I beg to differ. The last mile is a highly regulated area for "public utilities" set forth by the local municipalities and governments most of the time. Trying to be an independent company and running your own lines in a similar manner would be near impossible in most locales. This creates an artificially high barrier to entry, thus stifling competition and limiting the marketplace. In other words, "public utilities" do not operate in the free market.
For example, how many cable companies serve any one address? Usually 1. For example, how many dial-tone/PTSN providers serve any one address? Usually 1. For example, how many electric providers serve any one address? Usually 1. For example, how many sewage service providers serve any one address? Usually 1. For example, how many water providers serve any one address? usually 1.
Actually it was first proposed by a Russian scientist mid 20th century and has been around since then.
And although while it may not be common knowledge, it does indeed make more sense than the biogenic theory of petroleum. First off, we know that life can live at extreme temperatures, at extreme depths, and at extreme pressures. Ever see any footage of volcanic vents in the Pacific? Secondly, we know that substances found in petroleum are indeed a byproduct of natural processes on other planets. Third, we can produce a synthetic form of petroleum in a lab using turkey guts (or any other organic/hydro-carbon lifeform).
Having a peak oil mindset allows the oil companies to have a stranglehold on the "scarcity" of petroleum much in a very similar way that DeBeers has a stranglehold on "scarcity" of diamonds.
And you are correct, even if it is not being generated at the same rate that it is being pumped, then the origins are trivial to an extent. If we can understand however where it comes from and how it is created, then we ourselves can replicate that process. This as a matter of fact has already been done. http://www.discover.com/issues/may-03/features/fea toil or Google for "Anything Into Oil".
But really the idea of "fossil fuel" or "dino oil" or the notion that our society is powered by dead dinosaur guts is really rubbish and is an archaic 20th-century mindset.
Yes - if you noticed that specific line says "citation needed". In other words, it looks like someone with an agenda added that into the article.
I admit that Wiki is not the best source for scholarly and unbiased research. But it is a place to start to get an idea about a specific topic. I am sure that if you are serious and interested you can find other more reputable sources for information on the abiogenic theory of petroleum.
"competition doesn't exist within governmental regulation"
I hate to break it to ya but the telcos are not part of the free market. They are government-granted monopolies. There is no competition in that sector because the government says it's not allowed.
The problem is the government meddling in the marketplace. In a free market, competition DOES indeed exist.
Not regulating an industry does indeed allow for more competition in a free market.
The problem is that the telcos do not operate in a free market. They are a propped up oligopoly by the government. Government-granted monopolies do not have to compete because the government says so.
In a free market governmental regulation IS A BAD THING! However, unfortuantely these providers do not operate in the free market.
I blame the government 70 years ago when they decided to get into bed with the telco industry. It was a bad idea then, and is a bad idea now.
I agree that big business LIKES big government due to big government's ability to regulate and legislate in favor of big business. I also agree that government usually stifles competition, harms the economy, stunts productivity / growth, creates artificially high barriers to entry, and in general does more harm than good.
With that being said, I think that the 'Net Neutrality' issue is a bit more complicated. First off, these telco/backbone providers do not operate in the free market. They are all government granted monopolies. In fact, some of the infrastructure was created using public funds. This means that it is not a simple black and white issue of "deregulate and everything works itself out".
The solution to the problem was for private enterprise to create the Net to begin with and work itself out instead of letting the government screw things up as always by funding an oligopoly.
I work in both the live music industry, and in the broadcast industry, let me clarify a few points for you.
First off, consolidation of radio has happened because radio does not operate in the free market. Don't believe me? Try setting up your own radio station sometime and see how long it takes before the FCC comes along and gives you a fine. You got to pay to play, specifically the government. The only firms that can compete in radio anymore are the large megacorps that have the big bucks to pay off the FCC for a license. Big business likes big government. Big government has the power to legislate and regulate IN FAVOR of big business. Now I realize that radio tends to be a special case because it is a finite resource, crosses state lines, is intangible, and spectrum isn't really "property". That makes operating a free market economy in it very complex which is why the government is involved.
As far as the live music venues, again, a lot of these venues are part of municipal governments. Or they are public-private partnerships. Or perhaps even subsidized by local governments. This makes competition almost impossible. So, a lot of these larger megavenues also do not operate in the free market. If they did, then barriers to entry would be much lower.
The problem in both cases is mostly government intervention and meddling in the market place. If the government didn't regulate spectrum, new and innovative technologies would be invented in order to keep the spectrum usable. And if these local cities didn't co-op megavenues then there might indeed be multiple venues per city. Government is the cause of most problems, not the solution.
