While I suspect that you're a tad sarcastic here,...
I agree with you that Impy the Impious Imp was speaking sarcastically. It reminds me of the four types of spending Milton Friedman classified, and the value of its results. I'm working from memory here, so please forgive me my mistakes. Type 1 spending is where you spend your own money on yourself. This type of spending has the greatest results because you take care to spend as little as possible, and to purchase the things you want most. Type 2 spending is where you spend someone else's money on yourself. This has worse results than type 1 spending because, while you still take care to purchase what you want most, you are more likely to try to spend the entire amount. Type 3 spending is where you spend your money on someone else. In type 3 spending you try to conserve funds, but rather than getting someone what they most want, you get them what you think they should want. Type 4 spending is where you spend someone else's money on someone else. In type 4 spending you neither try to conserve money nor purchase what's most needed or wanted. I interpret Impy to be saying that all government spending is type 4 spending.
I know most people here hate the "Disney extension" of the copyright term, but what is the "community" losing, besides the ability to get Warner Bros. and Disney plush toys for practically free?
Economics answers this by referring to the effects of monopolies in general. Copyright is a government-granted monopoly. Insofar as Disney is able to function as a monopoly they increase their profits. That implies that there will be a shift of goods and services to Disney and away from their customers. Monopolists accomplish the increase in profits by reducing supply. That means that there will be fewer monopoly-associated goods and services produced than there would have been had there been no monopoly.
The point that hardly anybody remembers who Buck Rogers was, cuts both ways. Why can't the makers of this movie come up with a different name and tweak things a little bit? It's not like that would be a violation of precedent. Is their movie going to be so lame that they need this tie-in to prop up the box office?
Characters can be incremental, just like inventions can. Perhaps I want a can opener with a bottle opener on the other end. Perhaps you want to read about a character who's trying to do good, but who had a tortured past.
Why would an economy without money not work? Just because we and our economic elite are so entrenched in money and free market theories that border on religion that does not automatically mean that other ways of organizing a civilization do not work as well. If you pulled a Roman citizen off the streets of Rome and told him/her that in 2000 year or so people will buy silk (a very expensive luxury back then) with something resembling papyrus money rather than solid gold aurei he/she would have either laughed at you or if they were a kind hearted person offered to escort you to the temple of Apollo so that you might have your lunacy treated by a skilled healer.
As we know Libertardism is known for its followers unbiased and open approach to reality and civilized discussion. We also know that people who funded it are known for their honesty and openness too as they openly live by "me first, rest fuck off' and die" principle which is as open and honest as it can possibly get.
As it happens, there is no Charles Koch exception to argument evaluation in logic and rhetoric. (See logic.) To argue otherwise is to commit the ad hominem fallacy, and fallacies in general are not acceptable argumentation. (See fallacy.) In fact, I think I could make a good case that you've committed the Poisoning the Well fallacy. (See Poisoning the Well.)
If the Cato Institute has made an error in either their premises or their warrants then it should be relatively easy for you to argue in favor of your beliefs.
~Loyal
p.s. Do you see any irony in your complaining about The Cato Institute's "unbiased...approach to...civilized discussion?"
Or deluded and capitalist and claiming it's possible for companies to grow by 10% every year forever...
You're laboring under a number of misconceptions. What those misconceptions are depends strongly by what you meant when you said the above. For example, I don't believe anyone has claimed that it's possible for companies to grow 10% every year forever. Let's assume, however, that you merely meant that proponents of capitalism claim that growth is better with capitalism than it is with socialism, and that the rest was hyperbole. (I compare it to socialism because that appears to be what you were responding to in 0123456's post.) If so, then capitalism's proponents are right to make that claim. Heritage Foundation makes an annual survey of the economic freedom of the various nations. Insofar as you can claim that economic freedom equates to capitalism (not too great a stretch, I hope), then following the link will show their finding that increasing capitalism correlates with increasing GDP per capita, with increasing economic growth, with reduced poverty intensity, with greater health, with greater education, and with a better environment.
