I was playing Civilization the other day, doing an earth simulation and I was playing as Japan. One of my first strategies was to research Astronomy so that I could build Galleons and go colonize the Americas before anyone else could. Having colonized all of the islands in southern Asia (and Australia) it was just obvious what I had to do next. Clearly the early south Asians were thinking along the exact same lines.
You scientists and your crazy fossil and skeleton digging. There are simpler ways people!
Please provide a specific example of a monopsony in North America.
Monopsony: one buyer, many sellers. In your argument the buyer is the employer and the seller are all the potential employers attempting to find a job.
At first, I thought you were making an excellent point. But then I realized that in order to have a monopsony the employer must first have a monopoly on it's respective market so that any workers trying to make money by offering production in that market only have one option and then they get screwed because they either take a crap wage or find a new industry (hmm... that doesn't sound like a bad idea to me... if there's no profit to be had in what you're doing then do something else - but that's getting OT).
Anyway, so long as there is competition among employers there is no monopsony. You have multiple buyers and multiple sellers. I can think of a few enterprises where there is little competition ("The Big 3" in North America although that is changing with all of the foreign competition, but it would mean moving outside of North America for the workers) but I can't think of any industry where the workers get screwed because they only have one employer that they can work for.
Oh, except in the case of unions where the union decides where they work, for how much, for how long etc. and does everything it can to strong arm non-union competition. That actually sounds more like a monopsony to me than anything you've described.
I live in Windsor/Detroit and there's still a huge auto culture here. Factories are being closed and union workers are finding themselves unemployed daily but there's still many people who are employed either directly or indirectly by the "Big 3" (indirectly being all the small independent factories that supply parts etc. and will go out of business when the Big 3 leave). Despite the Big 3 suffering I've still got family members who make over $120 / hr after benefits for pushing a button on an assembly line.
Why any auto company would stay in North America and hire union labour when they can just set up shop in any one of the many non-union countries is really beyond me.
Cheating is only a problem when it involves lying, sneaking around, secrets etc.
It's not my place to tell couples how they should be managing their relationship. However, if done for the right reasons (ie: not in an attempt to fix something that's wrong, but to heighten something that's already great) opening up a relationship can be extremely healthy and beneficial. There's obviously a number of important steps: communication is vital. Open and honest is the only way it works. No secrets. No lies and a sharing of one's desires and feelings that might otherwise be kept secret in a closed relationship for fear of hurting the other or making them jealous. It's not always easy to make the leap from being exlusive to having your partner tell you every intimate detail of their sexual encounter with another person. For me and my wife it was very gradual and started out with us only playing with couples together. Eventually we made the transition into a completely open relationship and it's very liberating. Heck, it's nice just to be able to be open about finding other women attractive. Something that a lot of relationships forbid due to insecurity issues etc.
Monogamy obviously has several social advantages, but humans have natural urges that aren't easily suppressed and too many relationships seem to have problems even accepting that the partner would ever even fantasize about being with someone outside of the relationship. That doesn't seem healthy to me.
This only says pretty much exactly the same thing as the summary (in almost the exact same words as well... interesting)... but here is a clip of Adam Savage talking about it:
This isn't a troll, I'm really interested in having the discussion with someone who chose a small 15-minute in-jeans ceremony. Because, I consider myself to be married, yet legally my wife and I are common-law. We've been living happily together for 10 years, have 2 wonderful daughters and don't need a ring or a legal document to make us secure in our relationship. I don't see the point in a huge ceremony but I don't see the point in a small vegas 15 minute wedding either. So just out of personal interest, what did marriage do for you and your husband that living common law would not ?
and any woman worth marrying will slap you hard for buying her such frivolity.
I'm not so sure about that.
