While I've read a number of your posts, and I think they're generally decent (even if I don't always agree) I must point something out with this one.
Compelling a provider to provide "free" service is a tax. Its just a well hidden one. Taxes on corporations annoy me for the same reason politicians love them. They can levy them without fear of backlash from their constituencies. Hell, they get to profit off them from political lobbies and the like. The constituencies still pay them. They just don't get up in arms when the tax is hidden behind the price tag of the stuff they buy.
I'm not really willing to make an argument one way or the other about power, targets of, and whether or not they are one and the same at this time.
I am willing to say, however, that the AC didn't make a statement about "any time any state anywhere has ever given up power." The AC made a statement that power reduction is never significant, permanent, and willing. Letting women vote isn't. Women occupy positions on every part of the political opinion spectrum, just like men.
Letting women vote doesn't force the government to surrender any power. It also isn't a significant transfer of power from any individual to another. It diluted an already weak power to a weaker one. Men, being voters of widely differing opinions, at the time faced a decision that didn't impact their power very much. Given that there are millions of other voters whose vote I can't control, am I willing to let millions more have that same power? If you can get anything for saying "yes" (such as.. less nagging from your wife, feeling better about yourself.. whatever) its probably a worthwhile decision to make.
But almost nothing is different about governmental power.
I'm going to assume you're talking about a standard mobile contract, rather than a pre-paid phone. Mostly because I don't know how pre-paid phones deal with roaming.
So, under that assumption, you paid 75 cents because you chose the option where your minutes per month were higher. But you couldn't use them outside of your region. To use your example, your bank probably doesn't offer you additional (or better) service for using a particular branch.
In other words, your minutes were cheaper because you agreed not to travel extensively. You had the option to not be charged for roaming anywhere on Cingular's network, anywhere in the continental US. You didn't take it. If you'd taken the national plan, you'd have gotten maybe 60-75% of the minutes of a regional plan. But no roaming on their US network. As with nearly all options, there are tradeoffs.
Yeah.. but JimMcc is probably speaking about America. The country where everything must be politically correct or else. One of the schools a few hours away made the news recently because the old Rudolph the Red Nosed Reindeer stop motion movie uses the word "christmas" and is thus unsuitable for viewing in the classroom.
So.. while harsh honesty about the ignorance of computer users may be educational, it won't be tolerated. Not here, anyway.
I paid $50 for Chrono Trigger. I got it from Toys R Us. I'm sorry you paid $70 for yours. I could have sold mine for far more, but that doesn't make the new price $60, $70, or anything else. Games like Chrono Trigger are prime examples of publishers shooting their own revenue stream. If consumers are presented with a choice of new=$50 or used=$70-100, which do you suppose they would've chosen?
I just.. don't see the point of your post. At no point have I said that costs haven't gone up. I will say, though, that looking at the costs of making games is pretty pointless if thats all you look at. Some quick searching suggests to me that the game revenues for 2007 were around 18 billion. And for 2006 were around 12 billion. 1992? Around 2.5 billion. Hold on. Let me adjust those for you. 2007 revenues came out to... about $13.75 billion in 1992 dollars.
I guess making games prettier, and more complex, made them more appealing to more people. So.. more units get sold, and more revenues are generated. Revenues that, I don't know, companies could use to cover their heightened costs or something. And that doesn't account for world wide sales either. Just US.
yeah.. I suppose nothing but the development costs have changed in the software side of the games industry over the past 15 years. Except for.. well.. the price tag, for one. $60 was unheard of 15 years ago. Oh yeah, and the costs of production, since we don't need those expensive cartridges anymore. And the number of gamers. That hasn't gone up any at all.
That would only be true if the ratio of women to men doesn't become unbalanced. The point of TFA is that there are chemicals that could potentially create an imbalance in the ratio of women to men.
If so, then men reap the benefit. Its still possible for specific individuals to lose out. But because of the imbalance, every man is more likely to have a wife, even if having only one is usually few.
I think QuantumG has already covered most of this. Skin cancer could be up for any of the reasons he mentioned. But since you asked specifically about sunscreen.. I'm sure you'll be shocked by the notion that sun screen only protects the people who use it, and only for a finite time after they apply it, where they apply it. If you don't use sun screen, or only put it on your face, you still have skin exposure to the sun.
