Sounds a lot like what people think a libertarian paradise should look like
Only people who know fuck-all about Libertarianism.
It's not a question of what a libertarian paradise should look like, it's what in practice it would look like. Libertarians are free to believe that if government disappeared everything would be perfect, it just doesn't convince the rest of us.
Ah, I see your folly - you've somehow confused the term "Libertarian" with "Anarchist."
Contrary to what you've convinced yourself, they are not confluent philosophies. Please do us all a favor and banish your ignorance, rather than comment on matters you obviously know little to nothing about.
Non-libertarians are not opposed to free thinking, or free speech. We just don't think that the economics of "leave everything to the free market" will cause an increase in liberty, fraternity or equality for the vast majority of people.
Well, good news - unlike the duopolistic parties of Extreme Left and Extreme Right, Libertarians are not forced to think in lock-step with one another. I, for example, see how ridiculously simplistic the official Libertarian economic platform is, and do not agree with it, but am still able to refer to myself as Libertarian because I agree with pretty much everything else the party stands for.
I do understand, individual expression is probably a bit of an abstract concept to folks used to going through life without cogent thought.
Apparently the "Libertarian way" is to make a bunch of vague statements as to what libeterianism actually is, then jump all over anyone who dares ask specific questions.
Please show me where anyone I responded to asked a specific question. Or any question, for that matter.
Apparently the "non-Libertarian way" is to make a bunch of bullshit accusations and then play the victim when someone who actually knows what they're talking about calls you on it.
Could it possibly have anything to do with their holy book telling them the Jews are evil?
Yea, I mean, just look at some of these hateful, anti-Semetic messages:
I know your tribulation and your poverty (but you are rich) and the slander of those who say that they are Jews and are not, but are a synagogue of Satan.
You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father's desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and has nothing to do with the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks out of his own character, for he is a liar and the father of lies.
And they shouted it with a loud voice in the language of Judah to the people of Jerusalem who were on the wall, to frighten and terrify them, in order that they might take the city.
... and in case you've yet to figure out that I'm not actually quoting the Qu'Ran:
For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.
Yeah, I know, Libertarianism always leads to paradise on earth, and ipso facto, anything that isn't paradise isn't Libertarianism. Well, you got that right. Exactly like how communism has never actually been properly implemented.
Right, because reality is binary - there is no such thing as middle ground, only extremely bad and extremely good.
Funny how whenever someone cites an entirely subjective, blatantly false example of libertarianism not working, a bunch of libertarians jump out and say "No, that's not libertarianism!"
Of course we do; what would you expect, for us stand idly by as ignorami infect the world with their fallacious thinking? That's just not the Libertarian way.
Why is this funny? Because communists always used to do the same thing. Seems like all political extremists share the same methodology.
Kinda like how McCarthy and his ilk would label people he didn't agree with as "communist," then convince the ignorant masses that these "communists" were horrible, horrible 'political extremists,' even in spite of a complete lack of evidence?
I'm always curious why people post such masturbatory nonsense.
Bored?
Just that dumb?
Perhaps mommy didn't hug you enough (or too much)?
I suppose it's a testament to human innovation that even though so many people seemingly have nothing better to do but post idiocy online, humanity continues its inexorable march onward.
Then again, perhaps the march isn't as 'onward' as we like to tell ourselves...
ah, so you think it makes sense to let individuals decide which laws to follow and which to break? maybe you'll tell me that only smart people like you should get to decide?
what you wrote is a rationalization to break any law you want whenever you want.
Huh?
What part of "all laws should be applied to all persons equally" implies that I believe individuals have a right to decide which laws are worth following?
Your post is proof of the old adage, "hearing is not the same thing as listening."
True I technically have the right to walk into a airport with a sign that says "Im brown so I must want to blow this place up right?" or post a picture of me burning a flag and a fake bomb at the memorial for killed soldiers because of free speech but only a fucking moron would do it and then be surprised that he is arrested for it.
Why would they be a moron? No crime was committed, so they very well should be surprised at being arrested.
So if I write "I am the champion of the world!" I could be imprisoned.
Only if:
his purpose, or one of his purposes, in sending it
is that it should, so far as falling within paragraph (a) or (b) above, cause
distress or anxiety to the recipient or to any other person to whom he
intends that it or its contents or nature should be communicated.
So, if he, say, posted "I'm the champion of the world!" on his facebook page, and a member of the Mercury estate happened upon it...
When traffic laws are evenly enforced (which is to include the rich people, cops, and various government employees who get away with breaking traffic laws), I'll buy that.
Hey, it's a patent on swinging in a ROUNDED motion. Your kids didn't figure that one out yet, did they? So it's clearly non-obvious to anyone skilled in the art, and innovative. Not to mention useful to society.
