Exactly -- I was excited about this announcement exactly because I wanted to rewatch DS9 with my teenage son. But that's half a year away. I'm not surprised if someone torrents it instead, but I suppose I'll finally get around to hooking my TV up to my computer and get it through startrek.com.
I would suggest a country with a GDP of $1 million would consist entirely of poor people.
A country with $1 million per capita, on the other hand, would have a lot of wealth, although as you say it might not be very evenly distributed. That's where the Gini coefficient comes in. It explains why a country like Equatorial Guinea with a very high GDP per capita, that should basically be most of the way to developed, is instead a complete shithole with grinding poverty.
Probably. But there are also probably a lot of individuals whose chance at innovating was quashed from having their resources diverted to stuff that wasn't really helping them.
If you want people to eat less fat, stop meat and dairy subsidies. If you want people to eat less sugar, stop corn subsidies, which lead to increased production of high fructose corn syrup. It's ridiculous that politicians bitch about how expensive it is to provide healthcare for obese diabetics while simultaneously encouraging production of foods that lead to those maladies.
You forgot another consequence, when the feds poisoned alcohol to make people think it was more dangerous, and killed its own citizens as a result: http://www.slate.com/id/2245188/
No kidding. The only sporting events I'll watch are live, and even then only when my kids are the ones playing. If that makes Netflix a back door way of getting the benefit of a la carte pricing, I'm all for it.
(And I'm willing to risk being modded off topic, since this whole fucking day is off topic on/.)
That's exactly right, which is why those of us who like the idea of actual free markets get so annoyed when people erroneously use that term to refer to state-protected corporatism.
So? Dictionaries tend to include all sorts of ways that words are popularly misused. In many dictionaries you'll see one of the definitions of "begging the questions" listed as a synonym for raising the question.
Okay, I see what you're saying. Still, "grow up" is no better. And as for better reasons, plenty of other posters have explained that they do or would use such an app not because they want to drive around plastered, but because they have reasonable justification not to want to be stopped by police without cause.
"Grow up"? It's hardly a sign of maturity to supinely acquiesce to whatever inconveniences that agents of the state choose to impose, even those that don't rise to the level of all out assault on one's freedom.
Anarchists don't oppose order, they oppose the state. The argument is that order, even rules, can be managed spontaneously rather than top down. You may disagree, fair enough, but that doesn't justify misrepresenting their position.
Hell, absolutely survival level of google-fu would get it for you.
Perhaps, but I'm not the one making the claim.
Here's anyway. For the "live up to her own values" - read the "Later years" section. For the " more stringent the values that they espouse" start reading from the beginning of the article.
Yes, and that says, "A heavy smoker, Rand underwent surgery for lung cancer in 1974. Although she had long opposed government assistance programs, she wrote that it is perfectly moral to accept Social Security and Medicare, given the coercion used to collect the resources for such programs and the widespread impoverishment that results. Consistently with the advice she gave others, Rand accepted such payments for herself and her husband."
I'm not an Objectivist (actually I think Rand had some interesting ideas but was also kind of mental) so I don't know whether they have an official position on this, but I do know that libertarians disagree on whether this is ethical. Personally, I agree with you that seems hypocritical, but then it's not exactly Rand's only inconsistency ever.
(BTW: don't you dare whining TL;DR, it is not a meme I'd expect from a person at your age).
Your fake condescension might look more clever had you actually bothered to read the thing to which I was responding. The claim was that Rand accepted government payments pseudonymously. That's what struck me as an extraordinary claim, and the funny thing is that for all your talking talking talking talking, it was the other person who responded who actually linked to some evidence for it.
Slashdot Mirror
Before you call me a commie, I got that idea from Milton Friedman.
That pinko?
Exactly -- I was excited about this announcement exactly because I wanted to rewatch DS9 with my teenage son. But that's half a year away. I'm not surprised if someone torrents it instead, but I suppose I'll finally get around to hooking my TV up to my computer and get it through startrek.com.
Heh, that's essentially how I was going to respond, and I'm vegan.
I would suggest a country with a GDP of $1 million would consist entirely of poor people.
