I agree. The author holds on to old theories about marketplaces and interactivity and completely forgets that the web and instant global communications are opening up new ways to do previously unthought of tasks.
To point at the ways previous successes worked and try to see them in the future is a bad idea. The reality is that we won't know what is succesful in the future because we don't know what previously unlinked services or products might work better together.
Now my reply is as confusing as the article, sheesh.
If a phone company does something anti-consumer, consumers switch to another phone company. Look at the MySpace situation earlier today -- consumers complained, communications company retracted.
Oh, phone companies were a legal monopoly forced by government? Hmmm... Where is the problem there?
I'm asking why I should pay private companies to be able to benefit from a right that I have.
There is no right to protecting your phone line from phone calls -- you don't need to have a phone line. Also, private companies will be cheaper that government. Will you pay a lawyer to sue the crank caller? No? You expect me to pay through my taxes, because you're cheap, lazy and irresponsible?
No need to create anything, that law is already here
Unconstitutionally.
I happen to live in a non-lawyer-happy land (so far), and I am not lawyer-happy myself. It's not about sueing, it's about respect to others, and law is, or should be, about respecting each other.
So you don't respect the free speech that is protected in the Constitution, but you do respect the ability to tax people who don't want to pay for something that doesn't affect them?
I happen to live in a non-lawyer-happy land (so far), and I am not lawyer-happy myself. It's not about sueing, it's about respect to others, and law is, or should be, about respecting each other.
No, you want to control society. There is a big difference -- those who want to voluntarily cooperate (capitalism) and those who want to control (authoritarianism).
I've been robbed twice and had an attempted robbery once (I've owned my own places for almost 14 years now).
The insurers too very good care of me the first time around. I added a private policing company for when I vacation (I get a nice discount from the insurance company for it) and the second robbery was caught in the act -- I lived in a high crime neighborhood. The attempted robbery was chased off by a neighbor in the third occurance.
Now, I know my neighbors and I let them know when I am leaving. They watch closely, and I'm overinsured for my property.
That, my friends, is the free market. What are you advocating, TSA? The cops? They'll protect me?
Mining is a dangerous job -- I do believe in a free market with the Internet to back it up, the voice of the mining industry will become better heard. I write about gold and gold mines, and gold miners have the WORST dangers -- death is very common. With the Internet, more investors in gold mining stock are aware of the problems and are refusing to support senior mines that don't have good AIDS and safety policies.
The death of the miners is tragic, but it IS part of the business. Mining companies have thousands of regulations for safety, and this tragedy still happened. Does this mean we need more regulations? I say dump safety regulations and overhaul tort laws -- this will put a MUCH higher cost on unsafe businesses.
10 years ago I had a phone box that I set up after 1am. When someone dialed my number, the box sent a beep and they had to enter a PIN to get through.
Now if someone in my family died and the cops needed to get through, I guess this wouldn't suffice. So you want a law for the rare occurence that someone dies and you can't get a call?
Caller ID is not free, it is an optional pay service on most carriers, and not everyone has it, so not everyone can just sit there and screen the calls.
Government is not free and in fact costs way more than competitive services.
Government is not optional, so those of us who pick another option still have to pay.
Government doesn't support everyone -- in fact laws are fairer to those who can afford a lawyer.
Not everyone can go and sue someone for harassing them. If someone harasses you a few times from an unknown number, good luck getting the cops to stop them.
You could certainly argue that this law in particular perhaps goes too far, but you're almost saying it's OK to harass people, until some company invents technology that you can purchase to stop harassment. That is just plain silly.
Fine. I'll pay $6 for a caller ID box and $24 a year for piece of mind. You want to pay for bureaucracy and red tape and non-effective unconstitutional legislation? You should pay your share of what you use, I'd like to bow out of it.
Just because there is a way not to be annoyed by some unruly behaviour does not mean that this behaviour should not be punished. People should not have to resort to technical measures in the first place.
You're asking for the use of force to stop something that can be fixed for a one time fee, usually. You're asking to create government organizations covered in government red tape to make a law -- so that if someone does break the law you still have to sue them or have government sue them. Rather than buy a cheap piece of techology, you want someone put in jail or fined rather than lock your front door yourself.
This is the problem with "we need a law" advocates. They don't want to be responsible, but they want to pay so someone else can be responsible. I don't want to pay, I'm already fine with locking my front door, getting a $6 caller ID box, and paying $1 or $2 a month to the phone company to have them screen my calls.
Customer have access to accurate information about companies A-Z. Customers evaluate choices.
Bull. This is a myth -- the free market never needs transparency, honesty or clear information.
Companies that lie or hide the most get crushed the fastest on the occasion that someone does discover dishonesty. Companies that operate more openly tend to last longer. In recent history, the companies that defrauded the most did so by using accountants and lawyers to give them advice on how to skim the regulations close to the edge. The Enrons and the Worldcoms used your laws to screw you -- in a free market, they would never have lasted as long as they did.
The SEC laws and regulations are the biggest reason behind corporate fraud.
Actually, I think the entire law against crank calling is pretty worthless now, anyway.
We have Caller ID -- we can refuse to answer the phone. If crank calls were a major concern, you'd see market solutions to the problem. Companies would come up with "quiet time" phone features that would prevent any ring after a certain hour unless you coded it with numbers that were acceptable.
As you can see with this law, and thousands of other bad laws, you enter into a slippery slope of stupidity.
The Department of Justice is completely out of control -- nearly 99% of the Department is unconstitutional and unnecessary at the federal level. In this end, this is an abridgement on the freedom of speech. Every time government wants to penalize "edgy" speech, they are just finding another way to control normal speech.
I think we know who the real cranks are in this case -- read the entire law/budget, you'll find more bad things than usual. In fact, I can't see anything in the budget that seems worthwhile anymore.
Heh, thanks. I write all my content on all my blogs -- years of experience in whatever I write about. I've come from years of newsletter publishing as well, and figured the cost of printing and shipping is senseless if I can translate my reader base into reading me online. AdSense helps defer the costs, but the end goal is to increase my billable rate for public speaking engagements.
The content is real, I update all my blogs 6-7 days a week with fresh, original content. What is spammy about that?
This is a proof of the free market concept of needing no regulations.
Customers of Company A (MySpace) don't get what they want. Company B (and C and D and E, etc) offer a better product. Customers complain, customers change hands. Company A either listens to the mass choice making going on, or they go out of business.
Isn't freedom awesome? Hundreds of thousands of people who don't even know each other are able to make a decision together without actually having to decide on what they want. The desires of the masses is met by open competition, not forced by regulations.
Up until 15 years ago, I could understand the regulations debate. Now that the Internet allows millions (billions) to review companies on a whim (and soon via WAP and SMS), the need to regulate would be better covered by more competition. Regulations raise the cost of entry to a market, decreasing competition, decreasing choice, and increasing prices.
Old BBS flashbacks
on
Scanjet Music
·
· Score: 2, Funny
This reminds me of a program for probably 15 years ago (or maybe 18?) that used an Epson dot matrix printer to make music by printing. I think it only played 3 approximate notes, and really slowly at that. Does anyone recall this software?
I always figured those motors could be used in this fashion -- whenever you hear them operating you can definitely hear a musical quality.
Considering that Greenspan was in "office" during Clinton's years, and the Fed had taken an easy credit/easy money policy during Clinton's days, the problem started in Clinton's time. When we left the gold standard completely with Nixon (1971ish?), the dollar was still relatively stable in devaluation over about 20 years. 1991 (in my opinion) was the beginning of the end of the dollar's strength -- prices rose but wealth and household comfort did not. In the past 14 years we've seen true prices rise against income, debt go out of control (personal and government), and we've fought numerous unconstitutional wars to protect the dollar as the basis for oil. If that is lost, I expect really big problems.
My goal in 1999 was to be completely weaned from debt and the dollar. I've converted all my savings, 401K and investments out of the dollar into a stable currency, sold my houses near the top of the bubble and am currently setting up to buy up a trailer park (very stable housing prices and just as nice). A 3000 square foot trailer I'm looking at now has a significantly lower cost to live in (better thermal rating, very low maintenance costs, lower insurance costs, etc) -- about US$40,000 versus US$600,000 for a similar new house in my area (1/2 mile from the park I'll own). If the housing bubble bursts, we'll have a lot of families without housing, and I'll be very happy to get them into a nice trailer in my private community cheaply:)
I've been a contrarian for 6 years. I've started to see cause for concern in the past 9 months. As of March 2006 I see terrible things ahead. If the Boston housing market crashes (in my opinion the first one to go), let the floodgates of dollars coming back begin.
I did not read that article (yet), but will when I get home.
Greenspan has been inflating (legal counterfeit) our money non-stop since he took "office." His predecessors had a tendency to do the same. It is this manipulation that causes housing prices to skyrocket and the stock market to boom and bust -- it is standard fiat currency manipulation and the reason behind the fall of every empire for all of history.
If you look at the M1 money supply (US$700 billion I believe) -- these are actual dollars in circulation. If you look at the M3 money supply (US$9 trillion or so) -- these are electronic dollars. The US's prime drive to export dollars is to hide inflation from the local economy. When central banks other than ours hold dollars in their reserves, inflation isn't out of control in our consumer prices.
Unfortunately, this money has affected our stock market and our housing market. It also is the primary payment tool for oil too. If these central banks decide to move to another currency (or gold), these dollars might devalue or flood back into this country, causing massive price hikes. Imagine eggs going from $2 a dozen to $20 (or more).
Our dollar was stable from 1800 to 1913 (except when Lincoln removed us from the Gold Standard). $1 in 1800 was $1 in 1913. We left the gold standard in 1913 and entered the Bretton Woods era. $1 in 1913 is worth $0.04 or so today. That is why the exported dollars must stay international. If they were to devalue or return to our country, the $0.04 would end up being $0.004 or even lower -- inflation rears its ugly head.
What is the half trillion dollars we are "investing" in Iraq if not oil industry subsidies?
It isn't for oil subsidies. Both "wars" against Iraq were fought primarily to keep the US dollar as the only trading mechanism for oil. If Saddam was to switch to gold or the Euro, the dollar could devalue. I'm against fiat currency and the Federal Reserve, so I'd love to see this happen (and it could in a few months, as I mentioned in my gold blog in the past day or so).
Lastly, bio-fuels have other positive aspects, for example biodiesel: 0 sulfur emissions, 2/3 less exhaust smoke (over dino-diesel), *far* superior lubricating qualities (than dino-diesel), etc.
What about the emmissions and other environmental impacts of the action production of biodiesel?
I've read both sides (all 4 sides?) of the debate. I've read about peak oil theories (which I completely don't believe) and I've read published results regarding oil well replenishment that has occured far faster than any theory would have estimated. I don't believe oil only comes from deceased carbon-life, it could be a bacterial byproduct or even in massive quantities farther beneath the earth than we realize. A good friend of mine is a published geologist/geophysicist and even he admits that we don't know what is going on more than 3 miles deep -- the earth is VERY big, remember.
Oil prices are not as expensive as you think. You have to consider MANY different reasons for oil being expensive -- primarily refinery mandates (boutique fuels), excessive regulatory costs and direct taxes, hidden taxes including transportation fees and other costs as well. If oil really becomes "rare" then the price will skyrocket and some inventor will find a way to continue life as we know it without major concern. That is the beauty of the free market -- there is no need to subsidize any process if it isn't needed. When it is needed, prices will drop from direct competition.
As for the war, we aren't fighting any war for oil -- this is another myth. I strongly believe we fought both Iraq wars in order to protect the dollar from devaluation. For decades, the US dollar has been the currency used to purchase oil (at home and abroad). Hussein threatened to use another currency in 1990, and we attacked him. After he lost, he tried it again a decade later, and we attacked him again. I believe this unconstitutional war, as every war after World War II, was performed for two reasons: to prop the dollar as the international trading mechanism and to force countries to use our companies for products (mercantilism).
Pataki has been criticized for promoting ethanol because it is made from corn grown in states that include Iowa, which he has been visiting recently to gauge support for a possible presidential run.
and:
Environmentalists have largely denounced making ethanol-capable vehicles, calling that a boondoggle intended for the agriculture lobby and Detroit. When automakers build cars and trucks that can use ethanol, called flex-fuel vehicles, they earn credits that make it easier to meet fuel-economy regulations, in turn giving them leeway to build more gas-guzzlers.
Also, biodiesel will be a huge source of revenue for the political cronies (same people supported by both parties). Gas station ownership is heavily regulated and licensed. Biodiesel won't be just given tax breaks but direct taxpayer-funded subsidies! From TFA:
On Friday, a gallon of E85 was selling for $1.73--in part because of subsidies--at a station in Akron, Iowa, compared with $2.19 for a gallon of unleaded regular.
From a political standpoint, biodiesel subsidies also pay for numerous megacorp farming cronies.
If New York wants cheaper fuel, do two things:
1. Annul all gas taxes 2. Get rid of boutique fuel mixes making refineries wealthy
As I showed in this post, Lincoln said the following areas in the Union would still have slaves:
Arkansas, Texas, Louisiana, (except the Parishes of St. Bernard, Plaquemines, Jefferson, St. John, St. Charles, St. James Ascension, Assumption, Terrebonne, Lafourche, St. Mary, St. Martin, and Orleans, including the City of New Orleans) Mississippi, Alabama, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, and Virginia, (except the forty-eight counties designated as West Virginia, and also the counties of Berkley, Accomac, Northampton, Elizabeth City, York, Princess Ann, and Norfolk, including the cities of Norfolk and Portsmouth[)], and which excepted parts, are for the present, left precisely as if this proclamation were not issued.
Lincoln freeing slaves in another country, the Confederate States of America, would be like Lincoln freeing slaves in Canada or Mexico -- he had no control over it. In fact the Emancipation Proclamation was a order by the Commander in Chief, not by the President. He knew the EP had no power and was merely used as a tool to try to bring on slave revolts. He was largely unsuccessful in that regard.
You are correct about Lincoln and the Illinois law barring blacks from the state -- it was actually part of the Illinois Constitution and not something Lincoln wrote up. I was definitely wrong there. Lincoln DID support it, though, and he also openly supported the Illinois Black Codes, which prevented the few blacks in Illinois from receiving citizenship.
Seward, while he was in his cabinet as Secretary of State, even saw that the EP had no bearing on the CSA and no bearing on slaves in the USA. It was merely a political tool to try to keep the war active.
Lincoln also said to his Treasury Secretary: "The original emancipation proclamation has no legal justification, except as a military measure."
Ignorance? "Team of Rivals" I've read -- and Professor DiLorenzo does a great job here and here. Goodwin is definitely the "court historian" and he puts it -- continuing with the lies and the myth that to this day call Lincoln a great man instead of a worthless tyrant that he truly was.
Lincoln HAD no philosophy. He repeatedly changed his opinions on a whim in order to produce a false philosophy for whoever he was speaking to at the moment. Laurence Vance comes up with some great advice for Lincoln lovers:
I will say, then, that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in anyway the social and political equality of the white and black races - that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race. Yes, friends, that is Honest Abe talking.
I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.
My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union.
Oh, and Lincoln didn't free slaves in the United States -- the Confederate States of America legally and constitutionally seceeded (per the 9th and 10th Amendment as well as many State constitutions that held that right before signing into the Union), so they were out of Lincoln's control. Lincoln decided to basically free slaves in another country! Here is where Lincoln did NOT free slaves that existed in the Union:
Arkansas, Texas, Louisiana, (except the Parishes of St. Bernard, Plaquemines, Jefferson, St. John, St. Charles, St. James Ascension, Assumption, Terrebonne, Lafourche, St. Mary, St. Martin, and Orleans, including the City of New Orleans) Mississippi, Alabama, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, and Virginia, (except the forty-eight counties designated as West Virginia, and also the counties of Berkley, Accomac, Northampton, Elizabeth City, York, Princess Ann, and Norfolk, including the cities of Norfolk and Portsmouth[)], and which excepted parts, are for the present, left precisely as if this proclamation were not issued.
Look at those states and cities that Lincoln refused to release from slavery!
Lincoln's Army raped and pillaged the south -- setting fires everywhere. He destroyed Indians who were neutral on the War between States. Lincoln HATED blacks, and he only fought the war to preserve the Union so he could tax the prosperous South to pay tribute to his friends in the north with corporate welfare dollars.
Don't believe what you learned in school -- history written by the winners, not written based on the facts.
Lincoln started the War between States over money for his friends and cronies. He started the war and ran most of the war in order to bring the profitable South back into the Union. The South feared Lincoln because of his support for Henry Clay's American System of Mercantilism: taxing and tariffing Southern production to pay corporate welfare in the North.
Lincoln hated freedom, and he hated capitalism. He wanted tight regulations, high taxes and tariffs on the south, a large empire to spread the American System of Mercantilism. Lincoln was a Whig for his entire life -- and the Whig platform because the Republican platform. The Republicans to this day are still Clay/Hamilton/Lincoln lovers who love a big central government.
Slashdot Mirror
The federal government has 3 crimes it can perform "justice" against -- piracy, counterfeiting and treason.
The DoJ spends less than 1% of its budget on these three crimes. Actually in some years it spent well under 0.25% of its budget on these three crimes.
Therefore, 99% of the DoJ is unconstitutional.
Q.E.D.
I agree. The author holds on to old theories about marketplaces and interactivity and completely forgets that the web and instant global communications are opening up new ways to do previously unthought of tasks.
To point at the ways previous successes worked and try to see them in the future is a bad idea. The reality is that we won't know what is succesful in the future because we don't know what previously unlinked services or products might work better together.
Now my reply is as confusing as the article, sheesh.
If a phone company does something anti-consumer, consumers switch to another phone company. Look at the MySpace situation earlier today -- consumers complained, communications company retracted.
Oh, phone companies were a legal monopoly forced by government? Hmmm... Where is the problem there?
I'm asking why I should pay private companies to be able to benefit from a right that I have.
There is no right to protecting your phone line from phone calls -- you don't need to have a phone line. Also, private companies will be cheaper that government. Will you pay a lawyer to sue the crank caller? No? You expect me to pay through my taxes, because you're cheap, lazy and irresponsible?
No need to create anything, that law is already here
Unconstitutionally.
I happen to live in a non-lawyer-happy land (so far), and I am not lawyer-happy myself. It's not about sueing, it's about respect to others, and law is, or should be, about respecting each other.
So you don't respect the free speech that is protected in the Constitution, but you do respect the ability to tax people who don't want to pay for something that doesn't affect them?
I happen to live in a non-lawyer-happy land (so far), and I am not lawyer-happy myself. It's not about sueing, it's about respect to others, and law is, or should be, about respecting each other.
No, you want to control society. There is a big difference -- those who want to voluntarily cooperate (capitalism) and those who want to control (authoritarianism).
I've been robbed twice and had an attempted robbery once (I've owned my own places for almost 14 years now).
The insurers too very good care of me the first time around. I added a private policing company for when I vacation (I get a nice discount from the insurance company for it) and the second robbery was caught in the act -- I lived in a high crime neighborhood. The attempted robbery was chased off by a neighbor in the third occurance.
Now, I know my neighbors and I let them know when I am leaving. They watch closely, and I'm overinsured for my property.
That, my friends, is the free market. What are you advocating, TSA? The cops? They'll protect me?
Mining is a dangerous job -- I do believe in a free market with the Internet to back it up, the voice of the mining industry will become better heard. I write about gold and gold mines, and gold miners have the WORST dangers -- death is very common. With the Internet, more investors in gold mining stock are aware of the problems and are refusing to support senior mines that don't have good AIDS and safety policies.
The death of the miners is tragic, but it IS part of the business. Mining companies have thousands of regulations for safety, and this tragedy still happened. Does this mean we need more regulations? I say dump safety regulations and overhaul tort laws -- this will put a MUCH higher cost on unsafe businesses.
10 years ago I had a phone box that I set up after 1am. When someone dialed my number, the box sent a beep and they had to enter a PIN to get through.
Now if someone in my family died and the cops needed to get through, I guess this wouldn't suffice. So you want a law for the rare occurence that someone dies and you can't get a call?
Caller ID is not free, it is an optional pay service on most carriers, and not everyone has it, so not everyone can just sit there and screen the calls.
Government is not free and in fact costs way more than competitive services.
Government is not optional, so those of us who pick another option still have to pay.
Government doesn't support everyone -- in fact laws are fairer to those who can afford a lawyer.
Not everyone can go and sue someone for harassing them. If someone harasses you a few times from an unknown number, good luck getting the cops to stop them.
You could certainly argue that this law in particular perhaps goes too far, but you're almost saying it's OK to harass people, until some company invents technology that you can purchase to stop harassment. That is just plain silly.
Fine. I'll pay $6 for a caller ID box and $24 a year for piece of mind. You want to pay for bureaucracy and red tape and non-effective unconstitutional legislation? You should pay your share of what you use, I'd like to bow out of it.
Just because there is a way not to be annoyed by some unruly behaviour does not mean that this behaviour should not be punished. People should not have to resort to technical measures in the first place.
You're asking for the use of force to stop something that can be fixed for a one time fee, usually. You're asking to create government organizations covered in government red tape to make a law -- so that if someone does break the law you still have to sue them or have government sue them. Rather than buy a cheap piece of techology, you want someone put in jail or fined rather than lock your front door yourself.
This is the problem with "we need a law" advocates. They don't want to be responsible, but they want to pay so someone else can be responsible. I don't want to pay, I'm already fine with locking my front door, getting a $6 caller ID box, and paying $1 or $2 a month to the phone company to have them screen my calls.
Customer have access to accurate information about companies A-Z. Customers evaluate choices.
Bull. This is a myth -- the free market never needs transparency, honesty or clear information.
Companies that lie or hide the most get crushed the fastest on the occasion that someone does discover dishonesty. Companies that operate more openly tend to last longer. In recent history, the companies that defrauded the most did so by using accountants and lawyers to give them advice on how to skim the regulations close to the edge. The Enrons and the Worldcoms used your laws to screw you -- in a free market, they would never have lasted as long as they did.
The SEC laws and regulations are the biggest reason behind corporate fraud.
Actually, I think the entire law against crank calling is pretty worthless now, anyway.
We have Caller ID -- we can refuse to answer the phone. If crank calls were a major concern, you'd see market solutions to the problem. Companies would come up with "quiet time" phone features that would prevent any ring after a certain hour unless you coded it with numbers that were acceptable.
As you can see with this law, and thousands of other bad laws, you enter into a slippery slope of stupidity.
The Department of Justice is completely out of control -- nearly 99% of the Department is unconstitutional and unnecessary at the federal level. In this end, this is an abridgement on the freedom of speech. Every time government wants to penalize "edgy" speech, they are just finding another way to control normal speech.
I think we know who the real cranks are in this case -- read the entire law/budget, you'll find more bad things than usual. In fact, I can't see anything in the budget that seems worthwhile anymore.
Heh, thanks. I write all my content on all my blogs -- years of experience in whatever I write about. I've come from years of newsletter publishing as well, and figured the cost of printing and shipping is senseless if I can translate my reader base into reading me online. AdSense helps defer the costs, but the end goal is to increase my billable rate for public speaking engagements.
The content is real, I update all my blogs 6-7 days a week with fresh, original content. What is spammy about that?
This is a proof of the free market concept of needing no regulations.
Customers of Company A (MySpace) don't get what they want. Company B (and C and D and E, etc) offer a better product. Customers complain, customers change hands. Company A either listens to the mass choice making going on, or they go out of business.
Isn't freedom awesome? Hundreds of thousands of people who don't even know each other are able to make a decision together without actually having to decide on what they want. The desires of the masses is met by open competition, not forced by regulations.
Up until 15 years ago, I could understand the regulations debate. Now that the Internet allows millions (billions) to review companies on a whim (and soon via WAP and SMS), the need to regulate would be better covered by more competition. Regulations raise the cost of entry to a market, decreasing competition, decreasing choice, and increasing prices.
This reminds me of a program for probably 15 years ago (or maybe 18?) that used an Epson dot matrix printer to make music by printing. I think it only played 3 approximate notes, and really slowly at that. Does anyone recall this software?
I always figured those motors could be used in this fashion -- whenever you hear them operating you can definitely hear a musical quality.
HP versus the RIAA, who will win?
Considering that Greenspan was in "office" during Clinton's years, and the Fed had taken an easy credit/easy money policy during Clinton's days, the problem started in Clinton's time. When we left the gold standard completely with Nixon (1971ish?), the dollar was still relatively stable in devaluation over about 20 years. 1991 (in my opinion) was the beginning of the end of the dollar's strength -- prices rose but wealth and household comfort did not. In the past 14 years we've seen true prices rise against income, debt go out of control (personal and government), and we've fought numerous unconstitutional wars to protect the dollar as the basis for oil. If that is lost, I expect really big problems.
:)
My goal in 1999 was to be completely weaned from debt and the dollar. I've converted all my savings, 401K and investments out of the dollar into a stable currency, sold my houses near the top of the bubble and am currently setting up to buy up a trailer park (very stable housing prices and just as nice). A 3000 square foot trailer I'm looking at now has a significantly lower cost to live in (better thermal rating, very low maintenance costs, lower insurance costs, etc) -- about US$40,000 versus US$600,000 for a similar new house in my area (1/2 mile from the park I'll own). If the housing bubble bursts, we'll have a lot of families without housing, and I'll be very happy to get them into a nice trailer in my private community cheaply
I've been a contrarian for 6 years. I've started to see cause for concern in the past 9 months. As of March 2006 I see terrible things ahead. If the Boston housing market crashes (in my opinion the first one to go), let the floodgates of dollars coming back begin.
I did not read that article (yet), but will when I get home.
Greenspan has been inflating (legal counterfeit) our money non-stop since he took "office." His predecessors had a tendency to do the same. It is this manipulation that causes housing prices to skyrocket and the stock market to boom and bust -- it is standard fiat currency manipulation and the reason behind the fall of every empire for all of history.
If you look at the M1 money supply (US$700 billion I believe) -- these are actual dollars in circulation. If you look at the M3 money supply (US$9 trillion or so) -- these are electronic dollars. The US's prime drive to export dollars is to hide inflation from the local economy. When central banks other than ours hold dollars in their reserves, inflation isn't out of control in our consumer prices.
Unfortunately, this money has affected our stock market and our housing market. It also is the primary payment tool for oil too. If these central banks decide to move to another currency (or gold), these dollars might devalue or flood back into this country, causing massive price hikes. Imagine eggs going from $2 a dozen to $20 (or more).
Our dollar was stable from 1800 to 1913 (except when Lincoln removed us from the Gold Standard). $1 in 1800 was $1 in 1913. We left the gold standard in 1913 and entered the Bretton Woods era. $1 in 1913 is worth $0.04 or so today. That is why the exported dollars must stay international. If they were to devalue or return to our country, the $0.04 would end up being $0.004 or even lower -- inflation rears its ugly head.
What is the half trillion dollars we are "investing" in Iraq if not oil industry subsidies?
It isn't for oil subsidies. Both "wars" against Iraq were fought primarily to keep the US dollar as the only trading mechanism for oil. If Saddam was to switch to gold or the Euro, the dollar could devalue. I'm against fiat currency and the Federal Reserve, so I'd love to see this happen (and it could in a few months, as I mentioned in my gold blog in the past day or so).
Lastly, bio-fuels have other positive aspects, for example biodiesel: 0 sulfur emissions, 2/3 less exhaust smoke (over dino-diesel), *far* superior lubricating qualities (than dino-diesel), etc.
What about the emmissions and other environmental impacts of the action production of biodiesel?
I've read both sides (all 4 sides?) of the debate. I've read about peak oil theories (which I completely don't believe) and I've read published results regarding oil well replenishment that has occured far faster than any theory would have estimated. I don't believe oil only comes from deceased carbon-life, it could be a bacterial byproduct or even in massive quantities farther beneath the earth than we realize. A good friend of mine is a published geologist/geophysicist and even he admits that we don't know what is going on more than 3 miles deep -- the earth is VERY big, remember.
Oil prices are not as expensive as you think. You have to consider MANY different reasons for oil being expensive -- primarily refinery mandates (boutique fuels), excessive regulatory costs and direct taxes, hidden taxes including transportation fees and other costs as well. If oil really becomes "rare" then the price will skyrocket and some inventor will find a way to continue life as we know it without major concern. That is the beauty of the free market -- there is no need to subsidize any process if it isn't needed. When it is needed, prices will drop from direct competition.
As for the war, we aren't fighting any war for oil -- this is another myth. I strongly believe we fought both Iraq wars in order to protect the dollar from devaluation. For decades, the US dollar has been the currency used to purchase oil (at home and abroad). Hussein threatened to use another currency in 1990, and we attacked him. After he lost, he tried it again a decade later, and we attacked him again. I believe this unconstitutional war, as every war after World War II, was performed for two reasons: to prop the dollar as the international trading mechanism and to force countries to use our companies for products (mercantilism).
I'm not sure if oil prices will go up forever. I'm also not sure if I believe in the scarcity idea either.
I do know that higher costs for alternative fuels often means less friendly to the environment. Not always, though.
I'm sure politically we're opposite but the 4 day work week is a great idea.
I'll have to see what laws and union mandates require an 8 hour work day.
But hey, it's a step forward, right?
Not if the net cost means biodiesel costs much more.
More costs = more workers ~= less environmentally friendly
I have yet to see if biodiesel will ever be better for the environment considering all aspects of production.
The article speaks the true reasons:
Pataki has been criticized for promoting ethanol because it is made from corn grown in states that include Iowa, which he has been visiting recently to gauge support for a possible presidential run.
and:
Environmentalists have largely denounced making ethanol-capable vehicles, calling that a boondoggle intended for the agriculture lobby and Detroit. When automakers build cars and trucks that can use ethanol, called flex-fuel vehicles, they earn credits that make it easier to meet fuel-economy regulations, in turn giving them leeway to build more gas-guzzlers.
Also, biodiesel will be a huge source of revenue for the political cronies (same people supported by both parties). Gas station ownership is heavily regulated and licensed. Biodiesel won't be just given tax breaks but direct taxpayer-funded subsidies! From TFA:
On Friday, a gallon of E85 was selling for $1.73--in part because of subsidies--at a station in Akron, Iowa, compared with $2.19 for a gallon of unleaded regular.
From a political standpoint, biodiesel subsidies also pay for numerous megacorp farming cronies.
