Joe Next Door loses when electricity rates go up in reponse to the increased electricity demand.
So your increase in demand is being subsidized by your Joe Next Door paying more for the same amount of electricity, or by his reduction in electricity use to maintain the same agregate demand.
With this ban, I would be subsidizing Joe's cheap electricity.
[the electricity rates] likely won't come down until years after a new generation plant is built
In this case, the pressure to improve power efficiency would have been delayed while waiting for the invisible hand to stop scratching its ass.
The increased pressure would likely speed that process up, not delay it.
On the broader issue of global warming, waiting for the invisible hand to correct the market is a non-starter. By the time market pressures build enough for people to notice, the damage has been done.
The market exists in people's heads. Are you aware of global warming? Are you ready to spend resources (sacrifice consumption) to curb global warming? By spending your resources this way, you are buying Less-Global-Warming.
The damage needs to be done (ie population reduction due to decreased food production) for there to be a market pressure.
But you are buying Less-Global-Warming in anticipation of that event, so the market does work.
To photograph the Moon landing sites in high detail, with cheap home made equipment, the bunch of moon-landing-deniers could each buy a small telescope, coordinate them across the net in real time, and use adaptive optics techniques to combine and sharpen the images, the same way the Keck team photographed those exo-planets.
I think, with a million home telescopes linked up, all pointed at the landing sites, with adaptive optics, they could count the stars on the flags (at least).
What about the idea of property? To be free, should there be a notion of property? Should people own things they need? Like food, clothing, and shelter? Where does the idea of ownership end? Describe the act of owning. How can you know if you own something or not?
Answering your questions. Property is only that, an idea. You can live free without the idea of property - if the other people let you / don't get in your way. They may do whatever they want with their food, clothing, and shelter as long as you don't interfere - it's up to you to grant them "ownership" over their stuff. They lose ownership whenever you no longer acknowledge / grant their ownership over a particular item. Someone owns something, when you agree with it - but this relationship is reciprocal - you own your stuff only if others acknowledge it. You can ask them whether they acknowledge your property or not.
How does one violate the "self-ownership" of another? When can you decide that this concept of liberty has been violated?
You ask them.
Does your philosophy tolerate others whose ideas of liberty differ to some extent or other? Or do believe that other people should follow this same formula?
Yes, as long as they don't violate my self-ownership. No, I don't care what they follow.
When you have answered these questions, you will also have established a type of law.
You keep using abstract terms like "law."
You make statements about these things, take positions on them, argue about them, but never seem to define them.
My idea of "law" is forcing one's rules on others at gunpoint, be it one's own gun, or a hired gun like a policeman - it's all the same. Under this definition, I have not estabilished a "law."
You seem to think that liberty for yourself and others is a good thing. What is your idea of liberty? Can it be achieved without law? How can it be guaranteed?
"law"?
I'll guarantee my own, and let others take care of themselves?
Wrong. You have to pay for food too. That doesn't mean someone is keeping it away from you. It just means you have to give something to get something. Food for money, science for money.
But yeah, copyright gets in the way here. One more reason to abolish it.
The word "child porn" is ambiguous because it means both
"underaged premature kids"
"mature, but not legally recognized adults"
The first one is truly sick. The second is not.
There is a sharp distinction between the two, but the word "child porn" hides the distinction, because of the legal definition of "child" (under 18 usually). And that makes regulation of "child porn" very dangerous, with unnecessarily ruined lives, and idiocy like this:
by digitrev (989335)
* A (pornographic) photo of an 18 year old would be legal.
* A photo of a 16/17 year old would be taken from you, but not result in prosecution.
* A photo of a 15 year old would result in a prosecution for anyone over the age of 20. Otherwise the photo is taken from you.
* A photo of a 14 year old would result in a prosecution for anyone over the age of 19. Otherwise the photo is taken from you.
* A photo of a 13 year old would result in a prosecution for anyone over the age of 16. Otherwise the photo is taken from you.
* A photo of a 12 year old would result in a prosecution for anyone over the age of 13. Otherwise the photo is taken from you.
Everyone in this thread is talking about the second kind of "child porn", and that's no surprise, because only that's controversial, because there are no "children" in it.
But when one tries to address this issue, they always get responses like yours: "then you need to open it up to newborns".
Because of our imprecise definition of CP.
by Forge (2456)
There is a new category of child porn that has started to pop up lately. Child produced pornography. This means 3 or 4 children, all the same age who take turns operating a cameraphone and performing for it. Then they send out the video to other children via MMS, Bluetooth and Email. The 1st such "work" that came to public attention locally was on the cellphones or computers of thousands of children before the 1st adult saw it.
Those are your two year olds with cell phones, taking turns.
Perverted? Maybe. But the fact is there is a market for this sort of stuff.
No, there's a very small market for "real child porn".
