No, this is a balance between how much freedom you want to give up to your government and how much you want to keep (and SOPA and PIPA will be back and ACTA and DMCA exist now).
Trade secrets increase competition, they don't diminish it, because if somebody is doing something profitable, other people will look at it too, and if there is a trade secret involved, they'll be looking for another solution, either they'll find the same one or they'll stumble upon something new.
Trade secrets increase competition and increase research and development, copyrights and patents prevent them.
Copyrights and patents prevent speech, prevent innovation, prevent progress.
The only real free market approach to protecting your ideas is a trade secret, that's all. Government must not be allowed to meddle with businesses and protect business models and practices.
When somebody uses his savings to start a woodshop, as an example, if they fail and business dies out and they are out of their investment, there won't be government standing there with a handout, and it shouldn't be - it's personal risk.
Same with copyrights and patents - these are government handouts at the expense of the larger free market economy and it makes no sense to protect one type of investment over any other type. Government shouldn't be subsidising any businesses at all ever (banks, insurance companies and Solyndra come to mind).
Abolish copyrights and patents and check out the link I posted in this comment, it leads to my other comment on the same topic, but it's not my comment that is of interest, it's the response to my comment, with/. readers being vehemently opposed to the idea.
Why are/. readers opposed to this? Because they think that their business model is more important than a woodshop founder's business model. So the woodshop or a restaurant founder can go eat shit if his business fails (and a woodshop and especially a restaurant is a very location based heavy business, if you are in the wrong location, your business will fail, while on the Internet, businesses have access to near global markets, so there is a huge advantage for the software/book/movie/audio, etc. types of businesses there).
It's hypocrisy, it's short-sightedness, it's hubris and it shows the true colours (as in character) of the crowd.
I don't know, I lived in Canada for about 15 years, the cuisine was great, really had very little to do with British, which I find near abhorrent every time I go to London.
Sure, all the possibilities are out there, and once you prove one of those various things, we'll KNOW about them, but again, that doesn't mean we have to take anything on faith.
and just when you thought you finally figured out how to be happy with all that misery... you croaked and there is nothing left of you but some partial remains in a petrified state, and it's not even Portman.
Where EHF radiation can see through your clothes, T-rays can penetrate a few millimeters of skin.... T-ray scanners can detect toxic substances, bombs, drugs...
- that's great, so there will be even more false positives like the one that just happened with senator Rand Paul
Kentucky U.S. Senator Rand Paul was held by TSA officials at Nashville International Airport Monday morning after an "irregularity" was found during the security screening process....
Aides to the senator said Sen. Paul set off a full body scanning machine going through airport security. Sen. Paul claimed it was a "glitch" and wanted to keep going.
An aide told NBC News that Sen. Paul told the screeners he doesn't have any metal. Apparently it was his right leg that was setting off the scanner. He raised his pant leg and showed them his leg, according to the aide. Paul said it was "clearly a glitch."
The aide said TSA refused to let him re-scan and demanded that he submit to a full body pat down.
The TSA said in a news release that "the passenger" was rebooked on another flight and was rescreened without incident.
Google is not the only search engine in town, it's not a monopoly, and besides, if you feel it's bad value - you can start your own and make a ton of money. Do you think people will go to your own search engine if you do not 'punish websites with excessive ads' as opposed to using Google?
By the way, I wasn't in a quest to disprove your god, I was pointing out the absurdity and self-inconsistency of religion.
I can give you an example: god sends his son to die for the sins of the people, and this is supposedly a 'sacrifice'. Yet how can that be a sacrifice if god's son is also a god (trinity) and he can't actually die?
What is sacrificed? I sacrificed some of my hair last month! OMG, ZONG! Well, it grew back, OK then.
Is it one or three gods, by the way?
God is all powerful omnipotent yet he can 'sacrifice'? His son? Himself? Is he his own son, and if he is all powerful and omnipotent, can he commit suicide? If not, why not, and if yes, then how does this reconcile with him being all-powerful, omnipotent forever?
Here is a paradox for you: god sends his son to die for the sins of the people, and this is supposedly a 'sacrifice'. Yet how can that be a sacrifice if god's son is also a god (trinity) and he can't actually die?
