Nuclear bombs also mostly aren't slow deaths of suffocation. With firebombing, people had time to go into the bomb shelters. Then the fires sucked all of the oxygen out of the air, causing the people to slowly suffocate, knowing they are about to die but being unable to do anything about it (Well they could have run out into the streets for a faster end I guess.)
We're not comparing nuclear and precision weapons, but nuclear weapons and strategic bombing. Strategic bombing involves destroying large parts of cities, rather then specific buildings.
For the career independent artist (in just about any medium) to succeed in the future, though, there will have to be a class of patron-level fans who make more than an iTunes track purchase now and then - people who recognize that if they want their favorite artists to keep making art, those artists are going to need support.
Don't we already have that - people who buy concert tickets and merchandize?
Can a janitor or a plumber determine who can use the toilet they just cleaned/repaired? Once the job is done, many people can get the benefits it provides. A toilet can be used by people who didn't pay the janitor, music recordings can be listened to by people who didn't buy the CD. Musicians aren't anything special.
If they want more people to pay them, they should sell a product that can be sold more easily - live performances.
When you crossbreed you know the properties of both parents, and any random mutations will only be present in a small % of a given crop. With GM you are simultaneously planting entire fields with a crop you know little about.
What if the salesman also owned all of the car review sites? And put a different engine in the car for the test drive?
When you invest, you have to rely (at least to some degree) on the information the company gives you. Sure you could also perform corporate espionage, but most people find jail uncomfortable.
That's not even the problem. The problem is that the executable then automatically spreads to any nearby computers, and there is no good way to stop it from doing that.
A single contained executable might crash your machine, but it would only be a problem for YOU. GM foods spread to every nearby field, whether the owners want them to or not.
The problem with GM tech is that it's impossible to stop it's spread once it's out in the wild. With just about every other technology, you can stop using it if problems are found after deployment. GM crops on the other hand can spread themselves, and it's virtually impossible to keep non-GM crops from being 'infected' by the modified pollen. So if someone discovers a problem with them, there is not much that can be done to remove them from the environment, except destroy all seeds of just about every (corn) plant on the continent and then import some 'safe' seeds.
Drugs are already as expensive as they can make them. If they could increase their profits by charging more for something they would already have done it. They have no competition while the drug is under patent, so they can price it by whatever the patient is likely to pay for the benefit. Shorter patents won't increase the benefit from taking it, so the prices would stay the same.
Now let's say the research budget for a drug is 'fixed'. So slashing research would only reduce the number of new drugs you can patent. No point in doing that unless you plan on shutting down the company.
And if the government leaves the question of tuition to the free market, that will suddenly make prices affordable to poor students? Yes, prices will drop enough that middle class parents might be able to afford to send their child there, but who will give the child of broke parents a loan? Do you think it's fair that a child's education is so completely limited by it's parents wealth?
What do you get for funding public education? What do you get for funding the army, police, legal system. The answer is 'a better society', one where people aren't being shot in front of your house every day.
But they will donate money to students? Make up your mind already.
The only reason people will give money to student is self-interest. So you will end up with students that are basically indentured servants. And masses of bright young people that never get the education they want.
So society has to decide if it wants it's citizens educated or not. If it does, then some money will need to be spent on it. And there is no reason to look at this expense any different than the money spent on the police or judges. Yes, people will have less money to spend, but they also have less money to spend because they have to fund the police.
But in your world of charitable individuals won't the police/army/justice be funded entirely by donations? Just think about how much money they're going to get once the taxes are reduced! And there won't be any conditions attached to those funds. Just like there will be no conditions attached to student loans.
No, not price controls. The school is perfectly free to charge whatever it wants. It just won't get any federal money, and the students won't get federal loans. It may solve two problems at the same time : it removes the incentive for schools to set insanely high prices, since so few students would be able to afford them that it wouldn't be worth the loss of federal funds. At the same times it provides and incentive for lower prices since those will be covered by loans.
If you think that is the same as imposing price controls, then why doesn't the government give unlimited pay to all it's employees? Surely limiting the amount they are willing to pay is price control?
And how do you determine who are the best and brightest? Standardized tests? I can just see teachers giving their students the answers, since they know they'll likely be killed by the parents if their kid can't go to the school he/she wants to attend.
So? Why combat the problem by preventing people from getting an education. Wouldn't a better way to combat the problem be a capping the maximum tuition that a school can charge and still be eligible for government funds and student loans?
So do you support 0% taxes and voluntary contributions to everything? In my opinion education is at least as important for society as the police and army. So why not run those with private contributions only?
Yes the prices would go down, but not even nearly enough to let the truly poor students enroll. So what do you do about them? Give them loans, based on their own income? The income of nearly every student is near 0. Give them loans based on the income of their families? What about parents that don't support their children? Should those kids be prevented from getting an education?
Have you ever heard a politician speak? I'm quite sure they can make you think they said something without saying nothing even remotely connected. So lie detectors would only work if you could also force them to answer direct questions.
Slashdot Mirror
Nuclear bombs also mostly aren't slow deaths of suffocation. With firebombing, people had time to go into the bomb shelters. Then the fires sucked all of the oxygen out of the air, causing the people to slowly suffocate, knowing they are about to die but being unable to do anything about it (Well they could have run out into the streets for a faster end I guess.)
