If a company charges too much, they're guilty of "price gouging." If they charge too little, they're guilty of "dumping." If they charge the same as their competitors, they're guilty of "price fixing."
Anybody about to say "Doctors shouldn't be able to do that!" better not support the patients' right to refuse vaccines. And anybody supporting patients' right to refuse vaccine better not say doctors can't do this.
So-called externalities could be accounted for if environmental damage were treated as private-property damage against whoever owns or has an interest in that property. If I come into your yard and dump a tank of old motor oil all over your lawn, you have a claim against me for property damage. I'd end up paying you directly for the damage I caused. That concept ought to be applied to broader environmental damage caused by pollution, dumping, &c..
But instead of developing property rights to deal with purported environmental issues, what we have are politicians and bureaucrats creating new regulations (more control over their subjects) and new taxes (more wealth confiscation by the aforementioned parasites)---using externalities as an excuse to justify these regulations and taxes.
The "green scam" is not a plausible scenario because the ones doing it would be complete incompetents.
This is a false dichotomy. One can be an incompetent snake-oil salesman: One just needs to peddle snake oil long enough to make a profit, and then get out before the business collapses as people get wise to the scam.
Yup. And what it is is yet another idea sold to us using guilt and shame. Our inventions are ruining the environment, poisoning the earth, bringing us ever closer to disaster---and we're horrible, horrible people for it, they say. In order to feel good about ourselves and atone for our sins we need to be ashamed of ourselves and what we create, they say. And by sacrificing our worldly creations and making our lives more difficult we can make things better, they say. And who are "they"? Businessmen peddling "green" scams and politicians peddling new regulations, new taxes, new policies---people who will gain more power, more control, of us, and our wealth.
Does this story sound familiar?
Sorry, environmentalists, but if I wanted to feel good about myself by feeling bad about myself I'd (re)join a religion---one older and more interesting than yours, too. If I want to sacrifice, I'll go slaughter a goat or a ram rather than give up my gasoline-powered car for a bicycle or durable plastics for "biodegradable" junk. And if I want to believe the end of the world is near, the Book of Revelation is a lot more intriguing than the Book of Global Warming.:)
I do support sustainable development and using renewable resources---but only when it improves the standard of living for humanity, makes our lives better, or lowers our costs---not when it does the opposite. Solar energy is good for us because it relies on an (effectively) infinite resource, and removes our dependence on government- and corporate-controlled, centralized energy grids run on nonrenewable coal or oil. Same goes for wood-based heating vs. propane or natural gas. But these green initiatives stand in stark contrast to replacing useful, durable products with more expensive, failure-prone ones, which serves no purpose but to give the companies peddling this junk more control over us as we're forced to waste money buying their products over and over again.
And just wait until the government bans non-"paper alloy" plastics. For our own good, of course.
So products are going to get even cheaper and less reliable than they already are. Why the hell would anyone buy a computer case that is designed to fail?
Google simply allowed the Spreading Santorum result to rise to #1 because the site meets Google's criteria for making it to the #1 slot. It's my understanding that years ago, after the Spreading Santorum website was created, thousands (millions?) of people blogged about it, linked to it, and so on, so it rose to the top of Google when people searched the politician's name. Google is not advancing anyone's political agenda by simply allowing searches for the word "Santorum" to return results using the same ruleset that searches for any other word follow. They're simply following their own rules.
Specifically granting Santorum an exception from these rules and downgrading the site that rose to the top by following the rules would be "advancing a political agenda." Santorum's.
Of course, this is the kind of rhetoric you see everywhere in modern politics. Not advancing my political agenda is "advancing a political agenda," but advancing my political agenda is not "advancing a political agenda" but "fair and balanced reporting."
Google can do anything they want with their results, being a private company as opposed to a true "public" forum. However, that's how a lot of people view Google, and search engines in general---as neutral providers of the results of the rest of the web. I'm sure we're all familiar with the uproar when it is discovered that such-and-such a search engine is bumping certain results because they were paid off to do so. This situation would be no different. If Google grants Santorum's people a special exception and downgrades the Spreading Santorum results, that's the end of believing Google's results are fair and non-biased.
Right now Santorum's people are buying an ad on his name, obviously. Maybe Google should just remove the "ad" and the pink background from that result. Then it would be first and look just like it made it's way to first by earning that slot according to Google's ruleset. Of course that would be the equivalent of bumping certain results because Google was paid off to do so, wouldn't it?
