Not to mention the risk of whacking the rider in front of you in the head when the apparent gravity shifts, a poorly secured phone getting loose and hitting someone behind you (with great force if the phone rebounds off of a fixed object first), or simply losing your grip on the stick.
Actually the big gains have come from mixed economies. Note that when capitalism isn't sufficiently regulated, there's plenty of murder involved. For example, organized crime.
Sounds like the problem Toyota had, and they're still here. Automobiles and such aren't quite as susceptible to that scale of disaster as living organisms that can reproduce by themselves. And can cross-breed. Imagine Ford puts out a car with defective brakes and the trait starts showing up in all similar cars by other manufacturers based on which way the wind blows. Further, the trait shows up in other countries where the original defective model isn't even sold. To top it off, countries that haven't seen the problem ban import of any similar car from any country that has seen the problem.
That's an awful lot of people, some with deep pockets, suing for huge amounts of money in compensation and each one has a slam dunk case.
Perhaps you should just go and read my post again. At that point you'll either answer your own question or prove you're not worth my time.
The chicken crossed the road to get to the other side. A zebra with a sunburn is black and white and read all over. Any other silly questions you'd like to get out of your system?
Because the topic here is GMOs. For a similar reason, I also didn't offer any opinions on favorite microcontroller, paper vs. plastic, gasahol, or nuclear vs. solar.
And I just love how others make wildly inaccurate assumptions about my views on agriculture in general based solely on my misgivings about one technique.
The U.S. wasn't the first or the last to get rid of slavery, but it WAS on the wane throughout the Americas. Mechanization was making slavery a losing proposition.
If the Civil war was all about slavery, why wasn't it banned in the north before the war? It was only banned by some of the states under state law but it was still a going concern in other northern states.
What makes you think the Union as a whole was concerned enough about slavery to go to war over it?
That's because it was only half of the equation. Imagine if the other side knew that if they couldn't make good on their impossible promise, they would be subject to a very ugly and very public trial where they would be forced to admit that they had no idea if they could do that or not and were just promising anything to win figuring they could just not do it later.
A lot of voters aren't terribly rational, but they don't like being lied to and have a natural bias against people known as "the defendant".
Those are based on census data. Back in that time, the census routinely skipped right over a lot of people, especially those who only had a footpath going by their house deep in the woods. That would be exactly the people who could never in a million years afford a slave.
It may have been testing the water to see if they could harass the editors of Reason enough to make policing the comments less hassle, required or not.
It's fairly clear that either the whole incident was specifically meant to cause a chilling effect or that the feds can't be trusted with permanent markers or grown-up scissors, much less the ability to obtain a gag order.
We must look to the surrounding actions. Few of the "rank and file" soldiers had any chance of ever owning a slave. In the North, slavery was still legal at the federal level and in several of the states even 3 years into the Civil War. To the point that Lincoln couldn't rally enough political support to end it outright. He could only declare it ended in the Confederate states. This even though his own anti-slavery position was well known.
Certainly the wealthy southern plantation owners supported slavery, in part because the slaves were a sunk cost.
A quick glance at racial equality in the later 19th century and most of the 20th clearly shows us that neither side had particularly clean hands in the matter.
I think it's fair to say in any dispute where one side demands in effect "stop doing what we're doing" that there is some underlying issue in play.
As I said, slavery was a bit of a political talking point because it sounded so much better than a dispute over tariffs, on both sides.
Those documents were authored by some of the very few southerners that actually owned slaves. Most did not, either for moral reasons or simply because they didn't have that kind of money.
Even without it being criminalized, reality provides plenty of constructive coercion that the free market is all too happy to take unfair advantage of.
The theoretical free markets really only work well when both buyer and seller are free to leave the market entirely if it becomes too adverse. Do you really envision shiny happy families living in the ally under an old blanket?
Slashdot Mirror
It sure feels like it, only the water is body temperature or above.
That is a problem. With so many unjustified rules around, they become background noise. Then a rule that has a very good justification gets ignored.
Not to mention the risk of whacking the rider in front of you in the head when the apparent gravity shifts, a poorly secured phone getting loose and hitting someone behind you (with great force if the phone rebounds off of a fixed object first), or simply losing your grip on the stick.
FD dumps fire retardant on drone, problem solved.
Actually the big gains have come from mixed economies. Note that when capitalism isn't sufficiently regulated, there's plenty of murder involved. For example, organized crime.