First off, I am married and my wife and I are not materialistic at all. In fact, I'm the type of guy who would usually agree with this point. However, for an engagement ring (and other rare circumstances) spending a lot of money demonstrates selfless sacrifice. To do it all the time demonstrates idiotic sacrifice, but the rare occasion shows that you've put your own materialistic needs and desires aside in order to get something *REALLY* special for *HER*.
Of course the type of girl who expects that (ever, let alone on rare occasions) is not the type of girl worth marrying. Still, it doesn't mean there's no point, ever.
I still believe there is positive value in true "family values", and raising a girl who's self-esteem isn't so low that she feels she has to give in to sex in order to feel accepted. I have no illusions that that is a complete "fix," but I believe there is value to it, sex or no sex.
What about a teenage girl who has great self-esteem, great morals, solid and secure family values (which may differ from yours but the point being that she's secure in them) but still enjoys promiscuous sex and does it because it's enjoyable rather than some misguided attempt to find love or be liked ?
I suppose such a girl would make better choices regarding contraception but there's still those cases where contraception fails (happened to me and my wife... twice).
I understand that you're advocating the opposite of forbidding abortion and suggesting we try to reduce the number of circumstances where it comes up (and that's great). I just don't like this idea that people have sex because they're trying to find love or happiness in the wrong way. Obviously there are people who do... but for lots of people sex and love are completely separate things that serve different purposes. Contraception doesn't always work and I don't know any doctor who will give a teenager a vasectomy / tubal ligation.
Hate to reply to myself but I need to make a correction. I thought the GP said "scripture against adultery" when he/she really said "discouraging pr0n".
In that case he/she is probably referring to Mathew 5:28
"but I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart."
"Second, pr0n teaches nothing about how to maintain a relationship. Zero, nada, zip. The physical aspect glorified by pr0n is not even 1% of what you need to know about maintaining a relationship."
So ?
I didn't realize that it was supposed to.
"Not to mention that it encourages immoral behavior like adultery, whoremongery, and fornication. Yes there is scripture that discourages pr0n, but I am refraining from using the search while at work."
Just curious: do you align yourself with the camp that feels that violent video games and movies should be outlawed because they (in a certain few's opinions) "encourage immoral behaviour" as well ?
Oh and the scripture you're referring to is Mathew 19:9
"And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery."
I'm not an expert but I do have a few points that might help you out.
1) Prostitution laws vary greatly from one area to another. Even municipally. For example, my city issues escort licenses to effectively legalize prostitution and to "help protect the safety of sex workers" but street walking (the ones you see on tv where coked out whores are going up to cars) are still illegal. In some places it's ok to advertise but not to solicit directly. In other areas prostitution itself is legal but advertising it is not etc. So it's not as simple as "prostitution is illegal". It depends on the area and there are varying degrees of legality. The Wikipedia article on prostitution has lots more info.
2) Pornography is considered an artistic expression and the US constitution and Canadian charter among other bill of rights in other countries protect free speech. In the 70's there were supreme court cases in the US that helped set precedent protecting pornography under the federal-granted right to free speech.
Nah, we have no girlfriends or wives to hide our porn browsing from. We wear our pr0n history like a badge of honor.
Yes it's true. Those among us fortunate to have found a wife have also had the foresight to seek an open minded one to whom we can still show off our pr0n history like a badge of honor.
From the summary: "Apple has been running an iPhone ad saying 'all parts of the internet are on the iPhone'"
followed by: "This raises an interesting issue of where do you draw the line between essential and non-essential features of websites. What should the web look like? Should government authorities be the ones making that decision?"
What the hell does that have to do with anything ? I didn't RTFA but it sounds like the problem is that they said that ALL parts of the Internet are accessible via the iPhone... not "all but flash and java"... which has nothing to do with "essential vs. non-essential", what-so-ever. Sounds like a simple case of false advertising to me.
In civil court you can never be awarded more than the sum of your damages.
There is logic in the "debt to society" point of view. When someone breaks a crime they owe society a debt. However, it shouldn't be profitable for society to collect on that debt. It's not about making society pay for the crimes of others. It's about not allowing society to become enriched by removing the freedoms of it's members.