Hell, for all I know changes in say.. the earth's atmosphere could make it less protective. I wonder how such a thing might occur, in somewhat parallel to the rollout of sunscreen. Yet completely unrelated to sunscreen.
You're asking a question that is only tangentially related to what I said or what was quoted by me. The initial text (some of which was left out by the AC) stated that the power company passes on costs to the consumer and makes more money that way. But while that may increase revenue, you don't increase profits except by charging more for the fuel than you paid for it. So either the power company isn't profiting off the fuel and thus there is a problem with the statement as it was issued. OR the power company really does profit off of the fuel itself with permission by the utility regulators, which is a problem all on its own. Because such a practice creates incentives to generate power by consuming fuel. Either way there is a problem with the statement. One is with the assumptions of the poster, the other with the incentives presented to the utilities in Hawaii.
As for your statement, its internally consistient. But there's no necessary reason that it applies. Lets say that the power company goes to the regulators and says "let us charge 75% of any fuel costs we can eliminate by installing solar/wind." There isn't any real reason for the regulators to say no. The consumers get a lower bill and the utilities get a higher profit margin. Which.. creates incentives to eliminate fuel usage.
I expect that the biggest reason we'll see resistance to change is that the incentive structure for the utilities is set up so that they maximize profit when consuming fuels. So they want to keep consuming fuels. Unfortunately, so long as we permit corporations into the legislative process, I don't expect sane or citizen friendly incentive structures to arise. I am perfectly okay with the CEO of an energy company lobbying for legislation with his own money. He bears the costs and reaps the benefits. I am not okay with the same guy using corporate funds for the same ends. He bears none of the costs and reaps the benefits.
>>because the PUC lets them pass the fuel costs directly on to the consumer. Of course, that's what businesses do!
That isn't the only problem with that statement, which also said that the company makes more money by doing so. Unless they're charging the consumer more for fuel than their suppliers are charging the power company, how do you make money by passing on costs? You don't. Everything you gain by billing the customer you've already expended in purchasing the fuel. If, on the other hand, the power company really does charge over cost for the fuel.... why do Hawaiian utility regulators permit it?
Perhaps. But then you have to train infantry to do extra tasks. Not to mention that controlling the micro uav in the air takes one of the soldiers out of the fight. Whereas using a grenade is a skill they must learn already. And the grenade camera doesn't have to be controlled by the soldier putting it in play. Also, a camera in a grenade form-factor can get you eyes inside a building. Try getting that out of a UAV.
Which is not to say that a micro UAV is useless. For one, they're re-usable. You collect it, refuel/recharge it, and send it out again. Reusability may or may not be possible in this grenade cam.
At least your approach one is (at least, I'm taking your word on it) the homicide rates. Thats better than looking at "gun violence" rates. So, credit to you for that.
Your approach two is.. not so logical. A robber bursts into your house. Apparently he breaks into the same room you're in, with no other indicators. He does this while having his gun out, safety off, and is observing the general rule of firearms usage to keep booger hooks off of bang switches until ready to fire. What? Maybe your house really is that small and fragile. Maybe your criminals really are that agile, dexterous, and disciplined. Someone bursting into my house is almost certain to not end up in the room I'm in. They're also very unlikely to do so without making quite a bit of noise. Also, you describe the situation as if the safety is some complicated feature of a firearm. They're not, from a user standpoint. Usually not, even from a mechanical one. It isn't difficult to incorporate operation of the safety into the draw or presentation of the firearm.
You're also overlooking some other physics. If I'm in the one room (in my house) that a situation as you describe could occur, he could end up facing me. Thats about as bad as it gets, as is mostly as your approach two goes. Of course, if he's willing to kill me, I'm dead anyway and having a gun in the house didn't hurt me any. So, consider me a little leery of trusting criminals to do the right thing in the midst of not doing the right thing. If he isn't facing me, he probably has to sweep the weapon about 90 degrees to present to me. I, on the other hand, am probably facing that direction already. So, I've got to pick up and ready the weapon, but I've got less aim adjustment to do. Which of us is more likely to be ready to fire first? I don't know. I do know it isn't nearly as obviously bad as you describe.
Does this apply to everybody? Well no, I can't make that claim. Experience suggests to me, though, that many homes are not conducive to making your approach two come true as often as you might like me to believe.
