Since trees, bears, and wildlife can't exactly go to the bank and collect fees for the pollution we make them deal with, often the government does the collecting on their behalf.
Nature doesn't have a collection agency of its own.
The market doesn't need any help wringing out inefficiency.
That's the whole POINT of having a free market in the first place.
If the free market hasn't seen fit to give incandescents the heave ho then maybe they're not that inefficient after all?
How much do CFL's cost to produce versus how long do they last, and how long do incandescents cost versus how long do they last?
If the free market isn't budging away from incandescents there's probably a reason for it.
The government shouldn't be getting into the light bulb business. It needs to stick to the source of the problem, and if it thinks that too much pollution is happening, it ought to put a tax on dirty energy and let the market decide for itself if polluting is still worth it. Just make pollution expensive on its own and the free market will follow. Messing with lightbulbs is not a bright idea because it's too indirect.
Like it or not it IS the government's business what you do on THEIR ROADS.
This is also the implied consent to take a breathalyzer to get a license. The roads are not free for everyone to use as they see fit, they BELONG to the government. It's *government* property.
You are perfectly free to refuse to wear a belt on your own property. But the minute you step on government asphalt, you abide by their rules. The same sense of "my turf my rules" that you advocate when you tell the governemnt to piss off out of your own business.
You cannot simultaneously do as you please on your own property and at the same time be callous of the fact that the government owns the road you seek to drive on.
So very much a bad analogy.
You wanna drive your way, then pour your own asphalt. You wanna drive on public roads, follow the government's rules.
And if you don't like the government's rules, suck it up. Except through a special process called voting, you have no more right to tell the government how to run their roads any more than the government has any right telling you which lightbulbs to buy.
Or how about remove the distinction entirely and treat everyone as a person and let them keep the fruit of doing better together?
Giving a couple, married or otherwise, less of a tax break than the component people combined is a disincentive to marry, and it's an artificial one at that.
It is none of the government's business to say that a couple's income should be combined and taxed together.
What they really ought to do is put a tax on dirty energy and then let the market sort it out.
If they want to protect the environment, they should focus on as direct a connection as possible. Snooping up the supply chain is a good way to cause collateral damage.
Trying to learn to act like an adult with an overbearing parent micromanaging your every move is like trying to learn how to ride a bike without taking the training wheels off.
Experience is the only way anything new is really learned.
My prediction is that his voice will be censured as biased and contrary to his position as a congress critter, and that the net effect will be that it backfires,. I also predict that is his plan all along.
Anyone in congress should more than anyone know the first amendment, and I doubt he is ignorant of the concept of separation of church and state. For him to open his mouth about this is bold and surely he knows that he'll probably be called on it for that reason.
If you're in government generally you are expected to keep your mouth shut about religion, especially when offering positions that could be construed as government sponsored.
It is likely that the printer company will hide behind the typical "all your base are belong to us" type of clause that lets them repo the printer for any or no reason as they alone see fit.
In this case it was the printer manufacturer pitching a hissy fit and probably invoking their catch-all clause allowing them to act in their sole and final discretion.
Companies often put these clauses in their contracts to give themselves leverage.
Sure, go ahead and blame him as a scapegoat for unleashing the dogs of war.
Let me lay it on you. The powers that be are the ones to blame, since they are the ones looking to stir things up by tossing the constitution out the window.
If a homicidal maniac veers *into* someone crossing the street, do you blame the pedestrian?
Or does him having a big badass truck somehow make him immune to the obligation of following the law?
I say kudos to him for exposing the printing company for the government lapdogs they really are.
Don't blame the undertaker who is only cleaning up after the murderer.
Getting patents on stupid shit is already illegal.
Obvious, non novel, and such are ALREADY criteria on which to reject a patent. Yet they are not being rejected because the USPTO is under severe pressure to rubber stamp everything while they drown in a sea of applications filed by an army of corporate lawyers.
Meanwhile, the courts are willfully blind to this and pretend that the USPTO is doing its job.
Worse yet, you cannot get a reexam without putting your own legal position in jeopardy, since the USC says that you are not allowed to use prior art as a defense in a patent infringement suit if you could have used it during a reexam but neglected to do so. So once you fuck up at the USPTO, you're screwed in federal court even if the prior art is blatantly obvious.
The USPTO needs to grow a spine and do its fucking job. Bullshit patents need to stop being issued in the first place.
If you want to stop a nuclear war, stop giving nukes out.
Slashdot Mirror
For full information please study "Vicarious liability"
Are CFLs more efficient than incandescents?
They are in the home, but what about at the factory that makes them?
Not only do you have a power bill to worry about, but you also have the cost of the bulbs.
Since trees, bears, and wildlife can't exactly go to the bank and collect fees for the pollution we make them deal with, often the government does the collecting on their behalf.
Nature doesn't have a collection agency of its own.
The market doesn't need any help wringing out inefficiency.
That's the whole POINT of having a free market in the first place.
If the free market hasn't seen fit to give incandescents the heave ho then maybe they're not that inefficient after all?
How much do CFL's cost to produce versus how long do they last, and how long do incandescents cost versus how long do they last?
If the free market isn't budging away from incandescents there's probably a reason for it.