"In my home town, I'm repeatedly disappointed by the lack of police enforcing traffic rules even though they stand to rake in substancial amounts of money doing so."
In my city (Windsor Ontario Canada) I'm repeatedly appalled at seeing the local police repeatedly break traffic rules in full view without a care in the world. Cops speed when they're not using their lights or sirens. They run stop signs and red lights if they're clear. If they're using their sirens, fine. Of course there's nothing really to stop them from turning on the sirens to go through a light, I guess they're exploiting that mindset. Yet they really show the public that they feel they're above the law. It's disgusting.
Ok, to turn this around a bit. Can you tell me exactly which pieces of asphalt/concrete you have paid for?
As far as I'm concerned, all of it. We have tax on gas sale, income tax, sales tax, taxes on all vehicle purchases (new or used), driver's licenses, license plates, road tolls, traffic fines (which I'm against but we still pay them), parking fees (for publicly owned parking garages and meters etc.). All ways of giving money to the government for things like road upkeep. How they use it very much my business but I haven't personally investigated how my money was put to use.
Point being We ALL pay for public infrastructure in one way or another so we should all be able to use it to heart's content so long as we don't harm anyone. I don't see why it should be any more complicated than that.
"I sort of agree with your sentiment, except that I percieve using a car on the road is a privilege"
I don't. We paid to put the roads there and everyone should be able to use them however the hell they want so long as they don't harm anyone.
I prefer to punish people AFTER they have done harm. Not before.
License plates, laws against drunk driving[1], justifying drug criminalization by claiming that drug use increases rates of crime, placing curfews on public parks etc. is all preemptive and it places a burden on an innocent society. There's no reason not to throw the book at someone who breaks the law but asking society to give up their freedom for the sake of reducing crime statistics is unfair. It costs tax dollars, gives the government a way to profit off of criminal behaviour (traffic fines) and regulation (licenses, vehicle registration etc.) and I don't think it actually does much in the way of achieving it's goal of preventing crime anyway.
[1] - I realize that's borderline trollish so I'll justify that: killing someone and violating traffic laws is already illegal. Why do we have to make it more illegal? Has all of this money spent - and made - by cracking down on drunk drivers actually reduced the number of dangerous drivers on the road ? What about sober drivers who are just as dangerous as people who are drunk ? In Ontario it's now illegal to drive with ANY ALCOHOL WHAT-SO-EVER in your system. You can not transport any alcohol that has been opened and any alcohol you do transport needs to be out of reach of the driver (ie: in the trunk). During peak holidays such as new years etc. they put up road blocks on every major road and stop every single car to smell the driver's breath. It punishes everyone for the mistakes of a few. It's getting extremely out of hand.
"I consider using the state-provided roads as a privilege, not a right, that requires your car to be identifiable by a valid licence plate.
If the plates are obscured, either by dirt or by purpose, isn't it reasonable to give a ticket to deter this?"
There are arguments on both sides of the fence.
Trying to keep roads as safe as possible by keeping negligent and down-right dangerous drivers off of them, fine.
Toll booths, ever-increasing ridiculous fees for license renewals and the ever-shortening of the period between expiry dates as a way to foot the bill for road maintenance... I guess, so long as the public gets to "see the receipts" so to speak and the process is democratic.
Government profiting from the criminal behaviour of it's citizens: reprehensible. The minute punishing citizens becomes profitable the minute incentive is created for finding more and more ways to fine people. As a general rule of good practice, I feel that punishing people must always come at a cost to society. Not a profit.
In Ontario we have demerit point system. When you're caught violating a traffic law you get a certain number of points, which varies based on the particular law you broke. I don't drive so I'm not sure how many points you're allowed to get but if you reach a certain number your license is suspended (or revoked permanently for repeat-offenders). I'm all in favour of this system. You drive dangerously you loose your ability to drive. Punishment fits the crime. Care to guess at whether or not they abolished traffic fines when they introduced the system ? It's an easy one.
