the next big thing: hijack other people's vision by cracking whatever needs to be cracked (and it seems there is nothing to crack there, except the frequency at this point), send advertising directly into people's eyes.
You can't even CLOSE your eyes at that point, you close your eyes and the images still keep on coming! (which, by the way, could be a new way to do something about insomnia for some people, just project the jumping sheep right into the eyes for a while).
By all reasonable metrics, the US government is more efficient then business.
- by all reasonable metric this statement is not just wrong, it's insane. No business can run decades on deficits with what amounts to unlimited debt, because no business can tax, borrow and counterfeit the way government does.
The post office? is fine. It movies 40% of all mail in the world, and private delivery business use the USPS for delivery becasue it's cheaper and more efficient.
- USPS is SUBSIDIZED.
If a 'business' is subsidized the way government subsidizes every one of its dealings, then sure, the profits don't matter, the earnings don't matter.
USPS is selling "forever stamps" for a reason - they don't know how else to raise the cash. This is with the rampant inflation, and the stamp prices that are held hostage to the political pressure to pretend that inflation is non-existent. What's funny is that USPS will be even more broke (which is funny, any non-government related business would have collapsed long time ago if ran that way), and in a year or two, with inflation higher even than now, people won't be buying stamps then, they'll try to use their 'forever' stamps. Of-course that will put the USPS into more trouble. The gov't will bail it out of-course.
Everything gov't does is a subsidy. They tell you nonsense about medicare for example, as if it's more efficient than a private company would do, but that's more nonsense. All gov't programs are subsidized, their liabilities are moved to other gov't books and you don't see the losses. The spending always grows, the borrowing grows, the deficit grow and the government grows.
And so what? The poverty grows, the problems grow, the wars grow, the collapses grow the education is in a hole, all gov't subsidized systems are bankrupt.
are you telling me that governments are not efficient at something? Are you saying they don't care about the spending because they don't have to balance the books because they can just tax, borrow and counterfeit more? How is that post office doing?
It would be nice if someone had something intelligent to say about this.
Well, apparently to catch the message at all, the ionic frequency had to be inverted to align the stream lattice with the high gain antenna of the probe. Without this the electromagnetic overcharge was too high and would polarize the signal above the neutron density carrier.
The drug was has caused actual war on the streets, and war in Mexico and hugest population of non-violent drug related prisoners in the world. It is part of the economic problem as well, with all the resources that go into it and all the regulations like the one in this story, which in fact destroys jobs.
Oh, so you think it's a 'troll' to check the motivations of the government officials and to see how they set their own bets in the system they voted in, that allows them the insider trading with 100% knowledge of the exact outcome of their own decisions, all while they are 'regulating monopolies'?
Not only that, Keynesian policies of today are also missing another point of Keynes - you run BALANCED budgets during times good and you get into debt and all this nonsense to have gov't spending during times bad.
Of-course nobody was running balanced budgets during times good. It's a misconception for example, that Clinton had a balanced budget. He took on more loans to have that 'balanced budget', he had increased the debt and he transfered the debt from long term debt to short term, variable rate debt to do it with Rubin.
Of-course Keynesian ideas are wrong regardless, but they at least were somewhat sane, unlike the implementation of them by the government.
By the way, the insider trading is allowed to the government officials it seems, never mind that I believe it's above government's authority to regulate business activity in any way, including this nonsense, but how about checking who from the government set which bets on the stock market, given that they have voted themselves an exclusion from insider trading laws and have all the necessary information to set their bets to come out on top of any trade like this, where government is involved in making decisions.
When FDA makes a decision about allowing a drug on a market, the officials there don't have to guess, they know what the market effect will be (will the stock price go up or down dramatically, as it happens with drug companies based on FDA decision).
All of this just shows how really incompetent the government officials are, that with all this information and all this power and all this exclusion from the rules they themselves set up for the rest of the people in the country, they are still not multi billionaires, every one of them, completely cornering the market with every decision they make.
Or maybe they are, and they just have loopholes that allow them to hide this information from the eyes of the public?
The only fair way to raise taxes is to raise them on those, who pay much less in taxes than those, who pay already. 50% of population pays under 3% of income taxes. They pay other taxes, but so does the other 50% of population.
The only fair way to raise taxes is to raise them on those, who pay less taxes (both, in terms of the rate and dollar amount).
Just because you don't understand the nature and history of people on this planet doesn't make me wrong in any way.
