Seriously, judging by the comments I wonder how many people actually read the article. This paragraph should put people's doubts at rest:
"He expects all Americans would back the law if they knew it does not ban incandescents but simply requires them to be more efficient. So the old-fashioned 100-watt bulb, which U.S. companies cannot make after Jan. 2012, will be replaced by a halogen version that produces the same light, as measured in lumens, but uses only 72 watts of electricity."
And will cost significantly more once you can't get regular incandescent light bulbs. That halogen version light bulb is patent encumbered, while the patents on the old-fashioned 100-watt bulb have all expired. Of course that is what this law is about, pay back for GE, Phillips and Sylvania.
What you fail to understand is that this is not about energy usage. It is about profits for GE, Phillips ans Sylvania. They have these neat patents on energy efficient light bulbs, but they cannot charge as much for them as they want because people will then buy regular incandescents. So, what do they do, they get "environmentalist" minded Congresspersons to pass a law outlawing standard incandescents.
Which is the whole point of this law, to allow Phillips (and GE and Sylvania) to charge a higher price for their patent encumbered, more efficient light bulbs than they would be able to if those light bulbs have to compete with standard, non-patent encumbered incandescent light bulbs.
The CFL decision was to reduce energy usage. That reduction in usage isn't tied to any currently enforced costs. If there aren't costs associated with using old incandescents vs CFLs, no market force is going to pay the higher cost of the CFLs.
I don't know about you, but if I reduce my electrical usage, my electric bill gets smaller. So, if I buy CFLs rather than icandescents, theoretically my electric bill will be smaller. So, that theoretic reduction in usage is tied to currently enforced costs.
Of course, the real reason for this law is so that GE, Sylvania and Phillips can make more money on their patented light bulbs when they no longer have to compete with regular incandescent light bulbs, which are not covered by any current patents. That is what this is about, politicians paying back the big companies for their support.
Why would Comcast kick the teams from their flagship station? THis is Comcast buying NBC, not NBC buying Comcast. It isn't even a merger of "equals". Comcast bought NBC from GE. Once again, the Roberts' (father and son) appear to understand sports broadcasting. I could see Comcast trying to get all of the TV broadcasts for those teams off of WGN and onto CSN, but I doubt that would reduce their current lineup of CSN games.
Chicago sports fans need to look for NBC messing with CSN and maybe NBC feelings about the bulls, cubs, sox, hawks games on WGN / WCIU.
I know this is off topic but now that NBC is part of comcast I don't want the NBC people who F*** up scif to mess with the sports.
I wouldn't worry too much about that. Comcast shares ownership of the Flyers and Sixers with Ed Snyder, who gets sports broadcasting. In addition, the Roberts' (father and son) are friends of Mr. Snyder. I, also, believe that Mr. Snyder got a peice of Comcast when he did the deal that got Comcast part ownership of the sports teams. I am quite confident that the upper echelons of Comcast understand sports broadcasting much better than the incumbents at NBC. And unlike AOL, Comcast has a history of taking over the companies they buy, not the other way around.
Someone at this publication needs to have someone review what the word synonomous means. Out of all the crimes committed in the U.S. last year only 330 are linked to Craigslist. 330 crimes out of over 10 million are linked to Craigslist and somehow Criagslist is this "cesspool of crime"? Get real.
While I agree with the general thrust of your point, this is more if Amazon suddenly said, "We aren't going to give you the money for the books that we sold for you." Paypal has collected money for this organization and now they are saying that they are "freezing" the account. That means that Paypal gets to use the money until such a time as they decide to unfreeze the account or a court orders them to do so.
I'm sorry, but calling it NaCl is just asking for people to be confused when it comes up in discussion. We already have enough problems with people using the intials of something where by pure happenstance those initials are the same as some more common reference. Now we have Google intentionally using the chemical abreviation for salt for this new initiative of theirs. If this was something that endusers could add to any software to amplify some aspect of the software (not that I can imagine how that could be done), then I would see comparing it to salt to be a potentially usefull comparison. However, this just doesn't work. I can't see how this is in anyway like salt.
