Hmm. There is a way to kill (or otherwise slow down) viral threats: Interferon.
The protein interferon, produced by animal cells when they are invaded by viruses, is released into the bloodstream or intercellular fluid to induce healthy cells to manufacture an enzyme that counters the infection. Interferon is therefore considered a potential medical resource as a BIOPHARMACEUTICAL. For many years the supply of human interferon for research was limited by costly extraction techniques. In 1980, however, the protein became available in greater quantities through GENETIC ENGINEERING. Scientists also determined that the body makes three distinct types of interferon, each perhaps with several members. These classes were first called leukocyte, fibroplast, and immune interferon after their supposed production sites, but it is now known that each particular class is not, after all, made by a single cell type. The classes are therefore now called, respectively, alpha, beta, and gamma interferon. Interferons were also first thought to be extremely species-specific, but it is now known that individual interferons may have different ranges of activity in other species.Alpha interferon has been approved for therapeutic use against hairy-cell LEUKEMIA and Hepatitis C. It has also been found effective against chronic hepatitis B, a major cause of liver cancer and cirrhosis, as well as for treatment of genital warts and some rarer cancers of blood and bone marrow. Nasal sprays containing alpha interferon provide some protection against colds caused by rhinoviruses.
(http://hepatitis-c.de/whatinf.htm)
Antibiotics do jack against viral threats. They are designed (for the most part) to disrupt the bacteria's cell walls (bleed them to death). Since human cells (animal type) do not have cell walls, your body is fine. Viruses do not have cell walls, hence they are ineffective.
A thought just occurred to me: keeping in line with the Slashdot thinking, the laws on the books are analagous to the patents that IBM holds. So many that fighting them is impossible, and you will be put away for a thousand minor infractions (that no one knew about). Death of a thousand paper cuts.
Fair Enough. Consider it this way: if you keep the number of laws down (do not kill/rape people, do not steal from people, etc.), you'd be surprised at how easy it is to enforce them.
The problems we face today is that we have so many laws in the books, anyone could be nailed for anything. And most of it is an outgrowth of the above laws I named. For some odd reason, politicians feel a need to create new and strange laws, or to redefine the old in news ways, as a justification of their liveliehood: this produces many shades of grey. Keep it simple, but leave it up to a judge/jury to decide your ultimate fate.
Think about it. Rape, murder, theft covers 99% of the laws we need out there. You know, there is a reason why they were once called 'common law'. Because even the common folk could understand them. They are that basic, and almost every religion out there supports them.
Pure Capitalism is part of the above (you need property rights, which spawns the whole life, liberty, property, pursuit of happiness, etc. stuff). Enforcement is left as an exercise to the reader. I am not against laws, just against most of them, because of the above. Of the laws that remain, I expect them to be enforced carefully, but vigorously (judge + jury determines the extent + guilt). Do you understand what I'm getting at?
But, what happens when the cost of entry is measured in the BILLIONS of dollars? Suddenly, not just "anyone" can enter...
And what if the cost is hundreds of dollars, and you live in the ghetto? What if you're trying to get enough money together to open a small business? Same stuff. "Anyone" refers to anyone who can raise the capital necessary to enter the market. An intelligent person doesn't enter a market by paying the highest cost, but by redesigning technology/business methods so that entry costs are lower. MS charges $200 for a copy of Windows? See if you can do it for less. If you can, cut their legs out from under them. Make them operate in the red. If you can't, I guess you're not smart enough, go work on something else.
What a load of crap. You have no idea what you are writing about.
It's called market-entry. You can enter the market. No one can tell you not to enter the market. No one is restricting your access. However, capital and various other elements (market conditions) determine the success of your company.
And, perhaps you could explain how this is so?
Read Adam Smith.
I guess you don't remember the days when telephones were not private property and were rented from the telephone company? I guess you don't remember paying $0.45 per minute for a scratchy telephone connection to a nearby town? Or when there were *no* long distance alternatives? Or when it took a month or more to get a phone line installed?
And I'm surprised that no one decided to compete. Apparently, the market decided that $.45/min was an acceptable rate. As for renting a phone, you wouldn't per chance have a cell-phone would you? If you do, it's probably part of your contract, hence you are 'renting' your phone.
Perhaps changing these things are "nothing good"?
Depends on how you plan to change it. By competing, negotiating, etc., go right ahead. By introducing government regulation? Try a better approach.
