Perhaps you mean statutes trump regulation? Regulations are a form of law created by government agencies to shape and enforce statutes created by the legislature. Regulations very much carry the weight of law and ARE a form of lawmaking. They can be overridden by statues or case law but in the absence of such statutes or case law the regulation is the law.
What I want to know is why is it so goddamn hard for those farms to just switch to growing soybeans instead?
Chicken and egg. There has to be a market for their product before it makes sense to grow soybeans.
If we grew soybeans instead of corn then we could make biodiesel -- which actually is efficient to produce -- and get rid of the "ethanol is stupid because it costs more fossil fuels than it saves" problem once and for all!
Citation please. Specifically please prove the following: 1) That either ethanol or biodiesel result in a net energy gain since both require expenditures of fossil fuels to grow the crops and bring them to market. 2) That there is sufficient available arable land to make a meaningful impact on energy needs without impacting food production. 3) Explain how any use of bio-fuels will solve or meaningfully mitigate the problems of gasoline/diesel pollution including carbon.
This quackery relies on the placebo effect, which is proven to work.
The placebo effect by definition has NO effect in most people. It is the reference point for not working.
In other words these things can work as advertised, unless they claim they can cure cancer or other illnesses way beyond the reach of placebo induced self healing.
So they just kinda-sorta-hint that it will cure cancer rather than stating it outright. Can't figure out why you'd protect these scumbags.
Fun fact. There are actually peer-reviewed scientific journals, for reporting these kinds of results.
Fun fact. The people they are selling these false "remedies" to do not read scientific journals and most wouldn't understand them if they did read them.
Fun fact. Without a duly authorized government agency these false "remedies" will be continue to be sold to gullible people sometimes in place of actual medicine that actually works.
Fun fact. There is an endless supply of "herbal remedies" that scammers can make claims about if they don't have to prove that they work before selling them. Disprove one and two more will take its place. (yes that's a Hydra reference but an appropriate one)
You know what they call "alternative medicine" that is proven to actually work? MEDICINE.
Not really. Both are lies. The only difference is the precise nature of the deceit. Both are selling something that they know (or should know) has no proven medical benefit. Both meet the definition of fraud which is a deception deliberately practiced to secure unfair or unlawful gain. Whether you misrepresent or conceal the facts, in either case it still is fraud.
You would think that the people selling the stuff would have an interest in proving these things were effective (perhaps via an industry association).
Why? People buy it anyway and the studies cost many millions of dollars. They have NO interest in proving (or disproving) anything about these supplements. In fact they had congress pass laws explicitly preventing the FDA from regulating them so that they wouldn't have to prove their claims.
It is not clear that these substances are useless.
It's also not clear that they are useful. Just because someone makes a claim about efficacy doesn't mean a thing without evidence.
Saying herbal medicine works, without evidence, is unscientific. Saying it doesn't work, without evidence, is also unscientific.
True but there ARE studies on a lot of this stuff that DOES say it doesn't work or that it is no different than placebo or in some cases is actually harmful.
Many herbs that have been tested, have turned out to be very effective, and many modern medicines are based on chemicals first found in herbs.
That has no bearing regarding the ones being sold here. Yes some herbs have medicinal effects. That doesn't mean you assume they do until they've actually been tested for efficacy using double blind studies.
If some idiot wants to buy 20C whatever that's their business. It's only a problem if the what is in the bottle is actually something different or false claims are made about efficacy.
Homeopathic "remedies" are the very definition of false claims regarding efficacy.
While I agree that GTAT doomed itself by signing the agreement with Apple, the terms of the agreement were so outragious that I think that Apple still deserves a lot of blame.
Spare me. If they signed an outrageously one sided business deal then they deserve what happens to them. Business deals like this are for people wearing their big boy pants. If you want to play in the big leagues then you probably should have your lawyers at least glance at the agreement to see if it will bankrupt you.
When we aren't talking about highly communicable, easily preventable transmission of dangerous pathogens. I made no argument for anything further than that.
If I allow my kids to play on sleds or go skiing and they get hurt or killed or maimed... should I go to jail for child endangerment for allowing them to be in such danger?
If your children are somehow endangering the public health by that choice then sure.
Furthermore, WHAT vaccines? And how often? I got one MMR vaccine I believe, but it's since been raised to two. Ought I to be mandated to get another one? What about the flu vaccine? What about STDs which I highly doubt my 8 month old will be contracting anytime soon?
