Well, given the examples just in this thread alone have included the Irish DeLorean Motor Company, Israel's kibbutzes, China's class gaps and North Korea, I suspect yes, at least some of us aren't.:)
Granted the OP certainly wasn't using socialism as the dictionary defines it, but OTOH a lot of people do think of socialism the OP's way ("To the ordinary working man, the sort you would meet in any pub on Saturday night, Socialism does not mean much more than better wages and shorter hours and nobody bossing you about" [George Orwell The Road to Wigan Pier]).
I do wonder what "dictionary word" one would use to describe an economic system in which capitalistic production/distribution is balanced with socialistic regulation/welfare.
The english language is amazing - people can discuss a topic (e.g. "socialism") yet be completely unaware they're each talking about something completely different.:)
I find absolutely nothing morally or ethically wrong with an item marked "patent #xyz" regardless of whether that patent is current or expired. If it's current, then looking up the patent number will tell me how to build it and - if I'm planning commercial distribution - who to license it from. If it's expired, it will still tell me how to build it and I will also know I don't have to pay for a license. Win-win.
What would you consider a solid reference? I thought it was a fairly good explanation if your intended audience was the average layperson (rather than, say, slashdotters and/or fuel cell gurus).
References? You mean the two links in the summary that include video footage from 60 Minutes where they get shown around the lab, interview the inventor, and talk to people who are actually using the technology in a commercial environment?
Yeah, CBS was happy to go all "woah" on us, but when it comes to salt, there's a difference between a grain and a boulder.:)
Why? Because if nobody invests in the technology by buying a few now, they won't make any more and there'll be no cheaper versions to buy more of later.
I for one welcome our forward-looking early-adopter overlords.;)
Just off the top of my head? Pragmatic self-interest meets Pascal's wager. If there's enough people who don't care, what are the chances that together the lot of you will ruin things so fast that your life is FUBAR *before* you're gone?
Now say someone sneaks in and makes a copy of your painting, or steals your exclusive formula, and they give it away for free. Now, you can't charge anything, because any potential customer will just get it for free. Poof - your hard work is gone. It doesn't matter whether 100 people make jet fuel from water or 1 million people do - you can't make anything from your invention, even if it cost you a million dollars to research and develop, because anyone can get the information for free.
Say I reverse-engineer your painting or formula. Or re-discover it from first principles ("if he can do it, so can I"). And then I give the secret away for free. Poof.
You're obviously aware of the conflicts arising from humanity's development of effortless information distribution; imagine what it's going to be like when we develop effortless material distribution, especially if our social/legal/economic system refuses to adapt even to the former. There's no insurmountable roadblocks to that technology either; we already have primitive antecedents in operation.
Why? Steal from a store, the store loses the retail cost of one CD... and is recouped by insurance.
First, insurance isn't free. It carries a cost to society, and I would hope you're aware that if insurance is abused, or just over-used, there is a tipping point where Bad Things start to happen.
Second, stealing, the physical act of theft, carries the physical risk of injury if things "go wrong". If your download goes wrong, you click "retry". If your robbery goes wrong, there is no undo button.
Third, the local economy is a subset of the global economy. "For want of a nail..." etcetera. All else being equal, loss of a potential sale should be less detrimental than loss of an actual sale.
I could only wish that more so-called "Christian" politicians would actually "trust God about these things", instead of constantly using the name in vain as an excuse to meddle in our personal lives.
But how close is that "average wage" to reality? Take 20 people, 19 making $20,000 and 1 making $1,000,000m. The average (arithmetic mean) is $69,000... which is almost two and a half times what 95% of the population make. While that's just random, it shows how big outliers can distort statistics.
Not to mention even were it true, and he was making that much before - he won't be now.
FWIW, I actually live in Queensland, and I'd trust that figure to accurately represent your average Queenslander like I'd trust a live grenade... not at all.
But it doesn't say "this election period". It says "an election period". The law doesn't disappear after March 20th. It just waits dormant until the next election period.
Which article did you read? The law will remain unless repealed. From the law itself (PDF, page 89, section 116), "A person must not, during an election period, publish material consisting of, or containing a commentary on, any candidate or political party, or the issues being submitted to electors, in written form, in a journal published in electronic form on the Internet or by radio or television or broadcast on the Internet, unless the material or the programme in which the material is presented contains a statement of the name and address (not being a post office box) of a person who takes responsibility for the publication of the material." (emphasis mine)
There's no built-in expiry date. The 20th of March is merely when this particular election period ends. Unless changed, this law applies to all election periods.
I realise now you were jesting, but actually there are some. Mobile phones. (Ripley)"Believe it, or not!"(/Ripley).
