If they're actually taking people's money as a fee (rather than a charitable donation) when they have no launcher no lander no habitat no nothing, they're selling snake oil.
They take $5-$75 (depending on how well-off your home country is), and they have tens of thousands of applications. You have to be a total moron to mistake that for anything other than a donation to the project. Phrasing it as an "application" makes it more personal and is a good marketing gimmick.
I have no illusions about Mars One. But I think it's time to explicitly tell NASA to stop wasting money on manned space travel and stick to launching climate satellites and space telescopes and robotic interplanetary missions, something they have had some success at; even there, they need to become much more efficient.
Politics aside, how is it that republicans want to fuck over everyone but the privileged and corporate, yet get such widespread support from the people who will suffer most from their policies?
How, after ACA and the bailouts and stimulus programs, can anybody with any sense believe that Obama is one of the biggest corporate cronies in recent US history?
To answer your question: a large number of Americans aren't as blind and dumb partisans as you and have figured out that politicians in both parties "want to fuck over everyone but the privileged and corporate", and that one needs to pick and choose the best candidate on a case-by-case basis.
Yeah, but who's doing the lobbying? Regulation by the Obama administration turns out to be a windfall for companies. Health care companies have done very well since Obamacare.
It's really quite brilliant: selling corporate welfare and rent seeking as some kind of "getting tough on companies".
There is little difference between dial up and broadband internet access.
Yes, and landline service has become a lot better since it got partially deregulated.
When I buy internet, I expect to get the full speed I contracted for, without regard to whomever I am connecting to at the other end.
What you "contracted for" is spelled out in your contract, and that contract is for unreliable, unpredictable service with a maximum speed.
What you actually want is business-grade service at consumer-grade prices, and to get that you want to use government to change the terms of the contract unilaterally in your benefit. The net result is that high-end users (presumably like yourself) end up getting subsidized by low-end users. Don't try to dress up such selfishness as doing good for others.
Well, of course, that analogy has nothing to do with reality.
In both Germany and in the US, surveillance and invasions of privacy by the government are widespread now. In Germany, they are legal and voters are ignorant and apathetic about it. In the US, they are illegal and people are pissed off about it.
Oh, goodie, let's apply your reasoning to another kind of offense, say, murder. What you are saying is that a society in which murder is illegal but is occasionally not prosecuted due to corrupt prosecutors is worse than a society in which murder is legal, commonly committed, and nobody cares. Sorry, but I think you got it backwards.
It's quite difficult to have less supervisions than the NSA and the CIA. Those are people who can lie to congress under oath, be found out, and still not pay ANY penalty.
It is quite easy to have less supervision. For example, state security agencies may not even have to report much to parliament; the executive and legislative branch may be colluding to maintain the status quo; or when they are found out, the press doesn't write about it and nobody cares. That's the situation in Germany.
Yes, what's going on in the US right now is bad, in large part due to massive abuse of power of this and the previous administrations. But the US at least stands a chance of addressing this because people here are widely pissed off and our legislators have enough teeth and independence from both parties and the president to change things once voters wake up to how important this is.
When you remove an apex predator, biodiversity crashes.
Of course it does. Biodiversity has "crashed" all over Europe. Over large areas of Western Europe, there are no large carnivores or wild herbivores anymore. You can go into a forest in Germany or France and know that the only creature that is going to be dangerous to you is H. sapiens. Most of the forests of Europe are a few, human-selected species, and so are orchards, meadows, and fields. Are Europeans dropping like flies as a result? Are they starving? Has Europe turned into a lifeless desert? Of course not. Europeans have some of the highest living standards in the world and there is virtually no hunger. (Biodiversity in the US is much larger, of course, which is something that's really nice about this country, but that's a historical accident of how we developed.)
(Of course the rich will be able to supplement, but I mean key to our own cheap survival).
You're absolutely right: the poor (i.e., people living in poor countries) are most affected by a loss of biodiversity, while the rich (i.e., people living in the US and Europe) are not affected at all by it. However, once countries are rich, they are then able to afford preservation of biodiversity and the environment. That's why the best strategy is to not interfere; if you impose environmental regulations too early, you risk economic stagnation, which prolongs the phase during which an industrialized nation is most polluting and most destructive to the environment.