Already, SBC is exerting its near monopoly pressure on California ISPs and broadband providers. If you were even mildly involved (say, with CISPA, California Internet Service Providers Association) you would know this. It's a constant battle that costs consumers many millions anually.
So it is. They provide a service over their lines for a certain price, you want it for another price: the market sets the price.
The Internet itself largely stems from govornment regulation forcing the monopoly telecommunications companies (primarily, AT&T) to allow consumers to rent a lease-line! That decision, the mid-70's, was a big deal that the telecommunications companies fought bitterly against.
And they are fighting today...what has changed? Nothing.
If that hadn't happened, our beloved Internet would have died on the vine as an irrelevant academic curiosity...
Are you sure? I'd be curious to see what would happen if it didn't.
But, I guess you won't let these (and plenty of other) facts get in the way of your (uninformed, naive) opinion...
Perhaps my opinion is uninformed and naive (having studied economics for several years), but I do not post comments with the intent to insult. Try having a normal conversation sometime, discussing the merits of each side, and engaging in a normal tone. It's healthy for you.
You seem to be missing the point: once the government is involved, things get worse.
The existing laws (and I'll probably get modded down) are bullsh*t. Market economics do not allow for monopolies if the monopolies abuse (read: use) their position. Microsoft, like IBM, is not a monopoly. They have a lot of cash, and they are a large company, but if they jack prices too high or piss off too many customers, they suffer.
The only 'true monopoly' is one granted by the state: a law passes where market entry is restricted. Anything else is fair.
Back on topic, like so many other idiotic companies, SUN et al. tried to use the government (an institution setup for property rights) as a sword against Microsoft. MS (aside from some interesting contract negotiations) has done nothing deserving as such. Essentially, SUN et al. were angry because MS was eating their lunch (which is fair in the market). Basically, these people were trying to change reality, because they didn't like the way it worked.
And guess what? MS decides to take the sword out of SUN et al.'s hands, and proceeds to beat them. Whatever you have against MS (crappy software, evil business practices, etc.), you have to admit that this was a serious mistake on Sun et al.'s part. Do not use socialistic business practices against capitalist companies: the results are ugly.
Look, anyone can enter the market (any market). It just requires capital.
So long as entry is not limited (by laws or other regulations), one company cannot be a monopoly. They may ice out all the other competitors (which drives prices down), but once they begin to use their *monopoly* advantage, new companies are born to compete, which drives down the prices again. Wash, rinse, repeat.
The government has no 'task' to enforce free, competitive markets. They has a singular task, to enforce property rights. For some reason, people believe that you need to have multiple companies competing to have the best market. If one company trades on razor-thin margins, the customer may be even better satisfied. If not, more companies will spring up to deal.
Sherman Anti-trust Act -> pure stupidity. The effects of the ATT breakup are still being felt, and they are nothing good.
power of monopolies to leverage their unfair advantage to prevent competition in new areas -> see above. They use their advantage, they lose their advantage.
Hmm, sounds like fun. My university (a large one)? They just throw the images and keys up on an FTP server, and scream "Come and get it!".
They hand out Office CDs like candy.
And, to top it all off: They've had a lab full of Dell laptops (Latitude C840, I think) stolen, twice. Apparently, someone just throws a brick through the big picture glass windows, scoops up the latops before security (in their golf carts) has a chance to show up. Their solution? Lock the laptops up in a large, metal cube (vault). The problem? The cube has wheels and a $10 lock on it. And it's not like the cube is chained to anything, it's just there, ready to go. Someone could wheel it out of the building, and no one would ask any questions.
1.) Those people EARNED that money. It's theirs, and no one else may claim to it. Period. The whole point behind the government is to protect those rights. Democrats (and Republicans, to a lesser extent) have moved the argument to "since we're going to be taxed anyway, what should we spend the money on". Effectively, you're cattle.
2.) The fantasy world of government and the real world of the market often collide. Those people were rewarded with REAL money (by the market), for providing valuable services. They have that money for a reason. When the fantasy world of government tries to change reality, a backflow is created in the system (the effects of diverting funds in a non-efficent manner). The result is more complicated than the idiotic slogan "Soak the Rich!". Fuck them, you fuck yourself. That's just the way the game is played.
That might work if you had a choice of buying from EvilCo and GoodCorp, but what happens when your choices are between buying from a company that profits from foreign child labor, a company that is actively destroying the rain forest, and a company that hires a con artist as its CEO?
