You're welcome to live in a country like where I am from, with socialist/government-protected telecomms, where 3GB caps are the norm and the average speed is 384Kbits/s for only 3 times the price of the average US ADSL connection, and you will see how fantastic that works. And you think they don't profiteer? Of course they do.
You describe something that isn't a Libertarian system at all, and then use that as an argument to bash down Libertarianism. A company "using legislating to regulate in favor of itself" is the precise opposite of Libertarianism. Libertarians don't believe in "no regulation", they precisely believe in enough regulation to bar companies from abusing state power for their gain (which is called "corporatism"). You don't even know the most incredibly basic facts about what Libertarianism is but you still bash it down. Are you really confusing "pro-free-market" with "pro-corporatism"? They are opposites. Or are you just trolling.
Companies abusing state power for their benefit is also not unique to western corporatism, it happens under every single system - communism, socialism, you name it. In fact, Libertarianism is the only system in which this would specifically be formally disallowed. You use the word "regulation" as if every type of "regulation" is equivalent. There are different types of regulation. Your posting is confused on so many levels it's difficult to know where to begin to unwind the multiple levels of cluelessness.
I don't know, chess has a reputation of being the board game for the intelligentsia. If that were they case why are well known chess masters also not polymaths, CEOs, and world famous research scientists?
Because that's a question of resources and motivation. Firstly, to become 'world-leading anything' requires massive amounts of time. The greatest chess-masters practice most the day, every day. The greatest research scientists "practice" most the day, every day. It's almost impossible to become both, but that doesn't mean you aren't capable of becoming either, with sufficient practice. Secondly, to get that good requires intrinsic motivation. The best chess masters love chess. The best research scientists love doing research.
Most of the 'best' just-about-anything-brain-related I can think of that I know, also played and enjoyed chess.
Yup, seriously, if there is just one thing schools should be doing (the one thing they're supposed to be doing but seem to mostly avoid), it's teaching how to think. Chess would definitely be a valuable addition to a proper education.
Mr. Fork also seems to imply that private companies do not have an incentive to engineer for safety. As if it is somehow more profitable for a private company if their nuclear reactors explode!??!? On the contrary, they have a very strong financial incentive to engineer for safety. Governments, on the other hand, don't actually have to worry about share prices and profits dropping if a publicly run reactor explodes, it doesn't impact their 'bottom line' at all, they just keep going and hand the bill to the taxpayer.
TEPCO wasn't well-run, but the Fukushima disaster wasn't ultimately caused by a private company taking shortcuts, and to state that is a complete fiction - in case Mr Fork missed it, it was caused by a massive magnitude 9.0 earthquake followed by an unprecedented tsunami slamming into the plant. In fact, they were compliant with government safety regulations - did government force them to build a bigger tsunami wall? No. And yet that was ALL they would have had to do.
Way to interject your agenda here, thanks, but no, this has nothing to do with it. And here's a question for you comrade, about this so-called evil "capitalism" with its so-called "core fault" - would it not be the case that corporations would be under less pressure to 'cut costs' if they weren't under such incredibly heavy pressure from 'big government taxation'? Let corporations keep a bit more of their money and they will have more money to spend engineering for safety, that is simple logic.
Is it just me or are the European Solar lobbies crazy powerful. Look at what's happening Germany now as an extreme case - they're talking about shutting down all nuclear entirely. And ah, there's always the good ol' reliable taxpayer to foot the massive bills coming their way. I'm sorry but there is no way this is happening spontaneously without some sort of manipulation from solar lobbies.
I strongly believe we know how to set up technical systems for safe nuclear power. However I'm extremely sceptical of the idea that we know how to set up social / administrative systems for safe nuclear power.
I agree. The tech behind nuclear power is potentially very safe. Humans, on the other hand, remain the weakest link. We're just not evolved enough for this.
- the 10-meter tsunami was the unforeseen circumstance.
And yet many of the towns along that coastline with tsunami walls, had 10-meter tsunami walls (while Fukushima's were 6 meters). Clearly many other planners had 'foreseen' a risk of 10m tsunamis.
Other than to 'keep people scared', why not use this for something that does actually have a reasonable chance of occurring and affecting a lot of people, e.g. a tsunami alert system or something.