The government shouldn't be getting into the light bulb business. It needs to stick to the source of the problem, and if it thinks that too much pollution is happening, it ought to put a tax on dirty energy and let the market decide for itself if polluting is still worth it. Just make pollution expensive on its own and the free market will follow. Messing with lightbulbs is not a bright idea because it's too indirect.
Like it or not it IS the government's business what you do on THEIR ROADS.
This is also the implied consent to take a breathalyzer to get a license. The roads are not free for everyone to use as they see fit, they BELONG to the government. It's *government* property.
You are perfectly free to refuse to wear a belt on your own property. But the minute you step on government asphalt, you abide by their rules. The same sense of "my turf my rules" that you advocate when you tell the governemnt to piss off out of your own business.
You cannot simultaneously do as you please on your own property and at the same time be callous of the fact that the government owns the road you seek to drive on.
So very much a bad analogy.
You wanna drive your way, then pour your own asphalt. You wanna drive on public roads, follow the government's rules.
And if you don't like the government's rules, suck it up. Except through a special process called voting, you have no more right to tell the government how to run their roads any more than the government has any right telling you which lightbulbs to buy.
Or how about remove the distinction entirely and treat everyone as a person and let them keep the fruit of doing better together?
Giving a couple, married or otherwise, less of a tax break than the component people combined is a disincentive to marry, and it's an artificial one at that.
It is none of the government's business to say that a couple's income should be combined and taxed together.
All the republicans seem to want to do is flush obama down the tubes even if they have to send the whole country down with him.
How about politicians suck in general and I'd rather not be forced to choose between kodos and kang.
-5 might be bigger than -7, but they're both still less than zero.
Can't I just agree with them?
Seriously, opinions are one of the last things you can have a monopoly on.
What they really ought to do is put a tax on dirty energy and then let the market sort it out.
If they want to protect the environment, they should focus on as direct a connection as possible. Snooping up the supply chain is a good way to cause collateral damage.
Trying to learn to act like an adult with an overbearing parent micromanaging your every move is like trying to learn how to ride a bike without taking the training wheels off.
Experience is the only way anything new is really learned.
My prediction is that his voice will be censured as biased and contrary to his position as a congress critter, and that the net effect will be that it backfires,. I also predict that is his plan all along.
Anyone in congress should more than anyone know the first amendment, and I doubt he is ignorant of the concept of separation of church and state. For him to open his mouth about this is bold and surely he knows that he'll probably be called on it for that reason.
If you're in government generally you are expected to keep your mouth shut about religion, especially when offering positions that could be construed as government sponsored.
Isn't that a good thing we like to call "competition"?
Quite.
I don't drink beer myself but I'm rather fond of letting the market sort it out.
Are they sure that the syrup they're returning hasn't been contaminated?
Stealing something and then making it easy to recover seems to be a perfect trojan horse.
Sadly they also have a badge behind their fear mongering.
It is likely that the printer company will hide behind the typical "all your base are belong to us" type of clause that lets them repo the printer for any or no reason as they alone see fit.
It's a wikipedia meme you idiot, meaning asking for proof of statement.
It's a slashdot unwritten policy, not a law.
In this case it was the printer manufacturer pitching a hissy fit and probably invoking their catch-all clause allowing them to act in their sole and final discretion.
Companies often put these clauses in their contracts to give themselves leverage.
Sure, go ahead and blame him as a scapegoat for unleashing the dogs of war.
Let me lay it on you. The powers that be are the ones to blame, since they are the ones looking to stir things up by tossing the constitution out the window.
If a homicidal maniac veers *into* someone crossing the street, do you blame the pedestrian?
Or does him having a big badass truck somehow make him immune to the obligation of following the law?
I say kudos to him for exposing the printing company for the government lapdogs they really are.
Don't blame the undertaker who is only cleaning up after the murderer.
you broke the unwritten law of "don't piss off a business that has you by the balls"
Getting patents on stupid shit is already illegal.
Obvious, non novel, and such are ALREADY criteria on which to reject a patent. Yet they are not being rejected because the USPTO is under severe pressure to rubber stamp everything while they drown in a sea of applications filed by an army of corporate lawyers.
Meanwhile, the courts are willfully blind to this and pretend that the USPTO is doing its job.
Worse yet, you cannot get a reexam without putting your own legal position in jeopardy, since the USC says that you are not allowed to use prior art as a defense in a patent infringement suit if you could have used it during a reexam but neglected to do so. So once you fuck up at the USPTO, you're screwed in federal court even if the prior art is blatantly obvious.
The USPTO needs to grow a spine and do its fucking job. Bullshit patents need to stop being issued in the first place.
If you want to stop a nuclear war, stop giving nukes out.
Government doesn't work perioud because people themselves are inherently abusive.
The only difference between the haves adn the have nots is that the haves are in charge and the nots aren't
If a 99 percenter got into office it would be the same song and dance.
The only exceptions to this rule are also the type of nice guys that would finish last in a dog eat dog runoff to actually get into office.
In real life, there is no referee, and kicking someone below the belt is often the most effective way to win a fight.
Threaties, more likely.
The international field of diplomacy and politics is no different than the small field of diplomacy and politics.
Big pharma does not produce cures, and their bed buddies in the FDA won't let anyone else either.