Start your own company, if you do not agree with their policies.
Once the choice comes down to a lesser of evils or to a cause of the month, public sentiment doesn't have any power.
Or maybe, people really do not care. I mean, having $35 shoes is more important to them than the perceived evils of foreign child labor.
Plus there is the problem of information overload.
Of course, and the solution is shifting or screening for 'relevant' data. Knowing that the CEO just bought a BMW 760li is useless. Knowing that the CEO just outsourced production to China is not.
Individuals would have a hard time keeping track of who they should be "punishing" with each purchase.
The problem with boycotts is that, like unions, in order for them to be effective, you need a lot of people doing it. Something to impact the bottomline.
The most effective way to 'fix' a company is to point out how changing in your direction is beneficial to them. Self-interest, works everytime.
For burning down the rainforest, point out how cattle exposed to the contagions therein can and will open them up to lawsuits, that their competitors beef tastes better (on proper land), and that they can actually save money by using the people and land at home.
+1 for employing people in your own country.
+1 for saving money this way (land use more efficent).
It cares ONLY about liberty, but cares squat for justice or democracy.
Justice? I do not believe there is any law or right whereby a supplier is required to sell something to you, at any price.
And if prices were raised via collusion after I got into that market? What then? Screw it, change businesses?
Yeah, it happens. Even in our society. Deal. Alternatively, you could expand your business so that it encompasses RAM production. Or you could wait for someone else, not affiliated with the cartel, to jump in (high profit margins/limited demand tend to have that effect).
Should I suffer financial pains because of the collusion of suppliers?
No, you should suffer financial pains if you are unable to overcome challenges that are thrown at you, like any business owner. If you fail, you fail. Deal, like everyone else.
Now, someone will eventually cite IP as a problem. Whine, whine, bluster, but they have IP and I can't make those chips. Well, if they are unwilling to license their IP, fight back. File for some offensive patents: pidgeon hole them. Make it so that they cannot advance their tech, or even sell it, without working out a deal with you.
You sound like a union worker: you've blocked yourself inside a box, and are unwilling to consider the alternatives. "I make computers, that's all I want to do, and if someone won't sell me their components, I can't do anything to help my poor self, but whine about social justice and ?democracy?".
The marketplace is about transactions, and capitalism is built on the principles of dystopia, yet it can create a veritable utopia, by having everyone appeal to their own self-interest (short of theft (of property) or physical harm (of your body)). Greed ensures that people like money, much more than they care for racism, sexism, or personal vendettas. If they can ship a couple more units, making more money in the process, they quickly set aside whatever personal problems they have with you.
Personally, I'd love a few more nuclear fission powerplants. I live in PA, near one (Limerick). Those suckers are great. Scares the tourists (always worth a chuckle), but its redeeming value is that those clouds hovering over the powerplant are white, not black.
We need triterium (I think I spelled that right) for fusion reactions (so far as I've been briefed). What effects would we encounter by removing it from the environment? Is the supply 'renewable'?
From what I've gathered, the varying forms of weather are essentially heat transfer mechanisms. So depending upon where you sap their energy (at the beginning of a hurricane versus near the end of its journey), you could slow the effects of these mechanisms. Effectively (if everyone threw up windmills and whatnot), you would polarize weather. Cold areas would not receive their influx of warm weather, warm areas would not receive their influx of cool weather; all this because the transfer mechanisms are degraded.
I wonder if there is a feedback loop. The global warming theory is continously shredded by a close comparison of projected data and real data. Up until now, we've been pumping CO2 and various gases into the atmosphere, and the earth seems to be bearing with us (probably bleeds more energy into space, but whatever). However, this may only work as long as we do not tamper with the heat transfer mechanisms.
Think of it this way: your processor putting out an extra 10 degress celsius isn't something to worry about (assuming you have a good heatsink); your processor fan dieing on you is.
Hydrogen is not a power source per se, but rather a replacement for power lines.
Powerlines are more efficent (in terms of delivering power). Going from [Generator] -> [Hydrogen Fuel Cells] is not as efficent as [Generator] -> [Power Lines]. Although, storing excess energy in hydrogen fuel cells is an interesting idea. However, is the question arises: Do powerplants output at a constant rate? Or do they dynamically scale up and down according to demand?