I guess it depends on what you define 'reasonably well' as.
Both instruments are tuned the same in most cases, only an octave apart... and so long as the bass has frets then getting the instrument to make noise is the same (fret a note and pluck the string). However, both instruments are also completely different beasts that serve 2 very different purposes. There are also many techniques that are exclusive to each instrument.
Guitar players do not always make good bassists and vice versa. As a former guitar teacher, one issue that a lot of students of mine often had was keeping tempo without a metronome or drummer. Bassists need to have impeccable rhythm and they need to understand their place in the arrangement. Many guitarists like to assume that it's simple frequency balance. Rock guitarists particularly seem to have a hard time grasping the idea of supporting the percussion section, creating rhythm and creating harmony with the rest of the rhythm section. I still have nightmares about bassists in high school (usually guitarists who were suckered into playing bass by the rest of the band) who would simply play the root over each chord that the rhythm guitarist was playing.
So yeah, give a guitarist a bass and he'll make some noise no problem. But if you, as I, consider 'reasonably well' to be up to par with bassists like Paul Webb, Geddy Lee, Les Claypool, Stu Hamm, Billy Sheehan etc. then it takes years of practice on the instrument and having prior experience on a 6 string guitar will only help overcome some of the very initial hurdles like learning how to fret and pluck; hold the instrument etc.
Slashdot Mirror
I was playing Civilization the other day, doing an earth simulation and I was playing as Japan. One of my first strategies was to research Astronomy so that I could build Galleons and go colonize the Americas before anyone else could. Having colonized all of the islands in southern Asia (and Australia) it was just obvious what I had to do next. Clearly the early south Asians were thinking along the exact same lines.
You scientists and your crazy fossil and skeleton digging. There are simpler ways people!
Please provide a specific example of a monopsony in North America.
Monopsony: one buyer, many sellers. In your argument the buyer is the employer and the seller are all the potential employers attempting to find a job.
At first, I thought you were making an excellent point. But then I realized that in order to have a monopsony the employer must first have a monopoly on it's respective market so that any workers trying to make money by offering production in that market only have one option and then they get screwed because they either take a crap wage or find a new industry (hmm ... that doesn't sound like a bad idea to me ... if there's no profit to be had in what you're doing then do something else - but that's getting OT).
Anyway, so long as there is competition among employers there is no monopsony. You have multiple buyers and multiple sellers. I can think of a few enterprises where there is little competition ("The Big 3" in North America although that is changing with all of the foreign competition, but it would mean moving outside of North America for the workers) but I can't think of any industry where the workers get screwed because they only have one employer that they can work for.
Oh, except in the case of unions where the union decides where they work, for how much, for how long etc. and does everything it can to strong arm non-union competition. That actually sounds more like a monopsony to me than anything you've described.
I live in Windsor/Detroit and there's still a huge auto culture here. Factories are being closed and union workers are finding themselves unemployed daily but there's still many people who are employed either directly or indirectly by the "Big 3" (indirectly being all the small independent factories that supply parts etc. and will go out of business when the Big 3 leave). Despite the Big 3 suffering I've still got family members who make over $120 / hr after benefits for pushing a button on an assembly line.
Why any auto company would stay in North America and hire union labour when they can just set up shop in any one of the many non-union countries is really beyond me.
Three Quarks ? Odo will not be happy to hear about this :(
Cheating is only a problem when it involves lying, sneaking around, secrets etc.