Sounds like the problem Toyota had, and they're still here. Automobiles and such aren't quite as susceptible to that scale of disaster as living organisms that can reproduce by themselves. And can cross-breed. Imagine Ford puts out a car with defective brakes and the trait starts showing up in all similar cars by other manufacturers based on which way the wind blows. Further, the trait shows up in other countries where the original defective model isn't even sold. To top it off, countries that haven't seen the problem ban import of any similar car from any country that has seen the problem.
That's an awful lot of people, some with deep pockets, suing for huge amounts of money in compensation and each one has a slam dunk case.
Perhaps you should just go and read my post again. At that point you'll either answer your own question or prove you're not worth my time.
The chicken crossed the road to get to the other side. A zebra with a sunburn is black and white and read all over. Any other silly questions you'd like to get out of your system?
Because the topic here is GMOs. For a similar reason, I also didn't offer any opinions on favorite microcontroller, paper vs. plastic, gasahol, or nuclear vs. solar.
And I just love how others make wildly inaccurate assumptions about my views on agriculture in general based solely on my misgivings about one technique.
The U.S. wasn't the first or the last to get rid of slavery, but it WAS on the wane throughout the Americas. Mechanization was making slavery a losing proposition.
If the Civil war was all about slavery, why wasn't it banned in the north before the war? It was only banned by some of the states under state law but it was still a going concern in other northern states.
What makes you think the Union as a whole was concerned enough about slavery to go to war over it?
Part of the problem with GMOs is that the potential damages exceed the ability of any company to actually pay fair compensation.
Napolitano's claim was that the slave trade had ended entirely in 1808. He made many more claims that I have not.
But again, if it was all about slaves, why was slavery still legal in the Union?
Changing forces would naturally be an acceptable answer to any charges and having the charges dismissed might be very embarrassing for the plaintiff.
Ideally it should be often threatened, rarely used and pretty embarrassing to the losing party.
So you didn't click the link giving you a summary and a list of references I so nicely supplied, did you?
That's because it was only half of the equation. Imagine if the other side knew that if they couldn't make good on their impossible promise, they would be subject to a very ugly and very public trial where they would be forced to admit that they had no idea if they could do that or not and were just promising anything to win figuring they could just not do it later.
A lot of voters aren't terribly rational, but they don't like being lied to and have a natural bias against people known as "the defendant".
The nature of the South at the time.
Btw, there are places where it's close to that even now.
Those are based on census data. Back in that time, the census routinely skipped right over a lot of people, especially those who only had a footpath going by their house deep in the woods. That would be exactly the people who could never in a million years afford a slave.
What else could it have been for? Read TFA, particularly the comments that were singled out for 'investigation'.
It could be that they need safety scissors, of course.
You can beat the rap but you can't beat the ride.
It may have been testing the water to see if they could harass the editors of Reason enough to make policing the comments less hassle, required or not.
Just look up the Emancipation Proclamation. Even the Wikipedia article has enough information and references to get you started.
Then tell me why if the Union was all about ending slavery, slavery was still legal in the north.
It's fairly clear that either the whole incident was specifically meant to cause a chilling effect or that the feds can't be trusted with permanent markers or grown-up scissors, much less the ability to obtain a gag order.
More likely, it turns on a soothing green light.
We must look to the surrounding actions. Few of the "rank and file" soldiers had any chance of ever owning a slave. In the North, slavery was still legal at the federal level and in several of the states even 3 years into the Civil War. To the point that Lincoln couldn't rally enough political support to end it outright. He could only declare it ended in the Confederate states. This even though his own anti-slavery position was well known.
Certainly the wealthy southern plantation owners supported slavery, in part because the slaves were a sunk cost.
A quick glance at racial equality in the later 19th century and most of the 20th clearly shows us that neither side had particularly clean hands in the matter.
I think it's fair to say in any dispute where one side demands in effect "stop doing what we're doing" that there is some underlying issue in play.
As I said, slavery was a bit of a political talking point because it sounded so much better than a dispute over tariffs, on both sides.
Those documents were authored by some of the very few southerners that actually owned slaves. Most did not, either for moral reasons or simply because they didn't have that kind of money.
Dig deeper, you might be surprised what you find.
Even without it being criminalized, reality provides plenty of constructive coercion that the free market is all too happy to take unfair advantage of.
The theoretical free markets really only work well when both buyer and seller are free to leave the market entirely if it becomes too adverse. Do you really envision shiny happy families living in the ally under an old blanket?