Running a power plant (nuclear, natural gas, coal) at full tilt does not make sense. If they do scale, then the amount of (excess) energy stored would be miniscule. Additionally, are there better mediums for storing energy? Safer? Do hydrogen fuel cells break down after a number of charges? Are they cost-efficent? How many would you need? How long do they hold a charge?
Hardly. There's one piece your missing out on (in a free market). Supply meets demand. If enough 'rural' people want electricity, companies are willing to provide it. What happened here is either 1.) the people didn't want it (not enough demand) or 2.) the costs of stringing out thousands of miles of wiring was (at the time) cost-prohibitive. So, in effect, the electricity companies (by mandate of this law) either took a loss or the tax-payer subsidized it.
It's a bit like when the government says it does AIDS research, that it is for good of everyone. It's not. Taxpayer money is stolen goods. You want AIDS to be cured? Wait for the upper-ranks (the rich) to become afflicted: they'll find a cure, and fast. Nobody can crack the whip and get results like the rich. I mean, if Bill G. wanted to find the cure, it would be done. Government spending does nothing (** Sometimes they get lucky, but mostly not: no accountability).
Think about it. The only people who are going to get their hands on nukes are the rich. Period. And the first-generation rich are too intelligent to actually use it (later generations are lesser, wouldn't care for it). Think of it as a status symbol: the same with Oracle's Ellison and his MiG. Sure, he could drop bombs with it or fly it into a building, but mostly he likes buzzing Bill Gates.
And private fire departments are not a bad idea: they used to be pretty good. The only real issue was one of jurisdiction (always): two private fire companies would show up at a burning house and argue about who had clearance.
The purity is simple: the Libertarian party is the party of principle. If they cease to be pure, they loose their base.
And libertarians tend to view others as the worshippers of ivory towers: Democrats and social planning, Republicans and moral planning. Libertarians embrace the market, which means no planning, something akin to the original inception of the US.
Market Economics. 99% of the dollar's worth disappears inside the government: this is due to waste, theft, and occasionally misplacing a few hundred million.
So if a federal regulators job pays $60,000 yearly (just a guess), $6,000,000 was originally collected. Now, 150 is too high, but 100 (in a perfect academic market) and probably 50-75 in the real market.
Numbers might be off by a little, can't really tell these days as politicians have a nasty habit of 'cutting costs' by shifting numbers around (to other departments) while actually increasing costs. Fun stuff.
Second Amendmant. Doesn't matter how strong or weak you are physically, a gun fires just the same.
But in all seriousness, libertarians like simplified rules. That is, a lot of the rules we have on the books today are hair-splitting, which is where all the bullsh*t comes in. And then there are the primary parties (Republican & Democrat) that put words in mouths (Yay, we're the pot party: not quite, we believe you are responsible for yourself (no welfare), so if you want to smoke pot, that's your own choice, deal with the consequences (less money, lung damage)).
What I like about the libertarians is that they ultimately give you back free choice: for better or worse, you are free to make your own decisions, and you live with the responsibility for those decisions.
Lastly, the founders of the US closely embodied those libertarian ideals (a few compromises, but close enough). Anyone care to guess what George W. would do to you if you suggested an income tax? Hint: it involves a rope and something called 'treason'. Sad that we haven't tried any politicians for treason (in a while)...probably because that word is loaded.
DDT is the most effective. And with the 'evidence' presented in a "Silent Spring" recently debunked, there is no reason we shouldn't flood rivers with DDT.
How the fuck is it not working? Is Bill Gates putting a gun to your head, telling to buy Windows? No. Nor is he doing it to anyone else.
In any case M$ is still taxing the world $35,000,000,000 per year for about a dozen programs mostly written more than a decade ago with the most complicated bits (the device drivers) being largely written by third parties. That's wrong, the market isn't working and the law needs to be fixed.
So the market isn't working because people still buy something that works (for their needs, flame arguments aside). Umm, that is the point behind the market: provide people what they want, at a price you can both agree on. So Windows isn't perfect, neither is Linux. But it's good enough. And there is no law that one has to reinvent his product every year. IF people want to buy it, let them. It's right, and nothing needs to be *fixed*.
Slashdot Mirror
Hmm. There is a way to kill (or otherwise slow down) viral threats: Interferon.
The protein interferon, produced by animal cells when they are invaded by viruses, is released into the bloodstream or intercellular fluid to induce healthy cells to manufacture an enzyme that counters the infection. Interferon is therefore considered a potential medical resource as a BIOPHARMACEUTICAL.
