The summary is badly misworded (whether by mistake or intentionally is left to your judgement). The article that is linked to says that she answered questions at her deposition by pleading the Fifth ammendment. That means that when she was questioned by the plaintiff's attorney under oath she pled the Fifth. Which is always the best decision. If you are ever questioned under oath by an attorney who is out to get you, plead the Fifth or you are likely to be charged with perjury for answering a question incorrectly because you forgot (or someone else remembers the situation differently. Look what happened to "Scooter" Libby).
That was his point. One of the things about life as we know it is that all of it uses the same "handed" stereoisomers (I no longer remember which). Based on what we know now, one would expect that if life started more than once some lifeforms would use the right handed stereoisomers and others would use left handed stereoisomers.
You mentioned Mercedes and Acura, both luxury vehicles when new. I looked up a Honda and a Subaru on that site, both were around $100. And as I said, I have never replaced the headlight assembly (unless you count the bulb for a sealed beam headlight) on any car. A friend of mine commented that he knows that when I buy a car I "drive it til the wheels fall off".
But you're missing the point. Breaking away from these "crutches" should be a personal choice
Not if I'm being taxed for their medical bills.
You see, That is when government-mandated healthcare comes full circle.
So, we should outlaw the version that has the least health risks (e-cigs) and that those already addicted can use to quit, while continuing to allow the original unhealthy version (regular cigs)?
What is their agenda? (other than to promote lung health, which no reasonable person could criticize)
Their agenda is to acquire the funding to pay their salaries. Promoting lung health is only their excuse to get people to part with their money. If all the lung problems they currently work against were to be cured tomorrow they would find some other reason to ask for people's money. The ALA has done (and continues to do) a lot of really good work, but as eventually happens to most organizations its primary goal has become self-perpetuation.
Now, the tricky bit is defining what the metrics should be
And there is the rub, what happens when a new innovation makes the metrics being used obsolete? This regulation is really unnecessary. One of the largest costs of a data center will be its power consumption, any company that wants to remain competitive over the long run will build its data center as energy efficient as is cost effective. The effect of such regulations will be to cause companies that would otherwise build datacenters to continue to manage their data in a distributed fashion because the cost of building the datacenter exceeds the value of centralizing the data.
You're right, I only replaced the head light lamp. I have never replaced the entire headlight assembly (at least on a car where it wasn't a sealed beam design, I did replace several of those). Even with your example, we are still talking $65 vs the OP's estimate of $200-$400.
Where do you buy your headlights? I just replaced a headlight on my wife's car. It cost $14. So either you are shopping at a high end auto shop or you are driving a high end car...or you are talking out of your a**. And yes, the headlight I bought was specific for the make of my wife's car.
I don't see any ambiguity in the word prescriptive; it simply means that they don't like the government to tell them to save energy.
And this is your first mistake. In this case it is not that they dislike the government telling them to save energy. It is that they dislike the government saying you must do process Z using X type of equipment because "it is more energy efficient". Their fear with this type of regulation is that if they find a way to do Z using Y type of equipment that is more efficient than X, the standard won't let them.
The thing that most people overlook is that innovation happens best when a place has two key features: laws that apply the same to everyone and change slowly, and strong property rights (it is clear who owns the land and voluntary transferral of ownership is easy). The U.S. used to have both of these. The first has been gradually eroded since WWII (probably going back to just before WWI, but I would have to do a little more research to be sure of that). The second ended decisively with the Kelo vs the City of New London case
See, now you are comparing another economic system to capitalism. Aristocrats exist as part of a fuedal economy not a capitalist one. The whole of your example indicates that you are thinking of a fuedal economy (force up rents on other lands). Although this does point out why property tax is important to maintaining a capitalist economy (something I had never thought about before).
What you fail to realize is that the people who campaigned (successfully) to implement the child labor laws were competitors to the people who used children in this way. They did not mount this campaign to impede their competition, they did it out of compassion. As a general rule, those who campaigned against child labor were actually more successful businessman (and their wives) who were unwilling to see children suffer while waiting for the forces of economics to correct the abuses.
The important difference is that people voted for Obama, even though they disagreed with many things he called for, because he promised them "change" and "transparency". It is one thing when you vote for somebody because they claim to be for a bunch of ideas you support and then learn that they aren't going to actually support half of them. It is another thing entirely to vote for someone because of one or two ideas that you think are very important while you disagree with most of what they say they want to do and then discover that they aren't going to do the things you liked, but are going to do the things you were at best ambivalent about.
