Actually I found your reply very moving. Discussions like that are one of the things really going for/. Seems I really hit a nerve.
With the meth bill, which might or might not get killed, drugs seem to be an ideal visualization of the stupidity going on when it comes to censorship issues on the net. Mind you, I believe methamphetamine is about as bad is it gets. Does such a three-monkeys approach make meth go away? Hardly
I am just saying that for me, drugs were HARMFUL, that I got very dependent on them and got into a vicious circle, losing all perspective and chasing 'soma' until my life was shit, frankly.
Well, the key here is that you make it you talk from your perspective. You make it cristal clear that it fucked you up. You very much emphasize this. Quite the contrary it appears that the idea of not being able to communicate your experience, respectively communicating it in an environment that only allows your perspective, seems to piss you off royally. I have very much respect for your position.
Now, here is the problem. I feel I have a right to have any search on 'drugs' return the stuff I just typed, just as much as you've a right for such an inquiry to return _your_ viewpoint. I know good and well that the kids in the schoolyard and on the back streets are going to be taking _your_ viewpoint for the most part- they haven't had time to see a downside to it, and they probably don't trust the hysteria of teachers and authority figures.
I would never preach to anybody that drugs are good, or that recreational drug use is harmless. What I'm advocating is access to factual information. Just choking out talking about the subject doesn't make drugs go away.
In some European countries information went very far indeed. Ravers could have their XTC pills analyzed at raves on the spot. A mobile lab was scratching of a small sample of a pill and could instantly tell what it really is. Now some people might argue that this is bad and this is illegal and that this advocates use of illicit drugs. My perspective is such reasoning is bullshit, because those pills are swallowed. Actually it's quite the oposite. The idea is harm reduction. Also, those labs hand out factual information about E-abuse. Informing the kids that it's not really quite harmless what they're doing, about possible side effects, about unknown variables (neurotoxologie) in the use of this drug. So, in a nutshell: I don't condone the use of MDMA, but I very much support the idea of informing those people that going to take it, factually, truthfully and in a non hostile environment.
But as soon as the issue is censored for 'childrens' safety', it's be silenced or side with the brainwashers- because the context of having an independent opinion (namely, "Drugs were bad for me, I quit doing them because they did me harm") is _gone_.
You're very right here. Having been in the really dark rotten hole and still furiosly defending this opinion actually puts you in a very strong position and gives your perspective a lot of credibility. One of the strongest quotes in my book is
I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it (Voltaire)
and your post totally lives up to that.
OK, now I got carried away, actually I just wanted to let you know that I really enjoyed your response.
Great that you made it. I would have hated not to read about it because you could be shoved into jail for expressing your thoughts.
As the net is more and more turning into a huge, sanitized cable TV operation, it's clear that such measures happen.
This seems to be especially aparrent in the US, where there's very little middle ground. A good example is the war on drugs which is so histerically fought because of the reefer madness (whatever that is).
Now, the problem of course is that the lowest common denominator has to be found, which indeed is pretty low. But of course kids have to be spared by discussions about female breasts, the responsible application of recreational drugs or opinions that are not quite politically correct.
Censorship stinks it's that easy. There is always somebody who decides what crosses the line and what not. More often then not those blokes have a very different opinion then me.
I'm reluctant to admit that censorship (or editorial filtering if you wish) is acceptable with a newspaper (while the publisher influencing the editor is most definitely not). But a newspaper is a private entity. I don't like what they print, I don't buy it.
The net is very different and nobody should have a right to decide what's good for me.
Not too long ago the same thing happened and was expressed in book burnings. It was a time when Europe (and a lot of the world) was shrouded in deep black. It was a bad time fueling the hateful, the fearful and the fanatics. I don't ever want to see history repeat itself in this context.
I fondly remember ther good ol' days in the beginning of the nineties.
The policy manual stated that if you snoop around a collegues file system (including e-mail) unauthorized, this was considered snooping in his desk drawers and could lead to immediate termination, no questions asked.
It was the same company that refused to drug test any employee with the exception of people working for defence contractors and the piss tests where required by the US gubynmynt and then only with due notice.
They had set up a couple gay and a couple of AA members only conferences on the huge internal network. I' m neither gay nor do I have too much of a drinking problem. But since it's a save assumption that you had ten thousand of each group working for DEC at that time, I figured this to be an incredible asset.
It was a matter of respect, dignity and trust.
Values that don't seem to carry much merrit when a crappy box assembler with it's main focus on marketing can just buy a piece of computer history and kill it off.
