GE did invest in other types of lighting. They are just making those bulbs somewhere other than in the U.S.. GE is not hurt by the ban, just the people who worked for them. GE backed this ban in a big way, their profits are going to go up because now they will be able to charge even more for the light bulbs they make with their new patents.
Basically the government outlawed light bulbs that are not currently encumbered by a patent. The purpose of this law was not to increase energy efficiency but to increase corporate profits. All of the light bulbs that meet the new energy efficiency standards are covered by current patents. The companies that hold those patents were not able to make as much profit on those light bulbs as they wished because they had to compete with standard incandescent light bulbs. So they got together with the environmentalists to lobby the government to outlaw the light bulbs that anyone could build without paying a licensing fee for the technology.
You miss a very important point about treating your employees well, when you treat your employees better, they tend to be more productive.
If one business treats its employees better so that its cost per employee is twice that of its competition one would expect that it would be at a competitive disadvantage. However, if as a result of treating its employees better, those employees are four times as productive as the employees of its competitor it will be at a competitive advantage. This is the lesson of Henry Ford. Henry Ford paid his employees well and overall treated them well, as a result, they were significantly more productive.
The difference between "you need political connections and have to bribe some officials to do it" and "everybody can do it" is a quantitative one, not a qualitative one.
No, it isn't. If everybody can do it, then you have competition for labor. As time goes by, labor will chose to work for those who treat them better. Robert Heinlein referred to this as "enlightened self-interest". If a business owner treats his employees well, they will look out for his interests. If workers look out for their employer's interests, he will likely treat them well. In the long run, if non-business influences (such as the government, but not exclusively the government) don't intervene, the companies that treat their workers well will displace those that treat their workers poorly.
China does not have unregulated capitalism. China has what is essentially fascism. Businessmen can only make a lot of money if they are politically connected.
If "hate speech" does not have a legal definition, it cannot be a valid term in a contract. You cannot write a contract that says, "If you pay me $$$, I will provide you with service XXX, unless I decide that I don't like something you do or say." Which is what you are saying the hate speech clause in the TOS of Rackspace is.
So, what is your explanation for why someone, who up until this time has acted to support muslim efforts to build the "ground zero mosque" would suddenly attack a muslim?
Some poor Muslim cabbie was almost murdered because of the "ground zero mosque"-- he didn't even have anything to do with the mosque.
By a guy who worked for a non-profit organization working to support building the "ground zero mosque". I have not seen a single article quoting friends or co-workers talking about how he expressed discontent with his employer's stance on this issue. It seems reasonable to me that in his drunken state he believed that doing this would reflect poorly on opponents of the mosque being built at that location. From your post, it looks like he acomplished his goal.
The Quran has no relationship to Christianity or Judaism. Early Muslims were not Christians (or Jews) who followed the teachings of Mohammed and gradually split off into a separate religion. Early Christians were Jews who followed the teachings of Jesus and gradually split off into a separate religion.
Most Muslims believe their faith teaches tolerance and peaceful coexistence with other faiths.
Then why do we see so few Muslims speaking out condemning terrorists? Or at least, condemning those who call for the death of people like Ayaan Hirsi Ali?
You know, the thing you don't seem to understand is that I am unaware of any Christian groups that teach that it is possible to desecrate the Bible. According to a website on Islam: "In addition, when one is not reading or reciting from the Qur'an, it should be closed and stored a clean, respectable place. Nothing should be placed on top of it, nor should it ever be placed on the floor or in a bathroom."
From a Christian perspective, burning the Bible is in bad taste. From a Muslim perspective, burning the Quran (except as a means to dispose of a badly worn copy) is blasphemy. Actually , if Muslims had wanted to make this guy disappear as irrelevant (instead of apparently wanting to fan the flames of hostility) they would have praised him for understanding the proper way to dispose of the Quran.
Companies that disagree with you have no requirement to broadcast your message.
