No, citizen, you cannot be allowed to choose for yourself. Who knows, if they let you choose this, you might want to choose how much medical insurance you want to buy, or you might decide you want to own a gun, or who knows what other politically incorrect concept of freedom that conflicts with the 21st century nanny state.
I don't mind a splash screen on a game if it's really waiting for the program to load resources, and it goes away when the game is ready to play. I realize that games can have a lot of resources to load up before they can begin play. I do mind when there is a whole series of splash screens for each and every little sub-library, and they all insist on playing their little animation for me every time I load up. Especially when it's obvious that the screen is just waiting on a timer or the escape key. Even if I can dismiss them with the escape key, it's still irritating.
On a business application, there is absolutely no excuse for a splash screen. I don't care if it takes several seconds to load up, but I don't want to ready your ad.
And why shouldn't they produce certain more expensive versions of ADHD medications? Oh, right, because it throws off that finely-tuned plan from the commissar of methamphetamine.
The invisible hand is just as real as the laws of thermodynamics. Yes, there are inefficiencies. Markets do not optimize themselves overnight. But they do a far better job of optimizing for local conditions than any central planner has ever done. There are far more people who can create small businesses which can compete in a free market than there are who can overcome the artificial barriers to entry imposed by labor unions and government regulations.
Government cannot fix the workers' conditions by regulating industry away from the natural market equilibrium without imposing grossly inefficient bureaucracy on the country, and also by the way creating major niches for corruption in the form of cronyism and rent-seeking. That kind of corruption is far more damaging to the economy than any unenforceable gentleman's agreement. Hello 21st Century crony capitalism.
If you had read Adam Smith, you would know that he addresses the fact that people cannot work for a wage that is less than they require to sustain themselves and their families. That minimum wage is a natural fact of life which no government can override. If the government tries, all that happens is that the labor market responds by hiring fewer unskilled workers. Unions and government can no more alter that fact than they can legislate the laws of thermodynamics. If they try, they end up "shipping jobs overseas" instead.
And yes, consumers are irrational. Individual behavior cannot be predicted. Apple computer has had its failures too. But a free market is a far more efficient way of optimizing than any central planner. Eight billion people making their own economic choices are far more capable of dealing with their own local conditions than any bureau full of technocrats.
Those other "disturbances" you speak of are simply economic factors which take care of themselves naturally, as long as the locals have the ability to adjust to meet local conditions.
"Fair labor practices are not something that takes care of itself via an Invisible Hand, be it that of Capitalism or of God."
Yes, actually, they do improve as a result of market conditions (the so-called invisible hand), when employers have to compete for workers in the marketplace. When there is a glut of labor applying for a few factory jobs, then yes, wages will be low and conditions will be poor. But then more manufacturers will build factories to take advantage of that cheap labor and the supply/demand situation will shift in favor of the workers. That is exactly what the "invisible hand" is about.
"alleged cost to society of online piracy"? If by "society" they mean "members of the MAFIAA" perhaps. And by "alleged" they mean "grossly exaggerated".
I agree that there is a middle ground, but I suspect we differ on where that middle should be. Banking regulations, for example, should stick to enforcing accounting standards and stay away from directing banks toward making risky loans in furtherance of social policy goals.
Are you willing to LIMIT government to fire, police, clean water, clean air, basic work safety rules? Is that enough for you or do you also need to "regulation" (meaning collect licensing fees from) hairdressers and interior decorators, among others?
Do you realize that without government regulations which mostly served to keep competitors out of their markets those large corporations at the end of the 19th century could not have maintained their monopolies?
And let's not even get into government atrocities like Fast and Furious.
No, I mean let you live your life the way you want, free of government interference. Sorry, but the politics of the economy is an artifact of socialist central-planning rhetoric which has no place in a democratic society. If regulations are relaxed and government power checked, then powerful corporations will no longer be able to influence the laws to their own benefit at the expense of taxpayers. Corporations will no longer be able to buy monopoly power over their markets. The MAFIAA would have nowhere to go to get their draconian laws passed.
"Republicans "listened" because they weighed the potential political gain to be greater than the risk."