That's because the Libertarian is the only party out there wanting to limit the size and influence of the gov. Both Dems and Reps expand the gov, and the Greens want to as well.
The Libertarians are the only major 3rd party that wants to prevent the slippery slope and get the government OUT of the daily lives of its citizens.
I am a (L)libertarian. The premise of libertarianism is that my rights end where yours begin. Therefore, killing an unborn child is against the principles of libertarianism because they infringe on the rights of another human; the unborn child.
There are a few fine points. -Medically, human life cannot sustain itself much before the first trimester of pregnancy. Therefore first-trimester abortions tend to be a grey area because the question of one killing another individual, or just a group of dependent cells comes into play.
-Under medical or health conditions which jeopardize the mother's life or health, there might could be exceptions.
-Not all libertarians feel this way and you will find that some place the life of the unborn child lower than the life of the mother. Because of this division, abortion is rarely discussed among libertarian circles and will never be a platform issue.
-Some libertarians are Constitutional conservatives and believe that no matter what, these decisions should be made at the state level, not at the federal level.
-Most, if not all libertarians believe that no matter what, the gov cannot force or demand an abortion, nor should they be in the 'business' of abortions. Most that are 'pro-abortion' tend to follow the line that 'it should be an individual matter up to the parties involved' and that the government shouldn't have anything to do with it.
I personally fall into the category that believe that it is an infringement upon the rights of the unborn child.
I hate to tell you, but 'peak oil' is a fraud. Most reputable scientists believe in the abiogenic theory of oil. In other words, it's a natural process within the earth that produces petroleum in a very similar way that natural gas is produced.
For more information on abiogenic petroleum here are some resources: Black Gold Stranglehold - by Jerome R., Ph.D. Corsi, Craig R. Smith WND Books (October 14, 2005) ISBN: 1581824890
I hate to tell you, but 'peak oil' is a fraud. Most reputable scientists believe in the abiogenic theory of oil. In other words, it's a natural process within the earth that produces petroleum in a very similar way that natural gas is produced.
For more information on abiogenic petroleum here are some resources: Black Gold Stranglehold - by Jerome R., Ph.D. Corsi, Craig R. Smith WND Books (October 14, 2005) ISBN: 1581824890
For every hour, 20-23 minutes are allocated for non-content (news updates, weather updates, commercials, and other misc stuff etc).
That leaves about 40 minutes of actual content per hour. When you slice and dice those 40 minutes evenly into 4 segments, there are only so many ways it can be done. Thus the appearance that 'all stations take commercials at the same time' tends to come through. There is obviously a lot of overlap between stations as they all have to fit 20 minutes of non content in. But there is no conspiracy or collusion that all stations, or even any stations, have an agreed upon format for commercial breaks.
Now during sporting events or other live events, yeah most, if not all, media outlets covering the event usually take their commercials in unison on cue at pre-determined times.
Product placement, if done tastefully and correctly, is unobtrusive and I personally don't mind it. What bugs me is when it is blatantly obvious and detracts from the storyline because it is done poorly. I am sure there are many examples of both cases that can be cited.
...and you will find about 20 minutes per hour are dedicated to non-content programming. Most talk stations use the first 3 or 4 minutes of the top of every hour for a news/weather/traffic segment.
The rest of it are commercial spots and station-promos.
A typical program clock for any talk station will usually look something like this (in a pie chart): xx:00-xx:06 - news, weather, traffic, spots xx:06-xx:20 - show segment 1 xx:20-xx:24 - commercial spots (this break will float as needed) xx:24-xx:29 - show segment 2 xx:29-xx:36 - commercial spots (some stations instead play a newscast, traffic, weather etc) xx:36-xx:48 - show segment 3 xx:48-xx:52 - commercial spots xx:52-xx:58 - show segment 4
Re:Al Queda, witches, devil worshippers, and gangs
on
Gangs on the Internet
·
· Score: 1
If you are talking about Judeo-Christianity, then it wasn't made up thousands of years ago. The religion has evolved over time and was not just "made up". Thousands of years of study and writings, and introspection, and events, and established institutions.
Compared to most other religions, it has withstood the test of time. It has indeed survived and has millions, if not billions, of followers. This is indeed what tends to separate "pagan" from "mainstream" religions.
The free market is simple. Logistics and innovative technology are not. Due to the nature of providing utilities, the government feels like it should have a heavy hand in things. However, if the market were allowed to run itself, we could see necessity driving innovations. For example, the ability to microwave energy across town, or down from a satellite instead of having to run wires. Or perhaps each locale would have its own genny. Or perhaps solar technology would've improved to the point of being practical and efficient. Who knows?
But the point is that because the government is involved in propping up these monopolies, incentive for them to innovate and adapt to the market is practically nil. When the government eliminates competition, sets their prices, and tells them who can and can't be their customer, there isn't much need for them to spend R&D dollars to invent new technology in a progressive manner now is there?
I didn't say I was accepting or rejecting anything about Ken Lay. My point is that for anything other than cocktail discussion, Wikipedia is not the most reliable source, ESPECIALLY in regards to issues in which there are very high emotional opposing opinions.
In your most recent posting you link to sources other than Wikipedia. Whether you agree with them or not, this tends to lend more support to your argument (whatever it may be) in a more credible way than simply posting a link to Wiki.
If anyone is to blame, then I guess we could say both political parties are. Since you are an independent than you probably see what an oligopolical stranglehold the Demirubs and the Republicrats have on the American political system.
Apparently you are wiser than your original post led me to believe.
That's because energy companies are heavily regulated government-granted monopolies. In a free-market setting the second that E decided not to supply product/service, another competing firm would've stepped in to replace them.
Yes, because we ALL know that Wikipedia is the most accurate, unbiased, and trustworthy source to cite, especially in regard to emotionally charged current events?
Slashdot Mirror
Where did your sig come from?
I have heard that sound clip from somewhere and cant remember where from.
I beg to differ. The last mile is a highly regulated area for "public utilities" set forth by the local municipalities and governments most of the time. Trying to be an independent company and running your own lines in a similar manner would be near impossible in most locales. This creates an artificially high barrier to entry, thus stifling competition and limiting the marketplace. In other words, "public utilities" do not operate in the free market.
For example, how many cable companies serve any one address? Usually 1.
For example, how many dial-tone/PTSN providers serve any one address? Usually 1.
For example, how many electric providers serve any one address? Usually 1.
For example, how many sewage service providers serve any one address? Usually 1.
For example, how many water providers serve any one address? usually 1.
Actually it was first proposed by a Russian scientist mid 20th century and has been around since then.
a toil or Google for "Anything Into Oil".
And although while it may not be common knowledge, it does indeed make more sense than the biogenic theory of petroleum. First off, we know that life can live at extreme temperatures, at extreme depths, and at extreme pressures. Ever see any footage of volcanic vents in the Pacific? Secondly, we know that substances found in petroleum are indeed a byproduct of natural processes on other planets. Third, we can produce a synthetic form of petroleum in a lab using turkey guts (or any other organic/hydro-carbon lifeform).
Having a peak oil mindset allows the oil companies to have a stranglehold on the "scarcity" of petroleum much in a very similar way that DeBeers has a stranglehold on "scarcity" of diamonds.
And you are correct, even if it is not being generated at the same rate that it is being pumped, then the origins are trivial to an extent. If we can understand however where it comes from and how it is created, then we ourselves can replicate that process. This as a matter of fact has already been done. http://www.discover.com/issues/may-03/features/fe
But really the idea of "fossil fuel" or "dino oil" or the notion that our society is powered by dead dinosaur guts is really rubbish and is an archaic 20th-century mindset.
Yes - if you noticed that specific line says "citation needed". In other words, it looks like someone with an agenda added that into the article.
I admit that Wiki is not the best source for scholarly and unbiased research. But it is a place to start to get an idea about a specific topic. I am sure that if you are serious and interested you can find other more reputable sources for information on the abiogenic theory of petroleum.
"competition doesn't exist within governmental regulation"
I hate to break it to ya but the telcos are not part of the free market. They are government-granted monopolies. There is no competition in that sector because the government says it's not allowed.
The problem is the government meddling in the marketplace. In a free market, competition DOES indeed exist.
Not regulating an industry does indeed allow for more competition in a free market.
= 15659982 [slashdot.org]= 15660441 [slashdot.org]
The problem is that the telcos do not operate in a free market. They are a propped up oligopoly by the government. Government-granted monopolies do not have to compete because the government says so.
In a free market governmental regulation IS A BAD THING! However, unfortuantely these providers do not operate in the free market.
I blame the government 70 years ago when they decided to get into bed with the telco industry. It was a bad idea then, and is a bad idea now.
There are two VERY important posts that you should read here:
http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=190337&cid
http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=190337&cid
I agree that big business LIKES big government due to big government's ability to regulate and legislate in favor of big business. I also agree that government usually stifles competition, harms the economy, stunts productivity / growth, creates artificially high barriers to entry, and in general does more harm than good.
= 15659982= 15660441
With that being said, I think that the 'Net Neutrality' issue is a bit more complicated. First off, these telco/backbone providers do not operate in the free market. They are all government granted monopolies. In fact, some of the infrastructure was created using public funds. This means that it is not a simple black and white issue of "deregulate and everything works itself out".
The solution to the problem was for private enterprise to create the Net to begin with and work itself out instead of letting the government screw things up as always by funding an oligopoly.
There are two VERY important posts that you should read here:
http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=190337&cid
http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=190337&cid
I work in both the live music industry, and in the broadcast industry, let me clarify a few points for you.
First off, consolidation of radio has happened because radio does not operate in the free market. Don't believe me? Try setting up your own radio station sometime and see how long it takes before the FCC comes along and gives you a fine. You got to pay to play, specifically the government. The only firms that can compete in radio anymore are the large megacorps that have the big bucks to pay off the FCC for a license. Big business likes big government. Big government has the power to legislate and regulate IN FAVOR of big business. Now I realize that radio tends to be a special case because it is a finite resource, crosses state lines, is intangible, and spectrum isn't really "property". That makes operating a free market economy in it very complex which is why the government is involved.
As far as the live music venues, again, a lot of these venues are part of municipal governments. Or they are public-private partnerships. Or perhaps even subsidized by local governments. This makes competition almost impossible. So, a lot of these larger megavenues also do not operate in the free market. If they did, then barriers to entry would be much lower.
The problem in both cases is mostly government intervention and meddling in the market place. If the government didn't regulate spectrum, new and innovative technologies would be invented in order to keep the spectrum usable. And if these local cities didn't co-op megavenues then there might indeed be multiple venues per city. Government is the cause of most problems, not the solution.
That's because the Libertarian is the only party out there wanting to limit the size and influence of the gov. Both Dems and Reps expand the gov, and the Greens want to as well.
The Libertarians are the only major 3rd party that wants to prevent the slippery slope and get the government OUT of the daily lives of its citizens.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism
"reasonable expectation of privacy" in which a chat room there typically is none.
I am a (L)libertarian. The premise of libertarianism is that my rights end where yours begin.
Therefore, killing an unborn child is against the principles of libertarianism because they infringe on the rights of another human; the unborn child.
There are a few fine points.
-Medically, human life cannot sustain itself much before the first trimester of pregnancy. Therefore first-trimester abortions tend to be a grey area because the question of one killing another individual, or just a group of dependent cells comes into play.
-Under medical or health conditions which jeopardize the mother's life or health, there might could be exceptions.
-Not all libertarians feel this way and you will find that some place the life of the unborn child lower than the life of the mother. Because of this division, abortion is rarely discussed among libertarian circles and will never be a platform issue.
-Some libertarians are Constitutional conservatives and believe that no matter what, these decisions should be made at the state level, not at the federal level.
-Most, if not all libertarians believe that no matter what, the gov cannot force or demand an abortion, nor should they be in the 'business' of abortions. Most that are 'pro-abortion' tend to follow the line that 'it should be an individual matter up to the parties involved' and that the government shouldn't have anything to do with it.
I personally fall into the category that believe that it is an infringement upon the rights of the unborn child.
I hate to tell you, but 'peak oil' is a fraud. Most reputable scientists believe in the abiogenic theory of oil. In other words, it's a natural process within the earth that produces petroleum in a very similar way that natural gas is produced.
a toil
As of 2003 we have even been able to produce 'synthetic' petroleum in a lab through a process called 'thermal depolymerization' - http://www.discover.com/issues/may-03/features/fe
For more information on abiogenic petroleum here are some resources:
Black Gold Stranglehold - by Jerome R., Ph.D. Corsi, Craig R. Smith
WND Books (October 14, 2005) ISBN: 1581824890
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenic_oil
I hate to tell you, but 'peak oil' is a fraud. Most reputable scientists believe in the abiogenic theory of oil. In other words, it's a natural process within the earth that produces petroleum in a very similar way that natural gas is produced.
a toil
We have even been able to produce petroleum in a lab through a process called 'thermal depolymerization' - http://www.discover.com/issues/may-03/features/fe
For more information on abiogenic petroleum here are some resources:
Black Gold Stranglehold - by Jerome R., Ph.D. Corsi, Craig R. Smith
WND Books (October 14, 2005) ISBN: 1581824890
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenic_oil
And you don't know what you are talking about.
For every hour, 20-23 minutes are allocated for non-content (news updates, weather updates, commercials, and other misc stuff etc).
That leaves about 40 minutes of actual content per hour. When you slice and dice those 40 minutes evenly into 4 segments, there are only so many ways it can be done. Thus the appearance that 'all stations take commercials at the same time' tends to come through. There is obviously a lot of overlap between stations as they all have to fit 20 minutes of non content in. But there is no conspiracy or collusion that all stations, or even any stations, have an agreed upon format for commercial breaks.
Now during sporting events or other live events, yeah most, if not all, media outlets covering the event usually take their commercials in unison on cue at pre-determined times.
Product placement, if done tastefully and correctly, is unobtrusive and I personally don't mind it. What bugs me is when it is blatantly obvious and detracts from the storyline because it is done poorly. I am sure there are many examples of both cases that can be cited.
...and you will find about 20 minutes per hour are dedicated to non-content programming. Most talk stations use the first 3 or 4 minutes of the top of every hour for a news/weather/traffic segment.
The rest of it are commercial spots and station-promos.
A typical program clock for any talk station will usually look something like this (in a pie chart):
xx:00-xx:06 - news, weather, traffic, spots
xx:06-xx:20 - show segment 1
xx:20-xx:24 - commercial spots (this break will float as needed)
xx:24-xx:29 - show segment 2
xx:29-xx:36 - commercial spots (some stations instead play a newscast, traffic, weather etc)
xx:36-xx:48 - show segment 3
xx:48-xx:52 - commercial spots
xx:52-xx:58 - show segment 4
If you are talking about Judeo-Christianity, then it wasn't made up thousands of years ago. The religion has evolved over time and was not just "made up". Thousands of years of study and writings, and introspection, and events, and established institutions.
Compared to most other religions, it has withstood the test of time. It has indeed survived and has millions, if not billions, of followers. This is indeed what tends to separate "pagan" from "mainstream" religions.
I think that is what you were referring to.
The free market is simple. Logistics and innovative technology are not.
Due to the nature of providing utilities, the government feels like it should have a heavy hand in things. However, if the market were allowed to run itself, we could see necessity driving innovations. For example, the ability to microwave energy across town, or down from a satellite instead of having to run wires. Or perhaps each locale would have its own genny. Or perhaps solar technology would've improved to the point of being practical and efficient. Who knows?
But the point is that because the government is involved in propping up these monopolies, incentive for them to innovate and adapt to the market is practically nil. When the government eliminates competition, sets their prices, and tells them who can and can't be their customer, there isn't much need for them to spend R&D dollars to invent new technology in a progressive manner now is there?
I didn't say I was accepting or rejecting anything about Ken Lay. My point is that for anything other than cocktail discussion, Wikipedia is not the most reliable source, ESPECIALLY in regards to issues in which there are very high emotional opposing opinions.
In your most recent posting you link to sources other than Wikipedia. Whether you agree with them or not, this tends to lend more support to your argument (whatever it may be) in a more credible way than simply posting a link to Wiki.
Actually I do, and I was just making a point.
If anyone is to blame, then I guess we could say both political parties are. Since you are an independent than you probably see what an oligopolical stranglehold the Demirubs and the Republicrats have on the American political system.
Apparently you are wiser than your original post led me to believe.
I'm not going to justify your ignorant rantings with a response other than to say that you are an idiot.
By using that definition, then MS is NOT a monopoly. However, using the definition I was taught, they are (+85% of the market).
Interesting to point out. I am not an economics major, although there are some days I wish I were.
Well I hope that for your wife's sake, you at least know which hole to put it in! :-)
That's because energy companies are heavily regulated government-granted monopolies. In a free-market setting the second that E decided not to supply product/service, another competing firm would've stepped in to replace them.
It's amazing how the free market works isn't it?
...do indeed have a party. In fact there are two of them; the Libertarian Party, and the Constitution Party.
n ited_States)U nited_States)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_Party_(U
and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_Party_(
I tend to align with both, but moreso with the Libertarian Party than the CP.
Yes, because we ALL know that Wikipedia is the most accurate, unbiased, and trustworthy source to cite, especially in regard to emotionally charged current events?
*rolling eyes*