Scott, I can see your reasoning why you don't want to have the cards printed now.
Still, go to a printer and have a small batch printed. Nothing fancy, maybe just a simple helvetica typeset with your contact information. You can worry about design after your move.
What does that cost you ? It can't be more then 600 crowns. How does that relate to your hourly rate? Can you afford the cost of alienating just one potential customer, who is a bit picky on issues like egg smear on a tie or Birkenstocks for business meetings? Same person might also be picky about business cards.
In a nutshell. Make it simple, but have it made professionally.
Sidenote for all wail-wail folks accusing me of brownnosing. Start a fucking business yourself, risk your own hard earned cash and get out of your comfi cubicle where nobody gives a damn if you didn't shave for a week or work in pyjamas, because you don't ever see one of those folks coughing up for your monthly guaranteed pay checks, called customer
Hello? Am I missing something? Here in the UK, business cards are used for giving your contact details to others you meet in the course of business
Well, of course. But unfortunately human interaction and communication is very much based on impression. That's simply a fact.
Personally I wouldn't necessarily trust a professional providing a cell phone number, a hotmail address and a geocities homepage as contact information to do a professional job.
And I certainly wouldn't trust a company that has to save a couple 100$ on their printed matter to be professional.
First off, congratulations and good luck for your venture. I went this path a year ago and here's my two cents on your issue.
You are no more a programmer, that's just part of your job now, but you' re in the business of selling (like it or not). You have to convince your prospects or your customers about your professionalism.
That doesn't jibe with home printed business cards or letterheads. They inadvertedly look cheap, no matter how you do it. Giving your prospects the impression that you have to save a couple hundred bucks will destroy more business for you then the savings are worth it.
Personally, I was in the lucky position of having a friend who was in the CI business with the most reputed firm in town for three years, who went independent. He partnered with a long time veteran from the same company who directed CI campaigns for global companies. For a mere $2000 I got a great corporate design. I also realized that there's a hell of a lot more then fiddling a couple hours with GIMP into it. The print job added another 1000$ to the bill (business cards, greating cards, postcards, letterhead).
Was it worth it ?
Hell, yes! Every damn cent and then some. It makes a great impression to the outside world, it makes me proud to send an invoice to the customer and it differentiates me from a lot from my competitors, although I'm not necessarily doing a better job; but I make a better impression.
You don't necessarily need a CI agency, but I certainly advise you to consider how you communicate in print and on a web site. And then get it done by a professional.
1000 people buy insurance with company X, each paying 500 quid a year. The turnover for company X is 500000 quid
The company requires 100000 quid for administrative and all other costs
The total payout for claims is 350000 quid, leaving X with a net profit of 50000 quid.
Now, genetic screening comes into the picture and ten procent of the clients turn out to be a higher or high risk. The good citizens they are, they keep those clients, but raise the premium for those folks to 1500 quid a year. So now X makes 600000 gross.
The PR department jumps in and makes management aware that the premium for the other customers have to go down, otherwise there will be public outcry. So for the other 900 customers the premium is reduced to 490 quid.
Suddenly X makes a yearly turnover of 591000 quid, a net profit of 141000 quid given that the other parameters stay the same.
Oh yeah, and in a side move they fscked over all principals that apply to health insurance, being to evenly distribute the risk between the insured.
Don't get me wrong. I don't think that an insurer has to take a 70 year old male, smoking three packs of Gauloises a day and quaffing two quarts of Makers Mark. But those are factors within (a certain amount of) control within an individual, but genetic disposition IS NOT
Cellphones (where Nokia anyway ate Motorolas lunch) are not the issue, but two way radios.
In a nutshell: The evil M has a 75% market share, next is Ericsson with less the 10 percent.
Essentially, when you're dealing with a (virtually) monopoly you do not have any choice.
Eventually they might lose due to stoopid business tactics. Loyal dealers carrying M products for decades are overrun by a steam roller before they even know what hit them in the meantime.
I know that if I find out my personal information was sold without my permition, which probably has already happened, I would fight it up to the courts, and I think its time for consumers to demand their information be kept confidential.
Then here's the bad news for you:
You're doomed!
Save for very few cases of personal data storage and retrieval (banks, medical, video rental - actually that was mentioned in the article). You have NO privacy rights in the US.
That's NO as in nada, njet zilch, etc. Businesses can do whatever they please with your data. And apparently even extremely sensitive data (medical) is in the process of becoming a public corporate good.
