We don't kill every person in a Keffiyeh (analogous to your reference of a southern drawl), just those associating with Al-Qeda (analoguous to shooting northwards).
No, those associating with Al-Qaeda would be like farmers who were southern sympathizers. They didn't fight, but merely provided supplies and shelter to the Confederates. I think it was considered impolite to kill those farmers a couple weeks after they gave Confederate soldiers a meal and a place to sleep. Caught in the act, or the next day, might have been arguable. Some people would even call that an "imminent danger".
Student's work is produced by minors where the school is 'in loco parentis' so their work would become school property to protect them from exploitation by adults, plagiarists and commercial interests.
School administrators (puiblic or private) have a legal 'duty of care' to children. They won't stop parents from taking their kids to modeling agencies or auditions but if they produce something in school, say their major artwork for the matriculation exam, the school can arrange a professional exhibition and prevent students from beign ripped off.
So, why on earth would this be property of the school, and not property of the student, or at most held in trust for the student? How does assigning the property right to another entity protect the rights of the child? It just sounds like they can get screwed over by the school board rather than by their parents, where at least presumably they would enjoy some of the benefits of the increased income to the household.
Actually, "Communism did not work" argument is a bit of a stretch since the "Communism" did not attempt to be what it claimed to be. State ownership is still private property as far as the communist argument goes, since communism is not simply against the personal ownership of things, but the use of production facilities for non-collective benefit.
Well then, that must be the problem with my teleporter - it just wasn't built right, not that no one ever figured out how to make one work.
Communism (on anything greater than the family/clan level, and sometimes even at that level) doesn't work because it ignores the fundamental nature of people. The only way you will get state level communism to work is to try doing it with something other than people.
What's the health impact of these getting into the ecosystem? Pass right thru a human? Cause serious disease? What happens when it hits the water IN a human? If this becomes in any way widespread these are going to be issues.
What's left after the reaction? Must the water be pure or can we produce power from dirty water and do what with what's left? Could this be used to clean dirty water by simply using the water for power? Is oxygen also produced from this - I'd think so right since water is H2O. Are the particles completely consumed in the reaction? No reuse? How much water is used in the manufacturing process to create these particles? What are the waste byproducts for the process of creating these particles?
Virtually every question is answered in the summary! We have a new low, people!
Health impact: nano particles are up in the air (small particles tend to be more dangerous for biologicals than large particles of whatever they are made of), hydrogen is turned into water, silicic acid is non-toxic. Purity of water isn't mentioned, nor what happens if it is exposed to other stuff, but you can assume it will react with something if you ingest it.
Reaction components: Si + H2O -> Silicic acid + H2. It can't be releasing (much) oxygen, or the fuel cell would look like a nice little camp fire in short order. This is also why it's not equivalent to using sodium or lithium. Feel free to use google and see the chemical composition of silicic acid. Again, silicic acid is claimed to be non-toxic, so that's not a big deal. How it reacts with other stuff isn't mentioned, but you can assume it will react with a number of things if it will react with water, so they will probably assume you use relatively pure water. Blood probably won't work to well (or cleanly), something from a ditch probably will. Since one of the byproducts is silicic acid, it's safe to assume the particles will be consumed in the reaction.
As for water being used in production, we're talking about silicon, here. We already process this stuff for making computer chips, so you can check out how much water is used for everything but the last step by examining that process.
There's the answer to over half your questions, based on reading the summary and high school chemistry. I imagine even more would be covered in the article. Google can probably answer half of what's left over after that.
In fusion they need the plasma to be stable because the magnetic confinement can't adapt to deal with an unstable area. I wonder if "braided" magnetic fields (whatever the heck that actually means) would be more resilient, in the way that a basket can support an egg that would just fall through a layer of unwoven grass.
I really hope you're right, and it's not more like "Well, fusion is really messy and creates weird artifacts, and the only realistic way to contain it is a whole lot of vacuum, and enough mass to keep most of the reaction going with the occasional containment breach. Also known as a star, with solar flares."
A lot of intelligent, educated people can still get too caught up in ideologies to see the big picture.
In order to be viable in the market, a labor-saving device must, by logical necessity eliminate more work than it creates. This is the only way to get the total cost of ownership down below the cost of hiring people to do the work. When successfully applied widely enough, this processes has serious economic implications.
There is a finite (and, ultimately, small) demand for brain-work (you only need one genius to invent a trinket in order for everybody to be able to have one), so the majority of displaced workers cannot simply promote themselves to more interesting work. When production is very high but the labor cost is very low, you wind up with large masses of people who can't find *any* work (or at least nothing that provides a livable wage). That results in severe crime and upheaval.