As a lesser matter, I should mention that you're equating companies with capitalism, whereas capitalism can exist in the complete absence of companies. Wikipedia has this to say about capitalism: "Capitalism is an economic system in which trade, industry, and the means of production are largely or entirely privately owned and operated for profit. Central characteristics of capitalism include private property, capital accumulation, wage labour and, in some situations, competitive markets. In a capitalist economy, the parties to a transaction typically determine the prices at which they exchange assets, goods, and services." Notice the complete lack of the word "companies" or with its concept. I'm not saying that capitalisms can't have companies. Rather I'm saying that it's an independent concept. In fact, if you consider a continuum from economic freedom to a command economy, then companies are a step in the direction of command economies. Companies are a way to limit the risks taken by one party to a transaction (typically the seller) by increasing the risk to society. This is frequently called "socializing the risks," and for good reason.
or that somehow giving tax breaks to the wealthy and corporations makes everyone else's lives better...
It depends strongly on the tax break. If you tax profits at the rate of 91%, then you eliminate many more business opportunities than you would if you taxed them at 27%. To give you an example, suppose that a particular opportunity costs $100,000 to risk. Perhaps a new pick-and-place machine for a surface mount printed circuit board line. Suppose further that the opportunity has a 50% chance of profiting $500,000 if it's successful, and a 50% chance of losing the entire $100,000. At 91% tax you have a 50% chance of losing $100,000, and a 50% chance of gaining (1-0.91)$500,000 = $45,000, for an expected loss of $5,000. You shouldn't take the risk. However, at 27% tax you have a 50% chance of losing $100,000, and a 50% chance of gaining (1-0.27)$500,000 = $365,000, for an expected gain of $315,000. Any risk with an expected loss shouldn't be undertaken, which means society doesn't benefit from the undertaking of that risk, offset somewhat by the possibility of the loss of the pick-and-place machine in a losing venture.
On the other hand, any number of other tax breaks, such as giving a guaranteed loan to someone that can't otherwise convince venture capitalists to invest, you would be right about.
Sorry, but in its current incarnation capitalism relies on just as much delusional fantasy and bullshit as communism ever did.
I'm not sure why we've changed the topic from socialism to communism, but...econ
"If Windows 7 or 8 is installed, the BIOS of the laptop checks 'C:\Windows\system32\autochk.exe' to see if it's a Microsoft file or a Lenovo-signed one, then overwrites the file with its own.
Since this doesn't require my agreement, then does that mean I'm unrestricted as to what I can do with it? Namely, reverse compiling, distributing, etc?
If the owner of the park (the city government perhaps) were charging admission or otherwise benefiting commercially from the performance of the music, then yes they would have to pay the license fee.
You mean like if they charged property taxes or sales taxes to maintain the park?
As opposed to SuperPACs coordinating election campaigns....
Do you like having Republicans gerrymandering voting districts? Because if you don't then you won't like it when they do the same thing to campaign finance.
It's pretty rare for factually-incorrect information to get upvoted or factually-correct information buried...I get very frustrated watching completely factual information get downvoted or subreddits banned because it doesn't fit users' or moderators' view of the world.
I never down-mod factually incorrect information because it can still be interesting or informative or funny. It can still spawn discussion. Or, hell, I could be wrong. Maybe some things that I'm absolutely certain can't be facts actually are. I'm a staunch conservative, and I have yet to down-mod any liberal post on Slashdot. I'm a Christian, and I have yet to down-mod any atheist or other-religious post here, either. The thing is, I only get five moderator points when I get them, and the moderation instructions say to concentrate on up-modding, so I do. My memory isn't perfect, so it's possible I've never down-modded anything at all, but if I were to down-mod something it would only be first-post-, or penis-bird-type posts. I know how disappointed I get when I post one of my strongly-held opinions and I get down-modded troll. A strongly held opinion cannot be a troll. By definition. The only step I'll take in that direction is to meta-moderate as underrated posts that I deem to have been buried by group think. And I promise I'll try to do that as often with posts I disagree with as I do with posts I agree with. Knowing me as well as I do, I suspect I'll fail in achieving that, but at least I'm trying.