Also, yes the public could last quite awhile against the US military. The full force of the military utilized against a civilian population is devestating. I think we've enough recent proof of that, and that isn't even the full force of the US military. Actually deploying the full force of the US military against the civilian population is a highly unlikely occurance. The leader of such an action may be the big fish, but it'll be a really small pond. A dirty, trash filled puddle really. In addition, a real insurrection is likely to include portions of the military. So, training, experience, and possibly military equipment being used against the military. Is it going to be easy? Hell no. It isn't supposed to be. Rebellion is supposed to be a tool of last resort.
Semi-automatics, also known as auto-loaders, fire a charged round and then expend a portion of the round's energy to eject the spent casing and load a new round. The way you define semi-automatic would include revolvers.
. I could also point out that Switzerland kinda screws up your assertion that those statistics support your view. I don't see how that's the case.
Perhaps because Switzerland has a very high rate of firearms ownership, and has a great deal of state issue select fire weapons in the homes of its citizenry?
it only takes a few grams of pressure to pull a trigger, my point stands.
No. the lightest stock trigger I know of is 3 lbs of pull. The lightest I've ever heard of, modified, is 1.5 lbs. So your point does not stand.
let me know when a blade produces a fist sized exit wound and has the concussive force of a bullet
Let me know when you can not be obvious lugging around that slug-barreled shotgun or medium+ calibre rifle. Handguns don't do "fist sized exit wounds".
Let me know when you can grab a bullet, turn it, and force it into the person who just fired it at you.
There is a reason that knives inside 21' are considered lethal weapons for justification of use of lethal force. At point blank range, my money is on the knife.
I'm thinking you haven't tried to disarm a knife wielding attacker. I'm also thinking you haven't fired a gun before. Those bullets aren't self-guided. Hitting a target at more than a few yards isn't as easy as you probably think it is.
How useful. Numbers concerned only with deaths by gun. Why is that useful or informative? Unless you find that people are especially dead when killed by firearm, as opposed to knives and such.
I'm not willing to ignore the substitution effect. I'm also not keen on the spike in the violent crimes rate that a lot of those countries feel after a blanket firearms ban. I could also point out that Switzerland kinda screws up your assertion that those statistics support your view.
Well.. Arthur Andersen is a LLP, not a corporation. And the government didnt really nuke and pave it either. Yes, there was a conviction for obstruction of justice. However, that conviction was overturned. As far as I know, penalties assessed by government in that case: not a thing. the company surrendered their licenses to practice voluntarily, and no one wants to hire them anyway.
Advertising makes products that I do want cost more, simple as that.
Actually, it isn't that simple. What you say would only be true if advertising was functionally similar to withdrawing cash from the bank and burning it. (Although I feel obliged to point out that burning cash makes all the other notes in circulation ever so slightly more valuable.) But advertising budgets exist for reasons other than depleting business bank accounts. So if all businesses stopped advertising, yes that would eliminate a line on the expense sheet. But the probable resulting fall in sales volume, even on such products you deem legitimately useful, may very well result in higher prices as a result of economies of scale that the business can longer utilize. Not necessarily, but it is possible.
You'd also need to consider the costs you'd pay for services you use that are currently partially or completely paid for by advertising. Which I feel pretty comfortable in assuming since, if you didn't use such services, you wouldn't have complaints about advertising. How much would you pay for a search engine? Is it less than you think you'd gain from lower product costs because of no advertising? I don't know what the answer would be. And that answer would be different for every person, besides. I do know, though, that it isn't as simple as you say.
I guess all those propriatorships and partnerships just don't exist as businesses then. Since, the operators of those businesses most certainly are personally liable for business debt and legal claims.
I suppose all these use taxes on the books should instead be called use fines, then. Given that most people I'm aware of only pay them when they get caught. Just like with the speeding tax. I mean fine.
Which might be true if the legislature didn't or couldn't shape the tax rates based on the goods or services consumed the way they do now (in the US at least).
Around here, if I purchase food to make myself a meal from a grocery, I pay 2% in sales tax. If I buy the exact same meal from a resturant, I pay 7%. Its feasible, even, to tier the consumption taxes so consumers buying cars (or any number of other types of goods) under some value (which.. I would hope would be inflation adjusted each year) are subject to a lower tax. That way most of us buying typical cars on the road don't face a rate as high as the wealthy with their Ferraris.