As tech puts us all out of work, we either start adopting more socialist policies, we put most of our population in jail (where we pay for their needs anyway), or we experience a violent mess.
Another alternative is to reduce the amount of work required to live a comfortable life. If, for instance, 200 hours of human work is required to provide me with the comforts of modern society, why do I have to work 2000 hours to afford it? The 200 is hypothetical, the 2000 is approximate (40 hours/week, 2 weeks vacation). Rather than promoting a situation where jobs are lost and the additional profit mostly goes to the company's owner, how about a situation where we just work less and more people live quite well while some still live very well?
This is a scenario that will have to be addressed at some point. As automation increases, the number of human hours required to provide for a person will go down (fewer job-hours). How we deal with the number of job-hours available and the necessities of life will determine how the world looks, when that happens.
It stands to reason that as our knowledge of the domain we think of as "reality" increases, that we will be able to, if not replicate then at least theorize how to replicate, increasingly complex elements of it. This started with artificial shelters and augmented muscles, continued through synthetic rocks and minerals, and continues on today. I'm not prepared to say it will stop before we've figured out how to simulate or replicate a human mind, or a mind of similar complexity. Hell, we could create fire before we had a complete understanding of it.
This is tough enough teaching to systems that have been the result of the past 4.5 billion years of MomNature's bioengineering.
Mother Nature is a bitch, and a lazy one, at that. She isn't trying to make the best intelligence, or even intelligence at all. She's trying to make things that work, and even there, just things that work well enough. In 4.5 billion years, she couldn't make something that could move 800 m/s, and yet we did in a mere 2k to 10k years (okay, 4.5 billion if you want to claim that it all started with that first cell), and it has proven to be a real disadvantage for other species. But, the fact of the matter is, not being able to shoot projectiles at that speed has worked pretty well for 4.5 billion years (less 500) and that is Mother Nature's goal.
So, yeah, I think we can do better. I'm not qualified to say Kurzweil is on the the right track, but I don't need to be (and we don't need Kurzweil to be either, to reach the goal). Google seems to think it will be worth throwing enough money at it to try, and they don't have a reputation for being a bunch of uneducated louts.
Almost all programs downloaded off the internet can be installed via the browser on Windows. When my download has finished I just click a few times on the file in the download links area bottom left of my Chrome window, and the EXE runs to setup the software.
heck I think I even installed Office that way after getting the home use program and downloading it from Microsoft.
used to be you would simply 'run' the file immediately before downloading, though that seems to have been given a bit more sensibility to let your AV scan the downloaded file first now.
This is my experience, too. Do you know why? Everyone in Windows runs as administrator, or at least power user. What this means is that anything you download in your browser can install on your system. Yep, even malware or viruses due to flaws in your browser. Nifty, eh? You can avoid this difficulty by running linux as root, and be just as secure as Windows.
Also, if you have any sense at all, you install packages through a package manager. If Valve has any sense at all, that will be what happens when they get out of beta (doesn't appear to be there yet).
I still use windows due to games and work. I run a VM of linux for personal stuff. If the games were native to linux, and wouldn't be hampered by the graphics performance issues of a vm, the arrangement would be reversed.
Even Google had to wait until there was a technological edge to join the internet provider market, because, quite simply, the natural monopoly...
(also from my above post) Exactly what novel idea do you think Google stumbled upon when they decided to start their fiber network? I mean, besides, "The customers don't have any other real options, let's just keep screwing them over."
Technological edge?!? No, they just understood that $the_other_guys weren't getting it done, producing an opportunity! The tech has been there for a long time now; practically ages in computing terms.
Google's not magic. They're just smart. "You drop the ball? Then I'll pick it up and run with it."
Yes, that's exactly what I said. As for the technological improvement, Google looked at what was available on the market, and what the incumbents were providing, and said to themselves, "So, we can provide one thousand times the capacity than the other guys are, and they're just sitting on their hands?? I see a market." The technological edge was a higher-capacity network, which the incumbents opted not to pursue. Sure, the other guys had the exact same edge, but as I said above, they were quite happy screwing people over with their existing, 40+ year old pipeline.
As for regulatory capture, I see what you mean. Europe, that free market bastion to the east, has far more competition, better service, and far less regulation. Oh wait...