The economists love to say that trade is great for everyone.
You are correct. Economists do love to say that trade is great for everyone. The reason that economists love to say that trade is great for everyone is because it's true, and economists love to say true things. (Exception: exporters who face stiffer competition from foreign suppliers.)
But they assume that all parties have an equal amount of advantages and disadvantages.
What! Nothing could be further from the truth! Economists would never say that because they love avoiding saying untrue things.
There is this illusion of comparative advantage.
Illusion! It's a mathematical near-certainty. The only way that two countries could have no comparative advantage would be if the productivity of First Country divided by the productivity of Second Country were the same ratio for every product that either of them makes.
But at least with the US we are making trade deals for the sole purpose of businesses lowering their costs to boost profits and make their shareholders richer and their CEOs even richer; while we little people lose opportunities and jobs and stagnant wages.
We do make trade deals so that businesses can lower their costs, but that's not the sole purpose. It's also so that consumers can buy things at lower prices. People do lose opportunities and jobs when they are employed at making things that can be made more cheaply elsewhere, but they gain jobs when they are employed at making things that can be made more cheaply here. The neat thing about comparative advantage is that the latter must exist.
Protectionism? Absolutely not!
Protectionism? Ubiquitous! Exactly how much can be found here
What we need is a business environment like Germany's where government, business and labor all work together for society's overall prosperity.
What you need to do is give me all of your money and all of your possessions and, for a nominal fee that I'll determine at my sole discretion, I'll make sure that it's used to best effect.
In the US, labor needs much more power (unions) and business needs to be taken down a few notches.
What we need is for the government to have far less power. If they had, there there would be no incentives for business to lobby them for exclusive advantages for themselves. What we need is for labor to have exactly as much power as businesses. If businesses can't have a monopoly on goods, then labor shouldn't have a monopoly on services.
We've, in my opinion, moved into an era where knowledge and research that has no practical application equates to something that's not worth all that much. Capitalism seems to be the dominant (economic) system that drives modern research and I hate it. If there is no concrete monetary profit from a venture then good luck pursuing an avenue of research that does not yield a "return on investment".
I understand your concern, but I think you're looking at things wrongly. I'm having a little trouble putting it into words, but maybe it'll help if you look at things this way. Imagine a world in which everyone was doing research that had no immediate benefits, or any expected return for the next two or three score years. You'd starve to death. People eat immediate food, and go to immediate doctors, and live in immediate houses, and wear immediate clothes. The inescapable conclusion is that only a fraction of people can be employed in that kind of research. The way that we, as an economic system, reach an equilibrium on the amount of that kind of research is by not over-stimulating it by excessive investment in it.
Or if you can't sympathize with that explanation, then let me ask this question. If avenues of research with no return are so important, then why are you demanding a high salary and large raises?
So one can't ever delete videos? How about text files? Or pictures that I painted in MS Paint for fun but having no intrinsic value? Or icons/user pictures that I haven't used in 10 years and will not use again?
You can delete videos. And text files. And pictures you painted in MS Paint. And pictures that you haven't used in 10 years. Unless you know of a lawsuit or an investigation, or can reasonably be expected to know one is coming. If that happens then you have to be really, really careful. You have to be careful because if the plaintiff or prosecutor can establish to the jury's or court's satisfaction that you did it for the purpose of obstructing justice, then you can face serious consequences. It should go without saying, but if you don't delete anything, then it's less likely that the plaintiff or prosecutor can establish that. They could still establish that, because it's possible to establish false claims in court, but it's less likely. If you do delete something in the face of a lawsuit or investigation then you better be sure that the prosecutor or plaintiff can't establish that you did it to obstruct justice. If you do delete something that wasn't for the purpose of obstructing justice then the plaintiff or prosecutor could still establish it to the jury's or court's satisfaction. That's because it's possible to establish false claims in court. But it's less likely.