We're not comparing nuclear and precision weapons, but nuclear weapons and strategic bombing. Strategic bombing involves destroying large parts of cities, rather then specific buildings.
For the career independent artist (in just about any medium) to succeed in the future, though, there will have to be a class of patron-level fans who make more than an iTunes track purchase now and then - people who recognize that if they want their favorite artists to keep making art, those artists are going to need support.
Don't we already have that - people who buy concert tickets and merchandize?
Can a janitor or a plumber determine who can use the toilet they just cleaned/repaired? Once the job is done, many people can get the benefits it provides. A toilet can be used by people who didn't pay the janitor, music recordings can be listened to by people who didn't buy the CD. Musicians aren't anything special.
If they want more people to pay them, they should sell a product that can be sold more easily - live performances.
When you steal 600 million you can give back 100 mill as a settlement and keep the rest.
I have no problem with that. However wouldn't cross-breeding the two produce the same effect?
When you crossbreed you know the properties of both parents, and any random mutations will only be present in a small % of a given crop. With GM you are simultaneously planting entire fields with a crop you know little about.
What if the salesman also owned all of the car review sites? And put a different engine in the car for the test drive?
When you invest, you have to rely (at least to some degree) on the information the company gives you. Sure you could also perform corporate espionage, but most people find jail uncomfortable.
That's not even the problem. The problem is that the executable then automatically spreads to any nearby computers, and there is no good way to stop it from doing that.
A single contained executable might crash your machine, but it would only be a problem for YOU. GM foods spread to every nearby field, whether the owners want them to or not.
The problem with GM tech is that it's impossible to stop it's spread once it's out in the wild. With just about every other technology, you can stop using it if problems are found after deployment. GM crops on the other hand can spread themselves, and it's virtually impossible to keep non-GM crops from being 'infected' by the modified pollen. So if someone discovers a problem with them, there is not much that can be done to remove them from the environment, except destroy all seeds of just about every (corn) plant on the continent and then import some 'safe' seeds.
Drugs are already as expensive as they can make them. If they could increase their profits by charging more for something they would already have done it. They have no competition while the drug is under patent, so they can price it by whatever the patient is likely to pay for the benefit. Shorter patents won't increase the benefit from taking it, so the prices would stay the same.
Now let's say the research budget for a drug is 'fixed'. So slashing research would only reduce the number of new drugs you can patent. No point in doing that unless you plan on shutting down the company.
And how many of the trades are companies raising money? How often do companies actually release new stock?
Wouldn't frying the stock marker help the economy?
How about taxing imports? Tax any imported goods the difference between the taxes already paid where they were manufactured and local taxes.
And if the government leaves the question of tuition to the free market, that will suddenly make prices affordable to poor students? Yes, prices will drop enough that middle class parents might be able to afford to send their child there, but who will give the child of broke parents a loan? Do you think it's fair that a child's education is so completely limited by it's parents wealth?
What do you get for funding public education? What do you get for funding the army, police, legal system. The answer is 'a better society', one where people aren't being shot in front of your house every day.
But they will donate money to students? Make up your mind already.
The only reason people will give money to student is self-interest. So you will end up with students that are basically indentured servants. And masses of bright young people that never get the education they want.
So society has to decide if it wants it's citizens educated or not. If it does, then some money will need to be spent on it. And there is no reason to look at this expense any different than the money spent on the police or judges. Yes, people will have less money to spend, but they also have less money to spend because they have to fund the police.
But in your world of charitable individuals won't the police/army/justice be funded entirely by donations? Just think about how much money they're going to get once the taxes are reduced! And there won't be any conditions attached to those funds. Just like there will be no conditions attached to student loans.
With most deaths you don't have to walk around knowing that you're already 'dead'.
No, not price controls. The school is perfectly free to charge whatever it wants. It just won't get any federal money, and the students won't get federal loans. It may solve two problems at the same time : it removes the incentive for schools to set insanely high prices, since so few students would be able to afford them that it wouldn't be worth the loss of federal funds. At the same times it provides and incentive for lower prices since those will be covered by loans.
If you think that is the same as imposing price controls, then why doesn't the government give unlimited pay to all it's employees? Surely limiting the amount they are willing to pay is price control?
And how do you determine who are the best and brightest? Standardized tests? I can just see teachers giving their students the answers, since they know they'll likely be killed by the parents if their kid can't go to the school he/she wants to attend.
So? Why combat the problem by preventing people from getting an education. Wouldn't a better way to combat the problem be a capping the maximum tuition that a school can charge and still be eligible for government funds and student loans?
So do you support 0% taxes and voluntary contributions to everything? In my opinion education is at least as important for society as the police and army. So why not run those with private contributions only?
Can you default out of a student loan? I thought that was one of the few debts that survives bankruptcy.
Yes the prices would go down, but not even nearly enough to let the truly poor students enroll. So what do you do about them? Give them loans, based on their own income? The income of nearly every student is near 0. Give them loans based on the income of their families? What about parents that don't support their children? Should those kids be prevented from getting an education?
Have you ever heard a politician speak? I'm quite sure they can make you think they said something without saying nothing even remotely connected. So lie detectors would only work if you could also force them to answer direct questions.