It's always a good idea for officials to think about how enforceable a law is before they pass it. Unenforceable laws are bad laws, and reduce the respect of all citizens to all laws. You're pissed at the guy who wanted to avoid a measly $100 fine? I'd be pissed at the guys who wasted thousands trying to serve the fine, let alone collect on it. This is one of those laws where, if you don't catch them in the act, you're better off giving a warning - it gets it on record for future violations, and saves you all the additional hassle that a ticket would incur.
So you accept that they lied when they said it was beef, but they certainly wouldn't lie about this "beef" being unhealthy. My confidence wouldn't be so high.
I didn't say that horse meat is unhealthy, I said that horse meat that was illegally sold as beef could very well be uninspected horse meat, which means it could be unhealthy, too.
Way to miss the point. Even Google had to wait until there was a technological edge to join the internet provider market, because, quite simply, the natural monopoly - the billions of dollars required to lay out miles of cable - would have to have been paid by someone to provide a comparable product. Everyone else (in North America) is stuck with whoever is there right now, with their one or maybe two options, which look remarkably similar and are usually only there because one used to be just cable and the other used to be just telephones, and they both already had cable to the customer. Exactly what novel idea do you think Google stumbled upon when they decided to start their fiber network? I mean, besides, "The customers don't have any other real options, let's just keep screwing them over." Want to know how big a deal bandwidth caps are to Google? Just check their fiber page. Pay the fee to run the fiber and you get typical current speeds for free. This is during a fiber rollout. There is already cable AND telephone to my door, yet they want what Google charges for their Gigabit internet?
Sure, it's all about the money, but not how much I have, rather how much the corporations can squeeze out of us because our viable options are to either pay them or go without.
Something like that would allow him to browse the web, email, take notes, etc.
For the love of god, keep Hawking off the web. It seems we have one great mind left that's exploring how the world works, and you want to sidetrack him with lolcats?!?!
So you accept that they lied when they said it was beef, but they certainly wouldn't lie about this "beef" being unhealthy. My confidence wouldn't be so high.
Okay, you're right. If I have as much money as Google, I can start an ISP. Genius! There goes my barrier to entry!
And the reason Google can do this is because they're rolling out something that the cable/telcos could have done for years, but haven't because of, wait for it...natural monopoly! The only reason even someone as big as Google can do this is because the cable/telcos sat on their hands for so long that they were able to be completely leapfrogged on a technological basis. So yes, once the natural monopoly was near obsolescence, and somebody had to run a new cable, there was a possibility for competition. Hurray free market?
Keep in mind that peaceful resistance only works if those who have power still hold human life as valuable. Otherwise, they just order people in tanks to drive over protesters. Or continue killing people for getting raped.
Let's stick on topic here. I have two options to get high-speed data access to your home: Lay new cable, or lease from the incumbent. (Okay, three - wireless. Hmm, wireless is already most places, and is more expensive than cable). How am I to overcome those barriers to entry using either method? Who would fund someone proposing to do either? This is the inherent issue with natural monopoly, which you seemed to ignore entirely.
Failure to solve this issue could result in the unravelling of capitalism as we know it, to either a super class that will need to kill off any pleborian dissidents, or lead to a revolution similar to what the French had.
The first option isn't really feasible - the capitalistic society described still needs consumers. So they will just have to be very good at suppressing revolutions.
Slashdot Mirror
We don't kill every person in a Keffiyeh (analogous to your reference of a southern drawl), just those associating with Al-Qeda (analoguous to shooting northwards).
No, those associating with Al-Qaeda would be like farmers who were southern sympathizers. They didn't fight, but merely provided supplies and shelter to the Confederates. I think it was considered impolite to kill those farmers a couple weeks after they gave Confederate soldiers a meal and a place to sleep. Caught in the act, or the next day, might have been arguable. Some people would even call that an "imminent danger".
Mars on the other hand has normal days and could be warmed up with a greenhouse effect.
For this to work, Mars would have to have enough of an atmosphere to make a useful temperature difference.
Not only is it a luxury item that is important, but it's too important for the government to control.
So, more important than roads, making sure drugs are safe for their intended use, and the protection of the sovereignty of your nation. Gotcha.
Student's work is produced by minors where the school is 'in loco parentis' so their work would become school property to protect them from exploitation by adults, plagiarists and commercial interests.
School administrators (puiblic or private) have a legal 'duty of care' to children. They won't stop parents from taking their kids to modeling agencies or auditions but if they produce something in school, say their major artwork for the matriculation exam, the school can arrange a professional exhibition and prevent students from beign ripped off.
So, why on earth would this be property of the school, and not property of the student, or at most held in trust for the student? How does assigning the property right to another entity protect the rights of the child? It just sounds like they can get screwed over by the school board rather than by their parents, where at least presumably they would enjoy some of the benefits of the increased income to the household.