You'd also get to seriously reduce the need to fund the applicable tax agency, since processing crap like tax returns goes away, while the merchants continue to collect the taxes as they current do just in larger amounts.
Which isn't to say that I can't envision problems with a consumption tax, or even that I believe the system would be workable. They're just not the problems you envision. For instance, if the US adopted a consumption tax, I can see where the wealthy would have an incentive to make their income stateside, but spend it in another country.
There'd also be incentive for manufacturers and retailers to price under the higher tiers, since the tax benefits to the consumer would make the product that much more attractive.
I'll also note that I'm of the personal opinion that my government spends far too much on programs they shouldn't be spending on. And I can't say I'd be sorry if they had to cut back on the sort of wasteful spending that makes politicians look good to their constituents without doing anything else substantially worthwhile. But of course thats a scenario that will never happen, what with the legislative power in their hands.
Even if we accept such a possibility (which is logically sound, I'm not arguing that at all), there still isn't any commentary about cutting the government off from information it requires to supply its services.
If we read drinkypoo's post the way we both seem to believe it was meant, then I'm right to point out that is and is not are not identical expressions as I did earlier.
If we read it as you suggest... then drinkypoo's post indicates that the number of people living there is information necessary to the efficient supply of services. Which is very likely to be true. And doesn't indicate that such information is the only information necessary.
All that information IS necessary for the government to provide all the services they provide today in a reasonable and efficient manner.
Really? The government can make reasonable and efficient decisions without knowing statistics about its own citizenry? I realize that police can keep people safe without knowing what's in the trunk of my car, but that doesn't mean Congress can make sweeping decisions for a country of 300 million people without knowing large-scale trends that you don't get just by walking the streets of your constituency.
Uh.. saying that the information is necessary for efficient supply of services isn't suggesting that the information is not necessary to the efficient supply of services. I should be amazed at having to point out that "IS" does not equal "IS NOT" in meaning.
It actually is that difficult. If I didn't understand something in the lecture because the professor's english is so heavily accented, then how do you suppose this difficulty is going to disappear when a student asks the professor a question after class? It won't. The problem isn't the student's ability to understand the subject matter, or the professor's knowledge. The problem lies in the communication.
If I had spent the time necessary to understanding one of the chinese calc professors at my university, I'd have learned whatever dialect of chinese he spoke, and no small amount of the calculus material he was supposed to teach me, on my own. What did I do instead? Took the class with an instructor that could speak in a fashion for which I didn't need a translator.
Slashdot Mirror
While I've read a number of your posts, and I think they're generally decent (even if I don't always agree) I must point something out with this one.
Compelling a provider to provide "free" service is a tax. Its just a well hidden one. Taxes on corporations annoy me for the same reason politicians love them. They can levy them without fear of backlash from their constituencies. Hell, they get to profit off them from political lobbies and the like. The constituencies still pay them. They just don't get up in arms when the tax is hidden behind the price tag of the stuff they buy.
I'm not really willing to make an argument one way or the other about power, targets of, and whether or not they are one and the same at this time.
I am willing to say, however, that the AC didn't make a statement about "any time any state anywhere has ever given up power." The AC made a statement that power reduction is never significant, permanent, and willing. Letting women vote isn't. Women occupy positions on every part of the political opinion spectrum, just like men.
Letting women vote doesn't force the government to surrender any power. It also isn't a significant transfer of power from any individual to another. It diluted an already weak power to a weaker one. Men, being voters of widely differing opinions, at the time faced a decision that didn't impact their power very much. Given that there are millions of other voters whose vote I can't control, am I willing to let millions more have that same power? If you can get anything for saying "yes" (such as.. less nagging from your wife, feeling better about yourself.. whatever) its probably a worthwhile decision to make.
But almost nothing is different about governmental power.
I'm going to assume you're talking about a standard mobile contract, rather than a pre-paid phone. Mostly because I don't know how pre-paid phones deal with roaming.
So, under that assumption, you paid 75 cents because you chose the option where your minutes per month were higher. But you couldn't use them outside of your region. To use your example, your bank probably doesn't offer you additional (or better) service for using a particular branch.
In other words, your minutes were cheaper because you agreed not to travel extensively. You had the option to not be charged for roaming anywhere on Cingular's network, anywhere in the continental US. You didn't take it. If you'd taken the national plan, you'd have gotten maybe 60-75% of the minutes of a regional plan. But no roaming on their US network. As with nearly all options, there are tradeoffs.