For many years the supply of human interferon for research was limited by costly extraction techniques. In 1980, however, the protein became available in greater quantities through GENETIC ENGINEERING.
Scientists also determined that the body makes three distinct types of interferon, each perhaps with several members. These classes were first called leukocyte, fibroplast, and immune interferon after their supposed production sites, but it is now known that each particular class is not, after all, made by a single cell type.
The classes are therefore now called, respectively, alpha, beta, and gamma interferon. Interferons were also first thought to be extremely species-specific, but it is now known that individual interferons may have different ranges of activity in other species.Alpha interferon has been approved for therapeutic use against hairy-cell LEUKEMIA and Hepatitis C. It has also been found effective against chronic hepatitis B, a major cause of liver cancer and cirrhosis, as well as for treatment of genital warts and some rarer cancers of blood and bone marrow. Nasal sprays containing alpha interferon provide some protection against colds caused by rhinoviruses.
(http://hepatitis-c.de/whatinf.htm)
Antibiotics do jack against viral threats. They are designed (for the most part) to disrupt the bacteria's cell walls (bleed them to death). Since human cells (animal type) do not have cell walls, your body is fine. Viruses do not have cell walls, hence they are ineffective.
A thought just occurred to me: keeping in line with the Slashdot thinking, the laws on the books are analagous to the patents that IBM holds. So many that fighting them is impossible, and you will be put away for a thousand minor infractions (that no one knew about). Death of a thousand paper cuts.
Fair Enough. Consider it this way: if you keep the number of laws down (do not kill/rape people, do not steal from people, etc.), you'd be surprised at how easy it is to enforce them.
The problems we face today is that we have so many laws in the books, anyone could be nailed for anything. And most of it is an outgrowth of the above laws I named. For some odd reason, politicians feel a need to create new and strange laws, or to redefine the old in news ways, as a justification of their liveliehood: this produces many shades of grey. Keep it simple, but leave it up to a judge/jury to decide your ultimate fate.
Think about it. Rape, murder, theft covers 99% of the laws we need out there. You know, there is a reason why they were once called 'common law'. Because even the common folk could understand them. They are that basic, and almost every religion out there supports them.
Pure Capitalism is part of the above (you need property rights, which spawns the whole life, liberty, property, pursuit of happiness, etc. stuff). Enforcement is left as an exercise to the reader. I am not against laws, just against most of them, because of the above. Of the laws that remain, I expect them to be enforced carefully, but vigorously (judge + jury determines the extent + guilt). Do you understand what I'm getting at?
But, what happens when the cost of entry is measured in the BILLIONS of dollars? Suddenly, not just "anyone" can enter...
And what if the cost is hundreds of dollars, and you live in the ghetto? What if you're trying to get enough money together to open a small business? Same stuff. "Anyone" refers to anyone who can raise the capital necessary to enter the market. An intelligent person doesn't enter a market by paying the highest cost, but by redesigning technology/business methods so that entry costs are lower. MS charges $200 for a copy of Windows? See if you can do it for less. If you can, cut their legs out from under them. Make them operate in the red. If you can't, I guess you're not smart enough, go work on something else.
What a load of crap. You have no idea what you are writing about.
It's called market-entry. You can enter the market. No one can tell you not to enter the market. No one is restricting your access. However, capital and various other elements (market conditions) determine the success of your company.
And, perhaps you could explain how this is so?
Read Adam Smith.
I guess you don't remember the days when telephones were not private property and were rented from the telephone company? I guess you don't remember paying $0.45 per minute for a scratchy telephone connection to a nearby town? Or when there were *no* long distance alternatives? Or when it took a month or more to get a phone line installed?
And I'm surprised that no one decided to compete. Apparently, the market decided that $.45/min was an acceptable rate. As for renting a phone, you wouldn't per chance have a cell-phone would you? If you do, it's probably part of your contract, hence you are 'renting' your phone.
Perhaps changing these things are "nothing good"?
Depends on how you plan to change it. By competing, negotiating, etc., go right ahead. By introducing government regulation? Try a better approach.
Already, SBC is exerting its near monopoly pressure on California ISPs and broadband providers. If you were even mildly involved (say, with CISPA, California Internet Service Providers Association) you would know this. It's a constant battle that costs consumers many millions anually.
