.dk doesn't have any generic subdomains. In fact, I don't think the majority of the ccTLD's have generic subdomains. IIRC, in the 90'ies, you couldn't buy com.dk or any other $TLD$.dk, as such adresses could lead to problems.
All outlawing Holocaust denial does in Germany is to give the neonazis a free pass to yell "Help, help, I'm being oppressed". It will make it more interesting for teenagers to join up, as it is clearly "against the Man" AND is going to upset their parents. If, in stead of imprisoning them, we ridiculed people for denying the Holocaust, it wouldn't have the chance of being a cool thing.
It's exactly the market solution that is the problem. By stopping the subsidies of the postal service and having it fight for profitability, you get the direct effect of capitalism - the lowest level of service the market is willing to accept, at the highest price they are willing to pay.
No, that is the private monopoly situation. If the monopoly was removed, other actors would be able to perform the same service, forcing the price down to the marginal cost. How would PostDanmark be able to demand such a high price if competitors was allowed to do it for half the price? Look at the Danish telephone market: What has happened since the monopoly was removed? Prices have dropped and service has increased. Admittably, it didn't work very well for the cell phone market until Telmore came along, but since then, it works really well. Of course, that does take government involvement, as they mandate that if a service is sufficiently widespread, everyone must offer it.
You are correct that the market solution will make service untolerably poor in the outer areas, and that the government needs to do something to something about that. But why choose a solution forcing everybody to use a monopoly, which will inevitably be ineffective? Why not allow the market to optimize where it is possible, and have the government step in* where the market will not offer an acceptable level of service?
*either by having a government company be obliged to make all deliveries and pay their loss over the taxes, or by having private companies bid to which subsidy they need to do that service.
Microsoft and Monsanto (seeds) comes to mind, though the most clear example is De Beers. There are, of course, many more example if you take the word "monopoly" to mean "having a large enough market share to be able to set the price", as e.g. every sane monopoly law does, and not the strict economic definition of only having one seller. You can have that in any market with a significant barrier of entry, and it is a problem if the price is higher then it would be for the same product if more sellers were available, usually the marginal price.
That is actually a good question. Our washery uses softened water, so using the water heater is out of the question, but I know that many people use the water heating function in the washer when they don't have to. As a bonus, you only get calc deposits* in one place.
As to why heater doesn't last longer, hot oxygenated water isn't the most benign compound to have in contact with metals, either that will get it, or so much calc will deposit* on the heating element that it will burn out. That would be my guesses, anyway.
*Assuming that the water where you live is hard, of course.
Only if unions aren't allowed to use their monopoly status (if they reach that kind of coverage) to force employers to only hire union workers. Like if the state mandated that joining a union isn't a requirement for holding any job. A state not protecting it's citizens from monopolies aren't doing a very good job a remaining a free society, so being neutral towards monopolies (union or otherwise) shouldn't be an option.
Why aren't there software engineer unions? (I've seen that mentioned here before.)
I have a theory about this: The more specialised the work is, the less it makes sense to be in a union, as collective bargaining is less and less appealing. This leads to factory workers having strong, aggresive unions, and engineers and programmers to have more passive or non-existing unions.
1. If you hire someone on the condition that they will not join the union, then union will simply strike until that person is removed. This prevents you from getting new employees.
The case seems more to be (at least in Denmark, until it was made illegal) that if you hire anyone and you do not demand them to join the union, the union will strike until that person is fired, or has joined the union. This, of course, makes unions a force against freedom of association (which must include freedom to not be a part of any particular association as well).
But a working market demands that the government disbands or otherwise handles monopolies. A unions bargaining chip somes from it being a monopoly on a certain type of workforce. If the majority of your workers are dissatisfied enough, the inevitable conclusion is that you end up with much fewer workers, at a much higher price.
Of course, there were other market failures that meant the allowing unions was (seen as) the lesser evil.
Thermodynamic limits doesn't apply to insulation (well, they do, but if we were close to the thermodynamic limit of insulation, we wouldn't need a fridge). I would imagine (but I don't know, and would be thrilled to be corrected) that most of the energy saved by newer fridges comes from better insulation, as the basic Carnot cycle should have been perfected decades ago.
The washer today probably uses less water (especially if there is less clothes in it). Heating water is a big power drain, so washers today will be a lot more energy efficient then a washer from 10 years ago. Of course, toasters and driers are so easy to power-optimise that they probably have been for decades.
Sweden had a nuclear weapons program (I was extremely surprised when I discovered this. I have it from some WP article, so take it for what it is, but, Sweden officially being neutral, I guess it made sense). I would imagine the other never had one, though. But, as a sibling post pointed out, the expertise was already built up on the kinds of plants that could be used for making bombs, so building them was much easier.