Unless of course they have already signed a contract with you to do so. Which amazingly enough, is exactly what Rackspace has done. So, I want to know what they are calling "hate speech". Is it burning the Quran? If so, they are being unreasonable. This is not to say that I would be surprised if the "church" in question had posted material that is inflamatory enough to be considered "hate speech" (although I consider the idea of labeling something "hate speech" repugnant), just that burning the Quran does not reach that level.
That is what is missing from this article, what exactly did this "Church" post on its websites that is "hate speech"? Is Rackspace saying that saying one is planning to burn the Quran is hate speech? If so, I would hope that wouldn't hold up in court. If not, what was the "hate speech" that was posted on the website?
It does not require some "special circumstance" for a punch to the face to kill someone, it just requires the blow to be landed to the right portion of the face with sufficient force (which is well within the ability of most adult men to deliver).
Its like complaining someone was murdered because they broke into a house.
In any country with sane laws, that's considered to be criminal, because it uses more than reasonable force to counter the offense. If someone tries to punch you in the face, you cannot kill them for it. Same with breaking into your house to steal your TV -- it's not a crime punishable by death.
NONE of which is to say that I think private copyright infringement is theft, or should even exist as a crime.
That is insane. If someone breaks into your house, how does anyone else determine that you did not have a reasonable expectation that your life was in danger?
Personally, I think that if you initiate force in a confrontation, you should expect that the other person will escalate to using lethal force. Therefore, I think it is reasonable to expect that someone who initiates force against me will escalate to using lethal force. Additionally, why should I be forced to allow someone to beat me up just because they are bigger and stronger than me?
How do you get to Paradise?
Go down here past Bird-in-Hand, when you get to Intercourse make a right and you'll soon be in Paradise, but if you make a left you'll end up in Blue Ball.
Contrast that with men, even. If you find a guy, and you figure out that he enjoys having a few beers out, followed by a blowjob, it's reasonably fair to assume that at any point in the future if you repeat your actions, he's going to respond the same way.
And this is the mistake most men make. Once men figure out what they like, they see no reason to change. Women like mystery. It is hard to explain this without oversimplifying in a short post, but that is close. A friend who got married several years before I did first pointed this out to me. His wife argued with him about it for around a half hour before she finally agreed with him. Most of that time was spent with him making his point in different ways (although it would have taken significantly less time if he didn't get a kick out of pulling her chain) until she saw what he was getting at. They are still married, going on 25 years now.
Of course. I only favor raising taxes on the ultra rich.
How are you planning on taxing them? I am pretty sure you were talking about income tax rates. The ultra rich have almost zero income. Many of them don't technically own anything. It is owned by a trust fund of some kind that they control. Any tax system that gets at the money controlled by these trust funds will negatively affect legitmate charities as well. The Rockefellers, Kennedys, Duponts and Bushs don't have a lot of personal wealth. The vast majority of their money is controlled by some sort of trust. If there was a serious effort to tax that money, it would disappear long before the law got passed.
If that was the study I saw (I don't remember what the percentages were, although I didn't think they were quite that high), it also said that capital gains tax should be significantly lower than it is today. The study looked like it made sense. The only thing I'm not sure they took into account was how much "income" would become "capital gains". My recollection is that they did factor that in, that was why they reached the conclusions they did. Basically, at their recommended tax levels, the most economically productive high "income" would become "capital gains" leading to a more vibrant economy.
Because if McDonald's was required to pay the people behind the counter $36 an hour (the hourly rate that works out to $75,000 a year for a 40 hour work week) a Big Mac would cost quite a bit more and $75,000 a year would no longer be enough to be happy.
Of course, if you raise the top marginal tax rate to 90%, total revenue from income tax will go down. You apparently don't realize that the wealthiest 1% of income earners pay a larger share of Federal revenues today than the same group did in the 50s.
Hey young punk, at 90 years old, I would not be surprised if he could wip the ass of most of the people in 4chan, those guys were tough, just google "senior citizen breaks the neck of mugger". That guy was only 70, but the punk he was dealing with was a lot tougher than the 4chan guys.