Yeah.. but JimMcc is probably speaking about America. The country where everything must be politically correct or else. One of the schools a few hours away made the news recently because the old Rudolph the Red Nosed Reindeer stop motion movie uses the word "christmas" and is thus unsuitable for viewing in the classroom.
So.. while harsh honesty about the ignorance of computer users may be educational, it won't be tolerated. Not here, anyway.
I paid $50 for Chrono Trigger. I got it from Toys R Us. I'm sorry you paid $70 for yours. I could have sold mine for far more, but that doesn't make the new price $60, $70, or anything else. Games like Chrono Trigger are prime examples of publishers shooting their own revenue stream. If consumers are presented with a choice of new=$50 or used=$70-100, which do you suppose they would've chosen?
I just.. don't see the point of your post. At no point have I said that costs haven't gone up. I will say, though, that looking at the costs of making games is pretty pointless if thats all you look at. Some quick searching suggests to me that the game revenues for 2007 were around 18 billion. And for 2006 were around 12 billion. 1992? Around 2.5 billion. Hold on. Let me adjust those for you. 2007 revenues came out to ... about $13.75 billion in 1992 dollars.
I guess making games prettier, and more complex, made them more appealing to more people. So.. more units get sold, and more revenues are generated. Revenues that, I don't know, companies could use to cover their heightened costs or something. And that doesn't account for world wide sales either. Just US.
yeah.. I suppose nothing but the development costs have changed in the software side of the games industry over the past 15 years. Except for.. well.. the price tag, for one. $60 was unheard of 15 years ago. Oh yeah, and the costs of production, since we don't need those expensive cartridges anymore. And the number of gamers. That hasn't gone up any at all.
That would only be true if the ratio of women to men doesn't become unbalanced. The point of TFA is that there are chemicals that could potentially create an imbalance in the ratio of women to men.
If so, then men reap the benefit. Its still possible for specific individuals to lose out. But because of the imbalance, every man is more likely to have a wife, even if having only one is usually few.
I think QuantumG has already covered most of this. Skin cancer could be up for any of the reasons he mentioned. But since you asked specifically about sunscreen.. I'm sure you'll be shocked by the notion that sun screen only protects the people who use it, and only for a finite time after they apply it, where they apply it. If you don't use sun screen, or only put it on your face, you still have skin exposure to the sun.
Hell, for all I know changes in say .. the earth's atmosphere could make it less protective. I wonder how such a thing might occur, in somewhat parallel to the rollout of sunscreen. Yet completely unrelated to sunscreen.
You're asking a question that is only tangentially related to what I said or what was quoted by me. The initial text (some of which was left out by the AC) stated that the power company passes on costs to the consumer and makes more money that way. But while that may increase revenue, you don't increase profits except by charging more for the fuel than you paid for it. So either the power company isn't profiting off the fuel and thus there is a problem with the statement as it was issued. OR the power company really does profit off of the fuel itself with permission by the utility regulators, which is a problem all on its own. Because such a practice creates incentives to generate power by consuming fuel. Either way there is a problem with the statement. One is with the assumptions of the poster, the other with the incentives presented to the utilities in Hawaii.
As for your statement, its internally consistient. But there's no necessary reason that it applies. Lets say that the power company goes to the regulators and says "let us charge 75% of any fuel costs we can eliminate by installing solar/wind." There isn't any real reason for the regulators to say no. The consumers get a lower bill and the utilities get a higher profit margin. Which.. creates incentives to eliminate fuel usage.
I expect that the biggest reason we'll see resistance to change is that the incentive structure for the utilities is set up so that they maximize profit when consuming fuels. So they want to keep consuming fuels. Unfortunately, so long as we permit corporations into the legislative process, I don't expect sane or citizen friendly incentive structures to arise. I am perfectly okay with the CEO of an energy company lobbying for legislation with his own money. He bears the costs and reaps the benefits. I am not okay with the same guy using corporate funds for the same ends. He bears none of the costs and reaps the benefits.
That isn't the only problem with that statement, which also said that the company makes more money by doing so. Unless they're charging the consumer more for fuel than their suppliers are charging the power company, how do you make money by passing on costs? You don't. Everything you gain by billing the customer you've already expended in purchasing the fuel. If, on the other hand, the power company really does charge over cost for the fuel.... why do Hawaiian utility regulators permit it?