The safest thing is not to be involved in investigations or lawsuits. The next-safest thing is not to reasonably expect one is coming. The next-safest thing is not to delete things. The next-safest thing it not to delete things for the purpose of obstructing justice. The next-safest thing is not to delete things probably for the purpose of obstructing justice. The next safest thing is not to live in a world with other people in it.
~Loyal
Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer. This is not legal advice.
Browser history is temporary data by design, it is not a "record". Even continuing to browse will erase it over time.
It is a record. If you know of a lawsuit or investigation, or can reasonably be expected to know one is coming, you have to retain those records. If you delete them for the purpose of obstructing the lawsuit or investigation, and if the plaintiff or prosecutor can establish that to the jury's or court's satisfaction, then you can be convicted of a crime.
~Loyal
Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice. I advise you not to treat this as legal advice. That, too, was not legal advice.
one aspect of the actions he took should probably concern anyone who has crossed paths online or in real life with subject of law enforcement scrutiny, and subsequently cleared their browser history.
Once you learn of an investigation or a law suit, or can be reasonably expected to know one is coming, it's incumbent upon you to save all records. This is well established, and has been in existence for quite some time. It's not something new with browser history. With browser history, though, it's going to be slightly tougher to prove that it was for the purpose of obstructing the investigation, rather than his normal course of activity. His erasure of videos will help law enforcement prove that, though.
~Loyal
Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice. Neither is this disclaimer. Neither is the disclaimer of the disclaimer ad nauseam.
I'm pretty sure that the Constitution of the United States doesn't say that. After all, the entire first article creates the congress and gives it the power to legislate. If the constitution then took all legislative power away then congress would be a useless bunch of ninnies...Well, I'm pretty sure it doesn't say that.
ie - the patriot act is unconstitutional - has been since day 1.
Why do you say that?
Anyone involved with passing the law, signing the law, and performing duties under said law are traitors to this country, and are guilty of treason.
No. Treason is defined in the constitution. It's: Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. There's no way to stretch legislating, signing, or performing duties under the Patriot Act into that.
Since they all seem to consider this "a time of war" against terrorism, there's only one penalty for treason.
There are any number of penalties for treason. The congress gets to decide what the punishment is, so it's whatever they decide. The relevant section of the Constitution is: The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted.
Get your asses up against the wall, and pass out the smokes and blindfolds. We'll fix the national debt by selling raffle tickets to be drawn for members of the firing squads.
You'll need a lot of luck getting a law like that one passed.
Same way here, and it's for a very good reason. Let's take NY, Imagine NYC with twice as many taxi's on the road. It happened and it made it extremely hard for emergency vehicles and anyone who wasn't a tax, or really just wanted to go anywhere. So they implemented a medallion system to limit the number of cabs on the road. See it's not a conspiracy involving the "taxi lobby", in fact it's to protect us from them.
That would be an interesting story if it were true; it's not. The medallion system was not instituted because of traffic congestion. Rather it was instituted because the growth of taxis during the depression resulted in more taxis than passengers. Taxi drivers began working longer hours, and there was public concern about the mechanical integrity and maintenance of the taxis. The first proposed taxi monopoly didn't go into effect because the mayor was accused of taking a bribe from the largest taxi company. Strangely, a lack of maintenance is more associated with monopoly than it is with competition, and it's entirely feasible that La Guardia, the mayor who finally instituted a taxi monopoly, was merely not caught accepting his bribe.
Slashdot Mirror
The BBC has opened a new online store which lets viewers purchase TV programs
Pretty sure that's "programmes."
~Loyal
Titan, a moon of Saturn and the largest moon in the solar system, has hydrocarbon dunes.
So, Titan had dinosaurs in the ancient past?
~Loyal
Most people I know are more responsible with other people's money than with their own, because they feel responsibility for it.
Please send me all of your money; I promise not to spend it on you.
~Loyal
While I suspect that you're a tad sarcastic here,...