What is sacrificed? I sacrificed some of my hair last month! OMG, ZONG! Well, it grew back, OK then.
One god = 3 gods = what?
God is all powerful omnipotent yet he can 'sacrifice'? His son? Himself? Is he his own son, and if he is all powerful and omnipotent, can he commit suicide? If not, why not, and if yes, then how does this reconcile with him being all-powerful, omnipotent forever?
Ron Paul is just a principled individuals, whose principles I happen to agree with and I would rather see him in the office than anybody else there, either because I don't agree with their principles or because they have none (most of them.)
I think Gary Johnson would be just as good there, but he is nowhere right now.
- The government can't get a tax write off for debt, your term 'write off' makes no sense.
- I am not talking about 'tax write off', I am talking about government buying out the student debt with printed money.
- TARP money was counted as government debt, and has been repaid. This is like bringing up WW2 war bonds for some reason.
- TARP transferred completely worthless equity from the banks to the Treasury. If Treasury tried to sell the debt it would quickly find out just how much it's really worth. As to banks repaying loans they got - they'll need them again soon enough since they are all actually completely broke, bankrupt. When interest rates go just above 4% all of the banks holdings will be in the red, because they are lending to US Treasury at current interest rates while getting the money from Fed's discount window at 0, once they have to pay more interest back to the Fed than they get from Treasury, they are all gone and will be bailed out again.
Effectively student loan interest is guaranteed by the government, not the balance. The balance is guaranteed to come from the student because you can't bankrupt yourself out of student loans.
- ha ha, I said: this debt will be written off, taken care off most likely in a huge bail out.
- Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid currently have no debt.
- SS, Medicare, Medicaid have no assets, they are all debt. They are all IOUs - gov't bonds. If you write yourself a check for a million bucks but you don't have the money, you don't magically become a millionaire.
- Debt and Insurance are not the same thing, anyone who thinks they are the same thing should not offer their opinion.
- all of the US government provided 'insurance' is all debt to the US gov't, so if/when banks fail, FDIC is going to cover small deposits, (but it will just cover all, doesn't matter, FDIC doesn't have any money, it's a ruse). Fed will print that money - it's all going to be on the Treasury's balance, and you don't understand even the premise here.
- The US Government will never run out of money, because they PRINT IT.
- correct. They'll run out of VALUE, so those dollars will buy nothing, but they can print till they are blue in the face and they run out of trees.
- The only result of any government running out of money (federal, state, or local) is that the Chinese will eventually have a better standard of living than we do, sooner.
- I am not going to disagree here. The sooner Chinese stop subsidising consumption for others and take care of themselves, the better for them.
And again, 'abolish' is not the answer, something always takes place there, so the answer is to reset it with the law above it - the Constitution, that would be followed again to the letter. The law above the government is the actual solution, not complete anarchy. However if it's not done, then something else will happen to he society, and it's going to be much worse than even anarchy.
Of-course if one never took an oath of faith to Islam, then he can't even break it. Are the children of Muslims forced to take this oath early in life and if so, how can a forced oath count for anything?
I think prostitution must be legal and all the drugs too, just to clear that from the way.
However the Senate and Congress were very much responsible for pushing for more and more quotas on how many bad mortgages are "insured" (without any assets, as all gov't 'insurance' is - a pyramid scam). They upped the ante over the last 20 years. By 1990 it was about 30%, by 2000 it was over 50% by 2006 it was 65%.
By now when somebody tells you that US debt is 15 Trillion, they are oblivious. US debt consists of those 15 Trillion + all of the bad debt bought out by TARP + all of the privately held credit card debt, because the banks have an implicit guarantee that they will never lose money, not while US Fed is around + about half of the existing mortgages are insured by FHA and F&F (a Trillion is 'insured' by FHA with only 5 Billion in assets, so you can calculate the ratio, right?)
Plus don't forget all of the SS and Medicare debt + all of the State and Municipal debt.
Besides, when then bonds go sour, the US Fed will start printing to buy all of them back, but also the counterparties with all of the derivatives will be bailed out again, and last time it was about 14 Trillion that was used to bail out everybody, it's going to be much more next time because of all the QEs.