Well, they can, but it won't be legally binding until they get the employees and students to agree to assign their copyrights.
A contract signed by a minor isn't binding!
Hopefully, this is how it works in Canada as well.
What does Canada have to do with this? Prince George's County is in Maryland.
If I am so goddamn broke that I cannot afford $40 a month for Pot then I am doing something so horribly wrong that theft would not solve my problems.
Now honestly, do you think this isn't true for 95% of the convicted thieves in most economically developed countries?
Actually, "Communism did not work" argument is a bit of a stretch since the "Communism" did not attempt to be what it claimed to be. State ownership is still private property as far as the communist argument goes, since communism is not simply against the personal ownership of things, but the use of production facilities for non-collective benefit.
Well then, that must be the problem with my teleporter - it just wasn't built right, not that no one ever figured out how to make one work.
Communism (on anything greater than the family/clan level, and sometimes even at that level) doesn't work because it ignores the fundamental nature of people. The only way you will get state level communism to work is to try doing it with something other than people.
What's the health impact of these getting into the ecosystem? Pass right thru a human? Cause serious disease? What happens when it hits the water IN a human? If this becomes in any way widespread these are going to be issues.
What's left after the reaction? Must the water be pure or can we produce power from dirty water and do what with what's left? Could this be used to clean dirty water by simply using the water for power? Is oxygen also produced from this - I'd think so right since water is H2O. Are the particles completely consumed in the reaction? No reuse? How much water is used in the manufacturing process to create these particles? What are the waste byproducts for the process of creating these particles?
Virtually every question is answered in the summary! We have a new low, people!
Health impact: nano particles are up in the air (small particles tend to be more dangerous for biologicals than large particles of whatever they are made of), hydrogen is turned into water, silicic acid is non-toxic. Purity of water isn't mentioned, nor what happens if it is exposed to other stuff, but you can assume it will react with something if you ingest it.
Reaction components: Si + H2O -> Silicic acid + H2. It can't be releasing (much) oxygen, or the fuel cell would look like a nice little camp fire in short order. This is also why it's not equivalent to using sodium or lithium. Feel free to use google and see the chemical composition of silicic acid. Again, silicic acid is claimed to be non-toxic, so that's not a big deal. How it reacts with other stuff isn't mentioned, but you can assume it will react with a number of things if it will react with water, so they will probably assume you use relatively pure water. Blood probably won't work to well (or cleanly), something from a ditch probably will. Since one of the byproducts is silicic acid, it's safe to assume the particles will be consumed in the reaction.
As for water being used in production, we're talking about silicon, here. We already process this stuff for making computer chips, so you can check out how much water is used for everything but the last step by examining that process.
There's the answer to over half your questions, based on reading the summary and high school chemistry. I imagine even more would be covered in the article. Google can probably answer half of what's left over after that.
Winning is great, winning at all costs, not so much.
Well, you're never going to rule the world with that attitude!
In fusion they need the plasma to be stable because the magnetic confinement can't adapt to deal with an unstable area. I wonder if "braided" magnetic fields (whatever the heck that actually means) would be more resilient, in the way that a basket can support an egg that would just fall through a layer of unwoven grass.
I really hope you're right, and it's not more like "Well, fusion is really messy and creates weird artifacts, and the only realistic way to contain it is a whole lot of vacuum, and enough mass to keep most of the reaction going with the occasional containment breach. Also known as a star, with solar flares."
A lot of intelligent, educated people can still get too caught up in ideologies to see the big picture.
In order to be viable in the market, a labor-saving device must, by logical necessity eliminate more work than it creates. This is the only way to get the total cost of ownership down below the cost of hiring people to do the work. When successfully applied widely enough, this processes has serious economic implications.
There is a finite (and, ultimately, small) demand for brain-work (you only need one genius to invent a trinket in order for everybody to be able to have one), so the majority of displaced workers cannot simply promote themselves to more interesting work. When production is very high but the labor cost is very low, you wind up with large masses of people who can't find *any* work (or at least nothing that provides a livable wage). That results in severe crime and upheaval.
As tech puts us all out of work, we either start adopting more socialist policies, we put most of our population in jail (where we pay for their needs anyway), or we experience a violent mess.
Another alternative is to reduce the amount of work required to live a comfortable life. If, for instance, 200 hours of human work is required to provide me with the comforts of modern society, why do I have to work 2000 hours to afford it? The 200 is hypothetical, the 2000 is approximate (40 hours/week, 2 weeks vacation). Rather than promoting a situation where jobs are lost and the additional profit mostly goes to the company's owner, how about a situation where we just work less and more people live quite well while some still live very well?