I agree with you that Impy the Impious Imp was speaking sarcastically. It reminds me of the four types of spending Milton Friedman classified, and the value of its results. I'm working from memory here, so please forgive me my mistakes. Type 1 spending is where you spend your own money on yourself. This type of spending has the greatest results because you take care to spend as little as possible, and to purchase the things you want most. Type 2 spending is where you spend someone else's money on yourself. This has worse results than type 1 spending because, while you still take care to purchase what you want most, you are more likely to try to spend the entire amount. Type 3 spending is where you spend your money on someone else. In type 3 spending you try to conserve funds, but rather than getting someone what they most want, you get them what you think they should want. Type 4 spending is where you spend someone else's money on someone else. In type 4 spending you neither try to conserve money nor purchase what's most needed or wanted. I interpret Impy to be saying that all government spending is type 4 spending.
~Loyal
I know most people here hate the "Disney extension" of the copyright term, but what is the "community" losing, besides the ability to get Warner Bros. and Disney plush toys for practically free?
Economics answers this by referring to the effects of monopolies in general. Copyright is a government-granted monopoly. Insofar as Disney is able to function as a monopoly they increase their profits. That implies that there will be a shift of goods and services to Disney and away from their customers. Monopolists accomplish the increase in profits by reducing supply. That means that there will be fewer monopoly-associated goods and services produced than there would have been had there been no monopoly.
The point that hardly anybody remembers who Buck Rogers was, cuts both ways. Why can't the makers of this movie come up with a different name and tweak things a little bit? It's not like that would be a violation of precedent. Is their movie going to be so lame that they need this tie-in to prop up the box office?
Characters can be incremental, just like inventions can. Perhaps I want a can opener with a bottle opener on the other end. Perhaps you want to read about a character who's trying to do good, but who had a tortured past.
~Loyal
Why would an economy without money not work? Just because we and our economic elite are so entrenched in money and free market theories that border on religion that does not automatically mean that other ways of organizing a civilization do not work as well. If you pulled a Roman citizen off the streets of Rome and told him/her that in 2000 year or so people will buy silk (a very expensive luxury back then) with something resembling papyrus money rather than solid gold aurei he/she would have either laughed at you or if they were a kind hearted person offered to escort you to the temple of Apollo so that you might have your lunacy treated by a skilled healer.
You do know that aurei is money, right?
~Loyal
Mars' atmosphere has about 0.6% of the pressure of Earth's atmosphere at STP.
I'm pretty sure that anything, Mars's atmosphere included, is 100% of Earth's atmosphere at STP.
~Loyal
As we know Libertardism is known for its followers unbiased and open approach to reality and civilized discussion. We also know that people who funded it are known for their honesty and openness too as they openly live by "me first, rest fuck off' and die" principle which is as open and honest as it can possibly get.
As it happens, there is no Charles Koch exception to argument evaluation in logic and rhetoric. (See logic.) To argue otherwise is to commit the ad hominem fallacy, and fallacies in general are not acceptable argumentation. (See fallacy.) In fact, I think I could make a good case that you've committed the Poisoning the Well fallacy. (See Poisoning the Well.)
If the Cato Institute has made an error in either their premises or their warrants then it should be relatively easy for you to argue in favor of your beliefs.
~Loyal
p.s. Do you see any irony in your complaining about The Cato Institute's "unbiased...approach to...civilized discussion?"
Or deluded and capitalist and claiming it's possible for companies to grow by 10% every year forever ...
You're laboring under a number of misconceptions. What those misconceptions are depends strongly by what you meant when you said the above. For example, I don't believe anyone has claimed that it's possible for companies to grow 10% every year forever. Let's assume, however, that you merely meant that proponents of capitalism claim that growth is better with capitalism than it is with socialism, and that the rest was hyperbole. (I compare it to socialism because that appears to be what you were responding to in 0123456's post.) If so, then capitalism's proponents are right to make that claim. Heritage Foundation makes an annual survey of the economic freedom of the various nations. Insofar as you can claim that economic freedom equates to capitalism (not too great a stretch, I hope), then following the link will show their finding that increasing capitalism correlates with increasing GDP per capita, with increasing economic growth, with reduced poverty intensity, with greater health, with greater education, and with a better environment.