Don't want your financial information shared? Better read this boring letter your bank sends to you. It's intentionally boring so you don't read it to the end. The end says that you have to opt out if you don't want your (financial !) data shared.
It's getting worse. Under "save harbour" (what a laughable joke), US companies have to treat data of their European customers better then the one of their US customers otherwise they lose their rights to transfer data from their EU customers to the US (unfortunately somebody forgot to state how this is enforced).
So, if you live in the US, good luck on your suing spree. The court records might also be used for marketing purposes.
The problem is, that a cable company essentially runs a monopoly for their respective area.
From what I hear, US-telcos and - cable companies are notorious for overprizing, rotten customer service and various strong arm tactics.
If you have a choice, then I agree with you, that the government shall persue more important stuff then regulating cable companies, but if running such a company is essentially a license to steal and the customer has no recourse whatsover, then regulate the sweet bejeesus out of them if they don't behave.
There is so much visibility of what's going on currently. Some examples are UCITA, and the DCMA. I have no clue to what extent the current patent grant frenzy is linked to contributions. But what I'm quite sure is that the FSF didn't contribute quite as much as our friends in the movie -, CD - and software industry.
All this worries the hell out of me. But unfortunately the public (yeah, the guys 'n gals with the ultimate power in terms of votes and purchases) don't seem to have a fscking clue, or is seriously desinterested about what's going on.
Despite the fact that Time-Warner is a disgraceful company in lots of respects I' m willing to bet that this story was leaked (or created) by some of their competitors to sabotage the merger.
At LinuxWorld (TM, etc) in Frankfurt one of the sendmail techie wizzards made a spam kill proposal which, thinking about it, isn' t really dumb.
Every e-mail is taxed with 10 cents ($1 for messages > 50k), which the receiver can or cannot collect.
Now, if friends or business associates send me mail, I sure won't collect. But I sure as hell collect on every piece of fscking junk sent into my general direction.
Today it's essentially free (or very cheap) to send 3'000'000 of those Hot pr0n, just click here messages. Now if half the recepients collect 10 cents the spammer is suddenly out of $150'000, which hurts.
Also those marketing geniuses which figure that their 3 Meg PowerPoint presentation is of interest to half the company would certainly think twice before pestering us again.
Of course the micro payment infrastructure is not here yet, further refinements have to be applied, etc...
But thinking about it, it's not that bad an idea to finally get rid of SPAM.
Others say business-method patents promote innovation.
Statements like this one are dumb to the degree of being frightening.
The statement might hold true for the old economy to a certain degree, where a lot of time and money had to go into R&D until an actual product would be manufactured.
This includes technology of course. Digital had every right to patent it's Alpha processor. They forked literally billions to research the technology and essentially bet the farm on the chip.
Now, when we come to patenting concepts (public key encryption is a nice example) then it's certainly not promoting innovation.
Patents on methods and algorithms are just a sign of an ever litigation friendlier corporate (and societal) culture. Companies like Rambus essentially suck out an economy without poring real value into it.
I really, really hope that 1 Click Parody is killed swiftly by the court.
Why do the tech companies participate in the first place in such a brain dead initiative.
Fear of not having access to content ?
Afraid not being able to deliver cutting edge stuff ?
Fear of not having access to specifications ?
Those might all be valid reasons. However, if this idea is so fsck'ed as it's presented in the article then why the hell don't they stick together and tell the contents providers where to shove it ?
Save for Sony I don't know of a content monopolist currently being bundled with a tech company.
In Switzerland you pay a "recycling tax" up front when you buy computer equipment.
It's fairly low, maybe somewhat in the 5-10$ range for an entire PeeCee.
You buy the right to dump your equipment at designated areas (set up in every major city) from where it's recycled or disposed off environmentally friendly.
The same system applies for other items which threaten the environment. I.e. 5-20 cents for a battery, ~40$ for a fridge, 1.20$ for a garbage bag etc...
Of course I hear the corporate greed freaks and the relentless absolute capitalists yelling about anti competiveness and hurting businesses and people driving to france to get the stuff (which doesn't happen, since the VAT is 3 times as much) and then dump it in the woods.
The problem with a totally free market however, is that it has a tendency to socialize costs - especially hidden costs like killing off the environment - but to privatize profits.
In this light I think it's a very fair system where he who dumps pays and there is an incentive to dispose of stuff relatively environmentally friendly.