Perhaps. But then you have to train infantry to do extra tasks. Not to mention that controlling the micro uav in the air takes one of the soldiers out of the fight. Whereas using a grenade is a skill they must learn already. And the grenade camera doesn't have to be controlled by the soldier putting it in play. Also, a camera in a grenade form-factor can get you eyes inside a building. Try getting that out of a UAV.
Which is not to say that a micro UAV is useless. For one, they're re-usable. You collect it, refuel/recharge it, and send it out again. Reusability may or may not be possible in this grenade cam.
At least your approach one is (at least, I'm taking your word on it) the homicide rates. Thats better than looking at "gun violence" rates. So, credit to you for that.
Your approach two is.. not so logical. A robber bursts into your house. Apparently he breaks into the same room you're in, with no other indicators. He does this while having his gun out, safety off, and is observing the general rule of firearms usage to keep booger hooks off of bang switches until ready to fire. What? Maybe your house really is that small and fragile. Maybe your criminals really are that agile, dexterous, and disciplined. Someone bursting into my house is almost certain to not end up in the room I'm in. They're also very unlikely to do so without making quite a bit of noise. Also, you describe the situation as if the safety is some complicated feature of a firearm. They're not, from a user standpoint. Usually not, even from a mechanical one. It isn't difficult to incorporate operation of the safety into the draw or presentation of the firearm.
You're also overlooking some other physics. If I'm in the one room (in my house) that a situation as you describe could occur, he could end up facing me. Thats about as bad as it gets, as is mostly as your approach two goes. Of course, if he's willing to kill me, I'm dead anyway and having a gun in the house didn't hurt me any. So, consider me a little leery of trusting criminals to do the right thing in the midst of not doing the right thing. If he isn't facing me, he probably has to sweep the weapon about 90 degrees to present to me. I, on the other hand, am probably facing that direction already. So, I've got to pick up and ready the weapon, but I've got less aim adjustment to do. Which of us is more likely to be ready to fire first? I don't know. I do know it isn't nearly as obviously bad as you describe.
Does this apply to everybody? Well no, I can't make that claim. Experience suggests to me, though, that many homes are not conducive to making your approach two come true as often as you might like me to believe.
Also, yes the public could last quite awhile against the US military. The full force of the military utilized against a civilian population is devestating. I think we've enough recent proof of that, and that isn't even the full force of the US military. Actually deploying the full force of the US military against the civilian population is a highly unlikely occurance. The leader of such an action may be the big fish, but it'll be a really small pond. A dirty, trash filled puddle really. In addition, a real insurrection is likely to include portions of the military. So, training, experience, and possibly military equipment being used against the military. Is it going to be easy? Hell no. It isn't supposed to be. Rebellion is supposed to be a tool of last resort.
Semi-automatics, also known as auto-loaders, fire a charged round and then expend a portion of the round's energy to eject the spent casing and load a new round. The way you define semi-automatic would include revolvers.
Perhaps because Switzerland has a very high rate of firearms ownership, and has a great deal of state issue select fire weapons in the homes of its citizenry?
No. the lightest stock trigger I know of is 3 lbs of pull. The lightest I've ever heard of, modified, is 1.5 lbs. So your point does not stand.
Let me know when you can not be obvious lugging around that slug-barreled shotgun or medium+ calibre rifle. Handguns don't do "fist sized exit wounds".
There is a reason that knives inside 21' are considered lethal weapons for justification of use of lethal force. At point blank range, my money is on the knife.
I'm thinking you haven't tried to disarm a knife wielding attacker. I'm also thinking you haven't fired a gun before. Those bullets aren't self-guided. Hitting a target at more than a few yards isn't as easy as you probably think it is.
How useful. Numbers concerned only with deaths by gun. Why is that useful or informative? Unless you find that people are especially dead when killed by firearm, as opposed to knives and such.
I'm not willing to ignore the substitution effect. I'm also not keen on the spike in the violent crimes rate that a lot of those countries feel after a blanket firearms ban. I could also point out that Switzerland kinda screws up your assertion that those statistics support your view.
