Governments role is to protect individual rights. (See US Constitution and Bill of Rights)
Abortion is tricky (I'm pro-choice in case it matters) as there isn't a clear cut definition of where life begins. (We know the arguments back-and-forth)
Corporations live only by customers using them. We could kill Amazon or Walmart in a heart-beat by not buying things from them.
Why? Let his company go under as people buy other products.
No one is forced to buy the product. I suppose the real question is why would he want to price the product out of the market. And don't say greed. If it was as simple as that my neighborhood bar would charge $500 for a pint instead of $5.
If the bar owner raised his price so high wouldn't you wonder why? I would (OBVIOUSLY) stop going there and I can't see anyone else going there either. So... is there another reason that is conveniently not being mentioned?
Small government applies to the breadth of what the government does. Small government does not mean inept, in times of war (say WWII) it does not mean keeping taxes low or not paying soldiers. It means that government is limited - that does not have a role in say wage and price freezes (rent control); that it's function is not to redistribute wealth; etc...
You may agree or disagree with the positions - but you are simply making a straw man and digging yourself into an intellectual hole when you convince yourself of this bullsh!t.
Well what you're talking about is disturbing the peace and I agree with you 100% But what would you say if the bakery owner had an app that flagged everyone's Facebook page and then refused to serve them based upon said private conversations.
Add to that and we're talking about reviewing the private conversations of teenagers. The sh!t teenagers say. Half the stuff they say just to be outrageous and get a laugh and they don't think through how adults, sitting half-a-world away, who don't know them might take their statements.
Now these kids may have said disgusting, revolting things and Harvard may be entirely correct - that what these kids advocated was beyond the pale. But, I have no faith in that. I find it just as likely that the Harvard review board were a bunch of stuck up dipsh!ts who should not have been going over the private conversations of these kids.
First of all we are assuming many things (especially about teenagers).
People say all sorts of silly, stupid things in private where they don't have to explain the nuances of their thoughts to their friends.
Harvard may or may not be making a good judgment regarding these kids. But with all the SJW out there one is forced to wonder. What is the definition of rape? I define rape as a physical attack on another person and think it is deserving of the death penalty. However there are some Third Wave Feminists that consider "hitting" on someone a form of rape.
We don't know what these teenagers were mocking. And Harvard does not deserve a pass because of it's "elite" nature. Just look at the ridiculous faculty and administration (not to mentions students) at Berkeley, Cornell, Columbia and elsewhere.
That's true. But the point is - if Harvard can do what it wants because it's a private entity then why shouldn't the bar owner? Who should decide? The business (who chooses to cater to smokers) or the government?
Now, if you're arguing that it's the government's role, then the fact that Harvard is a private business is irrelevant.
If you're a libertarian, who believes in freedom and limiting government power then you would say that each of these businesses (Harvard, the bar and the bakery) can make their own choice.
I was responding to the phrase that "Harvard gets to decide". Harvard is a private business the same as a bar and a bakery. The same rules ought to apply.
How libertarian of you. Do you feel the same way about bars choosing whether to allow smoking? Or bakeries not selling to people who violate their ethics?
Of course the definition of "mocking" needs to be known before judging.
I don't mock rape. I think rapists deserve the death penalty. And I will mock the SJW who say that 1/4 of the women in college are raped as I don't think that "hitting" on a girl qualifies as rape
So yeah, mocking may actually be in order -- DEPENDING (of course) on what they're mocking.
It's a libertarian success because it calls to limit government power. One owns one's own body. To the extent that government power is limited it shows a libertarian influence (not necessarily Libertarian Party).
Abortion and gay rights have nothing to do with the left. Che and other socialists killed gay men as being part of the decadent bourgeoisie.
It's unethical to trade goods and services? What is ethical to you? Where you work for your lord and master (excuse me - well, meaning government servant) and the lords of the manner get to dole out what they think is good for you.
And France (for one) chooses which populations to include in their stats and which to exclude.
That's one example. I can't speak for the rest but I truly wonder if you are comparing apples to apples.
