Suddenly I forsee MTU hosting some concerts for less money than they usually do...
Have you BEEN to Houghton? The best they could do when I was there was "The Romantics"... and I'm pretty sure that is made of up the children of the original band...
blindread/blindwrite will copy MW4 providing you have a burner that supports subchannel copying (such as older plextors).
Make sure you read/burn at the slowest speed though, just to be cautious... I've had issues burning at higher speeds when using all the subchannel options.
In general, there are good articles about CD authoring at gamecopyworld.com
I had to read this a number of times to get the wording to make sense, but I feel comfortable with the case now.
I think the implication that equating "military use" with "the effecacy of a well organized militia" is a jump, and than the argument that the only exclusion to second amendment protection is non-military characteristics of a firearm is as misplaced as the argument that because one limitation was mentioned, more are possible.
I also think that their expansive definition of militia is heavily coda'ed by the state involvement in the militia. I don't think (US v. Miller) talks about a militia that isn't run by the state.
The bottom line on this thing though is that unopposed rulings are bad precedent, and this particular ruling (by design or accident) really skirts the real issue of 2nd amendment limitations and definitions.
Maybe its good that we are set up for a review of the 9th courts ruling. Perhaps we will get a clearer message out of the court (at least we know it will be written in a more modern language).:)
As a strong believer in the absolutes of the constitution, I am nervous about how this ruling will come down though. I've grown fond of our firearms stalemate, where people generally accept that a private citizens right to keep and bear exists, but we still sanction limits on what we consider egregious examples (bombs, tanks, assult weapons, WMD).
the point is that he could just have easily mis-stated his initial bias in an attempt to look more unbiased in the final results.
I've read the lott and mustard study, but not the book, and found that it was convincing enough for me to think that we (USA) should experiment with looser CCW laws, but just because the data doesn't suck, don't assume that the presenter of the data isn't biased, or assume the direction of his bias.
The large uncontrolled beta's should make you question the strength of the assertions as well.
interestingly, it appears that this particular case sanctions limits on firearm ownership. While broadly defining "militia" it found that the law limiting the type of shotgun did not violate the 2nd amendment.
*shrug*
-- a person as puzzled as the original questioner --
I'm in the same region as you and I absolutely agree, M.One RR was GREAT!
The switchover to comcast has been fairly good, though it looks like I'm now getting TOSed when accessing the local newsservers (which I didn't before).
They announced forthcoming terms of service changes (regarding bandwidth) that were supposed to be posted Dec 10, but are still not up. An email to their tech support on the subject got me into some kind of dante inspired paradox which leaves me forever unanswered and always being passed to someone else.
At least their dial-in cust support is ok.
This stuff with the email addresses is kinda a snafu, but I don't use those addresses anyway...
The opportunity cost of a choice is the forgone value of the next best choice.
In this case, I would say that the competing firms face a zero transfer cost for the information. That said, I only studied econ for 5 years. I am by no means an expert.
I can't think of ever seeing a word in any journal that precisely defined "initial entity bears full cost burden, additional entities bear zero cost burden".
Cartels can be very good things, mostly when they work to upset the balance of a inefficient market. Labor markets are terribly inefficient, with almost all factors weighing on the the consumer(of labor)'s behalf. Labor unions work against this inefficiency to bring the market towards an optimal equalibrium.
Unions have many implementation problems that I don't care to discuss, but don't dismiss a market bending force out of hand- they can be very useful in certain situations.
Its worth pointing out that Market share DOES define a monopoly in a "network economy".
I don't know much about "new economy", from the best of my understanding- that strictly refers to productivity growth on a macro scale, but I would be hesitant to write off marketshare as a strong indicator of the ability to monopolize a market.
As I said- it's not (necessarily) good, but the phrase "unprecedented growth" is applicable.
To caveat the "(necessarily)" I should say that there are many supply siders who would claim that heaping wealth on the wealthy is the most efficient way to achieve distrobution.
That argument sounds like horse-shit to me, but it _may_ have merit numerically.