Slashdot Mirror
GE did invest in other types of lighting. They are just making those bulbs somewhere other than in the U.S.. GE is not hurt by the ban, just the people who worked for them. GE backed this ban in a big way, their profits are going to go up because now they will be able to charge even more for the light bulbs they make with their new patents.
Basically the government outlawed light bulbs that are not currently encumbered by a patent. The purpose of this law was not to increase energy efficiency but to increase corporate profits. All of the light bulbs that meet the new energy efficiency standards are covered by current patents. The companies that hold those patents were not able to make as much profit on those light bulbs as they wished because they had to compete with standard incandescent light bulbs. So they got together with the environmentalists to lobby the government to outlaw the light bulbs that anyone could build without paying a licensing fee for the technology.
You miss a very important point about treating your employees well, when you treat your employees better, they tend to be more productive.
If one business treats its employees better so that its cost per employee is twice that of its competition one would expect that it would be at a competitive disadvantage. However, if as a result of treating its employees better, those employees are four times as productive as the employees of its competitor it will be at a competitive advantage. This is the lesson of Henry Ford. Henry Ford paid his employees well and overall treated them well, as a result, they were significantly more productive.
The difference between "you need political connections and have to bribe some officials to do it" and "everybody can do it" is a quantitative one, not a qualitative one.
No, it isn't. If everybody can do it, then you have competition for labor. As time goes by, labor will chose to work for those who treat them better. Robert Heinlein referred to this as "enlightened self-interest". If a business owner treats his employees well, they will look out for his interests. If workers look out for their employer's interests, he will likely treat them well. In the long run, if non-business influences (such as the government, but not exclusively the government) don't intervene, the companies that treat their workers well will displace those that treat their workers poorly.
China does not have unregulated capitalism. China has what is essentially fascism. Businessmen can only make a lot of money if they are politically connected.
If "hate speech" does not have a legal definition, it cannot be a valid term in a contract. You cannot write a contract that says, "If you pay me $$$, I will provide you with service XXX, unless I decide that I don't like something you do or say." Which is what you are saying the hate speech clause in the TOS of Rackspace is.
So, what is your explanation for why someone, who up until this time has acted to support muslim efforts to build the "ground zero mosque" would suddenly attack a muslim?
Some poor Muslim cabbie was almost murdered because of the "ground zero mosque"-- he didn't even have anything to do with the mosque.
By a guy who worked for a non-profit organization working to support building the "ground zero mosque". I have not seen a single article quoting friends or co-workers talking about how he expressed discontent with his employer's stance on this issue. It seems reasonable to me that in his drunken state he believed that doing this would reflect poorly on opponents of the mosque being built at that location. From your post, it looks like he acomplished his goal.
The Quran has no relationship to Christianity or Judaism. Early Muslims were not Christians (or Jews) who followed the teachings of Mohammed and gradually split off into a separate religion. Early Christians were Jews who followed the teachings of Jesus and gradually split off into a separate religion.
Most Muslims believe their faith teaches tolerance and peaceful coexistence with other faiths.
Then why do we see so few Muslims speaking out condemning terrorists? Or at least, condemning those who call for the death of people like Ayaan Hirsi Ali?
Please point out representatives of this "moderate Islam" of which you speak.
You know, the thing you don't seem to understand is that I am unaware of any Christian groups that teach that it is possible to desecrate the Bible. According to a website on Islam: "In addition, when one is not reading or reciting from the Qur'an, it should be closed and stored a clean, respectable place. Nothing should be placed on top of it, nor should it ever be placed on the floor or in a bathroom."
From a Christian perspective, burning the Bible is in bad taste. From a Muslim perspective, burning the Quran (except as a means to dispose of a badly worn copy) is blasphemy. Actually , if Muslims had wanted to make this guy disappear as irrelevant (instead of apparently wanting to fan the flames of hostility) they would have praised him for understanding the proper way to dispose of the Quran.
Companies that disagree with you have no requirement to broadcast your message.