Ultimately, this story is nothing more than people who want to control the debate getting upset that the other side is controlling the debate better than them. Google is akin to a stretch of roadside and Santorum's people are whining that Spreading Santorum staked out more, bigger political yard signs that they were able to. And now they want permission from someone to come in and rip out most of the signs so they can put up their own.
Eight years isn't enough data. But when we stories such as "hottest year on record" come out, that's more than enough validation for the global warming alarmists.
What problem? Letting people keep the wealth they earned?
Figuring out how to transform your envy and covetousness over other people's wealth into actual appropriation of it isn't a "solution to a problem" (or "closing loopholes" or whatever other euphemism happens to be en vogue today). It's theft, plain and simple.
Future generations may know little of the days when buying a movie meant you owned it even if the Internet went down...
That's why intelligent people don't patronize services that don't "sell" movies but either sell access to streaming content, or sell downloadable files locked up in some sort of network-dependent DRM. Everything I've downloaded from The Pirate Bay works just fine when the Internet goes down.:)
... and when getting a movie meant you had to scour aisles of boxes in search of one whose cover art called back a story that echoed your interests.
And nowadays I use a search engine. But I suppose some people miss the days where traveling meant feeding and grooming a horse, cleaning up its crap, and riding on its back exposed to the elements, rather than riding in an enclosed, climate-controlled automobile where one just pours gas in or plugs the thing in.
Josh Johnson, one of the filmmakers behind the upcoming documentary 'Rewind This!' hopes to tell the story of how and why home video came about, and how it changed our culture giving B movies and films that didn't make the silver screen their own chance to shine. 'Essentially, the rental market expanded, because of voracious consumer demand, into non-blockbuster, off-Hollywood video content which would never have had a theatrical life otherwise,' says Palmer.
And nowadays, people don't even need the minimal budgets or producer interest that a B movie needed to get made. Anyone with a camera and a YouTube account can produce, upload, promote, and distribute a movie now. The advent of the Internet has expanded the number of movies out there by an even larger percentage than the advent of VHS did.
While researching the documentary Palmer found something interesting: there is a resurgence taking place of people going back to VHS because a massive number of films are 'trapped on VHS' with 30 and 40 percent of films released on VHS never to be seen again on any other format.
I find plenty of VHS rips on The Pirate Bay. Google yields 43,000 results. Just because the companies that make profit off of distributing content don't see any reason to re-distribute old direct-to-VHS movies as downloads doesn't mean the movies are not available. If there be any contemporary interest in an old movie, it has probably been uploaded to TPB or a similar service. And if not, and you have the VHS copy of it... go rip it and upload it!
This bill is largely thanks to the Free State Project. The prime sponsor and one of the co-sponsors (Rep. Pratt) are both Free State Project participants who were recently elected to the State House.
Top Google result for "NDAA veto promise." Google has 1,390,000 other results for you to choose from if you feel like "correcting" someone with incorrect information again.
I can't think of an organism which fuels itself by chemically transforming fuel outside of its "body".
Cooking, or other food processing, could fall under this broad concept.
This whole debate is silly, just like the definition of planet that people were arguing over a few years ago---people who should be doing science and not trying to define and then redefine words to re-fit reality into their preconceptions. Definitions are human constructs, attempting to create bright lines between what is an x and is not an x, when in nature no such bright lines exist.
They're not a monopoly providing Internet service. They're a monopoly providing cable TV, and they've also, as of late, gotten into the Internet business. Satellite and dialup are available almost anywhere.
It's about regulating the entities that provide Internet access so they can't filter, limit, or shape traffic. Just because it's government interference that would benefit you, doesn't mean it's not government interference.
After years of attempts to regulate the Internet (CDA, COPA, DMCA, SOPA, PIPA, &c., &c.), and being opposed by IT people at every turn, they've finally figured out how to regulate the Internet in a way that geeks will not only not oppose but actually support and promote.
And like all government interference, it will come back to bite us all in the ass. Today it's about regulating behemoths like Comcast, Verizon, or whatnot. A decade from now, we'll need to fill out a four-page form, file it with the FCC, pay a fee, and wait six months, just so we can type `iptables -j DROP` on that router we IT geeks maintain for a college or office LAN or small local netcafe.
Slashdot Mirror
Price still seems to be $0.00 on The Pirate Bay...