Slashdot Mirror
With the meth bill, which might or might not get killed, drugs seem to be an ideal visualization of the stupidity going on when it comes to censorship issues on the net. Mind you, I believe methamphetamine is about as bad is it gets. Does such a three-monkeys approach make meth go away? Hardly
I am just saying that for me, drugs were HARMFUL, that I got very dependent on them and got into a vicious circle, losing all perspective and chasing 'soma' until my life was shit, frankly.
Well, the key here is that you make it you talk from your perspective. You make it cristal clear that it fucked you up. You very much emphasize this. Quite the contrary it appears that the idea of not being able to communicate your experience, respectively communicating it in an environment that only allows your perspective, seems to piss you off royally. I have very much respect for your position.
Now, here is the problem. I feel I have a right to have any search on 'drugs' return the stuff I just typed, just as much as you've a right for such an inquiry to return _your_ viewpoint. I know good and well that the kids in the schoolyard and on the back streets are going to be taking _your_ viewpoint for the most part- they haven't had time to see a downside to it, and they probably don't trust the hysteria of teachers and authority figures.
I would never preach to anybody that drugs are good, or that recreational drug use is harmless. What I'm advocating is access to factual information. Just choking out talking about the subject doesn't make drugs go away.
In some European countries information went very far indeed. Ravers could have their XTC pills analyzed at raves on the spot. A mobile lab was scratching of a small sample of a pill and could instantly tell what it really is. Now some people might argue that this is bad and this is illegal and that this advocates use of illicit drugs. My perspective is such reasoning is bullshit, because those pills are swallowed. Actually it's quite the oposite. The idea is harm reduction. Also, those labs hand out factual information about E-abuse. Informing the kids that it's not really quite harmless what they're doing, about possible side effects, about unknown variables (neurotoxologie) in the use of this drug. So, in a nutshell: I don't condone the use of MDMA, but I very much support the idea of informing those people that going to take it, factually, truthfully and in a non hostile environment.
But as soon as the issue is censored for 'childrens' safety', it's be silenced or side with the brainwashers- because the context of having an independent opinion (namely, "Drugs were bad for me, I quit doing them because they did me harm") is _gone_.
You're very right here. Having been in the really dark rotten hole and still furiosly defending this opinion actually puts you in a very strong position and gives your perspective a lot of credibility. One of the strongest quotes in my book is
I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it (Voltaire)
and your post totally lives up to that.
OK, now I got carried away, actually I just wanted to let you know that I really enjoyed your response.
Great that you made it. I would have hated not to read about it because you could be shoved into jail for expressing your thoughts.
This seems to be especially aparrent in the US, where there's very little middle ground. A good example is the war on drugs which is so histerically fought because of the reefer madness (whatever that is).
Now, the problem of course is that the lowest common denominator has to be found, which indeed is pretty low. But of course kids have to be spared by discussions about female breasts, the responsible application of recreational drugs or opinions that are not quite politically correct.
Censorship stinks it's that easy. There is always somebody who decides what crosses the line and what not. More often then not those blokes have a very different opinion then me.
I'm reluctant to admit that censorship (or editorial filtering if you wish) is acceptable with a newspaper (while the publisher influencing the editor is most definitely not). But a newspaper is a private entity. I don't like what they print, I don't buy it.
The net is very different and nobody should have a right to decide what's good for me.
Not too long ago the same thing happened and was expressed in book burnings. It was a time when Europe (and a lot of the world) was shrouded in deep black. It was a bad time fueling the hateful, the fearful and the fanatics. I don't ever want to see history repeat itself in this context.
The policy manual stated that if you snoop around a collegues file system (including e-mail) unauthorized, this was considered snooping in his desk drawers and could lead to immediate termination, no questions asked.
It was the same company that refused to drug test any employee with the exception of people working for defence contractors and the piss tests where required by the US gubynmynt and then only with due notice.
They had set up a couple gay and a couple of AA members only conferences on the huge internal network. I' m neither gay nor do I have too much of a drinking problem. But since it's a save assumption that you had ten thousand of each group working for DEC at that time, I figured this to be an incredible asset.
It was a matter of respect, dignity and trust.
Values that don't seem to carry much merrit when a crappy box assembler with it's main focus on marketing can just buy a piece of computer history and kill it off.
It's rare to find an article that says so little in so many words.
Still, go to a printer and have a small batch printed. Nothing fancy, maybe just a simple helvetica typeset with your contact information. You can worry about design after your move.