But more importantly to me is the intellectual resource. Each species comes with it's unique proteins and biological processes. Losing them without studying them is a permanent loss to our knowledge, and future study is more likely to have useful results than current study, as our understanding of the biochemistry allows fuller understanding and so utilization of the processes observed.
That's all true: biodiversity is definitely desirable. But saying that we are "playing Russian Roulette" when you really mean "we might find some useful drugs and scientific results" is dishonest, and such dishonesty ultimately hurts the cause of biodiversity and environmental protection. Being a shrill advocate for the environment and biodiversity does not make you an effective advocate for the environment and biodiversity.
(I'm not going to bother to reply point-by-point to your other biology-related statements, other than to say that I find them ludicrous and completely out of touch with actual science.)
True; that's why I said we have a problem "with a government that has become too intrusive": we clearly do have a problem with enforcement. But what's your point? Enforcement in Germany is certainly no better than in the US; that is, the BND and BfV and similar organizations have even less supervision than the NSA and CIA do in the US. Most of the "enforcement" of data protection and privacy in Germany consists showy accusations against America and American businesses, largely driven by political and business motives.
Germany has "strict" privacy laws, but they largely apply to organizations that don't pose a big threat to privacy in the first place. Police, courts, financial institutions, businesses, tax authorities, secret service, "state police", health insurers, and employers can have a field day with your private data in Germany. The government can easily use telecoms and online services to access private data. This is a country where you must declare your religious affiliation to the government and that spies on democratically elected members of parliament as a matter of course. To the degree that it provides a refuge for Americans on no-fly-lists and under special scrutiny, that's just because it is a separate country; I think you can be pretty certain that as an American activist in Germany, you are closely scrutinized.
We clearly have serious problems with a government that has become far too intrusive and invasive in the US. But Europe has no good ideas for how to fix these problems, least of all countries like Germany.
But, hey, if you disagree, name some specific German laws that we could adopt in the US that you think would help, and explain how they would make a difference.
those with more liberal gun-control ideologies were more likely to downplay the frequency of violent home break-ins.
Ah, what a beautiful reversal of meaning: "liberal gun-control ideologies" is the new term for "restrictive gun-control ideologies". I think that tells you pretty much all you need to know about this "study".
Yep, that same way having an unregistered gun means you are a murder.
You know, with idiots like you attacking people who are actually pro-liberty and think that the current state of affair sucks, it is hardly surprising that we aren't making any progress.
In different words, if you want to know why having an unregistered gun gets people in trouble, it's because people like you like to whine and complain instead of figuring out smart strategies for doing something about it.
I don't thing there's going to be any kind of fundamental change in capitalism.
Well, there is a change in the sense that these businesses make rent seeking harder. That is, it forces companies to compete in the market (true capitalism) vs running to government to ask for handouts or favorable treatment (crony "capitalism").
A decentralized free market like that is good for many reasons. The way to get something like that established is to focus on uncontroversial business. If it primarily becomes a tool for illegal dealings, merely having the software on your computer might be construed by courts as evidence of illegal activity.
Right. It's capitalism when it's good, it's not capitalism when it inevitably becomes bad doing the exact same things.
It's capitalism when investors bear risks, reap the rewards, and have to deal with the consequences of bad investments. Sometimes that is "good", sometimes that is "bad". It increases volatility and inequality, but it also increases wealth for everybody.
It's not capitalism when government assumes the risk of big corporations and banks through regulation or bailouts. The current administration has been particularly hypocritical in using attacks on capitalism to justify handing out money to big businesses. That kind of hypocrisy is a long-standing trait among progressives, and it is one reason progressivism is so evil.
See, the part you don't get is that you have a choice between growth and inequality on the one hand (capitalism), or corruption and poor economic performance on the other (progressivism). Anybody who promises you the benefits of capitalism without the costs is a liar and a fraud.