It's not my place to tell couples how they should be managing their relationship. However, if done for the right reasons (ie: not in an attempt to fix something that's wrong, but to heighten something that's already great) opening up a relationship can be extremely healthy and beneficial. There's obviously a number of important steps: communication is vital. Open and honest is the only way it works. No secrets. No lies and a sharing of one's desires and feelings that might otherwise be kept secret in a closed relationship for fear of hurting the other or making them jealous. It's not always easy to make the leap from being exlusive to having your partner tell you every intimate detail of their sexual encounter with another person. For me and my wife it was very gradual and started out with us only playing with couples together. Eventually we made the transition into a completely open relationship and it's very liberating. Heck, it's nice just to be able to be open about finding other women attractive. Something that a lot of relationships forbid due to insecurity issues etc.
Monogamy obviously has several social advantages, but humans have natural urges that aren't easily suppressed and too many relationships seem to have problems even accepting that the partner would ever even fantasize about being with someone outside of the relationship. That doesn't seem healthy to me.
My wife and I (both trekkies) have talked about going for years.
Now my only reason to ever visit Vegas is gone. Bummer ... it (ST experience) was right at the top of my places to go see :(
This only says pretty much exactly the same thing as the summary (in almost the exact same words as well ... interesting) ... but here is a clip of Adam Savage talking about it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X034R3yzDhw
I take great offense to that.
Everyone knows that the real terrorists are, in fact, insurance salespeople.
Why get married at all ?
This isn't a troll, I'm really interested in having the discussion with someone who chose a small 15-minute in-jeans ceremony. Because, I consider myself to be married, yet legally my wife and I are common-law. We've been living happily together for 10 years, have 2 wonderful daughters and don't need a ring or a legal document to make us secure in our relationship. I don't see the point in a huge ceremony but I don't see the point in a small vegas 15 minute wedding either. So just out of personal interest, what did marriage do for you and your husband that living common law would not ?
and any woman worth marrying will slap you hard for buying her such frivolity.
I'm not so sure about that.
First off, I am married and my wife and I are not materialistic at all. In fact, I'm the type of guy who would usually agree with this point. However, for an engagement ring (and other rare circumstances) spending a lot of money demonstrates selfless sacrifice. To do it all the time demonstrates idiotic sacrifice, but the rare occasion shows that you've put your own materialistic needs and desires aside in order to get something *REALLY* special for *HER*.
Of course the type of girl who expects that (ever, let alone on rare occasions) is not the type of girl worth marrying. Still, it doesn't mean there's no point, ever.
I still believe there is positive value in true "family values", and raising a girl who's self-esteem isn't so low that she feels she has to give in to sex in order to feel accepted. I have no illusions that that is a complete "fix," but I believe there is value to it, sex or no sex.
What about a teenage girl who has great self-esteem, great morals, solid and secure family values (which may differ from yours but the point being that she's secure in them) but still enjoys promiscuous sex and does it because it's enjoyable rather than some misguided attempt to find love or be liked ?
I suppose such a girl would make better choices regarding contraception but there's still those cases where contraception fails (happened to me and my wife ... twice).
I understand that you're advocating the opposite of forbidding abortion and suggesting we try to reduce the number of circumstances where it comes up (and that's great). I just don't like this idea that people have sex because they're trying to find love or happiness in the wrong way. Obviously there are people who do ... but for lots of people sex and love are completely separate things that serve different purposes. Contraception doesn't always work and I don't know any doctor who will give a teenager a vasectomy / tubal ligation.
As a Canadian entrepreneur I say ... "Yay! :D"
I was hoping Obama was going to win and clean house but you've convinced me otherwise. Thanks!
For the sake of discussion Obama responded to that (in Q/A format) here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QX67mlUyutM
Hate to reply to myself but I need to make a correction. I thought the GP said "scripture against adultery" when he/she really said "discouraging pr0n".
In that case he/she is probably referring to Mathew 5:28
"but I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart."
"Second, pr0n teaches nothing about how to maintain a relationship. Zero, nada, zip. The physical aspect glorified by pr0n is not even 1% of what you need to know about maintaining a relationship."
So ?
I didn't realize that it was supposed to.