Sand is that dangerous? Oh I get it - homeopathic toxins where the stuff with the lowest concentration is the most dangerous. I think you've wandered into the wrong place. Engineers lurk here and we're very big on the physical sciences instead of the metaphysical crystal worshipping bullshit.
Yes, indeed, I see that engineers lurk here, the kind who thinks anything but the main ingredient is insignificant to the degree that it really isn't there. This apparantly leads them to think that wind turbines are just very big sand castles.
It is far more profitable to treat diseases than to cure them....profitable enough to allow greed and corruption to control research and results.
But is it more profitable to let the competition treat a disease than it is for your company to cure it? The whole "cures are being supressed for profit" only works if there is only one medical company AND it is impressively farsighted, not wanting the billions upon billions they could make curing AIDS or cancer now. And somehow simultaneously too shortsighted to see that a population not dying from cancer is an ageing population, and that an ageing population will need even more medicine in the long run.
This is the lottery paradox. Each lottery ticket has a very low probability of being drawn, but one of them is drawn. Or, more explicit to your example, the average of two negatives and four neutrals is no neutral, it is a bit negative. Similarly, the average of 10 negatives (lets say the 83-year-old women of choise knows 10 people) and 250.000.000 neutrals is not neutral, but ever so slightly negative.
Do you even use the age in your argument? AFAICT, it wouldn't change your argument if it was a 20 year old person getting hit by a defenstrated piano.
What we have to admit here is that Google is a massively wealthy company, and that authors are, in general, poor as shit.
Yes, and this should influence the ruling. Excellent idea. In stead of hearing witnesses and using a lot of time deciding based on precedent, fairness and law, we should count each sides money, and whoever is poorest will win.
Authors own their property, just like you own your toothbrush or your socks.
No, they don't. They have a time-limited (hah) monopoly on making certain kinds of copies of their work. It is in no way analogues to real property.
There are countless scandals and corruption episodes going on right now that we will never know about because there are no journalists being payed to report on them.
That was always the case. Investigative journalism was never a very big part of journalism, and good investigative journalism was always a minor part of investigative journalism. Sure, journalists loves to portray themselves as the fourth estate holding the other three estates accountable, but that is and always was more the exception than the rule. And how did we get from authors to journalists? Stop defaming the authors by comparing them to journalists.
What do they suggest for the base load? Solar and wind are to variable, hydroelectric is as built out as it can get, so that leaves geothermal and batteries (am I forgetting any?). Batteries will be too expensive for the forseeable future. It seems a bit premature to only rely on geothermal, though some countries cover an impressive percentage of their energy production with it.
How have Japan coped? Are they using less energy now, or are other types of powerplants producing more?
The "losses" in that expression normally comes from risks inherent to the profits, and the problem with it is moral hazards. Here, it is a question about letting the market optimize where that can work, and having the state take over where the market solution will be unsatisfactory. The logical consequence of opposing that is having the state drive everything. It has been tested, it can be more efficient for a short period of time, but then it becomes much less efficient.
It is closer to a prime example of why monopolies are bad. It might be that governmental monopolies are less bad than private monopolies, but they are still worse than the market solution. Of course, monopolies often crop up, and if the state doesn't keep them in check, the free market is not exactly what we get.
Why is the situation in the UK daft? If it can be made to work, I would say that it was the ideal solution. The places where private companies work can do it more effectively than the public post, they are used, and all other places, the public post takes over. Of course, it needs to be backed up by the tax payers so postage isn't too expensive, but that situation isn't any different from any other public service.
The government owned and run postal services of many other countries do pretty well at low cost.
Excuse me? I live in Denmark, we have a government owned postage service (coowned by the Danish and Swedish states). It is now cheaper to mail a letter from the US via USPS to a Danish address (1$ postage) than it is to mail it from Denmark (8 DKK postage, around 1.5 $). They are supposed to check whether you are home when they have a package to deliver, but usually, they just assume you are not, and you have to pick it up from the post office. If you are served by one of the bad centers, expect your mail to be 3 days delayed (don't count on getting mail more then 2 times a week, when you should get it 6 days a week). In which countries are the government run postal service running well?
Sure, if you have written all of it yourself. Most free software projects have more then one contributer. It is somewhere between a hassle and impossible to find all of them and get them to agree on a license change.