You say that like it's a bad thing. On the contrary, that's exactly how a democratic political system is supposed to work. You think the people we elect are all paragons of virtue? Or only the ones *you* voted for?
There has never been a time when a corporate charter is or was an impenetrable shield against holding individuals accountable for their actions. If individuals break the law, whether they're doing it on behalf of a corporation or not is no shield.
'We have now moved into an era where the consumer is in control, and where thanks to the Internet and mobile devices, you cannot control access any more,' he said in one of his last interviews."
Glenn Reynolds, the influential libertarian blogger (who opposes SOPA/PIPA), reports that a staffer for Congressman Tim Johnson emailed: "Glenn, no name please. I work for Congressman Tim Johnson. Just to let you know, we’re getting about a hundred emails an hour opposing SOPA. We were already opposed, but this certainly makes us feel that much better about our opposition."
There are at least two other questions. How much is it changing? and Can we do anything about it?
It is not clear that science has a statistically significant answer to the first question, although it is critical to whether there is in fact a need to expend resources to correct the problem by specific measures or whether normal scientific progress in energy technology will solve the problem over the course of time. Simple linear projections of the current state of affairs are NOT sufficient to answer the question, and no computer model in current use has the "skill" (technical term in statistical projection) to reliably project the future state of the climate. IPCC projections have proved to be ludicrously over-estimated time and time again.
It is very clear that both of these questions are being manipulated by unscrupulous members of the political class (on every side!) for their own gain, not for the benefit of any other part of society on Earth.
Human DNA (and just about every other species as well) is full of things like inactive duplicate genes (some with slight alterations), pieces of old retroviruses, and other mutations and replication errors that have been "commented out". Plus a whole lot of sequences which we don't know what they're good for yet.
Slashdot Mirror
No, citizen, you cannot be allowed to choose for yourself. Who knows, if they let you choose this, you might want to choose how much medical insurance you want to buy, or you might decide you want to own a gun, or who knows what other politically incorrect concept of freedom that conflicts with the 21st century nanny state.
Sounds like a job for search engine optimization services. Bury all those old news stories.
It's an essential nutrient. :)
I don't think "deterministic" is exactly the right word to use there. Suffice to say that science insists on verification, which government abhors.
I don't mind a splash screen on a game if it's really waiting for the program to load resources, and it goes away when the game is ready to play. I realize that games can have a lot of resources to load up before they can begin play.
I do mind when there is a whole series of splash screens for each and every little sub-library, and they all insist on playing their little animation for me every time I load up. Especially when it's obvious that the screen is just waiting on a timer or the escape key. Even if I can dismiss them with the escape key, it's still irritating.
On a business application, there is absolutely no excuse for a splash screen. I don't care if it takes several seconds to load up, but I don't want to ready your ad.
Excuse me, I need another double espresso to make it to bedtime. O_o
And why shouldn't they produce certain more expensive versions of ADHD medications? Oh, right, because it throws off that finely-tuned plan from the commissar of methamphetamine.
The invisible hand is just as real as the laws of thermodynamics. Yes, there are inefficiencies. Markets do not optimize themselves overnight. But they do a far better job of optimizing for local conditions than any central planner has ever done. There are far more people who can create small businesses which can compete in a free market than there are who can overcome the artificial barriers to entry imposed by labor unions and government regulations.
Government cannot fix the workers' conditions by regulating industry away from the natural market equilibrium without imposing grossly inefficient bureaucracy on the country, and also by the way creating major niches for corruption in the form of cronyism and rent-seeking. That kind of corruption is far more damaging to the economy than any unenforceable gentleman's agreement. Hello 21st Century crony capitalism.
If you had read Adam Smith, you would know that he addresses the fact that people cannot work for a wage that is less than they require to sustain themselves and their families. That minimum wage is a natural fact of life which no government can override. If the government tries, all that happens is that the labor market responds by hiring fewer unskilled workers. Unions and government can no more alter that fact than they can legislate the laws of thermodynamics. If they try, they end up "shipping jobs overseas" instead.
And yes, consumers are irrational. Individual behavior cannot be predicted. Apple computer has had its failures too. But a free market is a far more efficient way of optimizing than any central planner. Eight billion people making their own economic choices are far more capable of dealing with their own local conditions than any bureau full of technocrats.
