I thought this was Slashdot? What happened to free speech, or for that matter privacy? So now you can be punished for what you say to someone else in the privacy of a private conversation? Shame on all of you!
Just think about how much oversight the government will begin doing. If they can do it in schools, how long to its legal for the federal government (no, not done, LEGAL).
I apologize, but what that essentially says is that this is consumer friendly because consumers are stupid and unable to figure out which product is cheapest (in terms of quality AND price). If businesses didn't compete on price, and it was all quality, then you would see cheap things go away. So what if you can't buy crappy shirts?, you can't buy cheap ones either.
if its only printing out onto paper, then wouldn't it be really easy to print ballots out at home, and bring extras? what if they were ripped? folded? smudged? not to mention it would be expensive to print a piece of paper for over 150 million people easily, and the ink.
For convicted monopolists, there are different rules then for non-convicted monopolists and everyone else... There can't be monopolies and non-monopolies in the same industry. It is impossible. Also, as long as everyone is going to bash M$, they should bash Apple, who does exactly the same stuff.
Just because people are stupid doesn't make a product anti-competitive. For example, say the search feature was something you could choose whether or not to install at boot. If people were stupid and installed it anyways, would it be anti-competitive?
Costs of moving covers the truck, possibly getting a new job. Finding things in a new community. Your children losing all neighborhood friends. Not moving to a more expensive house
About states rights, not everything in the constitution is written there. Privacy is mentioned nowhere in the constitution, but its right there in Roe, pulled out of the ninth and fourteenth amendments. The Tenth amendment shows the concept of states rights- that states aren't part of the Union, the Union is made of states. This was the original intent of the Union, it was ruined by the fourteenth amendment. Notice that we call other nations states. Ever heard of a nations-state? The concept of state is an independent nation. These United States is just an alliance, the constitution their treaty. The federal government does not have the right to blackmail the states. The states have the right to set their own speed limit. The tenth amendment shows that since the federal government does not have the power to set a speed limit, the states get it. Except the federal government is taking it by blackmail
. Only one thing is going to fix this, and that is a nice, dirty civil war. It may not happen in our lifetimes, but at this rate, it will happen soon.
You're right about the ninth amendment, I meant the tenth. About fair market value, the point is that when the government condemns a house, it is no longer worth much. Plus costs of moving, and generally being uprooted. There are legitimate uses of eminent domain, but there are just as many illegitimate.
Actually, there is one other country still capable of taking down China... if they were armed. If India deregulates they could take down China in a few decades. China can't invade them because they have nukes. In fact, one might see a second cold war.
Why? States have always had that power. Indeed, the federal Constitution only requires that governments pay fair compensation to the owner when they seize property under the eminent domain power. It not only doesn't prohibit it, but by making it conditional, it supports the idea of eminent domain. Which is not a bad idea, actually; that is how governments builds roads, among other things.
See: Fair compensation. It is fair market value, but there is no market value when the government condemns something.
So you're saying that the Constitution imposes limits on the federal government spending its money which would prohibit this? Please feel free to point them out.The Ninth amendment clearly establishes states rights. withholding funding is like saying to a convict, you're free to go, but we'll shoot you if you do:)
Except that seat belts, as well as airbags are actually bad for the person wearing them. Seat belts are able to slice people if the car accelerates fast enough, and there are enough stickers to instill mortal fear of air bags.
The only problem with the black market argument is that the internet is easier to regulate. If it's there for one person its there for everyone else, so the government should have no problem enforcing gambling laws online.
I'm going to say that about as many or more (American) civilians have died from terrorist attacks, and that those 3500 men saved many more than 3500. Also, I call your attention to the death rates in the second world war, or the first, or the civil war, or from Hussein to his civilians, or Osama. You say that 3500 people have died. I say that thousands more have been saved.
Actually, this end of M$ might end up being good for them. If they drop their crappy home products, and re-do their image, they might be able to ease the pressure of everybody hating M$, because few people would have to use it. Yeah they would on the server side, but very little of the general population deals with servers. So, is this good!?
Dammit. What happened to free speech? I thought this was Slashdot, and people would take every opportunity to espouse their socially liberal agenda. Actually, I'm with it this time, so SHAME ON YOU!
Make it cheaper than the current system... Make it tax exempt for the first 10 years (thus demonstrating you are screwing the Government, as well
NO!!! YOU FOOL!. If you suggest that then *shudder* people will lobby for subsidies. Which, of course don't make it cheaper, they just make it so people don't realize how much they have to pay. Again with tax exempt, it just means taxing somebody else instead, or reducing services. Don't fool yourself. You can't make anything cheaper than it costs to make, market, and distribute.
Slashdot Mirror
I thought this was Slashdot? What happened to free speech, or for that matter privacy? So now you can be punished for what you say to someone else in the privacy of a private conversation? Shame on all of you!
Just think about how much oversight the government will begin doing. If they can do it in schools, how long to its legal for the federal government (no, not done, LEGAL).