Maybe not the Constitution, but the Declaration of Independence specifically states that governments derive their just powers 'only from the consent of the governed', and that "whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government". I know you spoke in jest, and in this case the guy appears to be a loon, but as far out as it might seem to many of us, there does have to be a way for a people to deal with 'bad government', in principle.
Did you just somehow equate, with a complete non sequitur, clean energy sources with defending our homelands from intruders? WTF?
And besides, there is a market demand for cleaner energy sources, so it will happen. The technology is just too expensive still. Destroying jobs by using worse technology doesn't actually help you defend your homeland from intruders, it makes it harder, because the cost of defense is borne by economic activity.
Yup, you've hit the nail on the head. This is the absurdity of the internally contradictory position of the greens that they don't seem to realize. They bash nuclear, forcing everyone to use dirty power sources instead (since solar is still way too expensive). With nuclear power your electricity, buildings, infrastructure etc. have a virtually zero carbon footprint, but they force all infrastructure to have a high carbon footprint. Then they complain that the carbon footprint needs to be reduced with additional regulations that further raise costs and destroy jobs and limit what people can do. Then they try force cars to be electric, which raises the demand on the very power supply that they've forced to be dirty, thereby polluting the environment. Funny thing is, in Germany, taxpayers have been forced to foot the bill for large amounts of solar infrastructure... if you drive around Germany you see solar panels all over the place... due to tax rebates etc. Of course, it's nowhere near enough, but at least it makes it look like they're doing something. Germany doesn't even get much sun, relatively speaking.
Yes, governments never manipulate people for financial gain or power, and aren't much bigger and more powerful than evil corporations. The left-wing parrots on/. spewing blind anti-corporate propaganda are getting tiresome.
Wouldn't it just be better to keep tightening the emissions requirements on new cars until only electric cars qualify?
Electric cars aren't emission-free. They're only as clean as the power source used to generate the electricity used to charge them, e.g. typically coal, which is filthy. Solar is still about three times the price of coal, while everyone's scared of nuclear even though it's both relatively cheap and very clean. Incidentally, it's not clear if pure electric cars are even the way of the future; hydrogen-fueled may turn out to be - with current tech it has many advantages over electric, e.g. further range, fast 'recharging' (as it's just re-fueling). Producing the hydrogen, again, is only as clean as the power source used originally - but that's the same problem as with electric.
Ironically, Simpsons used to be the original edgy modernist sanctity-busting nihilist parody show, and SouthPark seemed like a bit of a clone. Now the Simpsons is becoming sanitized. At least other shows are willing to pick up the baton of sacred-cow-bashing.
Not all advantages are automatically unfair, I'd say this one is fair.
- HFT trading helps to attain market equilibrium faster (i.e. new "information" is fed into market prices faster), which means price signals will be more accurate at any given time for ALL traders. This is a benefit to EVERY investor, except those who were wishing it was the old days and they could still take advantage of market disequilibrium at minute/hour/day scale - which by your definition, was then also an "unfair advantage" in and of itself, just on a different scale.
- HFT is available to every single investor by just using one of the many firms that utilize the technique. This means EVERYONE's money, on average, is safer and everyone gets slightly better returns.
The only people who can really complain, are those who used to take advantage of market disequilibrium on older slower technologies --- which was exactly the same "bad" practice, just slower (if it's "bad" at sub-second levels, the exact same thing at minute or hour levels was surely also "bad"? I don't think it's "bad" though.).
I run a business, but when my competition figures out how to do something better/faster, I don't whine that they have an "unfair advantage", I up my game or adapt my business model, I don't whine about "unfair advantages" and claim that doing what I do better and more efficiently is a form of "theft" from me based on my sales drying up. Boo hoo to the slow-traders, but if your trading product is the equivalent of buggy whips, it's time to adapt or move on.
Minor point, you mistakenly put the "violent crime" rate instead of the murder rate. 19.67 per 1000 would indeed be enormous, for a murder rate. But other than, of course you are completely correct..
Slashdot Mirror
You're welcome to live in a country like where I am from, with socialist/government-protected telecomms, where 3GB caps are the norm and the average speed is 384Kbits/s for only 3 times the price of the average US ADSL connection, and you will see how fantastic that works. And you think they don't profiteer? Of course they do.