The people whose money was lost were bank customers,
If my bank makes a bad loan, I don't lose any money; the amount in my account stays the same. The bank may have to reduce interest payments, but that's not a loss: I simply switch to a different bank.
when it comes to finding a honest bank to handle your finances, the average capital owner is not exactly spoiled for choice these days
If you let a bank "handle your finances" you're a bloody fool anyway; most banks don't even pay enough to cover inflation. Banks are for handling financial transactions, not for savings.
Except that, of course, in modern capitalism banks are too big to fail and take these risks because they know it's not their own money that's at stake, but that of tax payers.
That's not capitalism; that's progressivism and financial regulation; it's what Democrats preach, and both Democrats and Republicans practice.
Hence my point: let banks eat their losses and let the market take care of this.
It seems to me that the auditors, who passed the company accounts as being "true" should be held liable - and then get punished for negligence.
They should, if the banks hired auditors that made such a guarantee and paid accordingly. The banks should also have the option of hiring auditors that don't make such guarantees, pay less for the audits, and assume the risk themselves.
The point is: this kind of risk management is up to the banks. Tax payers shouldn't have to pay for either bailing out the banks or making their risk management cheaper or easier.
Not a dime of it should come from anybody that wasn't directly involved in the fraud.
That's my point: there is no money there; it's gone.
They are entitled to get their money back, per the contract that was signed. All debtors of the company have the same entitlement to get their contractually obligated money back.
Actually, none of that is true either (in addition your misuse of "debtor"). You aren't always entitled to get your money back under a contract, and creditors have different priorities.
The world sure would seem more just if the banks suffered more, right? Unfortunately, it's not that simple.
Are you daft or something? Nowhere did I say that the banks shouldn't be able to recover money from the perpetrators of the fraud. But that money is gone. That's why they need to eat the $3b loss themselves.
And lastly, how would you feel if the same logic got applied to every other fraud victim? Do you find it just as easy to say that the victims of Bernie Madoff "should" have known that something was suspicious, and that those investors took a foolish risk and should suffer the consequences?
The logic should very much be applied to the victims of Bernie Madoff. In fact, unlike the banks, which suffered from a simple case of fraud, Bernie Madoff's victims were simply greedy.
Why should these fraud victims (and make no mistake, the banks are fraud victims in this case, according to statements from at least one Moneual's own managers) be treated differently just because you don't like them?
They shouldn't be treated differently. In all cases, you should be able to recover from a company whatever is left. However, usually there isn't anything left, which is why investors and banks who make foolish decisions get stuck with the losses.
It's indeed "capitalism done right" if the banks don't get their money back: the people who were careless get punished automatically by the market. The nice thing about that is that the punishment is automatic and appropriate: you make a bad decision, you lose your money.
In non-capitalist systems, the people investing in fraudulent companies use other people's money, so they don't get punished automatically. Here's an example of how that works: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3...
The questions now turn to how this practice was allowed to continue unnoticed for so long and how the banks will go about getting their near $3 billion back.
They shouldn't be getting their $3 billion back: they took a foolish risk and need to suffer the consequences.
Slashdot Mirror
They take $5-$75 (depending on how well-off your home country is), and they have tens of thousands of applications. You have to be a total moron to mistake that for anything other than a donation to the project. Phrasing it as an "application" makes it more personal and is a good marketing gimmick.
I have no illusions about Mars One. But I think it's time to explicitly tell NASA to stop wasting money on manned space travel and stick to launching climate satellites and space telescopes and robotic interplanetary missions, something they have had some success at; even there, they need to become much more efficient.
How, after ACA and the bailouts and stimulus programs, can anybody with any sense believe that Obama is one of the biggest corporate cronies in recent US history?
To answer your question: a large number of Americans aren't as blind and dumb partisans as you and have figured out that politicians in both parties "want to fuck over everyone but the privileged and corporate", and that one needs to pick and choose the best candidate on a case-by-case basis.
Yeah, but who's doing the lobbying? Regulation by the Obama administration turns out to be a windfall for companies. Health care companies have done very well since Obamacare.