There is no evidence that the police "busted down" his door. I did a little googling after I read the previous comment that referred to that and discovered two things. First, the site linked in the summary is a site that doesn't actually go out and find news. They just report stories that they find that are of interest to their readers. Second, none of the other sites which reported on this story contained such a picture, and all of them talked very generically about the police raiding his house and seizing his equipment. This means that there is no report local to Graf_chokolo of the police conducting a SWAT style raid. As a matter of fact, from the tone of the other reports, I would have to conclude that the police showed up at his door with a warrant and knocked.
No, it isn't. I pay what I am willing to pay for things that I want. If someone charges more than I am willing to pay, I don't buy that item unless I need it. In the example of gasoline, which I must buy, as prices go up, I travel less. In addition, I look for alternatives, whether that be public transportation, car pooling or alternative energy sources. Additionally, as gasoline prices go up various people invest in alternate ways of obtaining it.
I don't really expect you to understand this since you are a disciple of Lyndon LaRouche. If Lyndon LaRouche says the sun rose in the east this morning, I would recommend getting independent corroboration before you believe it.
Actually, it should be "Government Agency Job Applicant Facebook Password Requests Suspended." Although that is a little long for a headline, it would have stopped posters on/. talking about this case as if it had something to do with corporations invading their employees privacy (not to say that they don't). The thought process behind this sort of idiocy is completely different when it involves government agencies than when it involves companies. It is not that companies don't do just as stupid of things, it is just that this sort of stupidity runs into pushback much faster in the private sector...and once it has been exposed for the stupidity it is, it very rapidly disappears from the private sector (that sometimes requires one or two court orders). In the public sector, this sort of idiocy will pop up again and again, even after courts have ruled against it.
I believe the correct question would be whether the efficiency of a centrally planned economy using modern IT would be anywhere close to the efficiency of a truly free market economy (or even a vaguely free market economy). I am confident that the answer is No.
There is no complete solution. However, the most effective way to deal with it is to get people to recognize that what politician's do affects their lives intimately and that they need to pay attention. The second factor is for people to realize that most problems should be addressed on a local level, not on a national level.
Your link is to a publication of Lyndon LaRouche. Lyndon LaRouche has been off the deep end for years.
BTW, I was addressing whether or not Walmart is evidence that modern Information Technology makes central planning viable. The fact that Walmart only causes some local stores to go out of business indicates that there are demands that Walmart's centralized planning does not meet.
I would argue that low voter turn out means that not enough people care about the decisions government makes. That means that the best way to improve voter turnout is to get more people to care about the outcome of elections rather than making it easier for people to vote. If you get more people to vote without getting those additional voters to care, you are worse off than you were before.
And that is why, everywhere that Walmart opens a store, there are no more local stores. There are only Walmart, Target, Home Depot, Lowes, and Best Buy...oh wait, no there isn't. There are lots of little shops that supply needs/wants that Walmart and the other big box stores don't. Those little stores represent the things that would fall through the cracks with central planning.
I believe that this blog was written and posted on slashdot in an attempt to make it true. If they can get people thinking that enough others think Ubuntu is "Bad Linux", they think they can get people to think that Ubuntu is "Bad Linux". Unfortunately for them, many of the first slashdotters to see the post went, "What are you talking about? I think Ubuntu is great/nice/pretty good, even though I use a different distro."
So, basicaly, you want to set up representative representative democracy where you vote for people to represent you in voting for the people who will represent you in voting on what laws to pass. That seems very convoluted to me. I think the current system whereby people vote for people to represent them in voting for what laws to pass works as well as can be expected considering that most people don't pay any attention to what candidates are running until a few weeks (at most) before an election. I can't see how adding another layer would improve that if people continue to not really pay attention.