Those other "disturbances" you speak of are simply economic factors which take care of themselves naturally, as long as the locals have the ability to adjust to meet local conditions.
"Fair labor practices are not something that takes care of itself via an Invisible Hand, be it that of Capitalism or of God."
Yes, actually, they do improve as a result of market conditions (the so-called invisible hand), when employers have to compete for workers in the marketplace. When there is a glut of labor applying for a few factory jobs, then yes, wages will be low and conditions will be poor. But then more manufacturers will build factories to take advantage of that cheap labor and the supply/demand situation will shift in favor of the workers.
That is exactly what the "invisible hand" is about.
"alleged cost to society of online piracy"? If by "society" they mean "members of the MAFIAA" perhaps. And by "alleged" they mean "grossly exaggerated".
I agree that there is a middle ground, but I suspect we differ on where that middle should be.
Banking regulations, for example, should stick to enforcing accounting standards and stay away from directing banks toward making risky loans in furtherance of social policy goals.
Are you willing to LIMIT government to fire, police, clean water, clean air, basic work safety rules? Is that enough for you or do you also need to "regulation" (meaning collect licensing fees from) hairdressers and interior decorators, among others?
Do you realize that without government regulations which mostly served to keep competitors out of their markets those large corporations at the end of the 19th century could not have maintained their monopolies?
And let's not even get into government atrocities like Fast and Furious.
What fantasy world do *you* live in?
"Some regulations are good, so ALL regulations MUST be good."
No, I mean let you live your life the way you want, free of government interference. Sorry, but the politics of the economy is an artifact of socialist central-planning rhetoric which has no place in a democratic society. If regulations are relaxed and government power checked, then powerful corporations will no longer be able to influence the laws to their own benefit at the expense of taxpayers. Corporations will no longer be able to buy monopoly power over their markets. The MAFIAA would have nowhere to go to get their draconian laws passed.
They don't call it the Stupid Party for nothing.
Yeah, the tea party is going to impose it's agenda on you *AND LEAVE YOU ALONE*.
"Republicans "listened" because they weighed the potential political gain to be greater than the risk."
You say that like it's a bad thing. On the contrary, that's exactly how a democratic political system is supposed to work. You think the people we elect are all paragons of virtue? Or only the ones *you* voted for?
Because they have a (so far) unlimited supply of cheap labor?
And with every download you get the latest malware too.
There has never been a time when a corporate charter is or was an impenetrable shield against holding individuals accountable for their actions. If individuals break the law, whether they're doing it on behalf of a corporation or not is no shield.
What you consider to be immoral is not necessarily illegal.
'We have now moved into an era where the consumer is in control, and where thanks to the Internet and mobile devices, you cannot control access any more,' he said in one of his last interviews."
You say that like it's a bad thing, Konrad.
Glenn Reynolds, the influential libertarian blogger (who opposes SOPA/PIPA), reports that a staffer for Congressman Tim Johnson emailed: "Glenn, no name please. I work for Congressman Tim Johnson. Just to let you know, we’re getting about a hundred emails an hour opposing SOPA. We were already opposed, but this certainly makes us feel that much better about our opposition."
There are at least two other questions. How much is it changing? and Can we do anything about it?
It is not clear that science has a statistically significant answer to the first question, although it is critical to whether there is in fact a need to expend resources to correct the problem by specific measures or whether normal scientific progress in energy technology will solve the problem over the course of time. Simple linear projections of the current state of affairs are NOT sufficient to answer the question, and no computer model in current use has the "skill" (technical term in statistical projection) to reliably project the future state of the climate. IPCC projections have proved to be ludicrously over-estimated time and time again.
It is very clear that both of these questions are being manipulated by unscrupulous members of the political class (on every side!) for their own gain, not for the benefit of any other part of society on Earth.
Human DNA (and just about every other species as well) is full of things like inactive duplicate genes (some with slight alterations), pieces of old retroviruses, and other mutations and replication errors that have been "commented out". Plus a whole lot of sequences which we don't know what they're good for yet.