So it is. They provide a service over their lines for a certain price, you want it for another price: the market sets the price.
The Internet itself largely stems from govornment regulation forcing the monopoly telecommunications companies (primarily, AT&T) to allow consumers to rent a lease-line! That decision, the mid-70's, was a big deal that the telecommunications companies fought bitterly against.
And they are fighting today...what has changed? Nothing.
If that hadn't happened, our beloved Internet would have died on the vine as an irrelevant academic curiosity...
Are you sure? I'd be curious to see what would happen if it didn't.
But, I guess you won't let these (and plenty of other) facts get in the way of your (uninformed, naive) opinion...
Perhaps my opinion is uninformed and naive (having studied economics for several years), but I do not post comments with the intent to insult. Try having a normal conversation sometime, discussing the merits of each side, and engaging in a normal tone. It's healthy for you.
You seem to be missing the point: once the government is involved, things get worse.
The existing laws (and I'll probably get modded down) are bullsh*t. Market economics do not allow for monopolies if the monopolies abuse (read: use) their position. Microsoft, like IBM, is not a monopoly. They have a lot of cash, and they are a large company, but if they jack prices too high or piss off too many customers, they suffer.
The only 'true monopoly' is one granted by the state: a law passes where market entry is restricted. Anything else is fair.
Back on topic, like so many other idiotic companies, SUN et al. tried to use the government (an institution setup for property rights) as a sword against Microsoft. MS (aside from some interesting contract negotiations) has done nothing deserving as such. Essentially, SUN et al. were angry because MS was eating their lunch (which is fair in the market). Basically, these people were trying to change reality, because they didn't like the way it worked.
And guess what? MS decides to take the sword out of SUN et al.'s hands, and proceeds to beat them. Whatever you have against MS (crappy software, evil business practices, etc.), you have to admit that this was a serious mistake on Sun et al.'s part. Do not use socialistic business practices against capitalist companies: the results are ugly.
Look, anyone can enter the market (any market). It just requires capital.
So long as entry is not limited (by laws or other regulations), one company cannot be a monopoly. They may ice out all the other competitors (which drives prices down), but once they begin to use their *monopoly* advantage, new companies are born to compete, which drives down the prices again. Wash, rinse, repeat.
The government has no 'task' to enforce free, competitive markets. They has a singular task, to enforce property rights. For some reason, people believe that you need to have multiple companies competing to have the best market. If one company trades on razor-thin margins, the customer may be even better satisfied. If not, more companies will spring up to deal.
Sherman Anti-trust Act -> pure stupidity. The effects of the ATT breakup are still being felt, and they are nothing good.
power of monopolies to leverage their unfair advantage to prevent competition in new areas -> see above. They use their advantage, they lose their advantage.
Hmm, sounds like fun. My university (a large one)? They just throw the images and keys up on an FTP server, and scream "Come and get it!".
They hand out Office CDs like candy.
And, to top it all off: They've had a lab full of Dell laptops (Latitude C840, I think) stolen, twice. Apparently, someone just throws a brick through the big picture glass windows, scoops up the latops before security (in their golf carts) has a chance to show up. Their solution? Lock the laptops up in a large, metal cube (vault). The problem? The cube has wheels and a $10 lock on it. And it's not like the cube is chained to anything, it's just there, ready to go. Someone could wheel it out of the building, and no one would ask any questions.
Ah, the whole 'ends justify the means' argument.
These people never stop to think that:
1.) Those people EARNED that money. It's theirs, and no one else may claim to it. Period. The whole point behind the government is to protect those rights. Democrats (and Republicans, to a lesser extent) have moved the argument to "since we're going to be taxed anyway, what should we spend the money on". Effectively, you're cattle.
2.) The fantasy world of government and the real world of the market often collide. Those people were rewarded with REAL money (by the market), for providing valuable services. They have that money for a reason. When the fantasy world of government tries to change reality, a backflow is created in the system (the effects of diverting funds in a non-efficent manner). The result is more complicated than the idiotic slogan "Soak the Rich!". Fuck them, you fuck yourself. That's just the way the game is played.
Bah, I'll cave in and take a gmail invite.
Send to ryanr(AT)nni.com
Actually, they spammed Lucifer:
http://sluggy.com/daily.php?date=040710
That might work if you had a choice of buying from EvilCo and GoodCorp, but what happens when your choices are between buying from a company that profits from foreign child labor, a company that is actively destroying the rain forest, and a company that hires a con artist as its CEO?