"Not to mention that it encourages immoral behavior like adultery, whoremongery, and fornication. Yes there is scripture that discourages pr0n, but I am refraining from using the search while at work."
Just curious: do you align yourself with the camp that feels that violent video games and movies should be outlawed because they (in a certain few's opinions) "encourage immoral behaviour" as well ?
Oh and the scripture you're referring to is Mathew 19:9
"And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery."
I'm not an expert but I do have a few points that might help you out.
1) Prostitution laws vary greatly from one area to another. Even municipally. For example, my city issues escort licenses to effectively legalize prostitution and to "help protect the safety of sex workers" but street walking (the ones you see on tv where coked out whores are going up to cars) are still illegal. In some places it's ok to advertise but not to solicit directly. In other areas prostitution itself is legal but advertising it is not etc. So it's not as simple as "prostitution is illegal". It depends on the area and there are varying degrees of legality. The Wikipedia article on prostitution has lots more info.
2) Pornography is considered an artistic expression and the US constitution and Canadian charter among other bill of rights in other countries protect free speech. In the 70's there were supreme court cases in the US that helped set precedent protecting pornography under the federal-granted right to free speech.
And nobody can shred on a guitar like an coked up hair band
That's quite true. Non-coked up guitarists are reduced to performing music.
Nah, we have no girlfriends or wives to hide our porn browsing from. We wear our pr0n history like a badge of honor.
Yes it's true. Those among us fortunate to have found a wife have also had the foresight to seek an open minded one to whom we can still show off our pr0n history like a badge of honor.
From the summary: "Apple has been running an iPhone ad saying 'all parts of the internet are on the iPhone'"
followed by: "This raises an interesting issue of where do you draw the line between essential and non-essential features of websites. What should the web look like? Should government authorities be the ones making that decision?"
What the hell does that have to do with anything ? I didn't RTFA but it sounds like the problem is that they said that ALL parts of the Internet are accessible via the iPhone ... not "all but flash and java" ... which has nothing to do with "essential vs. non-essential", what-so-ever. Sounds like a simple case of false advertising to me.
In civil court you can never be awarded more than the sum of your damages.
There is logic in the "debt to society" point of view. When someone breaks a crime they owe society a debt. However, it shouldn't be profitable for society to collect on that debt. It's not about making society pay for the crimes of others. It's about not allowing society to become enriched by removing the freedoms of it's members.
"In my home town, I'm repeatedly disappointed by the lack of police enforcing traffic rules even though they stand to rake in substancial amounts of money doing so."
In my city (Windsor Ontario Canada) I'm repeatedly appalled at seeing the local police repeatedly break traffic rules in full view without a care in the world. Cops speed when they're not using their lights or sirens. They run stop signs and red lights if they're clear. If they're using their sirens, fine. Of course there's nothing really to stop them from turning on the sirens to go through a light, I guess they're exploiting that mindset. Yet they really show the public that they feel they're above the law. It's disgusting.
Ok, to turn this around a bit. Can you tell me exactly which pieces of asphalt/concrete you have paid for?
As far as I'm concerned, all of it. We have tax on gas sale, income tax, sales tax, taxes on all vehicle purchases (new or used), driver's licenses, license plates, road tolls, traffic fines (which I'm against but we still pay them), parking fees (for publicly owned parking garages and meters etc.). All ways of giving money to the government for things like road upkeep. How they use it very much my business but I haven't personally investigated how my money was put to use.
Point being We ALL pay for public infrastructure in one way or another so we should all be able to use it to heart's content so long as we don't harm anyone. I don't see why it should be any more complicated than that.
"I sort of agree with your sentiment, except that I percieve using a car on the road is a privilege"
I don't. We paid to put the roads there and everyone should be able to use them however the hell they want so long as they don't harm anyone.
I prefer to punish people AFTER they have done harm. Not before.