As a lesser matter, I should mention that you're equating companies with capitalism, whereas capitalism can exist in the complete absence of companies. Wikipedia has this to say about capitalism: "Capitalism is an economic system in which trade, industry, and the means of production are largely or entirely privately owned and operated for profit. Central characteristics of capitalism include private property, capital accumulation, wage labour and, in some situations, competitive markets. In a capitalist economy, the parties to a transaction typically determine the prices at which they exchange assets, goods, and services." Notice the complete lack of the word "companies" or with its concept. I'm not saying that capitalisms can't have companies. Rather I'm saying that it's an independent concept. In fact, if you consider a continuum from economic freedom to a command economy, then companies are a step in the direction of command economies. Companies are a way to limit the risks taken by one party to a transaction (typically the seller) by increasing the risk to society. This is frequently called "socializing the risks," and for good reason.
or that somehow giving tax breaks to the wealthy and corporations makes everyone else's lives better ...
It depends strongly on the tax break. If you tax profits at the rate of 91%, then you eliminate many more business opportunities than you would if you taxed them at 27%. To give you an example, suppose that a particular opportunity costs $100,000 to risk. Perhaps a new pick-and-place machine for a surface mount printed circuit board line. Suppose further that the opportunity has a 50% chance of profiting $500,000 if it's successful, and a 50% chance of losing the entire $100,000. At 91% tax you have a 50% chance of losing $100,000, and a 50% chance of gaining (1-0.91)$500,000 = $45,000, for an expected loss of $5,000. You shouldn't take the risk. However, at 27% tax you have a 50% chance of losing $100,000, and a 50% chance of gaining (1-0.27)$500,000 = $365,000, for an expected gain of $315,000. Any risk with an expected loss shouldn't be undertaken, which means society doesn't benefit from the undertaking of that risk, offset somewhat by the possibility of the loss of the pick-and-place machine in a losing venture.
On the other hand, any number of other tax breaks, such as giving a guaranteed loan to someone that can't otherwise convince venture capitalists to invest, you would be right about.
Sorry, but in its current incarnation capitalism relies on just as much delusional fantasy and bullshit as communism ever did.
I'm not sure why we've changed the topic from socialism to communism, but...econ
"If Windows 7 or 8 is installed, the BIOS of the laptop checks 'C:\Windows\system32\autochk.exe' to see if it's a Microsoft file or a Lenovo-signed one, then overwrites the file with its own.
Since this doesn't require my agreement, then does that mean I'm unrestricted as to what I can do with it? Namely, reverse compiling, distributing, etc?
~Loyal
That's how I felt about Y2K.
~Loyal
Don't you think she looks tired?
~Loyal
If the owner of the park (the city government perhaps) were charging admission or otherwise benefiting commercially from the performance of the music, then yes they would have to pay the license fee.
You mean like if they charged property taxes or sales taxes to maintain the park?
~Loyal
As opposed to SuperPACs coordinating election campaigns....
Do you like having Republicans gerrymandering voting districts? Because if you don't then you won't like it when they do the same thing to campaign finance.
s/Republicans/Democrats
~Loyal
It's pretty rare for factually-incorrect information to get upvoted or factually-correct information buried...I get very frustrated watching completely factual information get downvoted or subreddits banned because it doesn't fit users' or moderators' view of the world.
I never down-mod factually incorrect information because it can still be interesting or informative or funny. It can still spawn discussion. Or, hell, I could be wrong. Maybe some things that I'm absolutely certain can't be facts actually are. I'm a staunch conservative, and I have yet to down-mod any liberal post on Slashdot. I'm a Christian, and I have yet to down-mod any atheist or other-religious post here, either. The thing is, I only get five moderator points when I get them, and the moderation instructions say to concentrate on up-modding, so I do. My memory isn't perfect, so it's possible I've never down-modded anything at all, but if I were to down-mod something it would only be first-post-, or penis-bird-type posts. I know how disappointed I get when I post one of my strongly-held opinions and I get down-modded troll. A strongly held opinion cannot be a troll. By definition. The only step I'll take in that direction is to meta-moderate as underrated posts that I deem to have been buried by group think. And I promise I'll try to do that as often with posts I disagree with as I do with posts I agree with. Knowing me as well as I do, I suspect I'll fail in achieving that, but at least I'm trying.