What does that cost you ? It can't be more then 600 crowns. How does that relate to your hourly rate? Can you afford the cost of alienating just one potential customer, who is a bit picky on issues like egg smear on a tie or Birkenstocks for business meetings? Same person might also be picky about business cards.
In a nutshell. Make it simple, but have it made professionally.
Sidenote for all wail-wail folks accusing me of brownnosing. Start a fucking business yourself, risk your own hard earned cash and get out of your comfi cubicle where nobody gives a damn if you didn't shave for a week or work in pyjamas, because you don't ever see one of those folks coughing up for your monthly guaranteed pay checks, called customer
Well, of course. But unfortunately human interaction and communication is very much based on impression. That's simply a fact.
Personally I wouldn't necessarily trust a professional providing a cell phone number, a hotmail address and a geocities homepage as contact information to do a professional job.
And I certainly wouldn't trust a company that has to save a couple 100$ on their printed matter to be professional.
You are no more a programmer, that's just part of your job now, but you' re in the business of selling (like it or not). You have to convince your prospects or your customers about your professionalism.
That doesn't jibe with home printed business cards or letterheads. They inadvertedly look cheap, no matter how you do it. Giving your prospects the impression that you have to save a couple hundred bucks will destroy more business for you then the savings are worth it.
Personally, I was in the lucky position of having a friend who was in the CI business with the most reputed firm in town for three years, who went independent. He partnered with a long time veteran from the same company who directed CI campaigns for global companies. For a mere $2000 I got a great corporate design. I also realized that there's a hell of a lot more then fiddling a couple hours with GIMP into it. The print job added another 1000$ to the bill (business cards, greating cards, postcards, letterhead).
Was it worth it ? Hell, yes! Every damn cent and then some. It makes a great impression to the outside world, it makes me proud to send an invoice to the customer and it differentiates me from a lot from my competitors, although I'm not necessarily doing a better job; but I make a better impression.You don't necessarily need a CI agency, but I certainly advise you to consider how you communicate in print and on a web site. And then get it done by a professional.
Ok, here's a simplified example:
1000 people buy insurance with company X, each paying 500 quid a year. The turnover for company X is 500000 quid
The company requires 100000 quid for administrative and all other costs
The total payout for claims is 350000 quid, leaving X with a net profit of 50000 quid.
Now, genetic screening comes into the picture and ten procent of the clients turn out to be a higher or high risk. The good citizens they are, they keep those clients, but raise the premium for those folks to 1500 quid a year. So now X makes 600000 gross.
The PR department jumps in and makes management aware that the premium for the other customers have to go down, otherwise there will be public outcry. So for the other 900 customers the premium is reduced to 490 quid.
Suddenly X makes a yearly turnover of 591000 quid, a net profit of 141000 quid given that the other parameters stay the same.
Oh yeah, and in a side move they fscked over all principals that apply to health insurance, being to evenly distribute the risk between the insured.
Don't get me wrong. I don't think that an insurer has to take a 70 year old male, smoking three packs of Gauloises a day and quaffing two quarts of Makers Mark. But those are factors within (a certain amount of) control within an individual, but genetic disposition IS NOT
What a bunch of sad, greedy, corrupt wankers
Let ne get back to you, after I'm back from my patent attorney
I feel sorry for the guy, but aparrently he has nobody to blame but himself.
Shhheeeeesh! Before you get into a business transaction, any business transaction, you don't rely on what you're told by a corporate droid.
I hope he learned a lesson without taking too much of a hit. Welcome to the world, pal
Cellphones (where Nokia anyway ate Motorolas lunch) are not the issue, but two way radios.
In a nutshell: The evil M has a 75% market share, next is Ericsson with less the 10 percent.
Essentially, when you're dealing with a (virtually) monopoly you do not have any choice.
Eventually they might lose due to stoopid business tactics. Loyal dealers carrying M products for decades are overrun by a steam roller before they even know what hit them in the meantime.
Free Market: My ass
Then here's the bad news for you:
You're doomed!
Save for very few cases of personal data storage and retrieval (banks, medical, video rental - actually that was mentioned in the article). You have NO privacy rights in the US.
That's NO as in nada, njet zilch, etc. Businesses can do whatever they please with your data. And apparently even extremely sensitive data (medical) is in the process of becoming a public corporate good.
Don't want your financial information shared? Better read this boring letter your bank sends to you. It's intentionally boring so you don't read it to the end. The end says that you have to opt out if you don't want your (financial !) data shared.