A country with $1 million per capita, on the other hand, would have a lot of wealth, although as you say it might not be very evenly distributed. That's where the Gini coefficient comes in. It explains why a country like Equatorial Guinea with a very high GDP per capita, that should basically be most of the way to developed, is instead a complete shithole with grinding poverty.
For example, cheese eating surrender monkeys is from 1995.
I mean, I'm a 37 year old American, and I don't remember ever hearing of France not being called "those guys who always surrender".
Probably. But there are also probably a lot of individuals whose chance at innovating was quashed from having their resources diverted to stuff that wasn't really helping them.
Yes, and faster, through supercavitation.
If you want people to eat less fat, stop meat and dairy subsidies. If you want people to eat less sugar, stop corn subsidies, which lead to increased production of high fructose corn syrup. It's ridiculous that politicians bitch about how expensive it is to provide healthcare for obese diabetics while simultaneously encouraging production of foods that lead to those maladies.
You forgot another consequence, when the feds poisoned alcohol to make people think it was more dangerous, and killed its own citizens as a result: http://www.slate.com/id/2245188/
Sure, why not?
No kidding. The only sporting events I'll watch are live, and even then only when my kids are the ones playing. If that makes Netflix a back door way of getting the benefit of a la carte pricing, I'm all for it.
(And I'm willing to risk being modded off topic, since this whole fucking day is off topic on /.)
That's exactly right, which is why those of us who like the idea of actual free markets get so annoyed when people erroneously use that term to refer to state-protected corporatism.
Too late. Besides, you should have pointed out that I was contradicting myself by being opposed to dictionaries as non-state arbiters of order. ;-)
So? Dictionaries tend to include all sorts of ways that words are popularly misused. In many dictionaries you'll see one of the definitions of "begging the questions" listed as a synonym for raising the question.
Okay, I see what you're saying. Still, "grow up" is no better. And as for better reasons, plenty of other posters have explained that they do or would use such an app not because they want to drive around plastered, but because they have reasonable justification not to want to be stopped by police without cause.
"Grow up"? It's hardly a sign of maturity to supinely acquiesce to whatever inconveniences that agents of the state choose to impose, even those that don't rise to the level of all out assault on one's freedom.
Anarchists don't oppose order, they oppose the state. The argument is that order, even rules, can be managed spontaneously rather than top down. You may disagree, fair enough, but that doesn't justify misrepresenting their position.
Hell, absolutely survival level of google-fu would get it for you.
Perhaps, but I'm not the one making the claim.
Here's anyway. For the "live up to her own values" - read the "Later years" section. For the " more stringent the values that they espouse" start reading from the beginning of the article.
Yes, and that says, "A heavy smoker, Rand underwent surgery for lung cancer in 1974. Although she had long opposed government assistance programs, she wrote that it is perfectly moral to accept Social Security and Medicare, given the coercion used to collect the resources for such programs and the widespread impoverishment that results. Consistently with the advice she gave others, Rand accepted such payments for herself and her husband."
I'm not an Objectivist (actually I think Rand had some interesting ideas but was also kind of mental) so I don't know whether they have an official position on this, but I do know that libertarians disagree on whether this is ethical. Personally, I agree with you that seems hypocritical, but then it's not exactly Rand's only inconsistency ever.
(BTW: don't you dare whining TL;DR, it is not a meme I'd expect from a person at your age).
Your fake condescension might look more clever had you actually bothered to read the thing to which I was responding. The claim was that Rand accepted government payments pseudonymously. That's what struck me as an extraordinary claim, and the funny thing is that for all your talking talking talking talking, it was the other person who responded who actually linked to some evidence for it.
Cops were better forty years ago? I'm guessing you're not black.
Well, and Julian Assange... who... gets called a terrorist....
Hey, wait a minute!
This libertarian thinks Jefferson was a slave owning hypocrite. He's definitely no hero of mine!
Citation needed.
People pay much more for Cable Television, and it's chock full of advertising too.
An important difference is that the cable company has to build and maintain huge networks of lines all over the place. Netflix doesn't.
That doesn't actually sound like it'd be worse than the policy we get now.
lol I disagree with that guy so I'll call him a funny name, even though it doesn't necessarily fit.