If a company charges too much, they're guilty of "price gouging."
If they charge too little, they're guilty of "dumping."
If they charge the same as their competitors, they're guilty of "price fixing."
Welcome to the "free market."
Anybody about to say "Doctors shouldn't be able to do that!" better not support the patients' right to refuse vaccines. And anybody supporting patients' right to refuse vaccine better not say doctors can't do this.
So-called externalities could be accounted for if environmental damage were treated as private-property damage against whoever owns or has an interest in that property. If I come into your yard and dump a tank of old motor oil all over your lawn, you have a claim against me for property damage. I'd end up paying you directly for the damage I caused. That concept ought to be applied to broader environmental damage caused by pollution, dumping, &c..
But instead of developing property rights to deal with purported environmental issues, what we have are politicians and bureaucrats creating new regulations (more control over their subjects) and new taxes (more wealth confiscation by the aforementioned parasites)---using externalities as an excuse to justify these regulations and taxes.
This is a false dichotomy. One can be an incompetent snake-oil salesman: One just needs to peddle snake oil long enough to make a profit, and then get out before the business collapses as people get wise to the scam.
Yup. And what it is is yet another idea sold to us using guilt and shame. Our inventions are ruining the environment, poisoning the earth, bringing us ever closer to disaster---and we're horrible, horrible people for it, they say. In order to feel good about ourselves and atone for our sins we need to be ashamed of ourselves and what we create, they say. And by sacrificing our worldly creations and making our lives more difficult we can make things better, they say. And who are "they"? Businessmen peddling "green" scams and politicians peddling new regulations, new taxes, new policies---people who will gain more power, more control, of us, and our wealth.
Does this story sound familiar?
Sorry, environmentalists, but if I wanted to feel good about myself by feeling bad about myself I'd (re)join a religion---one older and more interesting than yours, too. If I want to sacrifice, I'll go slaughter a goat or a ram rather than give up my gasoline-powered car for a bicycle or durable plastics for "biodegradable" junk. And if I want to believe the end of the world is near, the Book of Revelation is a lot more intriguing than the Book of Global Warming. :)
I do support sustainable development and using renewable resources---but only when it improves the standard of living for humanity, makes our lives better, or lowers our costs---not when it does the opposite. Solar energy is good for us because it relies on an (effectively) infinite resource, and removes our dependence on government- and corporate-controlled, centralized energy grids run on nonrenewable coal or oil. Same goes for wood-based heating vs. propane or natural gas. But these green initiatives stand in stark contrast to replacing useful, durable products with more expensive, failure-prone ones, which serves no purpose but to give the companies peddling this junk more control over us as we're forced to waste money buying their products over and over again.
And just wait until the government bans non-"paper alloy" plastics. For our own good, of course.
So products are going to get even cheaper and less reliable than they already are. Why the hell would anyone buy a computer case that is designed to fail?
SOCA's arms depict a predatory animal mauling the globe. What an appropriate and refreshingly honest emblem for a state agency.
Damn right! The Internet should only censor what I don't like! Then it's not censorship even!
Google simply allowed the Spreading Santorum result to rise to #1 because the site meets Google's criteria for making it to the #1 slot. It's my understanding that years ago, after the Spreading Santorum website was created, thousands (millions?) of people blogged about it, linked to it, and so on, so it rose to the top of Google when people searched the politician's name. Google is not advancing anyone's political agenda by simply allowing searches for the word "Santorum" to return results using the same ruleset that searches for any other word follow. They're simply following their own rules.
Specifically granting Santorum an exception from these rules and downgrading the site that rose to the top by following the rules would be "advancing a political agenda." Santorum's.
Of course, this is the kind of rhetoric you see everywhere in modern politics. Not advancing my political agenda is "advancing a political agenda," but advancing my political agenda is not "advancing a political agenda" but "fair and balanced reporting."
Google can do anything they want with their results, being a private company as opposed to a true "public" forum. However, that's how a lot of people view Google, and search engines in general---as neutral providers of the results of the rest of the web. I'm sure we're all familiar with the uproar when it is discovered that such-and-such a search engine is bumping certain results because they were paid off to do so. This situation would be no different. If Google grants Santorum's people a special exception and downgrades the Spreading Santorum results, that's the end of believing Google's results are fair and non-biased.