It's getting worse. Under "save harbour" (what a laughable joke), US companies have to treat data of their European customers better then the one of their US customers otherwise they lose their rights to transfer data from their EU customers to the US (unfortunately somebody forgot to state how this is enforced).
So, if you live in the US, good luck on your suing spree. The court records might also be used for marketing purposes.
From what I hear, US-telcos and - cable companies are notorious for overprizing, rotten customer service and various strong arm tactics.
If you have a choice, then I agree with you, that the government shall persue more important stuff then regulating cable companies, but if running such a company is essentially a license to steal and the customer has no recourse whatsover, then regulate the sweet bejeesus out of them if they don't behave.
There is so much visibility of what's going on currently. Some examples are UCITA, and the DCMA. I have no clue to what extent the current patent grant frenzy is linked to contributions. But what I'm quite sure is that the FSF didn't contribute quite as much as our friends in the movie -, CD - and software industry.
All this worries the hell out of me. But unfortunately the public (yeah, the guys 'n gals with the ultimate power in terms of votes and purchases) don't seem to have a fscking clue, or is seriously desinterested about what's going on.
The timing would just be too darn bad.
Every e-mail is taxed with 10 cents ($1 for messages > 50k), which the receiver can or cannot collect.
Now, if friends or business associates send me mail, I sure won't collect. But I sure as hell collect on every piece of fscking junk sent into my general direction.
Today it's essentially free (or very cheap) to send 3'000'000 of those Hot pr0n, just click here messages. Now if half the recepients collect 10 cents the spammer is suddenly out of $150'000, which hurts.
Also those marketing geniuses which figure that their 3 Meg PowerPoint presentation is of interest to half the company would certainly think twice before pestering us again.
Of course the micro payment infrastructure is not here yet, further refinements have to be applied, etc...
But thinking about it, it's not that bad an idea to finally get rid of SPAM.
Statements like this one are dumb to the degree of being frightening.
The statement might hold true for the old economy to a certain degree, where a lot of time and money had to go into R&D until an actual product would be manufactured.
This includes technology of course. Digital had every right to patent it's Alpha processor. They forked literally billions to research the technology and essentially bet the farm on the chip.
Now, when we come to patenting concepts (public key encryption is a nice example) then it's certainly not promoting innovation.
Patents on methods and algorithms are just a sign of an ever litigation friendlier corporate (and societal) culture. Companies like Rambus essentially suck out an economy without poring real value into it.
I really, really hope that 1 Click Parody is killed swiftly by the court.
Fear of not having access to content ?
Afraid not being able to deliver cutting edge stuff ? Fear of not having access to specifications ?Those might all be valid reasons. However, if this idea is so fsck'ed as it's presented in the article then why the hell don't they stick together and tell the contents providers where to shove it ?
Save for Sony I don't know of a content monopolist currently being bundled with a tech company.
More precisely, it's like a telephone solicitor who reverses the charges for his call.
C'mon, 200 000 000 accounts, 15 billion in managed assets. That's about 75$ per account.
Doesn't look as if I'd buy shares from those bozos.
You forgot option 3:
Actually providing good serviceAdmittedly this strange concept seems less and less important...
After it becomes cost effective to recycle old PCs then maybe I get paid by the pound to drop off my PC.
Your last remark answers your question...
It's fairly low, maybe somewhat in the 5-10$ range for an entire PeeCee.
You buy the right to dump your equipment at designated areas (set up in every major city) from where it's recycled or disposed off environmentally friendly.
The same system applies for other items which threaten the environment. I.e. 5-20 cents for a battery, ~40$ for a fridge, 1.20$ for a garbage bag etc...
Of course I hear the corporate greed freaks and the relentless absolute capitalists yelling about anti competiveness and hurting businesses and people driving to france to get the stuff (which doesn't happen, since the VAT is 3 times as much) and then dump it in the woods.
The problem with a totally free market however, is that it has a tendency to socialize costs - especially hidden costs like killing off the environment - but to privatize profits.
In this light I think it's a very fair system where he who dumps pays and there is an incentive to dispose of stuff relatively environmentally friendly.
Incoming...
Sure, otherwise I'd have less reason to gripe on /.
Isn't it possible to be disgusted by the food served without the bloke near me yelling at his stock broker ?
Is it really necessary that my neighborly seat neighbor is hot synching his palm while spilling his bloody mary on my white jeans ?
And all that for 6.50$ a minute (plus tax and connection charge)
Arghh!