You describe something that isn't a Libertarian system at all, and then use that as an argument to bash down Libertarianism. A company "using legislating to regulate in favor of itself" is the precise opposite of Libertarianism. Libertarians don't believe in "no regulation", they precisely believe in enough regulation to bar companies from abusing state power for their gain (which is called "corporatism"). You don't even know the most incredibly basic facts about what Libertarianism is but you still bash it down. Are you really confusing "pro-free-market" with "pro-corporatism"? They are opposites. Or are you just trolling.
Companies abusing state power for their benefit is also not unique to western corporatism, it happens under every single system - communism, socialism, you name it. In fact, Libertarianism is the only system in which this would specifically be formally disallowed. You use the word "regulation" as if every type of "regulation" is equivalent. There are different types of regulation. Your posting is confused on so many levels it's difficult to know where to begin to unwind the multiple levels of cluelessness.
Pi is 'wrong' ... http://tauday.com/
Unlike the Democrats, right, who are totally busy solving that deficit problem? US seems to be screwed either which way.
I don't know, chess has a reputation of being the board game for the intelligentsia. If that were they case why are well known chess masters also not polymaths, CEOs, and world famous research scientists?
Because that's a question of resources and motivation. Firstly, to become 'world-leading anything' requires massive amounts of time. The greatest chess-masters practice most the day, every day. The greatest research scientists "practice" most the day, every day. It's almost impossible to become both, but that doesn't mean you aren't capable of becoming either, with sufficient practice. Secondly, to get that good requires intrinsic motivation. The best chess masters love chess. The best research scientists love doing research.
Most of the 'best' just-about-anything-brain-related I can think of that I know, also played and enjoyed chess.
Yup, seriously, if there is just one thing schools should be doing (the one thing they're supposed to be doing but seem to mostly avoid), it's teaching how to think. Chess would definitely be a valuable addition to a proper education.
Mr. Fork also seems to imply that private companies do not have an incentive to engineer for safety. As if it is somehow more profitable for a private company if their nuclear reactors explode!??!? On the contrary, they have a very strong financial incentive to engineer for safety. Governments, on the other hand, don't actually have to worry about share prices and profits dropping if a publicly run reactor explodes, it doesn't impact their 'bottom line' at all, they just keep going and hand the bill to the taxpayer.
TEPCO wasn't well-run, but the Fukushima disaster wasn't ultimately caused by a private company taking shortcuts, and to state that is a complete fiction - in case Mr Fork missed it, it was caused by a massive magnitude 9.0 earthquake followed by an unprecedented tsunami slamming into the plant. In fact, they were compliant with government safety regulations - did government force them to build a bigger tsunami wall? No. And yet that was ALL they would have had to do.
Way to interject your agenda here, thanks, but no, this has nothing to do with it. And here's a question for you comrade, about this so-called evil "capitalism" with its so-called "core fault" - would it not be the case that corporations would be under less pressure to 'cut costs' if they weren't under such incredibly heavy pressure from 'big government taxation'? Let corporations keep a bit more of their money and they will have more money to spend engineering for safety, that is simple logic.
Is it just me or are the European Solar lobbies crazy powerful. Look at what's happening Germany now as an extreme case - they're talking about shutting down all nuclear entirely. And ah, there's always the good ol' reliable taxpayer to foot the massive bills coming their way. I'm sorry but there is no way this is happening spontaneously without some sort of manipulation from solar lobbies.
I strongly believe we know how to set up technical systems for safe nuclear power. However I'm extremely sceptical of the idea that we know how to set up social / administrative systems for safe nuclear power.
I agree. The tech behind nuclear power is potentially very safe. Humans, on the other hand, remain the weakest link. We're just not evolved enough for this.
- the 10-meter tsunami was the unforeseen circumstance.
And yet many of the towns along that coastline with tsunami walls, had 10-meter tsunami walls (while Fukushima's were 6 meters). Clearly many other planners had 'foreseen' a risk of 10m tsunamis.
Well done then. "I don't even use Facebook" is the new "I don't even own a TV".
Other than to 'keep people scared', why not use this for something that does actually have a reasonable chance of occurring and affecting a lot of people, e.g. a tsunami alert system or something.
The slashdot crowd is mostly pretty far left, that's why.
Maybe not the Constitution, but the Declaration of Independence specifically states that governments derive their just powers 'only from the consent of the governed', and that "whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government". I know you spoke in jest, and in this case the guy appears to be a loon, but as far out as it might seem to many of us, there does have to be a way for a people to deal with 'bad government', in principle.