License plates, laws against drunk driving[1], justifying drug criminalization by claiming that drug use increases rates of crime, placing curfews on public parks etc. is all preemptive and it places a burden on an innocent society. There's no reason not to throw the book at someone who breaks the law but asking society to give up their freedom for the sake of reducing crime statistics is unfair. It costs tax dollars, gives the government a way to profit off of criminal behaviour (traffic fines) and regulation (licenses, vehicle registration etc.) and I don't think it actually does much in the way of achieving it's goal of preventing crime anyway.
[1] - I realize that's borderline trollish so I'll justify that: killing someone and violating traffic laws is already illegal. Why do we have to make it more illegal? Has all of this money spent - and made - by cracking down on drunk drivers actually reduced the number of dangerous drivers on the road ? What about sober drivers who are just as dangerous as people who are drunk ? In Ontario it's now illegal to drive with ANY ALCOHOL WHAT-SO-EVER in your system. You can not transport any alcohol that has been opened and any alcohol you do transport needs to be out of reach of the driver (ie: in the trunk). During peak holidays such as new years etc. they put up road blocks on every major road and stop every single car to smell the driver's breath. It punishes everyone for the mistakes of a few. It's getting extremely out of hand.
"I consider using the state-provided roads as a privilege, not a right, that requires your car to be identifiable by a valid licence plate.
If the plates are obscured, either by dirt or by purpose, isn't it reasonable to give a ticket to deter this?"
There are arguments on both sides of the fence.
Trying to keep roads as safe as possible by keeping negligent and down-right dangerous drivers off of them, fine.
Toll booths, ever-increasing ridiculous fees for license renewals and the ever-shortening of the period between expiry dates as a way to foot the bill for road maintenance ... I guess, so long as the public gets to "see the receipts" so to speak and the process is democratic.
Government profiting from the criminal behaviour of it's citizens: reprehensible. The minute punishing citizens becomes profitable the minute incentive is created for finding more and more ways to fine people. As a general rule of good practice, I feel that punishing people must always come at a cost to society. Not a profit.
In Ontario we have demerit point system. When you're caught violating a traffic law you get a certain number of points, which varies based on the particular law you broke. I don't drive so I'm not sure how many points you're allowed to get but if you reach a certain number your license is suspended (or revoked permanently for repeat-offenders). I'm all in favour of this system. You drive dangerously you loose your ability to drive. Punishment fits the crime. Care to guess at whether or not they abolished traffic fines when they introduced the system ? It's an easy one.
All they have to do is find Dr. Evil's secret volcano layer and get it back. They're frickin' Google. If they can't do it no one can.
I guess it depends on what you define 'reasonably well' as.
Both instruments are tuned the same in most cases, only an octave apart... and so long as the bass has frets then getting the instrument to make noise is the same (fret a note and pluck the string). However, both instruments are also completely different beasts that serve 2 very different purposes. There are also many techniques that are exclusive to each instrument.
Guitar players do not always make good bassists and vice versa. As a former guitar teacher, one issue that a lot of students of mine often had was keeping tempo without a metronome or drummer. Bassists need to have impeccable rhythm and they need to understand their place in the arrangement. Many guitarists like to assume that it's simple frequency balance. Rock guitarists particularly seem to have a hard time grasping the idea of supporting the percussion section, creating rhythm and creating harmony with the rest of the rhythm section. I still have nightmares about bassists in high school (usually guitarists who were suckered into playing bass by the rest of the band) who would simply play the root over each chord that the rhythm guitarist was playing.
So yeah, give a guitarist a bass and he'll make some noise no problem. But if you, as I, consider 'reasonably well' to be up to par with bassists like Paul Webb, Geddy Lee, Les Claypool, Stu Hamm, Billy Sheehan etc. then it takes years of practice on the instrument and having prior experience on a 6 string guitar will only help overcome some of the very initial hurdles like learning how to fret and pluck; hold the instrument etc.