The US literally kills and helps kill people in order to determine who is in power in other countries. Releasing the hacked emails of a corrupt politician is hardly an evil thing to do.
And ultimately, ballots are cast by US citizens, not foreign governments.
The postal service is a monopoly. Companies are not allowed to compete with it in the business of delivering mail. The USPS was long used as a tool of censorship and political patronage. It was long a burden on taxpayers, and today it has to borrow billions just to stay open (yes, even without having to prefund retirement benefits, it would have still lost $10 billion over the last 7 years).
Children don't get an education at public schools. They get bullied and treated like prisoners at public school. They have their natural love of learning destroyed, and their self-confidence undermined at public schools. When they get an education, it's in spite of public school, not because of it.
The roads are dangerous and the government refuses to be held accountable for the tens of thousands of people who die on its roads every year. The police are brutally violent racists. The military slaughters civilians on a massive scale. Yay socialism!
government is the last defense of the people against the megacorps turning everything into virtual slaves.
Government? The same institution that is gunning-down unarmed black men in the streets? The same institution that bails-out mega banks when they screw up and lose billions of dollars? The same institution that drops bombs on wedding parties, schools, and hospitals? The same institution that waged war against the people of Iraq in the name of blatant lies? The same institution that spies on every single phone call we make, every single internet message we send, every single website we visit, every single financial transaction we make? The same institution that steals people's homes to give to big companies to demolish and build over? The same institution that keeps native americans living in abject poverty? The same institution that forces immigrants to attempt dangerous border crossings, and subject themselves to employment abuses just so they can make some money to send home to their families?
That's who you think is going to protect us?
The government does many things better than the free markets.
Such as dropping bombs on women and children, oppressing racial minorities, excluding competition from the market, bailing out losers...
Pretty much in every area where the objective isnt to abuse and wring money out of people.
You must live in a world without taxes and monetary inflation.
is because the free market doesnt work when there are extreme startup costs.
What's your evidence for this? There is a growing number of private local ISP startups bringing broadband to underserved areas. There's Google, choosing to get into the ISP business, bringing gbps broadband to an increasing number of cities. There are companies that have IPOs that bring in billions in capitalization. Startup costs are not anywhere close to being an insurmountable obstacle.
If it relies on fins, those would need to be mounted on part of the bullet that doesn't spin as a result of the rifling.
If the entire bullet doesn't spin, are the fins enough to keep the bullet stabilized?
The government:
Stole mountains of money from the private sector, which was then unavailable to the private sector for use in technology investment.
Used that wealth to hire scientists and researchers, making them unavailable for the private sector.
Enforced regulations that impeded technological and telecom innovation.
And did all of this in an attempt to make a small group of elites even wealthier, and to improve its capability to kill hundreds of millions of people in other countries.
No one had even heard of the internet until the government relinquished control over it, and no one in the government foresaw what it would become.
But yes, we should trust the government to have greater control, and credit the government for doing this wonderful thing, because without it, there's no way anyone would've thought to link one network to another...
The cost of duplicating an existing car includes cost of raw materials, machinery and labor. And I just want to pay for that only, not the other design and other IP costs, or marketing/advertising.
You mean if you want to build your own Ferrari, according to the same specs, and even attaching the Ferrari badge to it? That's fine. Patent and trademark are no more sensible than copyright. Don't go selling it to someone on the basis that it was manufactured in Maranello by the company Enzo Ferrari founded in 1929, though. That would be fraud (the claim against you would be by the buyer, not Ferrari.)
Raw material cost: paid
Machinery rent cost: paid
Labor cost: paid
IP cost: not paid
Marketing/Advertising/Branding: not paid
I'm not sure what you mean by "IP Costs," and I consider marketing/branding to be part of "labor + materials" broadly defined.
Right, and you think song makers should bother creating new music if you're just going pay them $10 and distribute it to millions for free?
Their motivation is irrelevant. If song makers want to get paid, let them do so with an ethically defensible business model. "I want to control the property of other people so they have to give me money," is not a valid argument.
If you steal a car, you're depriving someone of a car. You're not taking $(labor + materials). If the value of a car to its makers were merely equivalent to labor + materials, the maker wouldn't have bothered making the car in the first place. The act of production was undertaken because the output is greater than the input.
It's your hobby, or it's your job. That's all. People have always made things. You're not bringing about any sort of social change. Your prototype looks ridiculous, and everyone is laughing at you.
You are paying for the benefit of listening to music, the cost to deliver the goods to you is only marginally important. If a song benefits 1 million listeners, the listeners need to pay, it's that simple.
Whether you derive a benefit from something has no logical bearing on whether or not you should compensate someone for it.
My neighbor keeps his yard nice. I derive benefits from this. I enjoy looking at it. It makes my own property more appealing to others as well. Yet in no way can my neighbor rightfully claim I owe him so much as a cent for the improvements he's made to his property.
From a purely ethical standpoint, you owe someone money only as an agreed-upon condition of exchange, or as compensation for other proven damages. That's it.
When I download music and movies, I'm not agreeing to anything with the copyright holder, and I'm also not causing them damages, because they're not being deprived of anything that belongs to them. My possession of a copy of the music does not deprive them of their possession of a copy of the music, nor of their ability to perform that music.