I don't know... sustained real GDP growth of approx 6% for the past 9 years... Longest period of constant growth in history... Top income groups rasing 100% or more in the past 9 years...
Just because the bottom 3 quintiles of American income groups remain stagnant doesn't mean that we aren't seeing "unprecedented economic prosperity"- it just means that the people who have been kept down historicly are still well underfoot.
Not that this is a _good_ thing, but the line about "unprecedented" sounds valid to me (caveat: I don't know if English or Roman imperialism had these kind of growth rates over extended periods of time- they certainly had price and equity bubbles though!)
I absolutely agree, I was being a tad unfair with my ROI figures.:) We'll see if this linux thing pans out, my gut feeling is that it would just be rejected by the community, but there are a number of people who strongly feel that they just wants "what is best". I suppose there are some ways that visual studio is better than ppp.:)
Re:Illegal... but should it be?
on
Voteauction.com
·
· Score: 1
As for the fact that the person who raises the most money often wins. Well, with our current fund raising laws, this shouldn't surprise anyone. After all, with a cap on the amount an individual can give the politician with the most money generally has the most supporters.
Are you talking about America? If so, you are forgetting about soft money. IMO a soft dollar is probably worth 90% of a hard dollar due to the effectiveness which you can use it in broadcast advertising.
7%? Microsoft can get a better IRR than this by changing toilet paper venders.
But more appropriately, they can get a better return by going to a the market. They would be nuts for settling for something so low.
Now every company will of course have their own strategy (and MS is notorious for optimizing on things like market share instead of pi), but I would assume that MS wouldn't venture in unless they could expect an aggregate 20% IRR (including crossover benefits from other platforms/products).
(semantics)But the velocity of money and money itself are two differnt things.(/semantics)
But who cares about that, lets talk about monetarism.:) While velocity is a measurement of health, when you talk about "people saving money", you are talking about the personal savings rate. In particular, the proportion of the income of C (of GDP=C+I+G fame) that is not spent in a period.
For a number of reasons, having a positive personal savings rate is a GOOD thing, and it doesn't affect the velocity of money very much. By saving that money, it flows to I (of GDP), who then moves it about and in the words of W, "takes the pie higher".
If you were talking about the cash retension rates of corperations, we could say that savings is bad [if a corperations internal rate of return isn't higher than the market rate of return, that corperation shouldn't be in business]. Of course, cash reserves are necessary, but as necessary to conduct business, not as a money making process.
Bottom line, velocity = good, personal savings = good.
Its funny that you bring up _Reason_, since that is where I had read some of the kookier ideas of property assignment of commons.:)
My favorite was the sidewalk tax.
But in general, the concept usually offered is to auction usage rights, lets say parks for example. Parks get auctioned to a private holder (revenues going towards some heart warming cause) at which time the private owner rents park usage. They mitigate easy/free riding by putting up fences, and they limit liability through contract fiat (you sign to use). Even with a park, an object that seems a perfect fit for privatization, you start incurring social costs of ownership not directly paid for by the rights auction such as social exclusion costs, social loss of dealing with the walls, etc. This stuff seems trivial, but the point is that in the best case scenerio, externalities are created.
I'm not even going to TOUCH the real problems such as international pollution, wildlife stocks, and intellectual property.
caveat: There are many interesting ideas, but all of them have flaws. At what point do those flaws begin to outweight the advantage of simply leaving the public good public? I don't know, and _Reason_ doesn't either.:)
If the question of when to legislate is a matter of degree rather than form, and intelligent people are allowed to differ on the degree of encroachment of freedom, how does libertarianism offer anything philosophicly other than a relative bias against legislation?
Don't get me wrong, I tend libertarian myself, but I am by no means closed to the idea of legislation that favors the ending of such social problems as wealth distrobution inequity. Of course, suddenly I'm a liberal instead of a libertarian.
:) I'm with you on a lot of this, but I reject the notion that this one ethos solves all problems. I see it as internally inconsistant on certain issues.
> There really are no compelling arguments against libertarianism that I've seen.