So, what caused a telephone monopoly to emerge? If telephone service is a natural monopoly, a single monopolist should have emerged from the market. However, that isn't what happened. The government decided who the winner would be. That doesn't prove that natural monopolies exist. It proves that telephone service would be messy if the government hadn't regulated a monopoly into place (and it is possible that over time the mess would have gradually cleaned up as the technology matured--or not, we'll never know because the government intervened to create a monopoly).
We've seen it happen with municipal water and we've seen it happen with railroads.
Let's look at your examples: "municipal" water, that is water supplied by the local government. Let's see, that seems to imply that the government was involved somehow.
Railroads became monopolies through the intervention of local, state and federal governments. So, try again to find an example where a "natural" monopoly actually emerged without government intervention.
Railroads became monopolies through government intervention (local, state and federal). If by wire services you are referring to telegraph, the telegraph monopolies also developed through government intervention.
I will agree that once one company has gained dominant position in any of the industries that are considered "natural monopolies" through government intervention, it is very hard (approaching impossible in some cases) for competitors to arise even if the government gets out of the way.
The problem with free market capitalism is that there are people who will abuse the system at the expense of others. The problem with regulating is the same thing, except that with regulation, the people abusing the system have the power of the government behind them.
You make a good point, but the problem is actually partial deregulation. The only thing worse than excessively strong regulation is gradual deregulation where the barriers to entering the market are left in place, but the companies already in the industry are allowed to operate with a free hand. Unfortunately, that is the method of deregulation chosen by most politicians.
cable television and power distribution are natural monopolies. Regulated or not, there is no possibility for a free market there.
How do we know that? No one has ever tried letting either spring up according to whoever wanted to enter the market. In both areas the government stepped in and regulated into existence monopolies almost as soon as the industry appeared. Certainly the theory of natural monopoly sounds good, but we have no evidence that it is actually true.
Slashdot Mirror
The summary is badly misworded (whether by mistake or intentionally is left to your judgement). The article that is linked to says that she answered questions at her deposition by pleading the Fifth ammendment. That means that when she was questioned by the plaintiff's attorney under oath she pled the Fifth. Which is always the best decision. If you are ever questioned under oath by an attorney who is out to get you, plead the Fifth or you are likely to be charged with perjury for answering a question incorrectly because you forgot (or someone else remembers the situation differently. Look what happened to "Scooter" Libby).
That was his point. One of the things about life as we know it is that all of it uses the same "handed" stereoisomers (I no longer remember which). Based on what we know now, one would expect that if life started more than once some lifeforms would use the right handed stereoisomers and others would use left handed stereoisomers.
You mentioned Mercedes and Acura, both luxury vehicles when new. I looked up a Honda and a Subaru on that site, both were around $100. And as I said, I have never replaced the headlight assembly (unless you count the bulb for a sealed beam headlight) on any car. A friend of mine commented that he knows that when I buy a car I "drive it til the wheels fall off".
Well, this article is about somebody who is and the fact that the ALA wants to make it illegal.
But you're missing the point. Breaking away from these "crutches" should be a personal choice
Not if I'm being taxed for their medical bills. You see, That is when government-mandated healthcare comes full circle.
So, we should outlaw the version that has the least health risks (e-cigs) and that those already addicted can use to quit, while continuing to allow the original unhealthy version (regular cigs)?
What is their agenda? (other than to promote lung health, which no reasonable person could criticize)
Their agenda is to acquire the funding to pay their salaries. Promoting lung health is only their excuse to get people to part with their money. If all the lung problems they currently work against were to be cured tomorrow they would find some other reason to ask for people's money. The ALA has done (and continues to do) a lot of really good work, but as eventually happens to most organizations its primary goal has become self-perpetuation.
Now, the tricky bit is defining what the metrics should be
And there is the rub, what happens when a new innovation makes the metrics being used obsolete? This regulation is really unnecessary. One of the largest costs of a data center will be its power consumption, any company that wants to remain competitive over the long run will build its data center as energy efficient as is cost effective. The effect of such regulations will be to cause companies that would otherwise build datacenters to continue to manage their data in a distributed fashion because the cost of building the datacenter exceeds the value of centralizing the data.
You're right, I only replaced the head light lamp. I have never replaced the entire headlight assembly (at least on a car where it wasn't a sealed beam design, I did replace several of those). Even with your example, we are still talking $65 vs the OP's estimate of $200-$400.