P.S. Sorry, at the time didn't realise you were replying to someone else; there was no Parent icon on your post when I saw it. Having trouble with Slashdot today.
I considered the source when I submitted the article. The nature of the reporting source doesn't make it any less a terrible law.
And as I found out after submission, the actual law (PDF, page 89, section 116) is worse: you're supposed to hand over your address, not just your postcode; media organisations are "merely" required to publish the postcode but still must hand over your full details if the commissioner wants it.
As for the "victory" - I don't see much of one. The AG is "promising" to repeal the law "after" the election - but of course if we vote him back in we're even bigger fools....
Despite covering anywhere from a few metropolitan suburbs to indeed outback grazing ranges, that's not as big an area as you might think. For example, a telephone directory search for my surname, first initial and postcode gives only four results, two of which are family. I like my mother too much to have some thug harrassing her. Furthermore if the system allowed full name searches (and it does if you have the right access) I'd be the only result.
And actually it's worse than the submission. Having had a chance to read the actual law (PDF, see page 89, Section 116) rather than the fine article, you have to hand over your actual address. It's only your postcode that has to be published, but (a) as indicated that can narrow it down a lot, (b) the government can demand the rest of it.
What the? Mobiles have to make a loud noise when dialling 911? That's news to me, and utterly stupid - if it's true. Can someone confirm (preferably with citation)?
I was dubious (re viking80's comment), but I figured batteries was your area and your responses would make for an educational read (and they certainly did!). FWIW the MD of my ISP has one of the few - maybe still the only - Tesla Roadsters in Australia, it's an impressive machine (for now, anyway:p). Thankyou.
And? This audience would like to point out that an illegal act is not automatically an unethical or immoral act, and one would hope people would base their decisions - and actions - on the latter not just the former. After all, slavery was once legal.
Rei, I'd be interested to see your response to viking80's comment further down the page - I'll quote it here:
Gasoline at 50MJ/kg is pretty much the most dense energy storage possible in this universe excluding nuclear energy. (Hydrogen is 150MJ/kg, and might beat gas, but it needs to be in liquid form. Same range anyway) It exclude the weigh of the oxygen as well.
This is kind of a fundamental limit as to how much energy can be stored in *any* system using potential energy of the electric field of matter. That includes (nano)springs, batteries and small flywheels (flywheels bigger than the earth with relativistic speed could exceed this limit)
You may get 2x better efficiency in an electric motor, but I can not see how a battery can approach this value. A gas tank probably weighs 5% of the fuel it holds, and to build a battery where all infrastructure to support the (very) active material only weighs a few percent of the battery wold be very hard even if you find such a chemistry.
How do those new battery technologies you spoke of compare to / affect this?
Slashdot Mirror
Well, it won't meet your other requirements, but if all you wanted was a tough screen try an ASUS LS201 monitor... how many LCD monitors do you know that resist crossbow fire? :)
Well, given the examples just in this thread alone have included the Irish DeLorean Motor Company, Israel's kibbutzes, China's class gaps and North Korea, I suspect yes, at least some of us aren't. :)
Granted the OP certainly wasn't using socialism as the dictionary defines it, but OTOH a lot of people do think of socialism the OP's way ("To the ordinary working man, the sort you would meet in any pub on Saturday night, Socialism does not mean much more than better wages and shorter hours and nobody bossing you about" [George Orwell The Road to Wigan Pier]).
I do wonder what "dictionary word" one would use to describe an economic system in which capitalistic production/distribution is balanced with socialistic regulation/welfare.
The english language is amazing - people can discuss a topic (e.g. "socialism") yet be completely unaware they're each talking about something completely different. :)
I find absolutely nothing morally or ethically wrong with an item marked "patent #xyz" regardless of whether that patent is current or expired. If it's current, then looking up the patent number will tell me how to build it and - if I'm planning commercial distribution - who to license it from. If it's expired, it will still tell me how to build it and I will also know I don't have to pay for a license. Win-win.
As of June 2009, 1.67 billion people worldwide use the Internet. http://www.internetworldstats.com/stats.htm
Even just legitimate submitted complaints (assuming folks bothered) would bury the scheme. Now imagine a small shell script...
What would you consider a solid reference? I thought it was a fairly good explanation if your intended audience was the average layperson (rather than, say, slashdotters and/or fuel cell gurus).
References? You mean the two links in the summary that include video footage from 60 Minutes where they get shown around the lab, interview the inventor, and talk to people who are actually using the technology in a commercial environment?
Yeah, CBS was happy to go all "woah" on us, but when it comes to salt, there's a difference between a grain and a boulder. :)
Why? Because if nobody invests in the technology by buying a few now, they won't make any more and there'll be no cheaper versions to buy more of later.