~Loyal
Until we get fully-publicly-funded elections it won't get any better.
Having government officials decide who gets campaign money, and how much, is good for me? Pull the other one.
~Loyal
The economists love to say that trade is great for everyone.
You are correct. Economists do love to say that trade is great for everyone. The reason that economists love to say that trade is great for everyone is because it's true, and economists love to say true things. (Exception: exporters who face stiffer competition from foreign suppliers.)
But they assume that all parties have an equal amount of advantages and disadvantages.
What! Nothing could be further from the truth! Economists would never say that because they love avoiding saying untrue things.
There is this illusion of comparative advantage.
Illusion! It's a mathematical near-certainty. The only way that two countries could have no comparative advantage would be if the productivity of First Country divided by the productivity of Second Country were the same ratio for every product that either of them makes.
But at least with the US we are making trade deals for the sole purpose of businesses lowering their costs to boost profits and make their shareholders richer and their CEOs even richer; while we little people lose opportunities and jobs and stagnant wages.
We do make trade deals so that businesses can lower their costs, but that's not the sole purpose. It's also so that consumers can buy things at lower prices. People do lose opportunities and jobs when they are employed at making things that can be made more cheaply elsewhere, but they gain jobs when they are employed at making things that can be made more cheaply here. The neat thing about comparative advantage is that the latter must exist.
Protectionism? Absolutely not!
Protectionism? Ubiquitous! Exactly how much can be found here
What we need is a business environment like Germany's where government, business and labor all work together for society's overall prosperity.
What you need to do is give me all of your money and all of your possessions and, for a nominal fee that I'll determine at my sole discretion, I'll make sure that it's used to best effect.
In the US, labor needs much more power (unions) and business needs to be taken down a few notches.
What we need is for the government to have far less power. If they had, there there would be no incentives for business to lobby them for exclusive advantages for themselves. What we need is for labor to have exactly as much power as businesses. If businesses can't have a monopoly on goods, then labor shouldn't have a monopoly on services.
~Loyal
We've, in my opinion, moved into an era where knowledge and research that has no practical application equates to something that's not worth all that much. Capitalism seems to be the dominant (economic) system that drives modern research and I hate it. If there is no concrete monetary profit from a venture then good luck pursuing an avenue of research that does not yield a "return on investment".
I understand your concern, but I think you're looking at things wrongly. I'm having a little trouble putting it into words, but maybe it'll help if you look at things this way. Imagine a world in which everyone was doing research that had no immediate benefits, or any expected return for the next two or three score years. You'd starve to death. People eat immediate food, and go to immediate doctors, and live in immediate houses, and wear immediate clothes. The inescapable conclusion is that only a fraction of people can be employed in that kind of research. The way that we, as an economic system, reach an equilibrium on the amount of that kind of research is by not over-stimulating it by excessive investment in it.
Or if you can't sympathize with that explanation, then let me ask this question. If avenues of research with no return are so important, then why are you demanding a high salary and large raises?
~Loyal
So one can't ever delete videos? How about text files? Or pictures that I painted in MS Paint for fun but having no intrinsic value? Or icons/user pictures that I haven't used in 10 years and will not use again?
You can delete videos. And text files. And pictures you painted in MS Paint. And pictures that you haven't used in 10 years. Unless you know of a lawsuit or an investigation, or can reasonably be expected to know one is coming. If that happens then you have to be really, really careful. You have to be careful because if the plaintiff or prosecutor can establish to the jury's or court's satisfaction that you did it for the purpose of obstructing justice, then you can face serious consequences. It should go without saying, but if you don't delete anything, then it's less likely that the plaintiff or prosecutor can establish that. They could still establish that, because it's possible to establish false claims in court, but it's less likely. If you do delete something in the face of a lawsuit or investigation then you better be sure that the prosecutor or plaintiff can't establish that you did it to obstruct justice. If you do delete something that wasn't for the purpose of obstructing justice then the plaintiff or prosecutor could still establish it to the jury's or court's satisfaction. That's because it's possible to establish false claims in court. But it's less likely.