Also there are car loans and other businesses guaranteed by the government.
The real US debt is way over 100 Trillion. Barney and Dodd are responsible for some portion of it.
Most of it is the Fed monetising the US debt and 'saving' the economy by bailing out the banks and home owners and businesses and in future - States and Municipalities and more businesses and more home owners.
Oh, and then there is 1 Trillion in student debt - also guaranteed by the government. They'll write it off too.
By the way, where in the Constitution does it say that the gov't can do any of it? Right, nowhere.
Lobbying wouldn't be such a problem if politicians were less lazy. If they heard from lobbyists and then did some real research on the topic, then lobbying would just do what it was meant to: bring issues to the attention of elected representatives.
- oh, the innocent naivety!
Do you know that the members of Senate/Congress can receive legal bribes in form of company shares but not as cash? Do you know that information on who is going to receive an approval on a new medical procedure/drug/device and who will not get that approval can flow from FDA office to a third party legally?
You think lobbyists will keep coming to a Senator/Congressman/White House occupant who will take their money and will not deliver?
You think Dodd would have been hired as a lobbyist (after explicitly saying he won't lobby) by MPAA/RIAA if he didn't play ball while back in Senate?
No, the only real solution is to take the power of regulating individual business activity, taxing income/payroll/corporations away from government and return the power to run businesses as they see fit to the people.
The real solution is to make the government uphold the Constitution for a change and not do what they are not authorised to do there. Only when you take away their power to steal your power, they will stop selling it, because they won't have it ready to be sold.
Slashdot Mirror
No, this is a balance between how much freedom you want to give up to your government and how much you want to keep (and SOPA and PIPA will be back and ACTA and DMCA exist now).
Trade secrets increase competition, they don't diminish it, because if somebody is doing something profitable, other people will look at it too, and if there is a trade secret involved, they'll be looking for another solution, either they'll find the same one or they'll stumble upon something new.
Trade secrets increase competition and increase research and development, copyrights and patents prevent them.
Same answer applies every time abolish copyrights and patents.
Copyrights and patents prevent speech, prevent innovation, prevent progress.
The only real free market approach to protecting your ideas is a trade secret, that's all. Government must not be allowed to meddle with businesses and protect business models and practices.
When somebody uses his savings to start a woodshop, as an example, if they fail and business dies out and they are out of their investment, there won't be government standing there with a handout, and it shouldn't be - it's personal risk.
Same with copyrights and patents - these are government handouts at the expense of the larger free market economy and it makes no sense to protect one type of investment over any other type. Government shouldn't be subsidising any businesses at all ever (banks, insurance companies and Solyndra come to mind).
Abolish copyrights and patents and check out the link I posted in this comment, it leads to my other comment on the same topic, but it's not my comment that is of interest, it's the response to my comment, with /. readers being vehemently opposed to the idea.
Why are /. readers opposed to this? Because they think that their business model is more important than a woodshop founder's business model. So the woodshop or a restaurant founder can go eat shit if his business fails (and a woodshop and especially a restaurant is a very location based heavy business, if you are in the wrong location, your business will fail, while on the Internet, businesses have access to near global markets, so there is a huge advantage for the software/book/movie/audio, etc. types of businesses there).
It's hypocrisy, it's short-sightedness, it's hubris and it shows the true colours (as in character) of the crowd.
no, that wasn't, but this was
I don't know, I lived in Canada for about 15 years, the cuisine was great, really had very little to do with British, which I find near abhorrent every time I go to London.
Sure, all the possibilities are out there, and once you prove one of those various things, we'll KNOW about them, but again, that doesn't mean we have to take anything on faith.
and just when you thought you finally figured out how to be happy with all that misery ... you croaked and there is nothing left of you but some partial remains in a petrified state, and it's not even Portman.
well then, you can shut down /., my work is done here.
Well, he also switched his position on federal capital punishment, he used to be for it.
Yes, and when Rand grows up he can be a Representative too.
Where EHF radiation can see through your clothes, T-rays can penetrate a few millimeters of skin. ...
T-ray scanners can detect toxic substances, bombs, drugs...