Suffrage was supposed to be limited by design to those, who are economically active in terms of production, those who pay taxes in the system, otherwise people who are not participating in that way can organize to impose unbearable conditions upon those, who do produce. That's what the problem with the economy is today.
Women didn't have the right to vote because their role in the society was different from that of men. What changed since is the role of women in society - they got their right to vote once they became economically active in terms of owning means of production or at least becoming employees.
You have no understanding of the meaning of "monopoly".
- sure I have.
Somebody owns one of the very few Gutenberg bibles. There are maybe 20 of them left at all, that's pretty close to a monopoly, if you own one copy.
It's your book, you bought it, you have a monopoly on it.
Microsoft has a monopoly on Microsoft Windows, for example Microsoft Windows XP is a Microsoft product. Nobody else makes those products.
As a monopolist on that product, the company holds monopsony on the market of Microsoft Windows XP product.
There are substitute products to Microsoft Windows XP, some are also Microsoft products, some are Apple products, some are Free source products, etc.
There is no monopoly on operating systems, it's a large competitive market. Any of the 'smart' phones today runs a different version of an operating system, Windows is just one of the operating systems out there, I haven't touched it in 2 years and my products allow retailers and suppliers to move off Windows to any OS they want not to have to pay OS license fees for example.
The very point of a monopoly is that it prevents competition, and creates barriers to entry.
- well yes, and the natural barrier of entry into the Gutenberg bible monopoly is the fact that there are so few of them, so the cost is very high.
However in a market absent government privileges and regulations the monopolies don't exist, there are only economies of scale that provide a good product. If the product is not good and the price is too high, the market offers a substitute.
As to whether there is 'pure free market', I'd say that there are things that are more regulated than other things, so whatever is less regulated sees more economic activity and more value is being created there, so we want to maximize the freedom in the market, which automatically means minimizing the amount of government involvement.
At least this means business people remain in conducting productive business instead of destructive government behavior.
- AFAIC the government in its current form is involved in destructive behavior, anybody trying to get a piece of it for themselves, well, two wrongs don't make a right, but I understand the sentiment.
And putting private sector people into government only gets you further away from that solution. Private sector people who get into government have nothing to gain by returning to the rule of law
- so I don't understand, are you proposing that people who are good at what they do outside of government shouldn't be allowed to try and get into government?
That's pretty unconstitutional. Anybody, who is within the limits of the constitution in terms of age / citizenship / residency requirements, and who can get on a ballot list can run for whatever office. Are you proposing some form of discrimination, so that people who are good at building businesses will be denied seeking public office?
That's interesting. Why don't you also propose that only people on welfare are allowed to be in government, would do wonders for the liberties and economy, etc.... wait, no it won't. Won't do anything good for liberties, won't do anything good for the economy.
No, private sector is all about serving its owners/shareholders, regardless of government.
- no, government is very important in what private businesses end up doing.
While you are correct, that the primary function of a business is to make money, you are wrong. Government meddling distorts the means, by which the money is made.
In normal markets that are non-distorted by government regulations and meddling, the money is made by serving people.
You said you think people who did not work in private sector should not even be allowed to vote. In other words, you are deeming that voting is not something those people need.
- weird and wrong logic. I don't see any connection, but clearly you do.
People who never worked in private sector shouldn't be allowed to vote, yes, that's because voting affects business and economy and people's liberties to property, pursuit of happiness, etc.
People who are on one side of the government policies (the receiving end), shouldn't be in a position to use government force to increase the burden upon those, who actually create the economy in the first place.
A company creates a product, obviously they have a monopoly on this product, they are the ones creating it.
So iPads are created by Apple. Samsung LCD screens are created by Samsung.
Microsoft Windows is a Microsoft monopoly.
Of-course there are alternative products out there, but to get a legitimate copy of Microsoft Windows you go to Microsoft. If Microsoft makes other products that work with their OS, it doesn't mean they are criminals in any way.
If they use their power as a monopolist to lock others out of making similar products, maybe the laws are such, that they prohibit this behavior (though I am against laws prohibiting this behavior, by the way, purely because government shouldn't be involved in making business decisions).
However if Microsoft lobbied the government and got a law passed that made it more expensive (in terms of taxes, licenses, regulations) for others to create similar software THEN I am against it, because that's what creates real barriers to entry - government assistance to one entity over another.