Right now Santorum's people are buying an ad on his name, obviously. Maybe Google should just remove the "ad" and the pink background from that result. Then it would be first and look just like it made it's way to first by earning that slot according to Google's ruleset. Of course that would be the equivalent of bumping certain results because Google was paid off to do so, wouldn't it?
Ultimately, this story is nothing more than people who want to control the debate getting upset that the other side is controlling the debate better than them. Google is akin to a stretch of roadside and Santorum's people are whining that Spreading Santorum staked out more, bigger political yard signs that they were able to. And now they want permission from someone to come in and rip out most of the signs so they can put up their own.
And this accomplishes...?
Just people moving the content elsewhere, that's all. You can't stop people from trading information if they want to do so.
Eight years isn't enough data. But when we stories such as "hottest year on record" come out, that's more than enough validation for the global warming alarmists.
"Solution to the problem"?
What problem? Letting people keep the wealth they earned?
Figuring out how to transform your envy and covetousness over other people's wealth into actual appropriation of it isn't a "solution to a problem" (or "closing loopholes" or whatever other euphemism happens to be en vogue today). It's theft, plain and simple.
That's why intelligent people don't patronize services that don't "sell" movies but either sell access to streaming content, or sell downloadable files locked up in some sort of network-dependent DRM. Everything I've downloaded from The Pirate Bay works just fine when the Internet goes down. :)
And nowadays I use a search engine. But I suppose some people miss the days where traveling meant feeding and grooming a horse, cleaning up its crap, and riding on its back exposed to the elements, rather than riding in an enclosed, climate-controlled automobile where one just pours gas in or plugs the thing in.
And nowadays, people don't even need the minimal budgets or producer interest that a B movie needed to get made. Anyone with a camera and a YouTube account can produce, upload, promote, and distribute a movie now. The advent of the Internet has expanded the number of movies out there by an even larger percentage than the advent of VHS did.
I find plenty of VHS rips on The Pirate Bay. Google yields 43,000 results. Just because the companies that make profit off of distributing content don't see any reason to re-distribute old direct-to-VHS movies as downloads doesn't mean the movies are not available. If there be any contemporary interest in an old movie, it has probably been uploaded to TPB or a similar service. And if not, and you have the VHS copy of it... go rip it and upload it!
This bill is largely thanks to the Free State Project. The prime sponsor and one of the co-sponsors (Rep. Pratt) are both Free State Project participants who were recently elected to the State House.
And people just keep buying this shit...
The U.S. and its attendant NGOs would be screaming from the rooftops about "child soldiers"...
"Incredible claim made by group with no credibility."
Okay then.
Heh. I like how YouTube's over-reaching IP-wall made you post, instead, a link to a piracy site.
Good job, GEMA!
In Reversal of Promised Veto, Obama Expected to Sign Military Detention Bill.
Top Google result for "NDAA veto promise." Google has 1,390,000 other results for you to choose from if you feel like "correcting" someone with incorrect information again.
This is the same White House that promised to veto the NDAA, yes?
Damn all those people for actually exercising their freedoms! If you never actually used your freedoms, the government never would've taken them away!
Cooking, or other food processing, could fall under this broad concept.
This whole debate is silly, just like the definition of planet that people were arguing over a few years ago---people who should be doing science and not trying to define and then redefine words to re-fit reality into their preconceptions. Definitions are human constructs, attempting to create bright lines between what is an x and is not an x, when in nature no such bright lines exist.
Refusing to use an alternative because you've decided it's too slow does not mean Comcast is your "only choice." It means you choose to use Comcast.
They're not a monopoly providing Internet service. They're a monopoly providing cable TV, and they've also, as of late, gotten into the Internet business. Satellite and dialup are available almost anywhere.
Very Orwellian of you.
It's about regulating the entities that provide Internet access so they can't filter, limit, or shape traffic. Just because it's government interference that would benefit you, doesn't mean it's not government interference.
After years of attempts to regulate the Internet (CDA, COPA, DMCA, SOPA, PIPA, &c., &c.), and being opposed by IT people at every turn, they've finally figured out how to regulate the Internet in a way that geeks will not only not oppose but actually support and promote.
And like all government interference, it will come back to bite us all in the ass. Today it's about regulating behemoths like Comcast, Verizon, or whatnot. A decade from now, we'll need to fill out a four-page form, file it with the FCC, pay a fee, and wait six months, just so we can type `iptables -j DROP` on that router we IT geeks maintain for a college or office LAN or small local netcafe.