There is a point where waiting for people to do the right thing on their own is not safe or wise.
Perhaps, but this isn't one of those times, unless you are being hysterically irrational and think the sky is falling. It isn't.
Did you just somehow equate, with a complete non sequitur, clean energy sources with defending our homelands from intruders? WTF?
And besides, there is a market demand for cleaner energy sources, so it will happen. The technology is just too expensive still. Destroying jobs by using worse technology doesn't actually help you defend your homeland from intruders, it makes it harder, because the cost of defense is borne by economic activity.
Yup, you've hit the nail on the head. This is the absurdity of the internally contradictory position of the greens that they don't seem to realize. They bash nuclear, forcing everyone to use dirty power sources instead (since solar is still way too expensive). With nuclear power your electricity, buildings, infrastructure etc. have a virtually zero carbon footprint, but they force all infrastructure to have a high carbon footprint. Then they complain that the carbon footprint needs to be reduced with additional regulations that further raise costs and destroy jobs and limit what people can do. Then they try force cars to be electric, which raises the demand on the very power supply that they've forced to be dirty, thereby polluting the environment. Funny thing is, in Germany, taxpayers have been forced to foot the bill for large amounts of solar infrastructure ... if you drive around Germany you see solar panels all over the place ... due to tax rebates etc. Of course, it's nowhere near enough, but at least it makes it look like they're doing something. Germany doesn't even get much sun, relatively speaking.
Pharmaceuticals generally break down in the environment, mercury doesn't. This makes mercury a far bigger problem.
Yes, governments never manipulate people for financial gain or power, and aren't much bigger and more powerful than evil corporations. The left-wing parrots on /. spewing blind anti-corporate propaganda are getting tiresome.
Wouldn't it just be better to keep tightening the emissions requirements on new cars until only electric cars qualify?
Electric cars aren't emission-free. They're only as clean as the power source used to generate the electricity used to charge them, e.g. typically coal, which is filthy. Solar is still about three times the price of coal, while everyone's scared of nuclear even though it's both relatively cheap and very clean. Incidentally, it's not clear if pure electric cars are even the way of the future; hydrogen-fueled may turn out to be - with current tech it has many advantages over electric, e.g. further range, fast 'recharging' (as it's just re-fueling). Producing the hydrogen, again, is only as clean as the power source used originally - but that's the same problem as with electric.
Ironically, Simpsons used to be the original edgy modernist sanctity-busting nihilist parody show, and SouthPark seemed like a bit of a clone. Now the Simpsons is becoming sanitized. At least other shows are willing to pick up the baton of sacred-cow-bashing.
So instead of being sucked out, the secretary will just be slammed against a screen? You're right, that sounds quite acceptable.
It's the same thing, really. If people cared about the truth, they would pay i.e. spend in the direction of organizations that told them the truth.
Not all advantages are automatically unfair, I'd say this one is fair.
- HFT trading helps to attain market equilibrium faster (i.e. new "information" is fed into market prices faster), which means price signals will be more accurate at any given time for ALL traders. This is a benefit to EVERY investor, except those who were wishing it was the old days and they could still take advantage of market disequilibrium at minute/hour/day scale - which by your definition, was then also an "unfair advantage" in and of itself, just on a different scale.
- HFT is available to every single investor by just using one of the many firms that utilize the technique. This means EVERYONE's money, on average, is safer and everyone gets slightly better returns.
The only people who can really complain, are those who used to take advantage of market disequilibrium on older slower technologies --- which was exactly the same "bad" practice, just slower (if it's "bad" at sub-second levels, the exact same thing at minute or hour levels was surely also "bad"? I don't think it's "bad" though.).
I run a business, but when my competition figures out how to do something better/faster, I don't whine that they have an "unfair advantage", I up my game or adapt my business model, I don't whine about "unfair advantages" and claim that doing what I do better and more efficiently is a form of "theft" from me based on my sales drying up. Boo hoo to the slow-traders, but if your trading product is the equivalent of buggy whips, it's time to adapt or move on.
Minor point, you mistakenly put the "violent crime" rate instead of the murder rate. 19.67 per 1000 would indeed be enormous, for a murder rate. But other than, of course you are completely correct..