For instance, as regards violence, most US counties are as safe as the safest in Europe. Something like 2 percent of the US counties have 1/3 of the violence.
"BTC is too volatile" - today it is. Increase market cap by a factor of 10,000 and it won't be.:) That's pushing it (of course) but the greater the market cap the less volatile it will be.
If banks bring down the cost of money transfer to pennies on the dollar and it's as easy to send money as to send an email then you're correct. There will not be an economic utility for BTC.
At that point it's only value will be that it's not fiat and not controlled by a central authority. This value will not be important under "normal" economic times.
BTC's last selling point - relative anonymity can be created by other means. Money from wallet (say Chase) goes to an anonymizer which then goes to store to buy coffee.
That's not what people who use greenhouses for a living would argue. I know people with greenhouses who purposefully increase CO2 levels.
(This just happened to be on the top of my search results.)
"If you are green to gardening you might not know that carbon dioxide, the gas we all exhale, is critical to plant growth and development. Photosynthesis, the process through which plants use light to create food, requires carbon dioxide. CO2 concentration in ambient air ranges from 300-500 parts per million (ppm), with a global atmospheric average of about 400 ppm. If you are growing in a greenhouse or indoors, the CO2 levels will be reduced as the plants use it up during photosynthesis. Increasing the CO2 levels in these environments is essential for good results. Additionally, there are benefits to raising the CO2 level higher than the global average, up to 1500 ppm. With CO2 maintained at this level, yields can be increased by as much as 30%!"
https://fifthseasongardening.c...
Ah. Ok. Great. This is the level in which I think sane people should discuss the ramifications of rising CO2 levels.
Unfortunately too many people I meet consider this to be an extinction level event.
It now becomes a technological and economic debate. What is the value of Florida real estate, of Bangladeshi real estate? What is the cost of technological solutions. If sea levels rise by.5 meters in 100 years what are the ramifications? Is nuclear better than X? Is it worth subsidizing X?
It become a risk-reward discussion. We lose this real estate and gain that. We need to spend X for subsidies of Y for flood control.
I was wondering if you were talking about the rise of primates.
But the environmental conditions for primates must have existed before the first primates. And CO2 levels apply to all life, mammalian life included. Mammals did quite fine 55 million years ago and 80 MYA and proto-mammals were around 120+MYA.
The point, as you know, is that CO2 levels 55 MYA was much higher than 20MYA and mammals did just fine. Plant life did just fine. The conditions were fine for the branching out to a new order - Primate.
Not communism - but income transfer and putting a burden on one set of people but not on another. Which leads to what exactly?
Certainly not anything useful in the environmental arena. It would be far better to come up with a technological solution to a technological problem as opposed to signing the Kyoto and Paris accords which does nothing for the environment. All they do is transfer wealth from one group of people to another. Namely from the poor and middle class in wealthy countries.
You're absolutely correct. BTC may not be the winner. It will be remembered (at worst) as a proof of concept.
BTC is excellent as a store of value and transfer. It may not the best for buying cups of coffee and packs of gum from the local store. But it is a good way for the store to send end of day transactions to the bank. There may very well be numerous currencies. Some may be better (read faster) for tiny transactions where the effort to double spend is too great to bother for a $5.00 transaction but not secure enough for a $5,000.00 transaction, let alone a $5,000,000.00 transaction.
There are many potential combinations. I don't think there is a question that there will be multiple cryptocurrencies that are not controlled by a central authority. BTC may, or may not, be among those cryptocurrencies.
Really? The leaks seem to come from people who are opposed to Trump and are leaking everything and anything that they perceive may embarrass him and his administration.
It's coming from employees who have been there since before Trump was inaugurated. Or did you forget those leaks in January?
Slashdot Mirror
Governments role is to protect individual rights. (See US Constitution and Bill of Rights)
Abortion is tricky (I'm pro-choice in case it matters) as there isn't a clear cut definition of where life begins. (We know the arguments back-and-forth)
Corporations live only by customers using them. We could kill Amazon or Walmart in a heart-beat by not buying things from them.