If that is M$'s strategy, then they're not doing to well- they touted Vista as being better than XP :)
I apologize, but what that essentially says is that this is consumer friendly because consumers are stupid and unable to figure out which product is cheapest (in terms of quality AND price). If businesses didn't compete on price, and it was all quality, then you would see cheap things go away. So what if you can't buy crappy shirts?, you can't buy cheap ones either.
if its only printing out onto paper, then wouldn't it be really easy to print ballots out at home, and bring extras? what if they were ripped? folded? smudged? not to mention it would be expensive to print a piece of paper for over 150 million people easily, and the ink.
For convicted monopolists, there are different rules then for non-convicted monopolists and everyone else... There can't be monopolies and non-monopolies in the same industry. It is impossible. Also, as long as everyone is going to bash M$, they should bash Apple, who does exactly the same stuff.
Just because people are stupid doesn't make a product anti-competitive. For example, say the search feature was something you could choose whether or not to install at boot. If people were stupid and installed it anyways, would it be anti-competitive?
Costs of moving covers the truck, possibly getting a new job. Finding things in a new community. Your children losing all neighborhood friends. Not moving to a more expensive house
About states rights, not everything in the constitution is written there. Privacy is mentioned nowhere in the constitution, but its right there in Roe, pulled out of the ninth and fourteenth amendments. The Tenth amendment shows the concept of states rights- that states aren't part of the Union, the Union is made of states. This was the original intent of the Union, it was ruined by the fourteenth amendment. Notice that we call other nations states. Ever heard of a nations-state? The concept of state is an independent nation. These United States is just an alliance, the constitution their treaty. The federal government does not have the right to blackmail the states. The states have the right to set their own speed limit. The tenth amendment shows that since the federal government does not have the power to set a speed limit, the states get it. Except the federal government is taking it by blackmail
. Only one thing is going to fix this, and that is a nice, dirty civil war. It may not happen in our lifetimes, but at this rate, it will happen soon.
You're right about the ninth amendment, I meant the tenth. About fair market value, the point is that when the government condemns a house, it is no longer worth much. Plus costs of moving, and generally being uprooted. There are legitimate uses of eminent domain, but there are just as many illegitimate.
Actually, there is one other country still capable of taking down China... if they were armed. If India deregulates they could take down China in a few decades. China can't invade them because they have nukes. In fact, one might see a second cold war.
Why? States have always had that power. Indeed, the federal Constitution only requires that governments pay fair compensation to the owner when they seize property under the eminent domain power. It not only doesn't prohibit it, but by making it conditional, it supports the idea of eminent domain. Which is not a bad idea, actually; that is how governments builds roads, among other things.
:)
See: Fair compensation. It is fair market value, but there is no market value when the government condemns something.
So you're saying that the Constitution imposes limits on the federal government spending its money which would prohibit this? Please feel free to point them out.The Ninth amendment clearly establishes states rights. withholding funding is like saying to a convict, you're free to go, but we'll shoot you if you do
Except that seat belts, as well as airbags are actually bad for the person wearing them. Seat belts are able to slice people if the car accelerates fast enough, and there are enough stickers to instill mortal fear of air bags.
The only problem with the black market argument is that the internet is easier to regulate. If it's there for one person its there for everyone else, so the government should have no problem enforcing gambling laws online.
Actually I have to say that iTunes is the most memory hungry program. It was eating 250MB the other day. Compare to the 500MB that Vista needs.
I'm going to say that about as many or more (American) civilians have died from terrorist attacks, and that those 3500 men saved many more than 3500. Also, I call your attention to the death rates in the second world war, or the first, or the civil war, or from Hussein to his civilians, or Osama. You say that 3500 people have died. I say that thousands more have been saved.
Before we get rid of our government, I suggest we try this newfangled democracy. I hear it worked well before the aristocracy took over.
Seriously, throw out the two party system, the corruption, especially briber (including corporate sponsors).
If that doesn't work THEN we can go anarchy
The US is not The World. Yet.
I think the US never was, before there was the USSR, and now there is China, and much of Europe. The US is, if anything, dwindling.
Great reasoning. Let me sum up. I'm not a Mac fanatic because Apple is intentionally doing what M$ does.
I'm waiting to hear why this is bad, other than that it promotes conservative values. Like going to church...
Actually, this end of M$ might end up being good for them. If they drop their crappy home products, and re-do their image, they might be able to ease the pressure of everybody hating M$, because few people would have to use it. Yeah they would on the server side, but very little of the general population deals with servers. So, is this good!?
Microsoft rejected my license... So I'm stuck encrypted forever.
What did you say? I couldn't understand.
Especially since the software I already have does the job with 90% accuracy.
Dammit. What happened to free speech? I thought this was Slashdot, and people would take every opportunity to espouse their socially liberal agenda. Actually, I'm with it this time, so SHAME ON YOU!
Yeah, except when I'm sending money or something.
Make it cheaper than the current system... Make it tax exempt for the first 10 years (thus demonstrating you are screwing the Government, as well
NO!!! YOU FOOL!. If you suggest that then *shudder* people will lobby for subsidies. Which, of course don't make it cheaper, they just make it so people don't realize how much they have to pay. Again with tax exempt, it just means taxing somebody else instead, or reducing services. Don't fool yourself. You can't make anything cheaper than it costs to make, market, and distribute.
And the Tivo? Aren't you better off because it is cheaper?