Unless of course they have already signed a contract with you to do so. Which amazingly enough, is exactly what Rackspace has done. So, I want to know what they are calling "hate speech". Is it burning the Quran? If so, they are being unreasonable. This is not to say that I would be surprised if the "church" in question had posted material that is inflamatory enough to be considered "hate speech" (although I consider the idea of labeling something "hate speech" repugnant), just that burning the Quran does not reach that level.
That is what is missing from this article, what exactly did this "Church" post on its websites that is "hate speech"? Is Rackspace saying that saying one is planning to burn the Quran is hate speech? If so, I would hope that wouldn't hold up in court. If not, what was the "hate speech" that was posted on the website?
We have enough problems with DoS attacks launched by miscreants.
This sounds as if these people aren't miscreants. If they are launching DoS attacks, they are by definition miscreants.
Except that in most states in the U.S., passing on the right is legal.
It does not require some "special circumstance" for a punch to the face to kill someone, it just requires the blow to be landed to the right portion of the face with sufficient force (which is well within the ability of most adult men to deliver).
In any country with sane laws, that's considered to be criminal, because it uses more than reasonable force to counter the offense. If someone tries to punch you in the face, you cannot kill them for it. Same with breaking into your house to steal your TV -- it's not a crime punishable by death.
NONE of which is to say that I think private copyright infringement is theft, or should even exist as a crime.
That is insane. If someone breaks into your house, how does anyone else determine that you did not have a reasonable expectation that your life was in danger?
Personally, I think that if you initiate force in a confrontation, you should expect that the other person will escalate to using lethal force. Therefore, I think it is reasonable to expect that someone who initiates force against me will escalate to using lethal force. Additionally, why should I be forced to allow someone to beat me up just because they are bigger and stronger than me?
How do you get to Paradise?
Go down here past Bird-in-Hand, when you get to Intercourse make a right and you'll soon be in Paradise, but if you make a left you'll end up in Blue Ball.
Contrast that with men, even. If you find a guy, and you figure out that he enjoys having a few beers out, followed by a blowjob, it's reasonably fair to assume that at any point in the future if you repeat your actions, he's going to respond the same way.
And this is the mistake most men make. Once men figure out what they like, they see no reason to change. Women like mystery. It is hard to explain this without oversimplifying in a short post, but that is close. A friend who got married several years before I did first pointed this out to me. His wife argued with him about it for around a half hour before she finally agreed with him. Most of that time was spent with him making his point in different ways (although it would have taken significantly less time if he didn't get a kick out of pulling her chain) until she saw what he was getting at. They are still married, going on 25 years now.
Of course. I only favor raising taxes on the ultra rich.
How are you planning on taxing them? I am pretty sure you were talking about income tax rates. The ultra rich have almost zero income. Many of them don't technically own anything. It is owned by a trust fund of some kind that they control. Any tax system that gets at the money controlled by these trust funds will negatively affect legitmate charities as well. The Rockefellers, Kennedys, Duponts and Bushs don't have a lot of personal wealth. The vast majority of their money is controlled by some sort of trust. If there was a serious effort to tax that money, it would disappear long before the law got passed.
If that was the study I saw (I don't remember what the percentages were, although I didn't think they were quite that high), it also said that capital gains tax should be significantly lower than it is today. The study looked like it made sense. The only thing I'm not sure they took into account was how much "income" would become "capital gains". My recollection is that they did factor that in, that was why they reached the conclusions they did. Basically, at their recommended tax levels, the most economically productive high "income" would become "capital gains" leading to a more vibrant economy.
Because if McDonald's was required to pay the people behind the counter $36 an hour (the hourly rate that works out to $75,000 a year for a 40 hour work week) a Big Mac would cost quite a bit more and $75,000 a year would no longer be enough to be happy.
Of course, if you raise the top marginal tax rate to 90%, total revenue from income tax will go down. You apparently don't realize that the wealthiest 1% of income earners pay a larger share of Federal revenues today than the same group did in the 50s.
Hey young punk, at 90 years old, I would not be surprised if he could wip the ass of most of the people in 4chan, those guys were tough, just google "senior citizen breaks the neck of mugger". That guy was only 70, but the punk he was dealing with was a lot tougher than the 4chan guys.