Start your own company, if you do not agree with their policies.
Once the choice comes down to a lesser of evils or to a cause of the month, public sentiment doesn't have any power.
Or maybe, people really do not care. I mean, having $35 shoes is more important to them than the perceived evils of foreign child labor.
Plus there is the problem of information overload.
Of course, and the solution is shifting or screening for 'relevant' data. Knowing that the CEO just bought a BMW 760li is useless. Knowing that the CEO just outsourced production to China is not.
Individuals would have a hard time keeping track of who they should be "punishing" with each purchase.
The problem with boycotts is that, like unions, in order for them to be effective, you need a lot of people doing it. Something to impact the bottomline.
The most effective way to 'fix' a company is to point out how changing in your direction is beneficial to them. Self-interest, works everytime.
For burning down the rainforest, point out how cattle exposed to the contagions therein can and will open them up to lawsuits, that their competitors beef tastes better (on proper land), and that they can actually save money by using the people and land at home.
+1 for employing people in your own country.
+1 for saving money this way (land use more efficent).
+1 for avoiding lawsuits.
Etc..
Should read:
(high profit margins/limited supply tend to have that effect).
It cares ONLY about liberty, but cares squat for justice or democracy.
Justice? I do not believe there is any law or right whereby a supplier is required to sell something to you, at any price.
And if prices were raised via collusion after I got into that market? What then? Screw it, change businesses?
Yeah, it happens. Even in our society. Deal. Alternatively, you could expand your business so that it encompasses RAM production. Or you could wait for someone else, not affiliated with the cartel, to jump in (high profit margins/limited demand tend to have that effect).
Should I suffer financial pains because of the collusion of suppliers?
No, you should suffer financial pains if you are unable to overcome challenges that are thrown at you, like any business owner. If you fail, you fail. Deal, like everyone else.
Now, someone will eventually cite IP as a problem. Whine, whine, bluster, but they have IP and I can't make those chips. Well, if they are unwilling to license their IP, fight back. File for some offensive patents: pidgeon hole them. Make it so that they cannot advance their tech, or even sell it, without working out a deal with you.
You sound like a union worker: you've blocked yourself inside a box, and are unwilling to consider the alternatives. "I make computers, that's all I want to do, and if someone won't sell me their components, I can't do anything to help my poor self, but whine about social justice and ?democracy?".
The marketplace is about transactions, and capitalism is built on the principles of dystopia, yet it can create a veritable utopia, by having everyone appeal to their own self-interest (short of theft (of property) or physical harm (of your body)). Greed ensures that people like money, much more than they care for racism, sexism, or personal vendettas. If they can ship a couple more units, making more money in the process, they quickly set aside whatever personal problems they have with you.
Two years since chemistry 3, trying to forget what I can :-).
Deuterium, triterium sounded about right, and google found a few matches (should use dictionary). My laziness is catching up to me.
Hmm.
Personally, I'd love a few more nuclear fission powerplants. I live in PA, near one (Limerick). Those suckers are great. Scares the tourists (always worth a chuckle), but its redeeming value is that those clouds hovering over the powerplant are white, not black.
We need triterium (I think I spelled that right) for fusion reactions (so far as I've been briefed). What effects would we encounter by removing it from the environment? Is the supply 'renewable'?
Interesting.
From what I've gathered, the varying forms of weather are essentially heat transfer mechanisms. So depending upon where you sap their energy (at the beginning of a hurricane versus near the end of its journey), you could slow the effects of these mechanisms. Effectively (if everyone threw up windmills and whatnot), you would polarize weather. Cold areas would not receive their influx of warm weather, warm areas would not receive their influx of cool weather; all this because the transfer mechanisms are degraded.
I wonder if there is a feedback loop. The global warming theory is continously shredded by a close comparison of projected data and real data. Up until now, we've been pumping CO2 and various gases into the atmosphere, and the earth seems to be bearing with us (probably bleeds more energy into space, but whatever). However, this may only work as long as we do not tamper with the heat transfer mechanisms.
Think of it this way: your processor putting out an extra 10 degress celsius isn't something to worry about (assuming you have a good heatsink); your processor fan dieing on you is.
Hydrogen is not a power source per se, but rather a replacement for power lines.