- that's great, so there will be even more false positives like the one that just happened with senator Rand Paul
Sen. Rand Paul stopped by TSA at Nashville Airport
Kentucky U.S. Senator Rand Paul was held by TSA officials at Nashville International Airport Monday morning after an "irregularity" was found during the security screening process. ...
Aides to the senator said Sen. Paul set off a full body scanning machine going through airport security. Sen. Paul claimed it was a "glitch" and wanted to keep going.
An aide told NBC News that Sen. Paul told the screeners he doesn't have any metal. Apparently it was his right leg that was setting off the scanner. He raised his pant leg and showed them his leg, according to the aide. Paul said it was "clearly a glitch."
The aide said TSA refused to let him re-scan and demanded that he submit to a full body pat down.
The TSA said in a news release that "the passenger" was rebooked on another flight and was rescreened without incident.
Google is not the only search engine in town, it's not a monopoly, and besides, if you feel it's bad value - you can start your own and make a ton of money. Do you think people will go to your own search engine if you do not 'punish websites with excessive ads' as opposed to using Google?
1. No electrical infrastructure to support these.
2. All of the things you mentioned are true to a degree, that's what makes the market for these things so tiny right now.
3. We need more nuclear power, small nuclear power right on board of these cars.
I have a comment I don't want to repeat, just for the hell of it, here it is.
By the way, I wasn't in a quest to disprove your god, I was pointing out the absurdity and self-inconsistency of religion.
I can give you an example: god sends his son to die for the sins of the people, and this is supposedly a 'sacrifice'. Yet how can that be a sacrifice if god's son is also a god (trinity) and he can't actually die?
What is sacrificed? I sacrificed some of my hair last month! OMG, ZONG! Well, it grew back, OK then.
Is it one or three gods, by the way?
God is all powerful omnipotent yet he can 'sacrifice'? His son? Himself? Is he his own son, and if he is all powerful and omnipotent, can he commit suicide? If not, why not, and if yes, then how does this reconcile with him being all-powerful, omnipotent forever?
enjoy
You comment... it's unreadable.
Here is a paradox for you: god sends his son to die for the sins of the people, and this is supposedly a 'sacrifice'. Yet how can that be a sacrifice if god's son is also a god (trinity) and he can't actually die?
What is sacrificed? I sacrificed some of my hair last month! OMG, ZONG! Well, it grew back, OK then.
One god = 3 gods = what?
God is all powerful omnipotent yet he can 'sacrifice'? His son? Himself? Is he his own son, and if he is all powerful and omnipotent, can he commit suicide? If not, why not, and if yes, then how does this reconcile with him being all-powerful, omnipotent forever?
enjoy
Ron Paul is just a principled individuals, whose principles I happen to agree with and I would rather see him in the office than anybody else there, either because I don't agree with their principles or because they have none (most of them.)
I think Gary Johnson would be just as good there, but he is nowhere right now.
my answer is in this same thread, is it hard to find?
So why the '3'?
- The government can't get a tax write off for debt, your term 'write off' makes no sense.
- I am not talking about 'tax write off', I am talking about government buying out the student debt with printed money.
- TARP money was counted as government debt, and has been repaid. This is like bringing up WW2 war bonds for some reason.
- TARP transferred completely worthless equity from the banks to the Treasury. If Treasury tried to sell the debt it would quickly find out just how much it's really worth. As to banks repaying loans they got - they'll need them again soon enough since they are all actually completely broke, bankrupt. When interest rates go just above 4% all of the banks holdings will be in the red, because they are lending to US Treasury at current interest rates while getting the money from Fed's discount window at 0, once they have to pay more interest back to the Fed than they get from Treasury, they are all gone and will be bailed out again.
Effectively student loan interest is guaranteed by the government, not the balance. The balance is guaranteed to come from the student because you can't bankrupt yourself out of student loans.
- ha ha, I said: this debt will be written off, taken care off most likely in a huge bail out.
- Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid currently have no debt.
- SS, Medicare, Medicaid have no assets, they are all debt. They are all IOUs - gov't bonds. If you write yourself a check for a million bucks but you don't have the money, you don't magically become a millionaire.