...
I hate you sooooooo much right now...
You should all know by now that something being rounded or not, matters.
And that if we actually tried to fight in court would have the courts stuffed for the next 300 years for just this years patents.
Exactly why it should be fought. Every. Single. Time.
Same goes for traffic tickets, bullshit criminal charges, et. al. Fill the courts with so many people fighting stupid laws they can't get anything else done, and reform will have to happen.
That's all well and good if they are out to maximize sales, but what they really want is to max out their profit
Short term. Looking at the long game, alienating a good portion of your potential sales base by pricing yourself out of the market is not profitable.
...and to get profit you need to take into account the cost to produce the games (and a bunch of other stuff as well).
I started to try and find a general estimate of how much it costs these companies to make the games, but apparently it's a difficult number to pin down; either because the industry doesn't publish their costs (would, IMO, only make sense if they were making these games for an obscenely low amount), or because the firewall here is a bitch and kicks out anything with the word "game" in it... Guessing the latter.
So if the cost to create them is $40 and they sell 10 of them for $60, they've made $200 profit on revenue of $600. If they sell 20 at $50, they made $200we profit on revenue of $1000. If they sell the 30 at $40 then they break even, and it goes down hill from there.
Well sure, but without knowing exactly what it costs to make these games, that's all idle speculation. Also, keep in mind that the price you pay at a retailer isn't the price the retailer paid for the disc... which brings up a new question, what do you suppose the markup is on these games?
It's easy to say they'll sell more if they lower the price, but without knowing what it costs to create the game you can't know where the optimum price point is.
Agreed, obviously.
They know what it costs to create and they, and all the other game manufacturers out there, spend boat loads of money figuring out the exact price point to maximize their profits.
Considering, as an American, I've spent the better part of the last 2 decades watching corporations fiscally rape my country and my countrymen all in the name of short-term profit, some of said corporations eventually collapsing under their own weight, I find that hard to believe.
Besides, all the market research in the world means precisely shit to greedy investors obsessed with short-term gains.
Yea, that's cool, just go ahead and put some more words I never said into my mouth, that'll prove you're the superior person here. Because, you know, making baseless assumptions and accusations is totally what smart people do.
To reiterate - go fuck yourself, dude. Judging from the masturbatory nature of your posts, something tells me doing so won't be far from the norm for you.
Again, the problem is that people are willing to fork over $60 for a game so where is the incentive to make them cheaper?
That, if 10 people are willing to buy the game at $60, 20 would be willing to buy it at $50, 30 at $40, etc.
Sure, they might sell more, but they seem to be pretty happy with the money their making now.
If I were a shareholder, I sure as hell wouldn't be happy knowing that my shares could be worth so much more, but aren't because Sony's board are a bunch of short-sighted, greedy bastards.
As Talderas pointed out, had he gone to a congressman he never would have been branded a traitor at all, and the congressman would have been able to present himself as the heroic voice of integrity, providing evidence of criminal malfeasance that Congress needs to investigate.
Apparently you guys have far more faith in the honesty and integrity of congress-critters than I ever will.
You didn't answer my question; have you ever work the uniform?
The ordered list thing is nonsense. You don't do one before the other, you do them all.
That's not always possible. Like when orders given by COs conflict with the Constitution. Therefore, there must be an order of precedence.
If Manning's goal was to actually expose any crimes, or fix things, he would have literally done his job, and analyzed the information and only released that which was pertinent.
That I agree with. Granted, releasing only the crimes committed (like the summary execution of journalists and children, or the sale of young boys to a Taliban warlord) and not the non-criminal but definitely embarrassing cables would have been the right way to go. Yea, he'd still be sitting in prison with his ass in a sling, but the Army would have a much harder time convincing the public it was justified in imprisoning him.
The Biggest Failing of the army was letting him Deploy, and attempt to do his job.
Meh, I contend the biggest fail on behalf of the Army was putting a private, especially one with a record like Mannings', in charge of any sensitive information at all.
The information he leaked put American assets at risk and likely got people killed.
We're talking about a man's life here; "likely" isn't good enough.
n Short, a disgrace to the uniform, a traitor, and guilty of treason.
Disagree, for lack of sufficient evidence.
Remind me again, what's traitorous about exposing war crimes?
Even if you think There was stuff that should have been leaked, HE did it in absolutely the wrong way.
Yea, I'll buy that, but I still maintain going so far as to call the man a traitor is hyperbolic at best.
Slashdot Mirror
Sounds a lot like what people think a libertarian paradise should look like
Only people who know fuck-all about Libertarianism.
It's not a question of what a libertarian paradise should look like, it's what in practice it would look like. Libertarians are free to believe that if government disappeared everything would be perfect, it just doesn't convince the rest of us.
Ah, I see your folly - you've somehow confused the term "Libertarian" with "Anarchist."
Contrary to what you've convinced yourself, they are not confluent philosophies. Please do us all a favor and banish your ignorance, rather than comment on matters you obviously know little to nothing about.
Freedom is so horrible.
Non-libertarians are not opposed to free thinking, or free speech. We just don't think that the economics of "leave everything to the free market" will cause an increase in liberty, fraternity or equality for the vast majority of people.
Well, good news - unlike the duopolistic parties of Extreme Left and Extreme Right, Libertarians are not forced to think in lock-step with one another. I, for example, see how ridiculously simplistic the official Libertarian economic platform is, and do not agree with it, but am still able to refer to myself as Libertarian because I agree with pretty much everything else the party stands for.
I do understand, individual expression is probably a bit of an abstract concept to folks used to going through life without cogent thought.
Apparently the "Libertarian way" is to make a bunch of vague statements as to what libeterianism actually is, then jump all over anyone who dares ask specific questions.
Please show me where anyone I responded to asked a specific question. Or any question, for that matter.
Apparently the "non-Libertarian way" is to make a bunch of bullshit accusations and then play the victim when someone who actually knows what they're talking about calls you on it.
Sure the Palestinians are not nice people, I already stated that. This is a giant case of the pot calling the kettle black.
Say
that
to
their
faces
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dehumanization
Could it possibly have anything to do with their holy book telling them the Jews are evil?
Yea, I mean, just look at some of these hateful, anti-Semetic messages:
Yeah, I know, Libertarianism always leads to paradise on earth, and ipso facto, anything that isn't paradise isn't Libertarianism. Well, you got that right. Exactly like how communism has never actually been properly implemented.
Right, because reality is binary - there is no such thing as middle ground, only extremely bad and extremely good.
That, or you're being obtuse.
Guess which one my money is on.
Funny how whenever someone cites an entirely subjective, blatantly false example of libertarianism not working, a bunch of libertarians jump out and say "No, that's not libertarianism!"
Of course we do; what would you expect, for us stand idly by as ignorami infect the world with their fallacious thinking? That's just not the Libertarian way.
Why is this funny? Because communists always used to do the same thing. Seems like all political extremists share the same methodology.
Kinda like how McCarthy and his ilk would label people he didn't agree with as "communist," then convince the ignorant masses that these "communists" were horrible, horrible 'political extremists,' even in spite of a complete lack of evidence?
Yea, funny, that.
Sounds a lot like what people think a libertarian paradise should look like
Only people who know fuck-all about Libertarianism.
Not Yet News.
Wake me when Valve starts getting talkative about specs.
I'm always curious why people post such masturbatory nonsense.
Bored?
Just that dumb?
Perhaps mommy didn't hug you enough (or too much)?
I suppose it's a testament to human innovation that even though so many people seemingly have nothing better to do but post idiocy online, humanity continues its inexorable march onward.
Then again, perhaps the march isn't as 'onward' as we like to tell ourselves...
So it goes.
ah, so you think it makes sense to let individuals decide which laws to follow and which to break? maybe you'll tell me that only smart people like you should get to decide?
what you wrote is a rationalization to break any law you want whenever you want.
Huh?
What part of "all laws should be applied to all persons equally" implies that I believe individuals have a right to decide which laws are worth following?
Your post is proof of the old adage, "hearing is not the same thing as listening."
True I technically have the right to walk into a airport with a sign that says "Im brown so I must want to blow this place up right?" or post a picture of me burning a flag and a fake bomb at the memorial for killed soldiers because of free speech but only a fucking moron would do it and then be surprised that he is arrested for it.
Why would they be a moron? No crime was committed, so they very well should be surprised at being arrested.
Are you dense?
So if I write "I am the champion of the world!" I could be imprisoned.
Only if:
his purpose, or one of his purposes, in sending it is that it should, so far as falling within paragraph (a) or (b) above, cause distress or anxiety to the recipient or to any other person to whom he intends that it or its contents or nature should be communicated.
So, if he, say, posted "I'm the champion of the world!" on his facebook page, and a member of the Mercury estate happened upon it...
Excellent explanation of how our government is supposed to work.
Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to go look at the way our government works currently and cry...
When traffic laws are evenly enforced (which is to include the rich people, cops, and various government employees who get away with breaking traffic laws), I'll buy that.
Hey, it's a patent on swinging in a ROUNDED motion. Your kids didn't figure that one out yet, did they? So it's clearly non-obvious to anyone skilled in the art, and innovative. Not to mention useful to society.