I for one welcome our forward-looking early-adopter overlords. ;)
Just off the top of my head? Pragmatic self-interest meets Pascal's wager. If there's enough people who don't care, what are the chances that together the lot of you will ruin things so fast that your life is FUBAR *before* you're gone?
Say I reverse-engineer your painting or formula. Or re-discover it from first principles ("if he can do it, so can I"). And then I give the secret away for free. Poof.
You're obviously aware of the conflicts arising from humanity's development of effortless information distribution; imagine what it's going to be like when we develop effortless material distribution, especially if our social/legal/economic system refuses to adapt even to the former. There's no insurmountable roadblocks to that technology either; we already have primitive antecedents in operation.
First, insurance isn't free. It carries a cost to society, and I would hope you're aware that if insurance is abused, or just over-used, there is a tipping point where Bad Things start to happen.
Second, stealing, the physical act of theft, carries the physical risk of injury if things "go wrong". If your download goes wrong, you click "retry". If your robbery goes wrong, there is no undo button.
Third, the local economy is a subset of the global economy. "For want of a nail..." etcetera. All else being equal, loss of a potential sale should be less detrimental than loss of an actual sale.
I could only wish that more so-called "Christian" politicians would actually "trust God about these things", instead of constantly using the name in vain as an excuse to meddle in our personal lives.
But how close is that "average wage" to reality? Take 20 people, 19 making $20,000 and 1 making $1,000,000m. The average (arithmetic mean) is $69,000... which is almost two and a half times what 95% of the population make. While that's just random, it shows how big outliers can distort statistics.
Not to mention even were it true, and he was making that much before - he won't be now.
FWIW, I actually live in Queensland, and I'd trust that figure to accurately represent your average Queenslander like I'd trust a live grenade... not at all.
But it doesn't say "this election period". It says "an election period". The law doesn't disappear after March 20th. It just waits dormant until the next election period.
Which article did you read? The law will remain unless repealed. From the law itself (PDF, page 89, section 116), "A person must not, during an election period, publish material consisting of, or containing a commentary on, any candidate or political party, or the issues being submitted to electors, in written form, in a journal published in electronic form on the Internet or by radio or television or broadcast on the Internet, unless the material or the programme in which the material is presented contains a statement of the name and address (not being a post office box) of a person who takes responsibility for the publication of the material." (emphasis mine)
There's no built-in expiry date. The 20th of March is merely when this particular election period ends. Unless changed, this law applies to all election periods.
They've "promised" to can it. "After" the election. And of course they want to be re-elected so they can carry out their promise...
I'd prefer if it was done by someone who didn't vote for the thing in the first place!
I realise now you were jesting, but actually there are some. Mobile phones. (Ripley)"Believe it, or not!"(/Ripley).
P.S. Sorry, at the time didn't realise you were replying to someone else; there was no Parent icon on your post when I saw it. Having trouble with Slashdot today.
I considered the source when I submitted the article. The nature of the reporting source doesn't make it any less a terrible law.
And as I found out after submission, the actual law (PDF, page 89, section 116) is worse: you're supposed to hand over your address, not just your postcode; media organisations are "merely" required to publish the postcode but still must hand over your full details if the commissioner wants it.
As for the "victory" - I don't see much of one. The AG is "promising" to repeal the law "after" the election - but of course if we vote him back in we're even bigger fools....
Despite covering anywhere from a few metropolitan suburbs to indeed outback grazing ranges, that's not as big an area as you might think. For example, a telephone directory search for my surname, first initial and postcode gives only four results, two of which are family. I like my mother too much to have some thug harrassing her. Furthermore if the system allowed full name searches (and it does if you have the right access) I'd be the only result.
And actually it's worse than the submission. Having had a chance to read the actual law (PDF, see page 89, Section 116) rather than the fine article, you have to hand over your actual address. It's only your postcode that has to be published, but (a) as indicated that can narrow it down a lot, (b) the government can demand the rest of it.
Thanks for the link. Interesting reading. Dangerously stupid legislation.
What the? Mobiles have to make a loud noise when dialling 911? That's news to me, and utterly stupid - if it's true. Can someone confirm (preferably with citation)?
Doh. Sorry.
I was dubious (re viking80's comment), but I figured batteries was your area and your responses would make for an educational read (and they certainly did!). FWIW the MD of my ISP has one of the few - maybe still the only - Tesla Roadsters in Australia, it's an impressive machine (for now, anyway :p). Thankyou.
And? This audience would like to point out that an illegal act is not automatically an unethical or immoral act, and one would hope people would base their decisions - and actions - on the latter not just the former. After all, slavery was once legal.
Rei, I'd be interested to see your response to viking80's comment further down the page - I'll quote it here:
How do those new battery technologies you spoke of compare to / affect this?