Where do you buy your headlights? I just replaced a headlight on my wife's car. It cost $14. So either you are shopping at a high end auto shop or you are driving a high end car...or you are talking out of your a**. And yes, the headlight I bought was specific for the make of my wife's car.
I don't see any ambiguity in the word prescriptive; it simply means that they don't like the government to tell them to save energy.
And this is your first mistake. In this case it is not that they dislike the government telling them to save energy. It is that they dislike the government saying you must do process Z using X type of equipment because "it is more energy efficient". Their fear with this type of regulation is that if they find a way to do Z using Y type of equipment that is more efficient than X, the standard won't let them.
The thing that most people overlook is that innovation happens best when a place has two key features: laws that apply the same to everyone and change slowly, and strong property rights (it is clear who owns the land and voluntary transferral of ownership is easy). The U.S. used to have both of these. The first has been gradually eroded since WWII (probably going back to just before WWI, but I would have to do a little more research to be sure of that). The second ended decisively with the Kelo vs the City of New London case
See, now you are comparing another economic system to capitalism. Aristocrats exist as part of a fuedal economy not a capitalist one. The whole of your example indicates that you are thinking of a fuedal economy (force up rents on other lands). Although this does point out why property tax is important to maintaining a capitalist economy (something I had never thought about before).
When Obama takes a book out of the library it's because he wants to read it and return it.
-
What evidence do you have that Obama ever took a book out of a library?
Primarily from the UFOs are aliens believers, since most of them are agnostics/atheists.
I would too if he actually got us a UFO to study.
If that happened it would no longer be a UFO (Unidentified Flying Object).
Personally, I am a strong believer in UFOs. Do you want to know what they are?
I don't know. If I did, they would be IFOs.
Really? How do you know?
What you fail to realize is that the people who campaigned (successfully) to implement the child labor laws were competitors to the people who used children in this way. They did not mount this campaign to impede their competition, they did it out of compassion. As a general rule, those who campaigned against child labor were actually more successful businessman (and their wives) who were unwilling to see children suffer while waiting for the forces of economics to correct the abuses.
Really, what is scary about Sarah Palin as VP, that isn't scarier about Obama as President?
The important difference is that people voted for Obama, even though they disagreed with many things he called for, because he promised them "change" and "transparency". It is one thing when you vote for somebody because they claim to be for a bunch of ideas you support and then learn that they aren't going to actually support half of them. It is another thing entirely to vote for someone because of one or two ideas that you think are very important while you disagree with most of what they say they want to do and then discover that they aren't going to do the things you liked, but are going to do the things you were at best ambivalent about.
So, what caused a telephone monopoly to emerge? If telephone service is a natural monopoly, a single monopolist should have emerged from the market. However, that isn't what happened. The government decided who the winner would be. That doesn't prove that natural monopolies exist. It proves that telephone service would be messy if the government hadn't regulated a monopoly into place (and it is possible that over time the mess would have gradually cleaned up as the technology matured--or not, we'll never know because the government intervened to create a monopoly).
We've seen it happen with municipal water and we've seen it happen with railroads.
Let's look at your examples: "municipal" water, that is water supplied by the local government. Let's see, that seems to imply that the government was involved somehow. Railroads became monopolies through the intervention of local, state and federal governments. So, try again to find an example where a "natural" monopoly actually emerged without government intervention.
Railroads became monopolies through government intervention (local, state and federal). If by wire services you are referring to telegraph, the telegraph monopolies also developed through government intervention.
I will agree that once one company has gained dominant position in any of the industries that are considered "natural monopolies" through government intervention, it is very hard (approaching impossible in some cases) for competitors to arise even if the government gets out of the way.
The problem with free market capitalism is that there are people who will abuse the system at the expense of others. The problem with regulating is the same thing, except that with regulation, the people abusing the system have the power of the government behind them.
You make a good point, but the problem is actually partial deregulation. The only thing worse than excessively strong regulation is gradual deregulation where the barriers to entering the market are left in place, but the companies already in the industry are allowed to operate with a free hand. Unfortunately, that is the method of deregulation chosen by most politicians.
cable television and power distribution are natural monopolies. Regulated or not, there is no possibility for a free market there.
How do we know that? No one has ever tried letting either spring up according to whoever wanted to enter the market. In both areas the government stepped in and regulated into existence monopolies almost as soon as the industry appeared. Certainly the theory of natural monopoly sounds good, but we have no evidence that it is actually true.