Slashdot Mirror
Seriously, judging by the comments I wonder how many people actually read the article. This paragraph should put people's doubts at rest: "He expects all Americans would back the law if they knew it does not ban incandescents but simply requires them to be more efficient. So the old-fashioned 100-watt bulb, which U.S. companies cannot make after Jan. 2012, will be replaced by a halogen version that produces the same light, as measured in lumens, but uses only 72 watts of electricity."
And will cost significantly more once you can't get regular incandescent light bulbs. That halogen version light bulb is patent encumbered, while the patents on the old-fashioned 100-watt bulb have all expired. Of course that is what this law is about, pay back for GE, Phillips and Sylvania.
What you fail to understand is that this is not about energy usage. It is about profits for GE, Phillips ans Sylvania. They have these neat patents on energy efficient light bulbs, but they cannot charge as much for them as they want because people will then buy regular incandescents. So, what do they do, they get "environmentalist" minded Congresspersons to pass a law outlawing standard incandescents.
Which is the whole point of this law, to allow Phillips (and GE and Sylvania) to charge a higher price for their patent encumbered, more efficient light bulbs than they would be able to if those light bulbs have to compete with standard, non-patent encumbered incandescent light bulbs.
If CFLs and LEDs are better, than people will choose them. If the government has to force people to choose them, they are not better.
The CFL decision was to reduce energy usage. That reduction in usage isn't tied to any currently enforced costs. If there aren't costs associated with using old incandescents vs CFLs, no market force is going to pay the higher cost of the CFLs.
I don't know about you, but if I reduce my electrical usage, my electric bill gets smaller. So, if I buy CFLs rather than icandescents, theoretically my electric bill will be smaller. So, that theoretic reduction in usage is tied to currently enforced costs.
Of course, the real reason for this law is so that GE, Sylvania and Phillips can make more money on their patented light bulbs when they no longer have to compete with regular incandescent light bulbs, which are not covered by any current patents. That is what this is about, politicians paying back the big companies for their support.
Why would Comcast kick the teams from their flagship station? THis is Comcast buying NBC, not NBC buying Comcast. It isn't even a merger of "equals". Comcast bought NBC from GE. Once again, the Roberts' (father and son) appear to understand sports broadcasting. I could see Comcast trying to get all of the TV broadcasts for those teams off of WGN and onto CSN, but I doubt that would reduce their current lineup of CSN games.
Why would they have a say?
Sorry, I don't understand the question.
Chicago sports fans need to look for NBC messing with CSN and maybe NBC feelings about the bulls, cubs, sox, hawks games on WGN / WCIU.
I know this is off topic but now that NBC is part of comcast I don't want the NBC people who F*** up scif to mess with the sports.
I wouldn't worry too much about that. Comcast shares ownership of the Flyers and Sixers with Ed Snyder, who gets sports broadcasting. In addition, the Roberts' (father and son) are friends of Mr. Snyder. I, also, believe that Mr. Snyder got a peice of Comcast when he did the deal that got Comcast part ownership of the sports teams. I am quite confident that the upper echelons of Comcast understand sports broadcasting much better than the incumbents at NBC. And unlike AOL, Comcast has a history of taking over the companies they buy, not the other way around.
Someone at this publication needs to have someone review what the word synonomous means. Out of all the crimes committed in the U.S. last year only 330 are linked to Craigslist. 330 crimes out of over 10 million are linked to Craigslist and somehow Criagslist is this "cesspool of crime"? Get real.
While I agree with the general thrust of your point, this is more if Amazon suddenly said, "We aren't going to give you the money for the books that we sold for you." Paypal has collected money for this organization and now they are saying that they are "freezing" the account. That means that Paypal gets to use the money until such a time as they decide to unfreeze the account or a court orders them to do so.
I say "sodium chloride", but I usually write NaCl. Of course, that is when I don't simply say or write "salt".
And as you might remember, that programming language was almost dead on arrival.
Except that this will never be as widely referred to as either MS Windows or Apple computers.