All these questions are easily answered by medical professionals starting with the CDC. We have a list of common vaccines and administration schedules. Follow it. If your vaccine wears off (they do sometimes) get another one. It's not hard and its very safe for almost everyone. The CDC has guidelines for who should get the flu vaccine. Follow them and listen to your doctor.
And yes vaccines for stuff like HPV which is an STD should require a vaccine. It's widespread, preventable and causes cancer and other problems. Why do you think women get pap smears? Idiots who think it promotes promiscuity invariably miss the point. STDs require TWO people and if you don't protect yourself you are trusting others to do it for you. That's a bad idea. You might be faithful but that doesn't mean your sexual partner will be.
Well, they're a danger to the community; their medical records should be published. We could do it like we do with pedophiles.
Interesting idea. If someone chooses to be unvaccinated (for themselves or their child) does the public have a right to know that so that they may avoid them? I don't need to know all their medical records, merely whether they have chosen to not vaccinate for select preventable diseases without a legitimate medical condition preventing doing so safely. People who cannot get vaccinated should have some way to know who they ought to avoid. I'll have to think about that one.
But at the end of the day, I have the freedom to choose my own health care, if I don't want to go to the doctor when I'm sick, that is my right.
If you are an adult you can choose your own health care but there are limits. You can be forcibly quarantined if you present a danger to public health. See Typhoid Mary for an example. You can be arrested (and should be) and charged with assault if you knowingly transmit a serious pathogen to other people. If you choose as an adult to not get vaccinated, that is your choice but that doesn't mean the rest of us should have to suffer because of your choice. If you want to quarantine yourself from society, knock yourself out. But I certainly don't want your measles.
Furthermore we are not talking about adults choosing whether or not to get vaccinated themselves. These are adults choosing for children. The children are granted no voice or advocate in the matter. Personally I'd be pissed in my parents hadn't vaccinated me against stuff like measles. Parents that choose to not have their children vaccinated despite mountains of evidence that vaccines are safe and effective are being reckless.
Why are all of you in such a hurry to hand more power over to a large government that will just use it against you?
If you can explain how you have a right to knowingly transmit a preventable, serious and highly communicable illness to me then I'll concede the point.
Do none of you study history?
I do but I'm guessing you haven't studied medicine.
Chris Christie weighed in on the public debate over whether or not parents should have a choice in vaccinating their children, telling reporters in the U.K., "I also understand that parents need to have some measure of choice in things as well, so that's the balance that the government has to decide."
If parents are allowed to choose then that choice should not be without consequences. If these parents decide to not vaccinate their children for diseases like measles for any reason other than a documented medical condition that makes vaccination inadvisable for that specific individual, then those children should not be allowed to attend public school and those parents should be legally liable for that choice. If the child gets the disease then the parents should risk going to jail for child endangerment if there is an unfortunate medical outcome. They have the choice but that choice should not be consequence free because it isn't. They are taking a gamble that their child and those others who cannot get vaccinated will avoid the illness and if that gamble comes up snake-eyes then punishment should follow.
These statements from Gov. Christie follow President Obama commenting in an interview with NBC: "There is every reason to get vaccinated — there aren't reasons to not."
So Christie is endangering public health in order to pander to his political base. Make any decision about whether to vote for Christie an easy one for me.
How does one archive and exploit a shipwreck by photographing/exploring a tragic scene, yet chastise others for bringing artifacts to the surface to protect them, and display them to a public that's curious because of the very exploration and photography that you instigated?
It's kind of the difference between photographing a grave site versus digging up bits of the coffin for souvenirs. The artifacts didn't need "protecting" and were only brought up for personal gain. (monetary, reputational, etc) It's the difference between cataloging a grave and plundering it. There is nothing wrong with finding out what happened to the Titanic. It's quite something else to exploit a tragedy for personal gain.
Vinyl may be a bit more fragile, but chances are people are lending too much credit towards the cheap dyes used in the blank media that's rotting away without even being played. Sadly in that sense, vinyl looks like concrete by comparison.
It's not just fragile. It's fragile, bulky, inflexible, low capacity, non-portable, difficult to copy, and doesn't even usually sound particularly good without an expensive setup and undamaged media. Vinyl is NOT a viable solution and never will be. It's like saying we should go back to using horses because they have a few advantages over cars.