- Debt and Insurance are not the same thing, anyone who thinks they are the same thing should not offer their opinion.
- all of the US government provided 'insurance' is all debt to the US gov't, so if/when banks fail, FDIC is going to cover small deposits, (but it will just cover all, doesn't matter, FDIC doesn't have any money, it's a ruse). Fed will print that money - it's all going to be on the Treasury's balance, and you don't understand even the premise here.
- The US Government will never run out of money, because they PRINT IT.
- correct. They'll run out of VALUE, so those dollars will buy nothing, but they can print till they are blue in the face and they run out of trees.
- The only result of any government running out of money (federal, state, or local) is that the Chinese will eventually have a better standard of living than we do, sooner.
- I am not going to disagree here. The sooner Chinese stop subsidising consumption for others and take care of themselves, the better for them.
And again, 'abolish' is not the answer, something always takes place there, so the answer is to reset it with the law above it - the Constitution, that would be followed again to the letter. The law above the government is the actual solution, not complete anarchy. However if it's not done, then something else will happen to he society, and it's going to be much worse than even anarchy.
The only power that matters in a free economy is power of government, which has the legitimacy under law and police/military power on its side.
You don't have to deal with private corporations but you are forced to deal with the monopoly of government.
Of-course if one never took an oath of faith to Islam, then he can't even break it. Are the children of Muslims forced to take this oath early in life and if so, how can a forced oath count for anything?
It's more illogical insanity.
I think prostitution must be legal and all the drugs too, just to clear that from the way.
However the Senate and Congress were very much responsible for pushing for more and more quotas on how many bad mortgages are "insured" (without any assets, as all gov't 'insurance' is - a pyramid scam). They upped the ante over the last 20 years. By 1990 it was about 30%, by 2000 it was over 50% by 2006 it was 65%.
By now when somebody tells you that US debt is 15 Trillion, they are oblivious. US debt consists of those 15 Trillion + all of the bad debt bought out by TARP + all of the privately held credit card debt, because the banks have an implicit guarantee that they will never lose money, not while US Fed is around + about half of the existing mortgages are insured by FHA and F&F (a Trillion is 'insured' by FHA with only 5 Billion in assets, so you can calculate the ratio, right?)
Plus don't forget all of the SS and Medicare debt + all of the State and Municipal debt.
Besides, when then bonds go sour, the US Fed will start printing to buy all of them back, but also the counterparties with all of the derivatives will be bailed out again, and last time it was about 14 Trillion that was used to bail out everybody, it's going to be much more next time because of all the QEs.
Also there are car loans and other businesses guaranteed by the government.
The real US debt is way over 100 Trillion. Barney and Dodd are responsible for some portion of it.
Most of it is the Fed monetising the US debt and 'saving' the economy by bailing out the banks and home owners and businesses and in future - States and Municipalities and more businesses and more home owners.
Oh, and then there is 1 Trillion in student debt - also guaranteed by the government. They'll write it off too.
By the way, where in the Constitution does it say that the gov't can do any of it? Right, nowhere.
Lobbying wouldn't be such a problem if politicians were less lazy. If they heard from lobbyists and then did some real research on the topic, then lobbying would just do what it was meant to: bring issues to the attention of elected representatives.
- oh, the innocent naivety!
Do you know that the members of Senate/Congress can receive legal bribes in form of company shares but not as cash? Do you know that information on who is going to receive an approval on a new medical procedure/drug/device and who will not get that approval can flow from FDA office to a third party legally?
You think lobbyists will keep coming to a Senator/Congressman/White House occupant who will take their money and will not deliver?
You think Dodd would have been hired as a lobbyist (after explicitly saying he won't lobby) by MPAA/RIAA if he didn't play ball while back in Senate?
No, the only real solution is to take the power of regulating individual business activity, taxing income/payroll/corporations away from government and return the power to run businesses as they see fit to the people.
The real solution is to make the government uphold the Constitution for a change and not do what they are not authorised to do there. Only when you take away their power to steal your power, they will stop selling it, because they won't have it ready to be sold.
I did say on this very issue that religion is inconsistent and illogical and I would like to add it's schizophrenic.