OK, a convincing (and traditional) argument against libertarianism:
The Tragedy of the Commons.
Seriously, if we call libertarianism the belief in freedom from external control, then self-interested libertarians will exploit common property (air, water, etc.), free from controlling interests of others.
The libertarian answer to this problem is to create property rights for these commons. Basically, to remove the problem by definition. This is reasonable in theory, but the systems that I have heard as solutions are either extremely unwieldy or limit the liberties of the individual in favor of the state (not libertarian at all).
All of this is not to say that the libertarian philosophy does not have its place - Its just that applying it across the board, as a complete ethos, just creates a libertarian self-conflict.
(side note : Intellectual property in terms of patent, copyright, trademark, trade secret, etc. is easily viewed as an attempt to assign ownership to common goods, although in doing so there are no benefits to be gained in terms of exploitation, since the marginal cost of information is zero. I find it interesting that many self proclaimed libertarians support Intellectual property so strongly. I actually see IP ownership as an infrinigement upon my basic liberties, as it legally prevents me from using _my_ knowledge.)
Where I work, our coffee machine display's the "not ready" light until the thermometer hits 200 (180 and 190 are apparently not good enough). When its at its best, it brews at 210.
I had _small_ third degree burns making butterscotch once- it sucks, but the question of what was a "Reasonable" temperature for freshly served coffee is a pretty murky. Of course, this whole thread is sort of silly so I'll just shut up.
Slashdot Mirror
Suddenly I forsee MTU hosting some concerts for less money than they usually do...
Have you BEEN to Houghton? The best they could do when I was there was "The Romantics"... and I'm pretty sure that is made of up the children of the original band...
blindread/blindwrite will copy MW4 providing you have a burner that supports subchannel copying (such as older plextors).
Make sure you read/burn at the slowest speed though, just to be cautious... I've had issues burning at higher speeds when using all the subchannel options.
In general, there are good articles about CD authoring at gamecopyworld.com
I had to read this a number of times to get the wording to make sense, but I feel comfortable with the case now.
:)
:)
I think the implication that equating "military use" with "the effecacy of a well organized militia" is a jump, and than the argument that the only exclusion to second amendment protection is non-military characteristics of a firearm is as misplaced as the argument that because one limitation was mentioned, more are possible.
I also think that their expansive definition of militia is heavily coda'ed by the state involvement in the militia. I don't think (US v. Miller) talks about a militia that isn't run by the state.
The bottom line on this thing though is that unopposed rulings are bad precedent, and this particular ruling (by design or accident) really skirts the real issue of 2nd amendment limitations and definitions.
Maybe its good that we are set up for a review of the 9th courts ruling. Perhaps we will get a clearer message out of the court (at least we know it will be written in a more modern language).
As a strong believer in the absolutes of the constitution, I am nervous about how this ruling will come down though. I've grown fond of our firearms stalemate, where people generally accept that a private citizens right to keep and bear exists, but we still sanction limits on what we consider egregious examples (bombs, tanks, assult weapons, WMD).
Here is hoping that the constitution wins.
I'm impressed by your conclusions. :)
Its a bit refreshing to read a utilitarian viewpoint in this bath of language of "rights".
the point is that he could just have easily mis-stated his initial bias in an attempt to look more unbiased in the final results.
I've read the lott and mustard study, but not the book, and found that it was convincing enough for me to think that we (USA) should experiment with looser CCW laws, but just because the data doesn't suck, don't assume that the presenter of the data isn't biased, or assume the direction of his bias.
The large uncontrolled beta's should make you question the strength of the assertions as well.
interestingly, it appears that this particular case sanctions limits on firearm ownership. While broadly defining "militia" it found that the law limiting the type of shotgun did not violate the 2nd amendment.
*shrug*
-- a person as puzzled as the original questioner --
Try going through the "business" links on the web stores rather than the "consumer" links. They often sell the same products with more choices.
I'm in the same region as you and I absolutely agree, M.One RR was GREAT!