Furthermore just because companies cheap out on some other media doesn't make the problems with vinyl go away or mitigate them meaningfully. Vinyl is dead and we should be glad for that. Even at its best it was a huge pain to deal with.
I fully agree that better sounds is a goal worth pursuing but vinyl is not and never will be the way to get there.
There are those in oceanography who would tell you that Bob's submersibles are pressurized by his own overinflated ego.
You can have a big ego if you can back it up. I only know of Mr. Ballard by reputation and by reading about what he's done but I don't think there is a long list of people who can match his accomplishments in his field. Sour grapes maybe?
I think his point was that Vinyl albums can not have the same level of audio compression (not to be confused with data compression) and thus "loudness" as CDs and/or other digital formats.
He said "Let's hope vinyl or increased quality isn't just a passing fad". While there are some minor upsides to vinyl as a format for storing any playing music, there are huge and numerous downsides to it. The problems you mention simply aren't significant enough to justify using vinyl records again in any meaningful amount. If someone wants to get all anachronistic and listen to some old-timey records in pursuit of better sound then that is cool. It's kind of like enjoying classic cars. It does have its charms. But while I'm all for improving the quality of music, the notion that vinyl records are any kind of a sane solution is ridiculous.
Yes I am calling the Experts that mastered the top 100 songs out right now NO TALENT HACKS. if they mastered it that compressed, then they dont deserve any respect at all from anyone.
You do what the people paying the bills tell you to do. The people who pay the bills care about sales. If quality gets sales (it doesn't) then they'll demand quality. Otherwise they'll do what moves more product. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the competence or lack thereof of audio engineers.
Stand your ground and tell the executives that they are stupid and mix it right.
Big talk from someone posting semi-anonymously on the internet. Do you make a habit of being insubordinate to the people that sign your paychecks? If so then you are going to get fired a lot I'm afraid.
Let's hope vinyl or increased quality isn't just a passing fad.
I'm old enough to remember when there was no such thing as a CD and vinyl or tape were your only options to get a full album. I do not miss for a moment vinyl records and all the hassles involved with them. If you think vinyl is great you either A) did not grow up with vinyl records or B) you have a fetish for obsolete technology which interferes with your ability to remember why we don't use it anymore.
Let me remind of just some of the reasons rational people gave up on vinyl records years ago: 1) Vinyl only sounds good when operating perfectly and most of the time it does not, particularly if the record has seen meaningful play. 2) Vinyl is absurdly easy to damage and virtually impossible to keep intact with meaningful use. They are flimsy and scratch easily. See point 1 above. 3) Vinyl is bulky increasing it's propensity to get damaged (see point 2 above) and takes up unnecessary space. 4) Vinyl record players rely on needles which wear out and regularly damage the very media they are intended to play. 5) Vinyl stores a relatively small amount of music and does so in a very bulky and non-portable media 6) Vinyl cannot easily or conveniently be copied to any portable player 7) Vinyl does not come with digital track data that can be copied conveniently to other players 8) Vinyl cannot easily be utilized in conjunction with other media such as putting a song into a video. 9) Vinyl cannot easily be used for other purposes. I can use a CD or flash memory to store other types of data. Not practical with vinyl. 10) There are non-lossy digital formats which are indistinguishable from even the best vinyl in double blind tests. (If you claim otherwise I'm going to call you a liar)
Increased quality? I'm on board unless it requires vinyl. If it does then screw increased quality because it is not worth the hassle of vinyl.
I agree w/ you, but how exactly do you 'fire' customers? Refusing to sell them the product/service in question?
Just just either ask them politely to take their business elsewhere or you charge them a rate so high that it will accomplish the same end. If you have control over pricing you can give them a "go away quote" which basically charges a ridiculous rate. If they pay, fine but then at least you are being compensated adequately. We have a pain in the ass customer at my business and we simply keep raising rates on them to compensate us for the time we have to spend. Sometimes though no amount of money is worth the problems some customers cause.
I have on two occasions however told a customer in no uncertain terms that due to their behavior we no longer cared to do business with them. One was sexually harassing one of my employees and on the other occasion they had someone who simply was rude well above and beyond what his business was worth to us.
Slashdot Mirror
Law trumps regulations.
Perhaps you mean statutes trump regulation? Regulations are a form of law created by government agencies to shape and enforce statutes created by the legislature. Regulations very much carry the weight of law and ARE a form of lawmaking. They can be overridden by statues or case law but in the absence of such statutes or case law the regulation is the law.