Powerlines are more efficent (in terms of delivering power). Going from [Generator] -> [Hydrogen Fuel Cells] is not as efficent as [Generator] -> [Power Lines]. Although, storing excess energy in hydrogen fuel cells is an interesting idea. However, is the question arises: Do powerplants output at a constant rate? Or do they dynamically scale up and down according to demand?
Running a power plant (nuclear, natural gas, coal) at full tilt does not make sense. If they do scale, then the amount of (excess) energy stored would be miniscule. Additionally, are there better mediums for storing energy? Safer? Do hydrogen fuel cells break down after a number of charges? Are they cost-efficent? How many would you need? How long do they hold a charge?
Hardly. There's one piece your missing out on (in a free market). Supply meets demand. If enough 'rural' people want electricity, companies are willing to provide it. What happened here is either 1.) the people didn't want it (not enough demand) or 2.) the costs of stringing out thousands of miles of wiring was (at the time) cost-prohibitive. So, in effect, the electricity companies (by mandate of this law) either took a loss or the tax-payer subsidized it.
It's a bit like when the government says it does AIDS research, that it is for good of everyone. It's not. Taxpayer money is stolen goods. You want AIDS to be cured? Wait for the upper-ranks (the rich) to become afflicted: they'll find a cure, and fast. Nobody can crack the whip and get results like the rich. I mean, if Bill G. wanted to find the cure, it would be done. Government spending does nothing (** Sometimes they get lucky, but mostly not: no accountability).
Think about it. The only people who are going to get their hands on nukes are the rich. Period. And the first-generation rich are too intelligent to actually use it (later generations are lesser, wouldn't care for it). Think of it as a status symbol: the same with Oracle's Ellison and his MiG. Sure, he could drop bombs with it or fly it into a building, but mostly he likes buzzing Bill Gates.
And private fire departments are not a bad idea: they used to be pretty good. The only real issue was one of jurisdiction (always): two private fire companies would show up at a burning house and argue about who had clearance.
The purity is simple: the Libertarian party is the party of principle. If they cease to be pure, they loose their base.
And libertarians tend to view others as the worshippers of ivory towers: Democrats and social planning, Republicans and moral planning. Libertarians embrace the market, which means no planning, something akin to the original inception of the US.
Market Economics. 99% of the dollar's worth disappears inside the government: this is due to waste, theft, and occasionally misplacing a few hundred million.
So if a federal regulators job pays $60,000 yearly (just a guess), $6,000,000 was originally collected. Now, 150 is too high, but 100 (in a perfect academic market) and probably 50-75 in the real market.
Numbers might be off by a little, can't really tell these days as politicians have a nasty habit of 'cutting costs' by shifting numbers around (to other departments) while actually increasing costs. Fun stuff.
Second Amendmant. Doesn't matter how strong or weak you are physically, a gun fires just the same.
But in all seriousness, libertarians like simplified rules. That is, a lot of the rules we have on the books today are hair-splitting, which is where all the bullsh*t comes in. And then there are the primary parties (Republican & Democrat) that put words in mouths (Yay, we're the pot party: not quite, we believe you are responsible for yourself (no welfare), so if you want to smoke pot, that's your own choice, deal with the consequences (less money, lung damage)).
What I like about the libertarians is that they ultimately give you back free choice: for better or worse, you are free to make your own decisions, and you live with the responsibility for those decisions.
Lastly, the founders of the US closely embodied those libertarian ideals (a few compromises, but close enough). Anyone care to guess what George W. would do to you if you suggested an income tax? Hint: it involves a rope and something called 'treason'. Sad that we haven't tried any politicians for treason (in a while)...probably because that word is loaded.
Yeah, because NK has a lot of those lying around. What with the US just beginning serious production of the MOAB.
DDT is the most effective. And with the 'evidence' presented in a "Silent Spring" recently debunked, there is no reason we shouldn't flood rivers with DDT.
In any case M$ is still taxing the world $35,000,000,000 per year for about a dozen programs mostly written more than a decade ago with the most complicated bits (the device drivers) being largely written by third parties. That's wrong, the market isn't working and the law needs to be fixed.
So the market isn't working because people still buy something that works (for their needs, flame arguments aside). Umm, that is the point behind the market: provide people what they want, at a price you can both agree on. So Windows isn't perfect, neither is Linux. But it's good enough. And there is no law that one has to reinvent his product every year. IF people want to buy it, let them. It's right, and nothing needs to be *fixed*.