Wealth inequity is a tricky issue.
Why? Let his company go under as people buy other products.
... is there another reason that is conveniently not being mentioned?
No one is forced to buy the product. I suppose the real question is why would he want to price the product out of the market. And don't say greed. If it was as simple as that my neighborhood bar would charge $500 for a pint instead of $5.
If the bar owner raised his price so high wouldn't you wonder why? I would (OBVIOUSLY) stop going there and I can't see anyone else going there either. So
Small government applies to the breadth of what the government does. Small government does not mean inept, in times of war (say WWII) it does not mean keeping taxes low or not paying soldiers. It means that government is limited - that does not have a role in say wage and price freezes (rent control); that it's function is not to redistribute wealth; etc...
You may agree or disagree with the positions - but you are simply making a straw man and digging yourself into an intellectual hole when you convince yourself of this bullsh!t.
Well what you're talking about is disturbing the peace and I agree with you 100% But what would you say if the bakery owner had an app that flagged everyone's Facebook page and then refused to serve them based upon said private conversations.
Add to that and we're talking about reviewing the private conversations of teenagers. The sh!t teenagers say. Half the stuff they say just to be outrageous and get a laugh and they don't think through how adults, sitting half-a-world away, who don't know them might take their statements.
Now these kids may have said disgusting, revolting things and Harvard may be entirely correct - that what these kids advocated was beyond the pale. But, I have no faith in that. I find it just as likely that the Harvard review board were a bunch of stuck up dipsh!ts who should not have been going over the private conversations of these kids.
First of all we are assuming many things (especially about teenagers).
People say all sorts of silly, stupid things in private where they don't have to explain the nuances of their thoughts to their friends.
Harvard may or may not be making a good judgment regarding these kids. But with all the SJW out there one is forced to wonder. What is the definition of rape? I define rape as a physical attack on another person and think it is deserving of the death penalty. However there are some Third Wave Feminists that consider "hitting" on someone a form of rape.
We don't know what these teenagers were mocking. And Harvard does not deserve a pass because of it's "elite" nature. Just look at the ridiculous faculty and administration (not to mentions students) at Berkeley, Cornell, Columbia and elsewhere.
That's true. But the point is - if Harvard can do what it wants because it's a private entity then why shouldn't the bar owner? Who should decide? The business (who chooses to cater to smokers) or the government?
Now, if you're arguing that it's the government's role, then the fact that Harvard is a private business is irrelevant.
If you're a libertarian, who believes in freedom and limiting government power then you would say that each of these businesses (Harvard, the bar and the bakery) can make their own choice.
I was responding to the phrase that "Harvard gets to decide". Harvard is a private business the same as a bar and a bakery. The same rules ought to apply.
How libertarian of you. Do you feel the same way about bars choosing whether to allow smoking? Or bakeries not selling to people who violate their ethics?
Of course the definition of "mocking" needs to be known before judging.
I don't mock rape. I think rapists deserve the death penalty. And I will mock the SJW who say that 1/4 of the women in college are raped as I don't think that "hitting" on a girl qualifies as rape
So yeah, mocking may actually be in order -- DEPENDING (of course) on what they're mocking.
Why? There aren't any fools in dictatorships? DERR DURRP.
As far as GA. Didn't you guys elect an idiot who thought Guam might tip over?
exaggerate much.
The sad sh!t would be if you're not a troll and you actually believe your idiotic rhetoric.
It's a libertarian success because it calls to limit government power. One owns one's own body. To the extent that government power is limited it shows a libertarian influence (not necessarily Libertarian Party).
Abortion and gay rights have nothing to do with the left. Che and other socialists killed gay men as being part of the decadent bourgeoisie.
would you prefer plutonium plus a city wiped out?
It's unethical to trade goods and services? What is ethical to you? Where you work for your lord and master (excuse me - well, meaning government servant) and the lords of the manner get to dole out what they think is good for you.
Nah man. I'll keep my unethical capitalism.
And France (for one) chooses which populations to include in their stats and which to exclude.