Slashdot Mirror
.dk doesn't have any generic subdomains. In fact, I don't think the majority of the ccTLD's have generic subdomains. IIRC, in the 90'ies, you couldn't buy com.dk or any other $TLD$.dk, as such adresses could lead to problems.
All outlawing Holocaust denial does in Germany is to give the neonazis a free pass to yell "Help, help, I'm being oppressed". It will make it more interesting for teenagers to join up, as it is clearly "against the Man" AND is going to upset their parents. If, in stead of imprisoning them, we ridiculed people for denying the Holocaust, it wouldn't have the chance of being a cool thing.
It's exactly the market solution that is the problem. By stopping the subsidies of the postal service and having it fight for profitability, you get the direct effect of capitalism - the lowest level of service the market is willing to accept, at the highest price they are willing to pay.
No, that is the private monopoly situation. If the monopoly was removed, other actors would be able to perform the same service, forcing the price down to the marginal cost. How would PostDanmark be able to demand such a high price if competitors was allowed to do it for half the price? Look at the Danish telephone market: What has happened since the monopoly was removed? Prices have dropped and service has increased. Admittably, it didn't work very well for the cell phone market until Telmore came along, but since then, it works really well. Of course, that does take government involvement, as they mandate that if a service is sufficiently widespread, everyone must offer it.
You are correct that the market solution will make service untolerably poor in the outer areas, and that the government needs to do something to something about that. But why choose a solution forcing everybody to use a monopoly, which will inevitably be ineffective? Why not allow the market to optimize where it is possible, and have the government step in* where the market will not offer an acceptable level of service?
*either by having a government company be obliged to make all deliveries and pay their loss over the taxes, or by having private companies bid to which subsidy they need to do that service.
Microsoft and Monsanto (seeds) comes to mind, though the most clear example is De Beers. There are, of course, many more example if you take the word "monopoly" to mean "having a large enough market share to be able to set the price", as e.g. every sane monopoly law does, and not the strict economic definition of only having one seller. You can have that in any market with a significant barrier of entry, and it is a problem if the price is higher then it would be for the same product if more sellers were available, usually the marginal price.
That is actually a good question. Our washery uses softened water, so using the water heater is out of the question, but I know that many people use the water heating function in the washer when they don't have to. As a bonus, you only get calc deposits* in one place.
As to why heater doesn't last longer, hot oxygenated water isn't the most benign compound to have in contact with metals, either that will get it, or so much calc will deposit* on the heating element that it will burn out. That would be my guesses, anyway.
*Assuming that the water where you live is hard, of course.
Only if unions aren't allowed to use their monopoly status (if they reach that kind of coverage) to force employers to only hire union workers. Like if the state mandated that joining a union isn't a requirement for holding any job. A state not protecting it's citizens from monopolies aren't doing a very good job a remaining a free society, so being neutral towards monopolies (union or otherwise) shouldn't be an option.
Why aren't there software engineer unions? (I've seen that mentioned here before.)
I have a theory about this: The more specialised the work is, the less it makes sense to be in a union, as collective bargaining is less and less appealing. This leads to factory workers having strong, aggresive unions, and engineers and programmers to have more passive or non-existing unions.
1. If you hire someone on the condition that they will not join the union, then union will simply strike until that person is removed. This prevents you from getting new employees.
The case seems more to be (at least in Denmark, until it was made illegal) that if you hire anyone and you do not demand them to join the union, the union will strike until that person is fired, or has joined the union. This, of course, makes unions a force against freedom of association (which must include freedom to not be a part of any particular association as well).
But a working market demands that the government disbands or otherwise handles monopolies. A unions bargaining chip somes from it being a monopoly on a certain type of workforce. If the majority of your workers are dissatisfied enough, the inevitable conclusion is that you end up with much fewer workers, at a much higher price.
Of course, there were other market failures that meant the allowing unions was (seen as) the lesser evil.
Insulation might become better, or better insulation cheaper, with technological advances.
Thermodynamic limits doesn't apply to insulation (well, they do, but if we were close to the thermodynamic limit of insulation, we wouldn't need a fridge). I would imagine (but I don't know, and would be thrilled to be corrected) that most of the energy saved by newer fridges comes from better insulation, as the basic Carnot cycle should have been perfected decades ago.
The washer today probably uses less water (especially if there is less clothes in it). Heating water is a big power drain, so washers today will be a lot more energy efficient then a washer from 10 years ago. Of course, toasters and driers are so easy to power-optimise that they probably have been for decades.
Sweden had a nuclear weapons program (I was extremely surprised when I discovered this. I have it from some WP article, so take it for what it is, but, Sweden officially being neutral, I guess it made sense). I would imagine the other never had one, though. But, as a sibling post pointed out, the expertise was already built up on the kinds of plants that could be used for making bombs, so building them was much easier.