What I want to know is why is it so goddamn hard for those farms to just switch to growing soybeans instead?
Chicken and egg. There has to be a market for their product before it makes sense to grow soybeans.
If we grew soybeans instead of corn then we could make biodiesel -- which actually is efficient to produce -- and get rid of the "ethanol is stupid because it costs more fossil fuels than it saves" problem once and for all!
Citation please. Specifically please prove the following:
1) That either ethanol or biodiesel result in a net energy gain since both require expenditures of fossil fuels to grow the crops and bring them to market.
2) That there is sufficient available arable land to make a meaningful impact on energy needs without impacting food production.
3) Explain how any use of bio-fuels will solve or meaningfully mitigate the problems of gasoline/diesel pollution including carbon.
This quackery relies on the placebo effect, which is proven to work.
The placebo effect by definition has NO effect in most people. It is the reference point for not working.
In other words these things can work as advertised, unless they claim they can cure cancer or other illnesses way beyond the reach of placebo induced self healing.
So they just kinda-sorta-hint that it will cure cancer rather than stating it outright. Can't figure out why you'd protect these scumbags.
I honestly can't think of an industry with more to gain from spreading fear, uncertainty and doubt than the pharmaceutical industry. Can you?
Yep, the defense industry and politicians. Want to sell weapons? FUD is your best ally. Want to pass civil-rights abusing legislation? FUD.
Fun fact. There are actually peer-reviewed scientific journals, for reporting these kinds of results.
Fun fact. The people they are selling these false "remedies" to do not read scientific journals and most wouldn't understand them if they did read them.
Fun fact. Without a duly authorized government agency these false "remedies" will be continue to be sold to gullible people sometimes in place of actual medicine that actually works.
Fun fact. There is an endless supply of "herbal remedies" that scammers can make claims about if they don't have to prove that they work before selling them. Disprove one and two more will take its place. (yes that's a Hydra reference but an appropriate one)
You know what they call "alternative medicine" that is proven to actually work? MEDICINE.
Over-regulation is bad.
Quackery is worse.
It's two different issues.
Not really. Both are lies. The only difference is the precise nature of the deceit. Both are selling something that they know (or should know) has no proven medical benefit. Both meet the definition of fraud which is a deception deliberately practiced to secure unfair or unlawful gain. Whether you misrepresent or conceal the facts, in either case it still is fraud.
You would think that the people selling the stuff would have an interest in proving these things were effective (perhaps via an industry association).
Why? People buy it anyway and the studies cost many millions of dollars. They have NO interest in proving (or disproving) anything about these supplements. In fact they had congress pass laws explicitly preventing the FDA from regulating them so that they wouldn't have to prove their claims.
It is not clear that these substances are useless.
It's also not clear that they are useful. Just because someone makes a claim about efficacy doesn't mean a thing without evidence.
Saying herbal medicine works, without evidence, is unscientific. Saying it doesn't work, without evidence, is also unscientific.
True but there ARE studies on a lot of this stuff that DOES say it doesn't work or that it is no different than placebo or in some cases is actually harmful.
Many herbs that have been tested, have turned out to be very effective, and many modern medicines are based on chemicals first found in herbs.
That has no bearing regarding the ones being sold here. Yes some herbs have medicinal effects. That doesn't mean you assume they do until they've actually been tested for efficacy using double blind studies.
If you're being honest about it, then how is it fraud?
WHOOOOSH....
If some idiot wants to buy 20C whatever that's their business. It's only a problem if the what is in the bottle is actually something different or false claims are made about efficacy.
Homeopathic "remedies" are the very definition of false claims regarding efficacy.
While I agree that GTAT doomed itself by signing the agreement with Apple, the terms of the agreement were so outragious that I think that Apple still deserves a lot of blame.
Spare me. If they signed an outrageously one sided business deal then they deserve what happens to them. Business deals like this are for people wearing their big boy pants. If you want to play in the big leagues then you probably should have your lawyers at least glance at the agreement to see if it will bankrupt you.
Now that this is publicly known you can be sure there will be trolls who will mess with the guy.
But of course it's perfectly ok to sell fraudule...err, homeopathic "remedies" which do not and cannot work any different than a placebo.
So at what point does the liability stop?
When we aren't talking about highly communicable, easily preventable transmission of dangerous pathogens. I made no argument for anything further than that.
If I allow my kids to play on sleds or go skiing and they get hurt or killed or maimed ... should I go to jail for child endangerment for allowing them to be in such danger?