...
I hate you sooooooo much right now...
You should all know by now that something being rounded or not, matters.
Channeling Morbo...
UTILITY PATENTS DO NOT WORK THAT WAY!
GOOD NIGHT!
And that if we actually tried to fight in court would have the courts stuffed for the next 300 years for just this years patents.
Exactly why it should be fought. Every. Single. Time.
Same goes for traffic tickets, bullshit criminal charges, et. al. Fill the courts with so many people fighting stupid laws they can't get anything else done, and reform will have to happen.
US6368227
What.
The.
Fuck.
That's all well and good if they are out to maximize sales, but what they really want is to max out their profit
Short term. Looking at the long game, alienating a good portion of your potential sales base by pricing yourself out of the market is not profitable.
...and to get profit you need to take into account the cost to produce the games (and a bunch of other stuff as well).
I started to try and find a general estimate of how much it costs these companies to make the games, but apparently it's a difficult number to pin down; either because the industry doesn't publish their costs (would, IMO, only make sense if they were making these games for an obscenely low amount), or because the firewall here is a bitch and kicks out anything with the word "game" in it... Guessing the latter.
So if the cost to create them is $40 and they sell 10 of them for $60, they've made $200 profit on revenue of $600. If they sell 20 at $50, they made $200we profit on revenue of $1000. If they sell the 30 at $40 then they break even, and it goes down hill from there.
Well sure, but without knowing exactly what it costs to make these games, that's all idle speculation. Also, keep in mind that the price you pay at a retailer isn't the price the retailer paid for the disc... which brings up a new question, what do you suppose the markup is on these games?
It's easy to say they'll sell more if they lower the price, but without knowing what it costs to create the game you can't know where the optimum price point is.
Agreed, obviously.
They know what it costs to create and they, and all the other game manufacturers out there, spend boat loads of money figuring out the exact price point to maximize their profits.
Considering, as an American, I've spent the better part of the last 2 decades watching corporations fiscally rape my country and my countrymen all in the name of short-term profit, some of said corporations eventually collapsing under their own weight, I find that hard to believe.
Besides, all the market research in the world means precisely shit to greedy investors obsessed with short-term gains.
Yea, that's cool, just go ahead and put some more words I never said into my mouth, that'll prove you're the superior person here. Because, you know, making baseless assumptions and accusations is totally what smart people do.
To reiterate - go fuck yourself, dude. Judging from the masturbatory nature of your posts, something tells me doing so won't be far from the norm for you.
Again, the problem is that people are willing to fork over $60 for a game so where is the incentive to make them cheaper?
That, if 10 people are willing to buy the game at $60, 20 would be willing to buy it at $50, 30 at $40, etc.
Sure, they might sell more, but they seem to be pretty happy with the money their making now.
If I were a shareholder, I sure as hell wouldn't be happy knowing that my shares could be worth so much more, but aren't because Sony's board are a bunch of short-sighted, greedy bastards.
Words of wisdom: When you refuse to fish anywhere but a sewer, all you'll ever catch are turds.
As Talderas pointed out, had he gone to a congressman he never would have been branded a traitor at all, and the congressman would have been able to present himself as the heroic voice of integrity, providing evidence of criminal malfeasance that Congress needs to investigate.
Apparently you guys have far more faith in the honesty and integrity of congress-critters than I ever will.
Oooohh, complex derivatives, yea baby....
The ordered list thing is nonsense. You don't do one before the other, you do them all.
That's not always possible. Like when orders given by COs conflict with the Constitution. Therefore, there must be an order of precedence.
If Manning's goal was to actually expose any crimes, or fix things, he would have literally done his job, and analyzed the information and only released that which was pertinent.
That I agree with. Granted, releasing only the crimes committed (like the summary execution of journalists and children, or the sale of young boys to a Taliban warlord) and not the non-criminal but definitely embarrassing cables would have been the right way to go. Yea, he'd still be sitting in prison with his ass in a sling, but the Army would have a much harder time convincing the public it was justified in imprisoning him.
The Biggest Failing of the army was letting him Deploy, and attempt to do his job.
Meh, I contend the biggest fail on behalf of the Army was putting a private, especially one with a record like Mannings', in charge of any sensitive information at all.
The information he leaked put American assets at risk and likely got people killed.
We're talking about a man's life here; "likely" isn't good enough. n Short, a disgrace to the uniform, a traitor, and guilty of treason.
Disagree, for lack of sufficient evidence.
Remind me again, what's traitorous about exposing war crimes?
Even if you think There was stuff that should have been leaked, HE did it in absolutely the wrong way.
Yea, I'll buy that, but I still maintain going so far as to call the man a traitor is hyperbolic at best.