The switchover to comcast has been fairly good, though it looks like I'm now getting TOSed when accessing the local newsservers (which I didn't before).
They announced forthcoming terms of service changes (regarding bandwidth) that were supposed to be posted Dec 10, but are still not up. An email to their tech support on the subject got me into some kind of dante inspired paradox which leaves me forever unanswered and always being passed to someone else.
At least their dial-in cust support is ok.
This stuff with the email addresses is kinda a snafu, but I don't use those addresses anyway...
Ah well...
I don't think that is quite right.
The opportunity cost of a choice is the forgone value of the next best choice.
In this case, I would say that the competing firms face a zero transfer cost for the information. That said, I only studied econ for 5 years. I am by no means an expert.
I can't think of ever seeing a word in any journal that precisely defined "initial entity bears full cost burden, additional entities bear zero cost burden".
What does RAM stand for?
:)
(sorry...I couldn't help myself).
Cartels can be very good things, mostly when they work to upset the balance of a inefficient market. Labor markets are terribly inefficient, with almost all factors weighing on the the consumer(of labor)'s behalf. Labor unions work against this inefficiency to bring the market towards an optimal equalibrium.
Unions have many implementation problems that I don't care to discuss, but don't dismiss a market bending force out of hand- they can be very useful in certain situations.
Its worth pointing out that Market share DOES define a monopoly in a "network economy".
I don't know much about "new economy", from the best of my understanding- that strictly refers to productivity growth on a macro scale, but I would be hesitant to write off marketshare as a strong indicator of the ability to monopolize a market.
As I said- it's not (necessarily) good, but the phrase "unprecedented growth" is applicable.
To caveat the "(necessarily)" I should say that there are many supply siders who would claim that heaping wealth on the wealthy is the most efficient way to achieve distrobution.
That argument sounds like horse-shit to me, but it _may_ have merit numerically.
I don't know... sustained real GDP growth of approx 6% for the past 9 years... Longest period of constant growth in history... Top income groups rasing 100% or more in the past 9 years...
Just because the bottom 3 quintiles of American income groups remain stagnant doesn't mean that we aren't seeing "unprecedented economic prosperity"- it just means that the people who have been kept down historicly are still well underfoot.
Not that this is a _good_ thing, but the line about "unprecedented" sounds valid to me (caveat: I don't know if English or Roman imperialism had these kind of growth rates over extended periods of time- they certainly had price and equity bubbles though!)
I absolutely agree, I was being a tad unfair with my ROI figures. :) We'll see if this linux thing pans out, my gut feeling is that it would just be rejected by the community, but there are a number of people who strongly feel that they just wants "what is best". I suppose there are some ways that visual studio is better than ppp. :)
As for the fact that the person who raises the most money often wins. Well, with our current fund raising laws, this shouldn't surprise anyone. After all, with a cap on the amount an individual can give the politician with the most money generally has the most supporters.
Are you talking about America? If so, you are forgetting about soft money. IMO a soft dollar is probably worth 90% of a hard dollar due to the effectiveness which you can use it in broadcast advertising.
*shrug* Thats all...
7%? Microsoft can get a better IRR than this by changing toilet paper venders.
But more appropriately, they can get a better return by going to a the market. They would be nuts for settling for something so low.
Now every company will of course have their own strategy (and MS is notorious for optimizing on things like market share instead of pi), but I would assume that MS wouldn't venture in unless they could expect an aggregate 20% IRR (including crossover benefits from other platforms/products).
(semantics)But the velocity of money and money itself are two differnt things.(/semantics)
:) While velocity is a measurement of health, when you talk about "people saving money", you are talking about the personal savings rate. In particular, the proportion of the income of C (of GDP=C+I+G fame) that is not spent in a period.
But who cares about that, lets talk about monetarism.
For a number of reasons, having a positive personal savings rate is a GOOD thing, and it doesn't affect the velocity of money very much. By saving that money, it flows to I (of GDP), who then moves it about and in the words of W, "takes the pie higher".