It's really quite brilliant: selling corporate welfare and rent seeking as some kind of "getting tough on companies".
Yes, and landline service has become a lot better since it got partially deregulated.
What you "contracted for" is spelled out in your contract, and that contract is for unreliable, unpredictable service with a maximum speed.
What you actually want is business-grade service at consumer-grade prices, and to get that you want to use government to change the terms of the contract unilaterally in your benefit. The net result is that high-end users (presumably like yourself) end up getting subsidized by low-end users. Don't try to dress up such selfishness as doing good for others.
Well, of course, that analogy has nothing to do with reality.
In both Germany and in the US, surveillance and invasions of privacy by the government are widespread now. In Germany, they are legal and voters are ignorant and apathetic about it. In the US, they are illegal and people are pissed off about it.
Oh, goodie, let's apply your reasoning to another kind of offense, say, murder. What you are saying is that a society in which murder is illegal but is occasionally not prosecuted due to corrupt prosecutors is worse than a society in which murder is legal, commonly committed, and nobody cares. Sorry, but I think you got it backwards.
It is quite easy to have less supervision. For example, state security agencies may not even have to report much to parliament; the executive and legislative branch may be colluding to maintain the status quo; or when they are found out, the press doesn't write about it and nobody cares. That's the situation in Germany.
Yes, what's going on in the US right now is bad, in large part due to massive abuse of power of this and the previous administrations. But the US at least stands a chance of addressing this because people here are widely pissed off and our legislators have enough teeth and independence from both parties and the president to change things once voters wake up to how important this is.
Of course it does. Biodiversity has "crashed" all over Europe. Over large areas of Western Europe, there are no large carnivores or wild herbivores anymore. You can go into a forest in Germany or France and know that the only creature that is going to be dangerous to you is H. sapiens. Most of the forests of Europe are a few, human-selected species, and so are orchards, meadows, and fields. Are Europeans dropping like flies as a result? Are they starving? Has Europe turned into a lifeless desert? Of course not. Europeans have some of the highest living standards in the world and there is virtually no hunger. (Biodiversity in the US is much larger, of course, which is something that's really nice about this country, but that's a historical accident of how we developed.)
You're absolutely right: the poor (i.e., people living in poor countries) are most affected by a loss of biodiversity, while the rich (i.e., people living in the US and Europe) are not affected at all by it. However, once countries are rich, they are then able to afford preservation of biodiversity and the environment. That's why the best strategy is to not interfere; if you impose environmental regulations too early, you risk economic stagnation, which prolongs the phase during which an industrialized nation is most polluting and most destructive to the environment.
That's all true: biodiversity is definitely desirable. But saying that we are "playing Russian Roulette" when you really mean "we might find some useful drugs and scientific results" is dishonest, and such dishonesty ultimately hurts the cause of biodiversity and environmental protection. Being a shrill advocate for the environment and biodiversity does not make you an effective advocate for the environment and biodiversity.
(I'm not going to bother to reply point-by-point to your other biology-related statements, other than to say that I find them ludicrous and completely out of touch with actual science.)
True; that's why I said we have a problem "with a government that has become too intrusive": we clearly do have a problem with enforcement. But what's your point? Enforcement in Germany is certainly no better than in the US; that is, the BND and BfV and similar organizations have even less supervision than the NSA and CIA do in the US. Most of the "enforcement" of data protection and privacy in Germany consists showy accusations against America and American businesses, largely driven by political and business motives.
Germany has "strict" privacy laws, but they largely apply to organizations that don't pose a big threat to privacy in the first place. Police, courts, financial institutions, businesses, tax authorities, secret service, "state police", health insurers, and employers can have a field day with your private data in Germany. The government can easily use telecoms and online services to access private data. This is a country where you must declare your religious affiliation to the government and that spies on democratically elected members of parliament as a matter of course. To the degree that it provides a refuge for Americans on no-fly-lists and under special scrutiny, that's just because it is a separate country; I think you can be pretty certain that as an American activist in Germany, you are closely scrutinized.