If your children are somehow endangering the public health by that choice then sure.
Furthermore, WHAT vaccines? And how often? I got one MMR vaccine I believe, but it's since been raised to two. Ought I to be mandated to get another one? What about the flu vaccine? What about STDs which I highly doubt my 8 month old will be contracting anytime soon?
All these questions are easily answered by medical professionals starting with the CDC. We have a list of common vaccines and administration schedules. Follow it. If your vaccine wears off (they do sometimes) get another one. It's not hard and its very safe for almost everyone. The CDC has guidelines for who should get the flu vaccine. Follow them and listen to your doctor.
And yes vaccines for stuff like HPV which is an STD should require a vaccine. It's widespread, preventable and causes cancer and other problems. Why do you think women get pap smears? Idiots who think it promotes promiscuity invariably miss the point. STDs require TWO people and if you don't protect yourself you are trusting others to do it for you. That's a bad idea. You might be faithful but that doesn't mean your sexual partner will be.
Well, they're a danger to the community; their medical records should be published. We could do it like we do with pedophiles.
Interesting idea. If someone chooses to be unvaccinated (for themselves or their child) does the public have a right to know that so that they may avoid them? I don't need to know all their medical records, merely whether they have chosen to not vaccinate for select preventable diseases without a legitimate medical condition preventing doing so safely. People who cannot get vaccinated should have some way to know who they ought to avoid. I'll have to think about that one.
But at the end of the day, I have the freedom to choose my own health care, if I don't want to go to the doctor when I'm sick, that is my right.
If you are an adult you can choose your own health care but there are limits. You can be forcibly quarantined if you present a danger to public health. See Typhoid Mary for an example. You can be arrested (and should be) and charged with assault if you knowingly transmit a serious pathogen to other people. If you choose as an adult to not get vaccinated, that is your choice but that doesn't mean the rest of us should have to suffer because of your choice. If you want to quarantine yourself from society, knock yourself out. But I certainly don't want your measles.
Furthermore we are not talking about adults choosing whether or not to get vaccinated themselves. These are adults choosing for children. The children are granted no voice or advocate in the matter. Personally I'd be pissed in my parents hadn't vaccinated me against stuff like measles. Parents that choose to not have their children vaccinated despite mountains of evidence that vaccines are safe and effective are being reckless.
Why are all of you in such a hurry to hand more power over to a large government that will just use it against you?
If you can explain how you have a right to knowingly transmit a preventable, serious and highly communicable illness to me then I'll concede the point.
Do none of you study history?
I do but I'm guessing you haven't studied medicine.
Chris Christie weighed in on the public debate over whether or not parents should have a choice in vaccinating their children, telling reporters in the U.K., "I also understand that parents need to have some measure of choice in things as well, so that's the balance that the government has to decide."
If parents are allowed to choose then that choice should not be without consequences. If these parents decide to not vaccinate their children for diseases like measles for any reason other than a documented medical condition that makes vaccination inadvisable for that specific individual, then those children should not be allowed to attend public school and those parents should be legally liable for that choice. If the child gets the disease then the parents should risk going to jail for child endangerment if there is an unfortunate medical outcome. They have the choice but that choice should not be consequence free because it isn't. They are taking a gamble that their child and those others who cannot get vaccinated will avoid the illness and if that gamble comes up snake-eyes then punishment should follow.
These statements from Gov. Christie follow President Obama commenting in an interview with NBC: "There is every reason to get vaccinated — there aren't reasons to not."
So Christie is endangering public health in order to pander to his political base. Make any decision about whether to vote for Christie an easy one for me.
How does one archive and exploit a shipwreck by photographing/exploring a tragic scene, yet chastise others for bringing artifacts to the surface to protect them, and display them to a public that's curious because of the very exploration and photography that you instigated?
It's kind of the difference between photographing a grave site versus digging up bits of the coffin for souvenirs. The artifacts didn't need "protecting" and were only brought up for personal gain. (monetary, reputational, etc) It's the difference between cataloging a grave and plundering it. There is nothing wrong with finding out what happened to the Titanic. It's quite something else to exploit a tragedy for personal gain.
Vinyl may be a bit more fragile, but chances are people are lending too much credit towards the cheap dyes used in the blank media that's rotting away without even being played. Sadly in that sense, vinyl looks like concrete by comparison.