If New York wants cheaper fuel, do two things:
1. Annul all gas taxes
2. Get rid of boutique fuel mixes making refineries wealthy
That is all myth!
As I showed in this post, Lincoln said the following areas in the Union would still have slaves:
Arkansas, Texas, Louisiana, (except the Parishes of St. Bernard, Plaquemines, Jefferson, St. John, St. Charles, St. James Ascension, Assumption, Terrebonne, Lafourche, St. Mary, St. Martin, and Orleans, including the City of New Orleans) Mississippi, Alabama, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, and Virginia, (except the forty-eight counties designated as West Virginia, and also the counties of Berkley, Accomac, Northampton, Elizabeth City, York, Princess Ann, and Norfolk, including the cities of Norfolk and Portsmouth[)], and which excepted parts, are for the present, left precisely as if this proclamation were not issued.
Lincoln freeing slaves in another country, the Confederate States of America, would be like Lincoln freeing slaves in Canada or Mexico -- he had no control over it. In fact the Emancipation Proclamation was a order by the Commander in Chief, not by the President. He knew the EP had no power and was merely used as a tool to try to bring on slave revolts. He was largely unsuccessful in that regard.
You are correct about Lincoln and the Illinois law barring blacks from the state -- it was actually part of the Illinois Constitution and not something Lincoln wrote up. I was definitely wrong there. Lincoln DID support it, though, and he also openly supported the Illinois Black Codes, which prevented the few blacks in Illinois from receiving citizenship.
Seward, while he was in his cabinet as Secretary of State, even saw that the EP had no bearing on the CSA and no bearing on slaves in the USA. It was merely a political tool to try to keep the war active.
Lincoln also said to his Treasury Secretary: "The original emancipation proclamation has no legal justification, except as a military measure."
Ignorance? "Team of Rivals" I've read -- and Professor DiLorenzo does a great job here and here. Goodwin is definitely the "court historian" and he puts it -- continuing with the lies and the myth that to this day call Lincoln a great man instead of a worthless tyrant that he truly was.
Lincoln HAD no philosophy. He repeatedly changed his opinions on a whim in order to produce a false philosophy for whoever he was speaking to at the moment. Laurence Vance comes up with some great advice for Lincoln lovers:
In his debate with Stephen Douglas:
I will say, then, that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in anyway the social and political equality of the white and black races - that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race. Yes, friends, that is Honest Abe talking.
In Lincoln's First Inaugural Address:
I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.
In Lincoln's Letter to Horance Greenley, the editor of the New York Tribune:
My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union.
Oh, and Lincoln didn't free slaves in the United States -- the Confederate States of America legally and constitutionally seceeded (per the 9th and 10th Amendment as well as many State constitutions that held that right before signing into the Union), so they were out of Lincoln's control. Lincoln decided to basically free slaves in another country! Here is where Lincoln did NOT free slaves that existed in the Union:
Arkansas, Texas, Louisiana, (except the Parishes of St. Bernard, Plaquemines, Jefferson, St. John, St. Charles, St. James Ascension, Assumption, Terrebonne, Lafourche, St. Mary, St. Martin, and Orleans, including the City of New Orleans) Mississippi, Alabama, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, and Virginia, (except the forty-eight counties designated as West Virginia, and also the counties of Berkley, Accomac, Northampton, Elizabeth City, York, Princess Ann, and Norfolk, including the cities of Norfolk and Portsmouth[)], and which excepted parts, are for the present, left precisely as if this proclamation were not issued.
Look at those states and cities that Lincoln refused to release from slavery!
Lincoln's Army raped and pillaged the south -- setting fires everywhere. He destroyed Indians who were neutral on the War between States. Lincoln HATED blacks, and he only fought the war to preserve the Union so he could tax the prosperous South to pay tribute to his friends in the north with corporate welfare dollars.
Don't believe what you learned in school -- history written by the winners, not written based on the facts.
Lincoln started the War between States over money for his friends and cronies. He started the war and ran most of the war in order to bring the profitable South back into the Union. The South feared Lincoln because of his support for Henry Clay's American System of Mercantilism: taxing and tariffing Southern production to pay corporate welfare in the North.
Lincoln hated freedom, and he hated capitalism. He wanted tight regulations, high taxes and tariffs on the south, a large empire to spread the American System of Mercantilism. Lincoln was a Whig for his entire life -- and the Whig platform because the Republican platform. The Republicans to this day are still Clay/Hamilton/Lincoln lovers who love a big central government.