Sand is that dangerous? Oh I get it - homeopathic toxins where the stuff with the lowest concentration is the most dangerous. I think you've wandered into the wrong place. Engineers lurk here and we're very big on the physical sciences instead of the metaphysical crystal worshipping bullshit.
Yes, indeed, I see that engineers lurk here, the kind who thinks anything but the main ingredient is insignificant to the degree that it really isn't there. This apparantly leads them to think that wind turbines are just very big sand castles.
Yes, you are right, coal mining and burning coal should be forbidden. Wait, what were you talking about?
It is far more profitable to treat diseases than to cure them....profitable enough to allow greed and corruption to control research and results.
But is it more profitable to let the competition treat a disease than it is for your company to cure it? The whole "cures are being supressed for profit" only works if there is only one medical company AND it is impressively farsighted, not wanting the billions upon billions they could make curing AIDS or cancer now. And somehow simultaneously too shortsighted to see that a population not dying from cancer is an ageing population, and that an ageing population will need even more medicine in the long run.
This is the lottery paradox. Each lottery ticket has a very low probability of being drawn, but one of them is drawn. Or, more explicit to your example, the average of two negatives and four neutrals is no neutral, it is a bit negative. Similarly, the average of 10 negatives (lets say the 83-year-old women of choise knows 10 people) and 250.000.000 neutrals is not neutral, but ever so slightly negative.
Do you even use the age in your argument? AFAICT, it wouldn't change your argument if it was a 20 year old person getting hit by a defenstrated piano.
What we have to admit here is that Google is a massively wealthy company, and that authors are, in general, poor as shit.
Yes, and this should influence the ruling. Excellent idea. In stead of hearing witnesses and using a lot of time deciding based on precedent, fairness and law, we should count each sides money, and whoever is poorest will win.
Authors own their property, just like you own your toothbrush or your socks.
No, they don't. They have a time-limited (hah) monopoly on making certain kinds of copies of their work. It is in no way analogues to real property.
There are countless scandals and corruption episodes going on right now that we will never know about because there are no journalists being payed to report on them.
That was always the case. Investigative journalism was never a very big part of journalism, and good investigative journalism was always a minor part of investigative journalism. Sure, journalists loves to portray themselves as the fourth estate holding the other three estates accountable, but that is and always was more the exception than the rule. And how did we get from authors to journalists? Stop defaming the authors by comparing them to journalists.
What do they suggest for the base load? Solar and wind are to variable, hydroelectric is as built out as it can get, so that leaves geothermal and batteries (am I forgetting any?). Batteries will be too expensive for the forseeable future. It seems a bit premature to only rely on geothermal, though some countries cover an impressive percentage of their energy production with it.
How have Japan coped? Are they using less energy now, or are other types of powerplants producing more?
The "losses" in that expression normally comes from risks inherent to the profits, and the problem with it is moral hazards. Here, it is a question about letting the market optimize where that can work, and having the state take over where the market solution will be unsatisfactory. The logical consequence of opposing that is having the state drive everything. It has been tested, it can be more efficient for a short period of time, but then it becomes much less efficient.
Privatized? When it is owned by the government?
It is closer to a prime example of why monopolies are bad. It might be that governmental monopolies are less bad than private monopolies, but they are still worse than the market solution. Of course, monopolies often crop up, and if the state doesn't keep them in check, the free market is not exactly what we get.
That's impressive. Any idea why it is so?
Why is the situation in the UK daft? If it can be made to work, I would say that it was the ideal solution. The places where private companies work can do it more effectively than the public post, they are used, and all other places, the public post takes over. Of course, it needs to be backed up by the tax payers so postage isn't too expensive, but that situation isn't any different from any other public service.
The government owned and run postal services of many other countries do pretty well at low cost.
Excuse me? I live in Denmark, we have a government owned postage service (coowned by the Danish and Swedish states). It is now cheaper to mail a letter from the US via USPS to a Danish address (1$ postage) than it is to mail it from Denmark (8 DKK postage, around 1.5 $). They are supposed to check whether you are home when they have a package to deliver, but usually, they just assume you are not, and you have to pick it up from the post office. If you are served by one of the bad centers, expect your mail to be 3 days delayed (don't count on getting mail more then 2 times a week, when you should get it 6 days a week). In which countries are the government run postal service running well?
Sure, if you have written all of it yourself. Most free software projects have more then one contributer. It is somewhere between a hassle and impossible to find all of them and get them to agree on a license change.