That's one example. I can't speak for the rest but I truly wonder if you are comparing apples to apples.
For instance, as regards violence, most US counties are as safe as the safest in Europe. Something like 2 percent of the US counties have 1/3 of the violence.
Got it. So you're anti-immigrant then as immigrants reduce the value of labor. (More supply of labor leads to a lower price for labor.)
"BTC is too volatile" - today it is. Increase market cap by a factor of 10,000 and it won't be. :) That's pushing it (of course) but the greater the market cap the less volatile it will be.
If banks bring down the cost of money transfer to pennies on the dollar and it's as easy to send money as to send an email then you're correct. There will not be an economic utility for BTC.
At that point it's only value will be that it's not fiat and not controlled by a central authority. This value will not be important under "normal" economic times.
BTC's last selling point - relative anonymity can be created by other means. Money from wallet (say Chase) goes to an anonymizer which then goes to store to buy coffee.
Really?
That's not what people who use greenhouses for a living would argue. I know people with greenhouses who purposefully increase CO2 levels.
(This just happened to be on the top of my search results.)
"If you are green to gardening you might not know that carbon dioxide, the gas we all exhale, is critical to plant growth and development. Photosynthesis, the process through which plants use light to create food, requires carbon dioxide. CO2 concentration in ambient air ranges from 300-500 parts per million (ppm), with a global atmospheric average of about 400 ppm. If you are growing in a greenhouse or indoors, the CO2 levels will be reduced as the plants use it up during photosynthesis. Increasing the CO2 levels in these environments is essential for good results. Additionally, there are benefits to raising the CO2 level higher than the global average, up to 1500 ppm. With CO2 maintained at this level, yields can be increased by as much as 30%!"
https://fifthseasongardening.c...
Ah. Ok. Great. This is the level in which I think sane people should discuss the ramifications of rising CO2 levels.
.5 meters in 100 years what are the ramifications? Is nuclear better than X? Is it worth subsidizing X?
Unfortunately too many people I meet consider this to be an extinction level event.
It now becomes a technological and economic debate. What is the value of Florida real estate, of Bangladeshi real estate? What is the cost of technological solutions. If sea levels rise by
It become a risk-reward discussion. We lose this real estate and gain that. We need to spend X for subsidies of Y for flood control.
I was wondering if you were talking about the rise of primates.
But the environmental conditions for primates must have existed before the first primates. And CO2 levels apply to all life, mammalian life included. Mammals did quite fine 55 million years ago and 80 MYA and proto-mammals were around 120+MYA. The point, as you know, is that CO2 levels 55 MYA was much higher than 20MYA and mammals did just fine. Plant life did just fine. The conditions were fine for the branching out to a new order - Primate.
Any particular reason you picked 20 million years as opposed to 55 million years?
Not communism - but income transfer and putting a burden on one set of people but not on another. Which leads to what exactly?
Certainly not anything useful in the environmental arena. It would be far better to come up with a technological solution to a technological problem as opposed to signing the Kyoto and Paris accords which does nothing for the environment. All they do is transfer wealth from one group of people to another. Namely from the poor and middle class in wealthy countries.
guess you simply don't get it when you're being mocked.
You're absolutely correct. BTC may not be the winner. It will be remembered (at worst) as a proof of concept.
BTC is excellent as a store of value and transfer. It may not the best for buying cups of coffee and packs of gum from the local store. But it is a good way for the store to send end of day transactions to the bank. There may very well be numerous currencies. Some may be better (read faster) for tiny transactions where the effort to double spend is too great to bother for a $5.00 transaction but not secure enough for a $5,000.00 transaction, let alone a $5,000,000.00 transaction.
There are many potential combinations. I don't think there is a question that there will be multiple cryptocurrencies that are not controlled by a central authority. BTC may, or may not, be among those cryptocurrencies.
Really? The leaks seem to come from people who are opposed to Trump and are leaking everything and anything that they perceive may embarrass him and his administration.
It's coming from employees who have been there since before Trump was inaugurated. Or did you forget those leaks in January?