I'm sorry, but calling it NaCl is just asking for people to be confused when it comes up in discussion. We already have enough problems with people using the intials of something where by pure happenstance those initials are the same as some more common reference. Now we have Google intentionally using the chemical abreviation for salt for this new initiative of theirs. If this was something that endusers could add to any software to amplify some aspect of the software (not that I can imagine how that could be done), then I would see comparing it to salt to be a potentially usefull comparison. However, this just doesn't work. I can't see how this is in anyway like salt.
There is no evidence that the police "busted down" his door. I did a little googling after I read the previous comment that referred to that and discovered two things. First, the site linked in the summary is a site that doesn't actually go out and find news. They just report stories that they find that are of interest to their readers. Second, none of the other sites which reported on this story contained such a picture, and all of them talked very generically about the police raiding his house and seizing his equipment. This means that there is no report local to Graf_chokolo of the police conducting a SWAT style raid. As a matter of fact, from the tone of the other reports, I would have to conclude that the police showed up at his door with a warrant and knocked.
No, it isn't. I pay what I am willing to pay for things that I want. If someone charges more than I am willing to pay, I don't buy that item unless I need it. In the example of gasoline, which I must buy, as prices go up, I travel less. In addition, I look for alternatives, whether that be public transportation, car pooling or alternative energy sources. Additionally, as gasoline prices go up various people invest in alternate ways of obtaining it.
I don't really expect you to understand this since you are a disciple of Lyndon LaRouche. If Lyndon LaRouche says the sun rose in the east this morning, I would recommend getting independent corroboration before you believe it.
Actually, it should be "Government Agency Job Applicant Facebook Password Requests Suspended." Although that is a little long for a headline, it would have stopped posters on /. talking about this case as if it had something to do with corporations invading their employees privacy (not to say that they don't). The thought process behind this sort of idiocy is completely different when it involves government agencies than when it involves companies. It is not that companies don't do just as stupid of things, it is just that this sort of stupidity runs into pushback much faster in the private sector...and once it has been exposed for the stupidity it is, it very rapidly disappears from the private sector (that sometimes requires one or two court orders). In the public sector, this sort of idiocy will pop up again and again, even after courts have ruled against it.
I believe the correct question would be whether the efficiency of a centrally planned economy using modern IT would be anywhere close to the efficiency of a truly free market economy (or even a vaguely free market economy). I am confident that the answer is No.
There is no complete solution. However, the most effective way to deal with it is to get people to recognize that what politician's do affects their lives intimately and that they need to pay attention. The second factor is for people to realize that most problems should be addressed on a local level, not on a national level.
Your link is to a publication of Lyndon LaRouche. Lyndon LaRouche has been off the deep end for years.
BTW, I was addressing whether or not Walmart is evidence that modern Information Technology makes central planning viable. The fact that Walmart only causes some local stores to go out of business indicates that there are demands that Walmart's centralized planning does not meet.
I would argue that low voter turn out means that not enough people care about the decisions government makes. That means that the best way to improve voter turnout is to get more people to care about the outcome of elections rather than making it easier for people to vote. If you get more people to vote without getting those additional voters to care, you are worse off than you were before.
And that is why, everywhere that Walmart opens a store, there are no more local stores. There are only Walmart, Target, Home Depot, Lowes, and Best Buy...oh wait, no there isn't. There are lots of little shops that supply needs/wants that Walmart and the other big box stores don't. Those little stores represent the things that would fall through the cracks with central planning.
I believe that this blog was written and posted on slashdot in an attempt to make it true. If they can get people thinking that enough others think Ubuntu is "Bad Linux", they think they can get people to think that Ubuntu is "Bad Linux". Unfortunately for them, many of the first slashdotters to see the post went, "What are you talking about? I think Ubuntu is great/nice/pretty good, even though I use a different distro."
So, basicaly, you want to set up representative representative democracy where you vote for people to represent you in voting for the people who will represent you in voting on what laws to pass. That seems very convoluted to me. I think the current system whereby people vote for people to represent them in voting for what laws to pass works as well as can be expected considering that most people don't pay any attention to what candidates are running until a few weeks (at most) before an election. I can't see how adding another layer would improve that if people continue to not really pay attention.