That's the problem with everything that government does, be it laws on what prices should be or government requiring licenses to do any sort of business activity, any sort of a tax or a franchise license or any labor regulation, for examples imposing pensions/medical insurance requirements, etc. All this stuff creates barriers to entry against any new comers into the business, so people don't even try in many cases. Simultaneously there are all these welfare programs out there, that make it stupid for certain to try and do real work instead of receiving these benefits.
You'd think people would finally realize that government involvement into the economy is the reason the economy is tanking.
And those people going into government would only increase the damage, not minimize it.
- sure, if the government is allowed to give out favors then damage is going to happen, but giving out favors maximizes damage regardless of who gets the favors.
So the favors that were given out to the majority of the masses (employees), created huge imbalance in the system, where the government was able to grow beyond its authorized function.
The problem is of-course that the rule of law was no longer followed (adherence to the Constitution.)
The damage is further increased by any business interest that enters the government and is able to increase its own profit by using government privileges.
The real solution of-course is to return to the rule of law and stop allowing the government to do what it is not authorized to do in the first place.
This would get rid of all this militarism, various government contracts, but also SS, Medicare/aid, all federal departments, the Fed, etc.
No, I want people who have experience serving people to be in government. The private sector isn't it, since the private sector is about serving its owners/shareholders.
- the private sector is all about serving people. The private sector without the government privilege of-course is all about serving the people.
The conglomerate of private/public interest creates ability for some large monopolies that government creates just to exist to extract money, not to serve anybody. The problem is already described earlier.
So... from each according to his ability, to each according to his need? Marx would be proud
Slashdot Mirror
I was thinking hand-dick, but yours works.
don't they use hands to carry whatever that thing they call 'ball' around? Why is it called 'football'?
With our super contacts just look at your paper and copy the results.
unless it's an OLED in there, in which case: Send Spam Directly to EYES with our new penis improving software.
No, machine gun pet fences are better, they work to fend off the neighborhood kids too.
the next big thing: hijack other people's vision by cracking whatever needs to be cracked (and it seems there is nothing to crack there, except the frequency at this point), send advertising directly into people's eyes.
You can't even CLOSE your eyes at that point, you close your eyes and the images still keep on coming! (which, by the way, could be a new way to do something about insomnia for some people, just project the jumping sheep right into the eyes for a while).
"know" each other or even "know OF each other"?
Because if you figure that Michael Jackson was the most popular person on the planet, everybody 'knew' him, then the degree of separation was 1.
By all reasonable metrics, the US government is more efficient then business.
- by all reasonable metric this statement is not just wrong, it's insane. No business can run decades on deficits with what amounts to unlimited debt, because no business can tax, borrow and counterfeit the way government does.
The post office? is fine. It movies 40% of all mail in the world, and private delivery business use the USPS for delivery becasue it's cheaper and more efficient.
- USPS is SUBSIDIZED.
If a 'business' is subsidized the way government subsidizes every one of its dealings, then sure, the profits don't matter, the earnings don't matter.
USPS is selling "forever stamps" for a reason - they don't know how else to raise the cash. This is with the rampant inflation, and the stamp prices that are held hostage to the political pressure to pretend that inflation is non-existent. What's funny is that USPS will be even more broke (which is funny, any non-government related business would have collapsed long time ago if ran that way), and in a year or two, with inflation higher even than now, people won't be buying stamps then, they'll try to use their 'forever' stamps. Of-course that will put the USPS into more trouble. The gov't will bail it out of-course.
Everything gov't does is a subsidy. They tell you nonsense about medicare for example, as if it's more efficient than a private company would do, but that's more nonsense. All gov't programs are subsidized, their liabilities are moved to other gov't books and you don't see the losses. The spending always grows, the borrowing grows, the deficit grow and the government grows.
And so what? The poverty grows, the problems grow, the wars grow, the collapses grow the education is in a hole, all gov't subsidized systems are bankrupt.
Yeah, 'more efficient'. As I said earlier: with all of the insider trading that the gov't officials are doing because they voted themselves that power, it just shows how incompetent they are, that they didn't corner the entire market yet and that they are not all billionaires.
Good night and keep dreaming.
are you telling me that governments are not efficient at something? Are you saying they don't care about the spending because they don't have to balance the books because they can just tax, borrow and counterfeit more? How is that post office doing?
they are hiding their communications from the public, I guess they have things to hide.
This will be cracked, but of-course it will be declared illegal to brake these communications (and DMCA can be used for this).