If you were talking about the cash retension rates of corperations, we could say that savings is bad [if a corperations internal rate of return isn't higher than the market rate of return, that corperation shouldn't be in business]. Of course, cash reserves are necessary, but as necessary to conduct business, not as a money making process.
Bottom line, velocity = good, personal savings = good.
> What systems have you examined?
:)
:)
Its funny that you bring up _Reason_, since that is where I had read some of the kookier ideas of property assignment of commons.
My favorite was the sidewalk tax.
But in general, the concept usually offered is to auction usage rights, lets say parks for example. Parks get auctioned to a private holder (revenues going towards some heart warming cause) at which time the private owner rents park usage. They mitigate easy/free riding by putting up fences, and they limit liability through contract fiat (you sign to use). Even with a park, an object that seems a perfect fit for privatization, you start incurring social costs of ownership not directly paid for by the rights auction such as social exclusion costs, social loss of dealing with the walls, etc. This stuff seems trivial, but the point is that in the best case scenerio, externalities are created.
I'm not even going to TOUCH the real problems such as international pollution, wildlife stocks, and intellectual property.
caveat: There are many interesting ideas, but all of them have flaws. At what point do those flaws begin to outweight the advantage of simply leaving the public good public? I don't know, and _Reason_ doesn't either.
If the question of when to legislate is a matter of degree rather than form, and intelligent people are allowed to differ on the degree of encroachment of freedom, how does libertarianism offer anything philosophicly other than a relative bias against legislation?
Don't get me wrong, I tend libertarian myself, but I am by no means closed to the idea of legislation that favors the ending of such social problems as wealth distrobution inequity. Of course, suddenly I'm a liberal instead of a libertarian.
:) I'm with you on a lot of this, but I reject the notion that this one ethos solves all problems. I see it as internally inconsistant on certain issues.
Thanks
> There really are no compelling arguments against libertarianism that I've seen.
OK, a convincing (and traditional) argument against libertarianism:
The Tragedy of the Commons.
Seriously, if we call libertarianism the belief in freedom from external control, then self-interested libertarians will exploit common property (air, water, etc.), free from controlling interests of others.
The libertarian answer to this problem is to create property rights for these commons. Basically, to remove the problem by definition. This is reasonable in theory, but the systems that I have heard as solutions are either extremely unwieldy or limit the liberties of the individual in favor of the state (not libertarian at all).
All of this is not to say that the libertarian philosophy does not have its place - Its just that applying it across the board, as a complete ethos, just creates a libertarian self-conflict.
(side note : Intellectual property in terms of patent, copyright, trademark, trade secret, etc. is easily viewed as an attempt to assign ownership to common goods, although in doing so there are no benefits to be gained in terms of exploitation, since the marginal cost of information is zero. I find it interesting that many self proclaimed libertarians support Intellectual property so strongly. I actually see IP ownership as an infrinigement upon my basic liberties, as it legally prevents me from using _my_ knowledge.)
"2000: In Rod We Trust!"
:)
Thank you, Simpsons.
Sloppy, you rule. (I suppose thats a form of ad hominem (though maybe not argumentum ad hominem)).
:(
In any event, I have two things to add that you forgot to mention...
1. UCITA. aka UCC sec. 2B. aka http://badsoftware.com. Your argument is good now, but it may not always be.
2. There are some precedents supporting the validity of shrink wrap licences at the district level.
Of course, I'm with you 100%, but for the sake of completing the discussion, I figured this stuff needed to be mentioned.
Have a sloppy day.
stupid nonpoint:
Where I work, our coffee machine display's the "not ready" light until the thermometer hits 200 (180 and 190 are apparently not good enough). When its at its best, it brews at 210.
I had _small_ third degree burns making butterscotch once- it sucks, but the question of what was a "Reasonable" temperature for freshly served coffee is a pretty murky. Of course, this whole thread is sort of silly so I'll just shut up.
Actually, didn't the judge mention that "...87 percent of music traded over napster violates copyright..."?
Doesn't that imply 13% non-infringing use?