We clearly have serious problems with a government that has become far too intrusive and invasive in the US. But Europe has no good ideas for how to fix these problems, least of all countries like Germany.
But, hey, if you disagree, name some specific German laws that we could adopt in the US that you think would help, and explain how they would make a difference.
Ah, what a beautiful reversal of meaning: "liberal gun-control ideologies" is the new term for "restrictive gun-control ideologies". I think that tells you pretty much all you need to know about this "study".
Between the high housing costs, traffic jams, and dysfunctional politics, I think many people are looking to leave the Bay Area.
You know, with idiots like you attacking people who are actually pro-liberty and think that the current state of affair sucks, it is hardly surprising that we aren't making any progress.
In different words, if you want to know why having an unregistered gun gets people in trouble, it's because people like you like to whine and complain instead of figuring out smart strategies for doing something about it.
Well, there is a change in the sense that these businesses make rent seeking harder. That is, it forces companies to compete in the market (true capitalism) vs running to government to ask for handouts or favorable treatment (crony "capitalism").
A decentralized free market like that is good for many reasons. The way to get something like that established is to focus on uncontroversial business. If it primarily becomes a tool for illegal dealings, merely having the software on your computer might be construed by courts as evidence of illegal activity.
It's capitalism when investors bear risks, reap the rewards, and have to deal with the consequences of bad investments. Sometimes that is "good", sometimes that is "bad". It increases volatility and inequality, but it also increases wealth for everybody.
It's not capitalism when government assumes the risk of big corporations and banks through regulation or bailouts. The current administration has been particularly hypocritical in using attacks on capitalism to justify handing out money to big businesses. That kind of hypocrisy is a long-standing trait among progressives, and it is one reason progressivism is so evil.
See, the part you don't get is that you have a choice between growth and inequality on the one hand (capitalism), or corruption and poor economic performance on the other (progressivism). Anybody who promises you the benefits of capitalism without the costs is a liar and a fraud.
If my bank makes a bad loan, I don't lose any money; the amount in my account stays the same. The bank may have to reduce interest payments, but that's not a loss: I simply switch to a different bank.
If you let a bank "handle your finances" you're a bloody fool anyway; most banks don't even pay enough to cover inflation. Banks are for handling financial transactions, not for savings.
That's not capitalism; that's progressivism and financial regulation; it's what Democrats preach, and both Democrats and Republicans practice.
Hence my point: let banks eat their losses and let the market take care of this.
But well obfuscated indeed.
They should, if the banks hired auditors that made such a guarantee and paid accordingly. The banks should also have the option of hiring auditors that don't make such guarantees, pay less for the audits, and assume the risk themselves.
The point is: this kind of risk management is up to the banks. Tax payers shouldn't have to pay for either bailing out the banks or making their risk management cheaper or easier.
That's my point: there is no money there; it's gone.
Actually, none of that is true either (in addition your misuse of "debtor"). You aren't always entitled to get your money back under a contract, and creditors have different priorities.
Are you daft or something? Nowhere did I say that the banks shouldn't be able to recover money from the perpetrators of the fraud. But that money is gone. That's why they need to eat the $3b loss themselves.
The logic should very much be applied to the victims of Bernie Madoff. In fact, unlike the banks, which suffered from a simple case of fraud, Bernie Madoff's victims were simply greedy.
They shouldn't be treated differently. In all cases, you should be able to recover from a company whatever is left. However, usually there isn't anything left, which is why investors and banks who make foolish decisions get stuck with the losses.
Correct.
False, because those customers will switch to another bank if they are not getting a good deal.
It's indeed "capitalism done right" if the banks don't get their money back: the people who were careless get punished automatically by the market. The nice thing about that is that the punishment is automatic and appropriate: you make a bad decision, you lose your money.
In non-capitalist systems, the people investing in fraudulent companies use other people's money, so they don't get punished automatically. Here's an example of how that works: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3...
They shouldn't be getting their $3 billion back: they took a foolish risk and need to suffer the consequences.