Police are just the tools in the hands of the lawless corrupt governments that are used to force the population to obey the power.
It would be nice if someone had something intelligent to say about this.
Well, apparently to catch the message at all, the ionic frequency had to be inverted to align the stream lattice with the high gain antenna of the probe. Without this the electromagnetic overcharge was too high and would polarize the signal above the neutron density carrier.
you are welcome.
right, because "truth" isn't given as an option either.
The drug was has caused actual war on the streets, and war in Mexico and hugest population of non-violent drug related prisoners in the world. It is part of the economic problem as well, with all the resources that go into it and all the regulations like the one in this story, which in fact destroys jobs.
Drug War must stop.
Ron Paul 2012.
Oh, so you think it's a 'troll' to check the motivations of the government officials and to see how they set their own bets in the system they voted in, that allows them the insider trading with 100% knowledge of the exact outcome of their own decisions, all while they are 'regulating monopolies'?
Not only that, Keynesian policies of today are also missing another point of Keynes - you run BALANCED budgets during times good and you get into debt and all this nonsense to have gov't spending during times bad.
Of-course nobody was running balanced budgets during times good. It's a misconception for example, that Clinton had a balanced budget. He took on more loans to have that 'balanced budget', he had increased the debt and he transfered the debt from long term debt to short term, variable rate debt to do it with Rubin.
Of-course Keynesian ideas are wrong regardless, but they at least were somewhat sane, unlike the implementation of them by the government.
By the way, the insider trading is allowed to the government officials it seems, never mind that I believe it's above government's authority to regulate business activity in any way, including this nonsense, but how about checking who from the government set which bets on the stock market, given that they have voted themselves an exclusion from insider trading laws and have all the necessary information to set their bets to come out on top of any trade like this, where government is involved in making decisions.
When FDA makes a decision about allowing a drug on a market, the officials there don't have to guess, they know what the market effect will be (will the stock price go up or down dramatically, as it happens with drug companies based on FDA decision).
All of this just shows how really incompetent the government officials are, that with all this information and all this power and all this exclusion from the rules they themselves set up for the rest of the people in the country, they are still not multi billionaires, every one of them, completely cornering the market with every decision they make.
Or maybe they are, and they just have loopholes that allow them to hide this information from the eyes of the public?
IT is not somehow morally superior to anything else, people lie there as well as in anything else.
is it true, do people lie? Over email? To other people?
we need to look into this, it's going to ruin the economy, especially if these liars get into politics and big business!
Raise taxes and cut spending. Do both
- raise taxes on who?
The only fair way to raise taxes is to raise them on those, who pay much less in taxes than those, who pay already. 50% of population pays under 3% of income taxes. They pay other taxes, but so does the other 50% of population.
The only fair way to raise taxes is to raise them on those, who pay less taxes (both, in terms of the rate and dollar amount).
Just because you don't understand the nature and history of people on this planet doesn't make me wrong in any way.
Suffrage was supposed to be limited by design to those, who are economically active in terms of production, those who pay taxes in the system, otherwise people who are not participating in that way can organize to impose unbearable conditions upon those, who do produce. That's what the problem with the economy is today.
Women didn't have the right to vote because their role in the society was different from that of men. What changed since is the role of women in society - they got their right to vote once they became economically active in terms of owning means of production or at least becoming employees.
You have no understanding of the meaning of "monopoly".
- sure I have.
Somebody owns one of the very few Gutenberg bibles. There are maybe 20 of them left at all, that's pretty close to a monopoly, if you own one copy.
It's your book, you bought it, you have a monopoly on it.
Microsoft has a monopoly on Microsoft Windows, for example Microsoft Windows XP is a Microsoft product. Nobody else makes those products.
As a monopolist on that product, the company holds monopsony on the market of Microsoft Windows XP product.
There are substitute products to Microsoft Windows XP, some are also Microsoft products, some are Apple products, some are Free source products, etc.
There is no monopoly on operating systems, it's a large competitive market. Any of the 'smart' phones today runs a different version of an operating system, Windows is just one of the operating systems out there, I haven't touched it in 2 years and my products allow retailers and suppliers to move off Windows to any OS they want not to have to pay OS license fees for example.
The very point of a monopoly is that it prevents competition, and creates barriers to entry.
- well yes, and the natural barrier of entry into the Gutenberg bible monopoly is the fact that there are so few of them, so the cost is very high.