Well.. Arthur Andersen is a LLP, not a corporation. And the government didnt really nuke and pave it either. Yes, there was a conviction for obstruction of justice. However, that conviction was overturned. As far as I know, penalties assessed by government in that case: not a thing. the company surrendered their licenses to practice voluntarily, and no one wants to hire them anyway.
Actually, it isn't that simple. What you say would only be true if advertising was functionally similar to withdrawing cash from the bank and burning it. (Although I feel obliged to point out that burning cash makes all the other notes in circulation ever so slightly more valuable.) But advertising budgets exist for reasons other than depleting business bank accounts. So if all businesses stopped advertising, yes that would eliminate a line on the expense sheet. But the probable resulting fall in sales volume, even on such products you deem legitimately useful, may very well result in higher prices as a result of economies of scale that the business can longer utilize. Not necessarily, but it is possible.
You'd also need to consider the costs you'd pay for services you use that are currently partially or completely paid for by advertising. Which I feel pretty comfortable in assuming since, if you didn't use such services, you wouldn't have complaints about advertising. How much would you pay for a search engine? Is it less than you think you'd gain from lower product costs because of no advertising? I don't know what the answer would be. And that answer would be different for every person, besides. I do know, though, that it isn't as simple as you say.
I guess all those propriatorships and partnerships just don't exist as businesses then. Since, the operators of those businesses most certainly are personally liable for business debt and legal claims.
I suppose all these use taxes on the books should instead be called use fines, then. Given that most people I'm aware of only pay them when they get caught. Just like with the speeding tax. I mean fine.
Which might be true if the legislature didn't or couldn't shape the tax rates based on the goods or services consumed the way they do now (in the US at least).
Around here, if I purchase food to make myself a meal from a grocery, I pay 2% in sales tax. If I buy the exact same meal from a resturant, I pay 7%. Its feasible, even, to tier the consumption taxes so consumers buying cars (or any number of other types of goods) under some value (which.. I would hope would be inflation adjusted each year) are subject to a lower tax. That way most of us buying typical cars on the road don't face a rate as high as the wealthy with their Ferraris.
You'd also get to seriously reduce the need to fund the applicable tax agency, since processing crap like tax returns goes away, while the merchants continue to collect the taxes as they current do just in larger amounts.
Which isn't to say that I can't envision problems with a consumption tax, or even that I believe the system would be workable. They're just not the problems you envision. For instance, if the US adopted a consumption tax, I can see where the wealthy would have an incentive to make their income stateside, but spend it in another country.
There'd also be incentive for manufacturers and retailers to price under the higher tiers, since the tax benefits to the consumer would make the product that much more attractive.
I'll also note that I'm of the personal opinion that my government spends far too much on programs they shouldn't be spending on. And I can't say I'd be sorry if they had to cut back on the sort of wasteful spending that makes politicians look good to their constituents without doing anything else substantially worthwhile. But of course thats a scenario that will never happen, what with the legislative power in their hands.
Actually.. that's not Nullav's logic at all. Thats Brian Gordon's logic turned back on him. Twice, even.
Nullav was pointing out that bots consume resources on Blizzard's machines and are indicative of asshattery.
Not that I'm exactly sure that those are necessarily going to be actionable in court.. especially the asshattery bit.
Even if we accept such a possibility (which is logically sound, I'm not arguing that at all), there still isn't any commentary about cutting the government off from information it requires to supply its services.
If we read drinkypoo's post the way we both seem to believe it was meant, then I'm right to point out that is and is not are not identical expressions as I did earlier.
If we read it as you suggest... then drinkypoo's post indicates that the number of people living there is information necessary to the efficient supply of services. Which is very likely to be true. And doesn't indicate that such information is the only information necessary.
Uh.. saying that the information is necessary for efficient supply of services isn't suggesting that the information is not necessary to the efficient supply of services. I should be amazed at having to point out that "IS" does not equal "IS NOT" in meaning.
It actually is that difficult. If I didn't understand something in the lecture because the professor's english is so heavily accented, then how do you suppose this difficulty is going to disappear when a student asks the professor a question after class? It won't. The problem isn't the student's ability to understand the subject matter, or the professor's knowledge. The problem lies in the communication.
If I had spent the time necessary to understanding one of the chinese calc professors at my university, I'd have learned whatever dialect of chinese he spoke, and no small amount of the calculus material he was supposed to teach me, on my own. What did I do instead? Took the class with an instructor that could speak in a fashion for which I didn't need a translator.