Slashdot Mirror
The US literally kills and helps kill people in order to determine who is in power in other countries. Releasing the hacked emails of a corrupt politician is hardly an evil thing to do. And ultimately, ballots are cast by US citizens, not foreign governments.
Google is providing actual competition. Small companies do as well.
But government - having the power to violenty coerce anyone and everyone into compliance - is far less susceptible to greed, right?
The postal service is a monopoly. Companies are not allowed to compete with it in the business of delivering mail. The USPS was long used as a tool of censorship and political patronage. It was long a burden on taxpayers, and today it has to borrow billions just to stay open (yes, even without having to prefund retirement benefits, it would have still lost $10 billion over the last 7 years). Children don't get an education at public schools. They get bullied and treated like prisoners at public school. They have their natural love of learning destroyed, and their self-confidence undermined at public schools. When they get an education, it's in spite of public school, not because of it.
You might also be shocked to learn that there are many places where people have to drive an hour or more to get to an indoor shopping mall!
The roads are dangerous and the government refuses to be held accountable for the tens of thousands of people who die on its roads every year. The police are brutally violent racists. The military slaughters civilians on a massive scale. Yay socialism!
government is the last defense of the people against the megacorps turning everything into virtual slaves.
Government? The same institution that is gunning-down unarmed black men in the streets? The same institution that bails-out mega banks when they screw up and lose billions of dollars? The same institution that drops bombs on wedding parties, schools, and hospitals? The same institution that waged war against the people of Iraq in the name of blatant lies? The same institution that spies on every single phone call we make, every single internet message we send, every single website we visit, every single financial transaction we make? The same institution that steals people's homes to give to big companies to demolish and build over? The same institution that keeps native americans living in abject poverty? The same institution that forces immigrants to attempt dangerous border crossings, and subject themselves to employment abuses just so they can make some money to send home to their families? That's who you think is going to protect us?
The government does many things better than the free markets.
Such as dropping bombs on women and children, oppressing racial minorities, excluding competition from the market, bailing out losers...
Pretty much in every area where the objective isnt to abuse and wring money out of people.
You must live in a world without taxes and monetary inflation.
is because the free market doesnt work when there are extreme startup costs.
What's your evidence for this? There is a growing number of private local ISP startups bringing broadband to underserved areas. There's Google, choosing to get into the ISP business, bringing gbps broadband to an increasing number of cities. There are companies that have IPOs that bring in billions in capitalization. Startup costs are not anywhere close to being an insurmountable obstacle.
If it relies on fins, those would need to be mounted on part of the bullet that doesn't spin as a result of the rifling. If the entire bullet doesn't spin, are the fins enough to keep the bullet stabilized?
It will be interesting to see if this system can grow and mature to make a substantial dent in the market shares of FedEx and UPS.
All creative work is in some way derivative of something created by someone else.
So he briefly offered something for sale. And he also bought and sold some things. And that's illegal.
We should get rid of him, his, and she, and just go with he, her, hers.
If freedom doesn't apply in economic matters, then there is no freedom at all. All action is inherently economic in nature.
No one had even heard of the internet until the government relinquished control over it, and no one in the government foresaw what it would become.
But yes, we should trust the government to have greater control, and credit the government for doing this wonderful thing, because without it, there's no way anyone would've thought to link one network to another...
The cost of duplicating an existing car includes cost of raw materials, machinery and labor. And I just want to pay for that only, not the other design and other IP costs, or marketing/advertising.
You mean if you want to build your own Ferrari, according to the same specs, and even attaching the Ferrari badge to it? That's fine. Patent and trademark are no more sensible than copyright. Don't go selling it to someone on the basis that it was manufactured in Maranello by the company Enzo Ferrari founded in 1929, though. That would be fraud (the claim against you would be by the buyer, not Ferrari.)
Raw material cost: paid Machinery rent cost: paid Labor cost: paid IP cost: not paid Marketing/Advertising/Branding: not paid
I'm not sure what you mean by "IP Costs," and I consider marketing/branding to be part of "labor + materials" broadly defined.
Right, and you think song makers should bother creating new music if you're just going pay them $10 and distribute it to millions for free?
Their motivation is irrelevant. If song makers want to get paid, let them do so with an ethically defensible business model. "I want to control the property of other people so they have to give me money," is not a valid argument.
If you steal a car, you're depriving someone of a car. You're not taking $(labor + materials). If the value of a car to its makers were merely equivalent to labor + materials, the maker wouldn't have bothered making the car in the first place. The act of production was undertaken because the output is greater than the input.
It's your hobby, or it's your job. That's all. People have always made things. You're not bringing about any sort of social change. Your prototype looks ridiculous, and everyone is laughing at you.
Not if you drop it down a very deep hole.
Whether you derive a benefit from something has no logical bearing on whether or not you should compensate someone for it. My neighbor keeps his yard nice. I derive benefits from this. I enjoy looking at it. It makes my own property more appealing to others as well. Yet in no way can my neighbor rightfully claim I owe him so much as a cent for the improvements he's made to his property. From a purely ethical standpoint, you owe someone money only as an agreed-upon condition of exchange, or as compensation for other proven damages. That's it. When I download music and movies, I'm not agreeing to anything with the copyright holder, and I'm also not causing them damages, because they're not being deprived of anything that belongs to them. My possession of a copy of the music does not deprive them of their possession of a copy of the music, nor of their ability to perform that music.