However in a market absent government privileges and regulations the monopolies don't exist, there are only economies of scale that provide a good product. If the product is not good and the price is too high, the market offers a substitute.
As to whether there is 'pure free market', I'd say that there are things that are more regulated than other things, so whatever is less regulated sees more economic activity and more value is being created there, so we want to maximize the freedom in the market, which automatically means minimizing the amount of government involvement.
At least this means business people remain in conducting productive business instead of destructive government behavior.
- AFAIC the government in its current form is involved in destructive behavior, anybody trying to get a piece of it for themselves, well, two wrongs don't make a right, but I understand the sentiment.
And putting private sector people into government only gets you further away from that solution. Private sector people who get into government have nothing to gain by returning to the rule of law
- so I don't understand, are you proposing that people who are good at what they do outside of government shouldn't be allowed to try and get into government?
That's pretty unconstitutional. Anybody, who is within the limits of the constitution in terms of age / citizenship / residency requirements, and who can get on a ballot list can run for whatever office. Are you proposing some form of discrimination, so that people who are good at building businesses will be denied seeking public office?
That's interesting. Why don't you also propose that only people on welfare are allowed to be in government, would do wonders for the liberties and economy, etc.... wait, no it won't. Won't do anything good for liberties, won't do anything good for the economy.
No, private sector is all about serving its owners/shareholders, regardless of government.
- no, government is very important in what private businesses end up doing.
While you are correct, that the primary function of a business is to make money, you are wrong. Government meddling distorts the means, by which the money is made.
In normal markets that are non-distorted by government regulations and meddling, the money is made by serving people.
You said you think people who did not work in private sector should not even be allowed to vote. In other words, you are deeming that voting is not something those people need.
- weird and wrong logic. I don't see any connection, but clearly you do.
People who never worked in private sector shouldn't be allowed to vote, yes, that's because voting affects business and economy and people's liberties to property, pursuit of happiness, etc.
People who are on one side of the government policies (the receiving end), shouldn't be in a position to use government force to increase the burden upon those, who actually create the economy in the first place.
A company creates a product, obviously they have a monopoly on this product, they are the ones creating it.
So iPads are created by Apple. Samsung LCD screens are created by Samsung.
Microsoft Windows is a Microsoft monopoly.
Of-course there are alternative products out there, but to get a legitimate copy of Microsoft Windows you go to Microsoft. If Microsoft makes other products that work with their OS, it doesn't mean they are criminals in any way.
If they use their power as a monopolist to lock others out of making similar products, maybe the laws are such, that they prohibit this behavior (though I am against laws prohibiting this behavior, by the way, purely because government shouldn't be involved in making business decisions).
However if Microsoft lobbied the government and got a law passed that made it more expensive (in terms of taxes, licenses, regulations) for others to create similar software THEN I am against it, because that's what creates real barriers to entry - government assistance to one entity over another.
That's the problem with everything that government does, be it laws on what prices should be or government requiring licenses to do any sort of business activity, any sort of a tax or a franchise license or any labor regulation, for examples imposing pensions/medical insurance requirements, etc. All this stuff creates barriers to entry against any new comers into the business, so people don't even try in many cases. Simultaneously there are all these welfare programs out there, that make it stupid for certain to try and do real work instead of receiving these benefits.
You'd think people would finally realize that government involvement into the economy is the reason the economy is tanking.
And those people going into government would only increase the damage, not minimize it.
- sure, if the government is allowed to give out favors then damage is going to happen, but giving out favors maximizes damage regardless of who gets the favors.
So the favors that were given out to the majority of the masses (employees), created huge imbalance in the system, where the government was able to grow beyond its authorized function.
The problem is of-course that the rule of law was no longer followed (adherence to the Constitution.)
The damage is further increased by any business interest that enters the government and is able to increase its own profit by using government privileges.
The real solution of-course is to return to the rule of law and stop allowing the government to do what it is not authorized to do in the first place.
This would get rid of all this militarism, various government contracts, but also SS, Medicare/aid, all federal departments, the Fed, etc.
No, I want people who have experience serving people to be in government. The private sector isn't it, since the private sector is about serving its owners/shareholders.
- the private sector is all about serving people. The private sector without the government privilege of-course is all about serving the people.
The conglomerate of private/public interest creates ability for some large monopolies that government creates just to exist to extract money, not to serve anybody. The problem is already described earlier.
So... from each according to his ability, to each according to his need? Marx would be proud
- ? Interesting nonsense.