choice sthey make (which is what this law does).
No, authoritarianism is not on both ends of the spectrum. Authoritarianism is one end of the political spectrum. Anarchy is the other end. Anarchy is arguably as bad as totalitarianism, but it is not the same as totalitarianism. And yes, a totalitarian may take over a society that was in anarchy, but that does not make totalitarianism a logical extension of anarchy.
One of the problems we have in these discussion is combining economic systems with political systems. While there is overlap, they are two separate types of systems. The other problem is not making a distinction between governments that follow rule of law vs governments that follow rule of edict. I beleive that if you have a strong repsect for the idea of rule of law, you will not end up with a totalitarian government, but as respect for rule of law diminishes the likelihood of totalitarianism rises. One of the problems with rule of law is that as the number of laws and regulations rises, there are more and more special cases that need exceptions until there are more people who fall under one or more of the exceptions to the general laws than those to whom they all apply. When that happens, people no longer view the law that applies equally to everyone (because it doesn't) and then it becomes a battle to be one of those to whom the law does not apply.
If decision making is dispersed, why was this law passed? You are correct that the system in America currently allows the power to fall into the hands of the few. And you know what, every time they pass one of the laws or regulations that you support, it gets worse.
Since you talk about being bound by the society you live in, I guess you have no problems with making partial birth abortion illegal? And I am sure, you do not support "homosexual marriage"?
The problem is this law does not reflect the "collective will" of society. If this law on light bulbs reflected the collective will of U.S. society, it would not serve any purpose, people would be migrating to energy efficient light bulbs anyway.
So, I don't care which one you think is better. Why do you get to tell me which one I have to choose?
My wife hates CFLs. She made me take the one I put in one of our lamps out and replace it with an incandescent (she didn't know it was a CFL, it was covered by a shade. She just didn't like the light it gave off). And before you say, "Well that is because you bought one of the cheap ones. You should have bought a more expensive bulb." Why should I buy a more expensive bulb when a cheap incandescent does the job perfectly well?
They have banned traditional incandescent bulbs because traditional incandescent bulbs do not meet those standards.
If CFLs are truly superior technology, they do not need this regulation. When the government interferes in the market in this manner (picking winners and losers), the results are always to the detriment of the common man.
If it was better than incandescents, they would not need to outlaw the sale of incandescents.
You are correct. The correct term for "corporate socialism" is fascism (not corporate fascism). Of course the difference between fascism and socialism is just one of degree. Both believe that some policy wonk knows better than you what is best for you. There is nothing about socialism that involves democracy, although socialism could be established in a democracy where the people elect who tells them how to live their lives The biggest success of the left was defining fascism as the opposite end of the spectrum from communism, leaving all of the true alternatives to state control completely off of the political spectrum.
I have a simpler idea. You can't patent software. You can only patent a physical object. The problem with software patents is that if it looks the same (or even similar) it is very hard to prove that it is functionally different. For example, if I patent a machine that uses a saw to cut widgets out of a sheet of metal, that patent does not apply to your machine that cuts widgets out of a sheet of metal using a laser (ok, if all you did was put a cutting laser where I had a saw it might, but in all probability you would use a different feed mechanism if you were using a laser vs a saw).
And that I have a problem with. It is not Comcast's (or any other ISP) business what I do with my Internet connection. The only thing this is a valid use for is to make customers aware if they have a virus on their system.
The correct response when told what the user was doing was not:
"I was bittorrenting some TV shows."
It would be:
"I was downloading some files."
If they ask what files, the answer is, "I'm sorry that is privileged information that you have no legal basis for asking. If you still feel that you need to know, please have your lawyers contact me. If you do not restore my connection at this time, I will have my lawyers contact you."
So, the way to overcome that contrarian streak is to use force? Most contrarians I know resist change more the harder you push them to change. The best way I know to get contrarians to change is to just back off and wait for them to reach the conclusion you want on their own, stepping up the pressure on them to make the decision you want only makes them less likely to do so.
BTW, I hope you like mercury in landfils, because I'm not going to dispose of CFLs any other than the way I dispose of incandescents and I suspect that is true of most other Americans.
So, basically, you are saying that those people for whom regular incandescents are better are just out of luck because you want people to adopt CFLs? I am not convinced that the interests of the group are actually better served by forcing people to buy something other than incandescent when their judgement of their situation says that incandescents are the best choice (if they do not believe that incandescents are the best choice, why would you have to force them to buy something else?).
NO, I am picturing Jeffrey Immelt getting a job working for the Obama Administration after betting GE's future on "green" technology.
If it is really better lighting, why do people need to be pushed towards it? Won't they adopt it as they become convinced that it is better? Further, how do you know it is better for all situations?
This basically comes down to some people thinking they know what is best for other people and using the power of government to force those people to behave according to their wishes. What happens when people who think they know what's best decide to force you to do something you don't want to do?
When you have a device that has a thousand different vital functions, when that device fails you lose a thousand different vital functions.
This is ultimately the problem with some centralized ID system. What happens when something goes wrong with that system? In particular, what happens when that system says that some particular individual does not exist? Or that person A is not person A? How do you fix it, when there is not multiple other ID systems that you can appeal to for verification of who you are? Currently in the U.S., there are multiple ways I can authenticate my ID (although we could use a few more online authentication methods), if one of them becomes corrupted, I can use one or more of the others to prove who I am and get the one that is wrong corrected.