It's not just fragile. It's fragile, bulky, inflexible, low capacity, non-portable, difficult to copy, and doesn't even usually sound particularly good without an expensive setup and undamaged media. Vinyl is NOT a viable solution and never will be. It's like saying we should go back to using horses because they have a few advantages over cars.
Furthermore just because companies cheap out on some other media doesn't make the problems with vinyl go away or mitigate them meaningfully. Vinyl is dead and we should be glad for that. Even at its best it was a huge pain to deal with.
I fully agree that better sounds is a goal worth pursuing but vinyl is not and never will be the way to get there.
There are those in oceanography who would tell you that Bob's submersibles are pressurized by his own overinflated ego.
You can have a big ego if you can back it up. I only know of Mr. Ballard by reputation and by reading about what he's done but I don't think there is a long list of people who can match his accomplishments in his field. Sour grapes maybe?
I think his point was that Vinyl albums can not have the same level of audio compression (not to be confused with data compression) and thus "loudness" as CDs and/or other digital formats.
He said "Let's hope vinyl or increased quality isn't just a passing fad". While there are some minor upsides to vinyl as a format for storing any playing music, there are huge and numerous downsides to it. The problems you mention simply aren't significant enough to justify using vinyl records again in any meaningful amount. If someone wants to get all anachronistic and listen to some old-timey records in pursuit of better sound then that is cool. It's kind of like enjoying classic cars. It does have its charms. But while I'm all for improving the quality of music, the notion that vinyl records are any kind of a sane solution is ridiculous.
Yes I am calling the Experts that mastered the top 100 songs out right now NO TALENT HACKS. if they mastered it that compressed, then they dont deserve any respect at all from anyone.
You do what the people paying the bills tell you to do. The people who pay the bills care about sales. If quality gets sales (it doesn't) then they'll demand quality. Otherwise they'll do what moves more product. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the competence or lack thereof of audio engineers.
Stand your ground and tell the executives that they are stupid and mix it right.
Big talk from someone posting semi-anonymously on the internet. Do you make a habit of being insubordinate to the people that sign your paychecks? If so then you are going to get fired a lot I'm afraid.
Let's hope vinyl or increased quality isn't just a passing fad.
I'm old enough to remember when there was no such thing as a CD and vinyl or tape were your only options to get a full album. I do not miss for a moment vinyl records and all the hassles involved with them. If you think vinyl is great you either A) did not grow up with vinyl records or B) you have a fetish for obsolete technology which interferes with your ability to remember why we don't use it anymore.
Let me remind of just some of the reasons rational people gave up on vinyl records years ago:
1) Vinyl only sounds good when operating perfectly and most of the time it does not, particularly if the record has seen meaningful play.
2) Vinyl is absurdly easy to damage and virtually impossible to keep intact with meaningful use. They are flimsy and scratch easily. See point 1 above.
3) Vinyl is bulky increasing it's propensity to get damaged (see point 2 above) and takes up unnecessary space.
4) Vinyl record players rely on needles which wear out and regularly damage the very media they are intended to play.
5) Vinyl stores a relatively small amount of music and does so in a very bulky and non-portable media
6) Vinyl cannot easily or conveniently be copied to any portable player
7) Vinyl does not come with digital track data that can be copied conveniently to other players
8) Vinyl cannot easily be utilized in conjunction with other media such as putting a song into a video.
9) Vinyl cannot easily be used for other purposes. I can use a CD or flash memory to store other types of data. Not practical with vinyl.
10) There are non-lossy digital formats which are indistinguishable from even the best vinyl in double blind tests. (If you claim otherwise I'm going to call you a liar)
Increased quality? I'm on board unless it requires vinyl. If it does then screw increased quality because it is not worth the hassle of vinyl.
I agree w/ you, but how exactly do you 'fire' customers? Refusing to sell them the product/service in question?
Just just either ask them politely to take their business elsewhere or you charge them a rate so high that it will accomplish the same end. If you have control over pricing you can give them a "go away quote" which basically charges a ridiculous rate. If they pay, fine but then at least you are being compensated adequately. We have a pain in the ass customer at my business and we simply keep raising rates on them to compensate us for the time we have to spend. Sometimes though no amount of money is worth the problems some customers cause.
I have on two occasions however told a customer in no uncertain terms that due to their behavior we no longer cared to do business with them. One was sexually harassing one of my employees and on the other occasion they had someone who simply was rude well above and beyond what his business was worth to us.