Then don't waste the time while the child is growing up, before it reaches the adult limit at 13. Instead, during that time, spend the effort to teach the child the proper adult behaviors, and all the knowledge he needs to become a self sufficient adult. Then he won't have problems with "abuse", he will be able to decide for himself, just like you can now, because he was prepared. This should be the job of the parents. Most of this should be obvious.
It's kind of retarded to call them children after 13, when they can have their own children. Child-parents? Makes no sense.
There is evidence that people we think are not buying music are buying music. They're just not buying it in formats we can measure.
Notice how he said "people are buying music" instead of "people are buying our music". The EMI and RIAA folks must be thinking that they are the music authority.
Capitalism suffers from the same problem as Communism and Anarchy. In order for it to work, people need to not be jerks.
If we are all jerks, we will balance each other out. Problem solved.
Now, if we could only make ourselves less stupid. Anarchy offers the solution: eliminate government schools. That would remove the impediment to solving the next problem:
We just have to be willing to pay the price and suffer for no other reason than it is the right thing to do.
Slashdot Mirror
With this ban, I would be subsidizing Joe's cheap electricity.
The increased pressure would likely speed that process up, not delay it.
The market exists in people's heads. Are you aware of global warming? Are you ready to spend resources (sacrifice consumption) to curb global warming? By spending your resources this way, you are buying Less-Global-Warming.
But you are buying Less-Global-Warming in anticipation of that event, so the market does work.
The moon is too bright.
Try it at night, when it's not lit.
It's still too bright.
Use less sensitive optics.
Good idea!
And to make it interesting to slashdot:
To photograph the Moon landing sites in high detail, with cheap home made equipment, the bunch of moon-landing-deniers could each buy a small telescope, coordinate them across the net in real time, and use adaptive optics techniques to combine and sharpen the images, the same way the Keck team photographed those exo-planets.
I think, with a million home telescopes linked up, all pointed at the landing sites, with adaptive optics, they could count the stars on the flags (at least).
How can IT Businesses solve the Permanent Energy Crisis? Answer: provide more computing resources for fusion power research.
Right, it was a mistake. Sorry.
Answering your questions. Property is only that, an idea. You can live free without the idea of property - if the other people let you / don't get in your way. They may do whatever they want with their food, clothing, and shelter as long as you don't interfere - it's up to you to grant them "ownership" over their stuff. They lose ownership whenever you no longer acknowledge / grant their ownership over a particular item. Someone owns something, when you agree with it - but this relationship is reciprocal - you own your stuff only if others acknowledge it. You can ask them whether they acknowledge your property or not.
You ask them.
Yes, as long as they don't violate my self-ownership. No, I don't care what they follow.
You keep using abstract terms like "law."
You make statements about these things, take positions on them, argue about them, but never seem to define them.
My idea of "law" is forcing one's rules on others at gunpoint, be it one's own gun, or a hired gun like a policeman - it's all the same. Under this definition, I have not estabilished a "law."
"law"?
I'll guarantee my own, and let others take care of themselves?
Wrong. You have to pay for food too. That doesn't mean someone is keeping it away from you. It just means you have to give something to get something. Food for money, science for money.
But yeah, copyright gets in the way here. One more reason to abolish it.
The word "child porn" is ambiguous because it means both
The first one is truly sick. The second is not.
There is a sharp distinction between the two, but the word "child porn" hides the distinction, because of the legal definition of "child" (under 18 usually). And that makes regulation of "child porn" very dangerous, with unnecessarily ruined lives, and idiocy like this:
by digitrev (989335)Everyone in this thread is talking about the second kind of "child porn", and that's no surprise, because only that's controversial, because there are no "children" in it.
But when one tries to address this issue, they always get responses like yours: "then you need to open it up to newborns".
Because of our imprecise definition of CP.
by Forge (2456)Those are your two year olds with cell phones, taking turns.
No, there's a very small market for "real child porn".
Then don't waste the time while the child is growing up, before it reaches the adult limit at 13. Instead, during that time, spend the effort to teach the child the proper adult behaviors, and all the knowledge he needs to become a self sufficient adult. Then he won't have problems with "abuse", he will be able to decide for himself, just like you can now, because he was prepared. This should be the job of the parents. Most of this should be obvious.
It's kind of retarded to call them children after 13, when they can have their own children. Child-parents? Makes no sense.
What are we regulating then?
Hero!
ha 220 votes against 5 billion dollars / year
The prime minister chooses the money!
Notice how he said "people are buying music" instead of "people are buying our music". The EMI and RIAA folks must be thinking that they are the music authority.
So just don't buy theirs, and let em rot.
If we are all jerks, we will balance each other out. Problem solved.
Now, if we could only make ourselves less stupid. Anarchy offers the solution: eliminate government schools. That would remove the impediment to solving the next problem: