If someone is using a service and only gets a couple of dates over the course of a month, and then they try another service during the same period of time and get 4 or 5 dates, who do you think they are going to want to spend their money with?
They will vote with their dollar and gravitate to the service providing the greatest perceived value. The free market works and will take care of the deadwood and eliminate those firms that are not beneficial to the market.
Well, if a company is scamming their customers in the free market, they won't last long. Why? because in a free market there are very few if any legislative or regulative barriers to entry. Anyone will be free to start their own service to compete at a higher quality than those that are scamming their customers.
If regulation is in place, then that raises the barriers to entry thus making it harder for competition to spring up.
Perhaps, since I didn't RTFA I think you are correct.
Proving this however I think would be impossible.
I say that if a service is doing this the market will sort it out. If someone is only able to get a couple of dates on one service, and 5 or 6 on another, then they will continue to vote with their dollar where it counts. The service that is providing a better service will win out.
That isn't to say that if a company is perpetuating fraud at the expense of its customers that their shouldn't be reparations and damages awarded.
I don't understand why someone hasn't created a free satellite(digital) radio service yet?
Why not put commercials on it, and practically give the receivers away? It would be just like XM or Sirius but with commercials and it wouldn't cost the listener a dime.
It is the free market, and it does work. Like gravity, it is a natural law and always functions with specific parameters.
In your Windoze analogy it should be obvious that viruii are not enough of a problem for people to start switching to Linux or Mac OS based solely on the amount of viruii they contract. As soon as viruii become a huge problem, then people might either fix it (AV companies anyone), or decide to move to a less vulnerable OS. It is really a cost-benefit analysis.
For example, if Yahoo dating service is able to block 98% of scammers, while Match.com is only able to block 75%, then who should win?
The answer lies within filtering technology, and innovating approaches to improving the quality of service. The market will sort things out on its own; that will force innovation (progress) and foster competition.
Regulation and legislation usually stifles competition and innovation. If people can't get good service at one place, they will go to somewhere else that meets their needs. That is called the free market!
"IP" or "content" or whatever you want to call it does NOT live in the free market.
Copyright, patents, and trademarks are all protected by the government in the US. Thus owners of these items are granted a limited monopoly for exploitation of copyrights and patents for a given and specific amount of time.
Therefore, the "free market" rule doesn't apply because copyright and patents are not "the free market". This whole concept is one of the quarks in the US Constitution although it is completely optional for Congress.
It is called Freefall by Bill Hoffer. One HELL of a good read. It details in very very specific and technical terms the causes for the 767 Canada Air incident.
It also provides the human side of the story by a narrative time line. I HIGHLY recommend this to everyone!
...the religious rig....oh... wait... never mind. A liberal democrat introduced this. Wow, I guess BOTH parties want to limit civil liberties and impose useless laws.
Perhaps we should all consider voting libertarian if you disagree with this bill!
I work in the music industry and the broadcast industry. The EXACT same wording and phrases are used to determine what you can and can't say over the air of broadcast radio/TV.
One of the most depressing but yet accurate statements I have every heard came from my SCUBA instructor. This guy was in the Canadian Forces and was the Canadian equivalent of the US Navy Seals.
After going cavern diving one day he told me:
"Women control half of the money, and all the sex in the world".
This is why they should seek to work in the private sector, and NOT in government education.
If more and more people were owning their own firms and not working for someone else, they could potentially make a lot more money. With more and more people making money that means a draw from educators. To respond universities would have to offer better working conditions/higher paying jobs in order to compete with the private sector.
I can NEVER understand people who want to be professional educators.
The problem is the government is in the business of educating. The government has no place there. If education were open and in the free market there would be more choice, higher grades, and a better quality of education.
We need to abolish all government schools, and no I am not a troll.
It wouldn't be a huge leap of faith. There are many of thousands of private schools in the US that are successful. Also, the Wal-Mart's and Taco Bell's are only in business because there is a demand for their products and services.
The problem is that people are being overtaxed in order to pay for wasteful and inefficient government schools thus less disposable income to send their kids to a better school.
Privatization of schools would give people a CHOICE as to where they want to send their kids. If they wanted their kids to have a Mormon education, they could send them to a Mormon school. Or a Jewish family could send their kids to a Jewish school. This can work for Baptists, Catholics, atheists, Muslims, or whatever.
The school would be more accountable and could taylor its education program to its students better than a general government school can. Also results have shown that private school students tend to test better. If private schools aren't that great, why are public school teachers twice as likely as other parents to send their children to one? (ref: David T. Kearns and Dennis P. Doyle
Bottom line is that private schools have to compete to stay in business. Competition always brings about progress. Education, like any other service, is best provided by the free market, achieving greater quality and efficiency with more diversity of choice.
One private institution specializes in students who are about to drop out and boasts an 85% graduation rate. Not bad, considering that none of these students were likely to graduate otherwise (ref: Carolyn Lochhead)
----- Government school teachers are putting their kids in private schools at rates far higher than the general public according to a new study by the Thomas B. Fordham Institute, based upon 2000 census data.
21.2 percent of urban public-school teachers send their children to non-government (private) schools. That's almost 75 percent higher than the national average of 12.2 percent of families. That's also much higher than the national urban family rate of 17.5 percent.
But that's just the start. Where government schools are worst, far larger numbers of teachers send their kids to private schools. An incredible 44 percent of public-school teachers in Philadelphia sent their children to private schools. Other figures: Chicago, 39 percent; Baltimore, 35 percent; San Francisco/Oakland, 34 percent; New York/Northeastern New Jersey, 33 percent; Boston, 28 percent; and 27 percent in Washington, D.C.
The study also found that "even when the financial sacrifice required for private education is greater, urban public-school teachers still choose private schools for their children at higher rates than urban families with similar incomes."
Teachers and others may be able to afford alternatives to government schools, but those with lower incomes or less resources don't have that same freedom of choice. They're prisoners of failing government schools, thanks to anti-school-choice laws -- laws strongly pushed by the labor union a majority of teachers belong to.
The 2.7 million-member National Education Association (NEA) -- the nation's largest labor union -- says it opposes "tuition tax credits for elementary and secondary schools; the use of vouchers or certificates in education; [and] federally mandated parental option or 'choice' in education programs."
Whatever the NEA's intention, the result is that, while most NEA members can escape failing government schools, a large enough number of less fortunate children are kept as captives in those same schools to supply jobs for teachers who would never send their own children there.
Slashdot Mirror
It's real simple.
If someone is using a service and only gets a couple of dates over the course of a month, and then they try another service during the same period of time and get 4 or 5 dates, who do you think they are going to want to spend their money with?
They will vote with their dollar and gravitate to the service providing the greatest perceived value. The free market works and will take care of the deadwood and eliminate those firms that are not beneficial to the market.
Well, if a company is scamming their customers in the free market, they won't last long. Why? because in a free market there are very few if any legislative or regulative barriers to entry. Anyone will be free to start their own service to compete at a higher quality than those that are scamming their customers.
If regulation is in place, then that raises the barriers to entry thus making it harder for competition to spring up.
Perhaps, since I didn't RTFA I think you are correct.
Proving this however I think would be impossible.
I say that if a service is doing this the market will sort it out. If someone is only able to get a couple of dates on one service, and 5 or 6 on another, then they will continue to vote with their dollar where it counts. The service that is providing a better service will win out.
That isn't to say that if a company is perpetuating fraud at the expense of its customers that their shouldn't be reparations and damages awarded.
I don't understand why someone hasn't created a free satellite(digital) radio service yet?
Why not put commercials on it, and practically give the receivers away? It would be just like XM or Sirius but with commercials and it wouldn't cost the listener a dime.
Can anyone figure out why this isn't being done?
It is the free market, and it does work. Like gravity, it is a natural law and always functions with specific parameters.
In your Windoze analogy it should be obvious that viruii are not enough of a problem for people to start switching to Linux or Mac OS based solely on the amount of viruii they contract. As soon as viruii become a huge problem, then people might either fix it (AV companies anyone), or decide to move to a less vulnerable OS. It is really a cost-benefit analysis.
Here is a noble idea:
Let the free market figure it out!
For example, if Yahoo dating service is able to block 98% of scammers, while Match.com is only able to block 75%, then who should win?
The answer lies within filtering technology, and innovating approaches to improving the quality of service. The market will sort things out on its own; that will force innovation (progress) and foster competition.
Regulation and legislation usually stifles competition and innovation. If people can't get good service at one place, they will go to somewhere else that meets their needs. That is called the free market!
"IP" or "content" or whatever you want to call it does NOT live in the free market.
Copyright, patents, and trademarks are all protected by the government in the US. Thus owners of these items are granted a limited monopoly for exploitation of copyrights and patents for a given and specific amount of time.
Therefore, the "free market" rule doesn't apply because copyright and patents are not "the free market". This whole concept is one of the quarks in the US Constitution although it is completely optional for Congress.
"...with substantial brain damage."
Yep, his brain was damaged. This is proven by his efforts to illegally take guns from citizens.
"The work he's done to control the unfettered access to handguns is nothing..."
Not quite. It is an embarrassment to our country and a stab in the back of our Bill of Rights and democracy in general.
I mean Libertarians.
... but Liebrtarians do!
... party raids YOU!
...pirates raid YOU!
"News organ"?!?!?!
;-)
Have the Swiss come up with some sort of cybernetic strap-on appendage that makes a report when information comes across the newswire?
Perhaps it is called a Pen, model #15. For short, they call it a Pen15
I'm sinking... someone help me out... tough crowd...surely someone can come up with a wittier remark!
It is called Freefall by Bill Hoffer. One HELL of a good read. It details in very very specific and technical terms the causes for the 767 Canada Air incident.
9 06897-5291803?v=glance&n=283155
It also provides the human side of the story by a narrative time line. I HIGHLY recommend this to everyone!
ISBN: 0312922744
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0312922744/103-7
Remember our rights are being violated by BOTH republicans and democrats.
Libertarians wouldn't do such a thing.
...the religious rig....oh... wait... never mind. A liberal democrat introduced this. Wow, I guess BOTH parties want to limit civil liberties and impose useless laws.
Perhaps we should all consider voting libertarian if you disagree with this bill!
I work in the music industry and the broadcast industry. The EXACT same wording and phrases are used to determine what you can and can't say over the air of broadcast radio/TV.
It couldn't be more ambiguous, vague, or unclear.
Same as with copyrights.
/. would've figured this out by now!
Theft |= fraud.
No one's ID has been stolen. However the potential for it to be used frauduantly has been increased.
Let's not call it ID theft when it is really ID fraud!
GEESH! You think
One of the most depressing but yet accurate statements I have every heard came from my SCUBA instructor. This guy was in the Canadian Forces and was the Canadian equivalent of the US Navy Seals.
:-(
After going cavern diving one day he told me:
"Women control half of the money, and all the sex in the world".
I want to slit my wrists
...and thought you were going to talk about Ron Jeremy.
This is why they should seek to work in the private sector, and NOT in government education.
If more and more people were owning their own firms and not working for someone else, they could potentially make a lot more money. With more and more people making money that means a draw from educators. To respond universities would have to offer better working conditions/higher paying jobs in order to compete with the private sector.
I can NEVER understand people who want to be professional educators.
The problem is the government is in the business of educating. The government has no place there. If education were open and in the free market there would be more choice, higher grades, and a better quality of education.
We need to abolish all government schools, and no I am not a troll.
...you really mean "subway". Silly Brit, speak English! ;-)
It wouldn't be a huge leap of faith. There are many of thousands of private schools in the US that are successful. Also, the Wal-Mart's and Taco Bell's are only in business because there is a demand for their products and services.
The problem is that people are being overtaxed in order to pay for wasteful and inefficient government schools thus less disposable income to send their kids to a better school.
Privatization of schools would give people a CHOICE as to where they want to send their kids. If they wanted their kids to have a Mormon education, they could send them to a Mormon school. Or a Jewish family could send their kids to a Jewish school. This can work for Baptists, Catholics, atheists, Muslims, or whatever.
6 379r.htm
The school would be more accountable and could taylor its education program to its students better than a general government school can. Also results have shown that private school students tend to test better. If private schools aren't that great, why are public school teachers twice as likely as other parents to send their children to one? (ref: David T. Kearns and Dennis P. Doyle
Bottom line is that private schools have to compete to stay in business. Competition always brings about progress. Education, like any other service, is best provided by the free market, achieving greater quality and efficiency with more diversity of choice.
One private institution specializes in students who are about to drop out and boasts an 85% graduation rate. Not bad, considering that none of these students were likely to graduate otherwise (ref: Carolyn Lochhead)
-----
Government school teachers are putting their kids in private schools at rates far higher than the general public according to a new study by the Thomas B. Fordham Institute, based upon 2000 census data.
21.2 percent of urban public-school teachers send their children to non-government (private) schools. That's almost 75 percent higher than the national average of 12.2 percent of families. That's also much higher than the national urban family rate of 17.5 percent.
But that's just the start. Where government schools are worst, far larger numbers of teachers send their kids to private schools. An incredible 44 percent of public-school teachers in Philadelphia sent their children to private schools. Other figures: Chicago, 39 percent; Baltimore, 35 percent; San Francisco/Oakland, 34 percent; New York/Northeastern New Jersey, 33 percent; Boston, 28 percent; and 27 percent in Washington, D.C.
The study also found that "even when the financial sacrifice required for private education is greater, urban public-school teachers still choose private schools for their children at higher rates than urban families with similar incomes."
Teachers and others may be able to afford alternatives to government schools, but those with lower incomes or less resources don't have that same freedom of choice. They're prisoners of failing government schools, thanks to anti-school-choice laws -- laws strongly pushed by the labor union a majority of teachers belong to.
The 2.7 million-member National Education Association (NEA) -- the nation's largest labor union -- says it opposes "tuition tax credits for elementary and secondary schools; the use of vouchers or certificates in education; [and] federally mandated parental option or 'choice' in education programs."
Whatever the NEA's intention, the result is that, while most NEA members can escape failing government schools, a large enough number of less fortunate children are kept as captives in those same schools to supply jobs for teachers who would never send their own children there.
Source: Washington Times
http://washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20041002-102019-