The safest thing is not to be involved in investigations or lawsuits. The next-safest thing is not to reasonably expect one is coming. The next-safest thing is not to delete things. The next-safest thing it not to delete things for the purpose of obstructing justice. The next-safest thing is not to delete things probably for the purpose of obstructing justice. The next safest thing is not to live in a world with other people in it.
~Loyal
Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer. This is not legal advice.
Browser history is temporary data by design, it is not a "record". Even continuing to browse will erase it over time.
It is a record. If you know of a lawsuit or investigation, or can reasonably be expected to know one is coming, you have to retain those records. If you delete them for the purpose of obstructing the lawsuit or investigation, and if the plaintiff or prosecutor can establish that to the jury's or court's satisfaction, then you can be convicted of a crime.
~Loyal
Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice. I advise you not to treat this as legal advice. That, too, was not legal advice.
one aspect of the actions he took should probably concern anyone who has crossed paths online or in real life with subject of law enforcement scrutiny, and subsequently cleared their browser history.
Once you learn of an investigation or a law suit, or can be reasonably expected to know one is coming, it's incumbent upon you to save all records. This is well established, and has been in existence for quite some time. It's not something new with browser history. With browser history, though, it's going to be slightly tougher to prove that it was for the purpose of obstructing the investigation, rather than his normal course of activity. His erasure of videos will help law enforcement prove that, though.
~Loyal
Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice. Neither is this disclaimer. Neither is the disclaimer of the disclaimer ad nauseam.
Selling drugs and weapons are serious crimes and should be justly punished.
Unless it's Caspar Weinberger or Eric Holder. Then it's totally legit.
~Loyal
More commonly known as the 1st amendment.
Yeah, except that the Patriot Act doesn't violate the first amendment.
~Loyal
Congress shall pass NO LAW...
I'm pretty sure that the Constitution of the United States doesn't say that. After all, the entire first article creates the congress and gives it the power to legislate. If the constitution then took all legislative power away then congress would be a useless bunch of ninnies...Well, I'm pretty sure it doesn't say that.
ie - the patriot act is unconstitutional - has been since day 1.
Why do you say that?
Anyone involved with passing the law, signing the law, and performing duties under said law are traitors to this country, and are guilty of treason.
No. Treason is defined in the constitution. It's: Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. There's no way to stretch legislating, signing, or performing duties under the Patriot Act into that.
Since they all seem to consider this "a time of war" against terrorism, there's only one penalty for treason.
There are any number of penalties for treason. The congress gets to decide what the punishment is, so it's whatever they decide. The relevant section of the Constitution is: The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted.
Get your asses up against the wall, and pass out the smokes and blindfolds. We'll fix the national debt by selling raffle tickets to be drawn for members of the firing squads.
You'll need a lot of luck getting a law like that one passed.
~Loyal
Same way here, and it's for a very good reason. Let's take NY, Imagine NYC with twice as many taxi's on the road. It happened and it made it extremely hard for emergency vehicles and anyone who wasn't a tax, or really just wanted to go anywhere. So they implemented a medallion system to limit the number of cabs on the road. See it's not a conspiracy involving the "taxi lobby", in fact it's to protect us from them.
That would be an interesting story if it were true; it's not. The medallion system was not instituted because of traffic congestion. Rather it was instituted because the growth of taxis during the depression resulted in more taxis than passengers. Taxi drivers began working longer hours, and there was public concern about the mechanical integrity and maintenance of the taxis. The first proposed taxi monopoly didn't go into effect because the mayor was accused of taking a bribe from the largest taxi company. Strangely, a lack of maintenance is more associated with monopoly than it is with competition, and it's entirely feasible that La Guardia, the mayor who finally instituted a taxi monopoly, was merely not caught accepting his bribe.
~Loyal