This is a scenario that will have to be addressed at some point. As automation increases, the number of human hours required to provide for a person will go down (fewer job-hours). How we deal with the number of job-hours available and the necessities of life will determine how the world looks, when that happens.
It stands to reason that as our knowledge of the domain we think of as "reality" increases, that we will be able to, if not replicate then at least theorize how to replicate, increasingly complex elements of it. This started with artificial shelters and augmented muscles, continued through synthetic rocks and minerals, and continues on today. I'm not prepared to say it will stop before we've figured out how to simulate or replicate a human mind, or a mind of similar complexity. Hell, we could create fire before we had a complete understanding of it.
This is tough enough teaching to systems that have been the result of the past 4.5 billion years of MomNature's bioengineering.
Mother Nature is a bitch, and a lazy one, at that. She isn't trying to make the best intelligence, or even intelligence at all. She's trying to make things that work, and even there, just things that work well enough. In 4.5 billion years, she couldn't make something that could move 800 m/s, and yet we did in a mere 2k to 10k years (okay, 4.5 billion if you want to claim that it all started with that first cell), and it has proven to be a real disadvantage for other species. But, the fact of the matter is, not being able to shoot projectiles at that speed has worked pretty well for 4.5 billion years (less 500) and that is Mother Nature's goal.
So, yeah, I think we can do better. I'm not qualified to say Kurzweil is on the the right track, but I don't need to be (and we don't need Kurzweil to be either, to reach the goal). Google seems to think it will be worth throwing enough money at it to try, and they don't have a reputation for being a bunch of uneducated louts.
Almost all programs downloaded off the internet can be installed via the browser on Windows. When my download has finished I just click a few times on the file in the download links area bottom left of my Chrome window, and the EXE runs to setup the software.
heck I think I even installed Office that way after getting the home use program and downloading it from Microsoft.
used to be you would simply 'run' the file immediately before downloading, though that seems to have been given a bit more sensibility to let your AV scan the downloaded file first now.
This is my experience, too. Do you know why? Everyone in Windows runs as administrator, or at least power user. What this means is that anything you download in your browser can install on your system. Yep, even malware or viruses due to flaws in your browser. Nifty, eh? You can avoid this difficulty by running linux as root, and be just as secure as Windows.
Also, if you have any sense at all, you install packages through a package manager. If Valve has any sense at all, that will be what happens when they get out of beta (doesn't appear to be there yet).
I still use windows due to games and work. I run a VM of linux for personal stuff. If the games were native to linux, and wouldn't be hampered by the graphics performance issues of a vm, the arrangement would be reversed.
Even Google had to wait until there was a technological edge to join the internet provider market, because, quite simply, the natural monopoly ...
(also from my above post) Exactly what novel idea do you think Google stumbled upon when they decided to start their fiber network? I mean, besides, "The customers don't have any other real options, let's just keep screwing them over."
Technological edge?!? No, they just understood that $the_other_guys weren't getting it done, producing an opportunity! The tech has been there for a long time now; practically ages in computing terms.
Google's not magic. They're just smart. "You drop the ball? Then I'll pick it up and run with it."
Yes, that's exactly what I said. As for the technological improvement, Google looked at what was available on the market, and what the incumbents were providing, and said to themselves, "So, we can provide one thousand times the capacity than the other guys are, and they're just sitting on their hands?? I see a market." The technological edge was a higher-capacity network, which the incumbents opted not to pursue. Sure, the other guys had the exact same edge, but as I said above, they were quite happy screwing people over with their existing, 40+ year old pipeline.
As for regulatory capture, I see what you mean. Europe, that free market bastion to the east, has far more competition, better service, and far less regulation. Oh wait...
It's always a good idea for officials to think about how enforceable a law is before they pass it. Unenforceable laws are bad laws, and reduce the respect of all citizens to all laws. You're pissed at the guy who wanted to avoid a measly $100 fine? I'd be pissed at the guys who wasted thousands trying to serve the fine, let alone collect on it. This is one of those laws where, if you don't catch them in the act, you're better off giving a warning - it gets it on record for future violations, and saves you all the additional hassle that a ticket would incur.
So you accept that they lied when they said it was beef, but they certainly wouldn't lie about this "beef" being unhealthy. My confidence wouldn't be so high.
What makes you think that meat is unhealthy?
Let's dig up some research on the matter: http://www.jbc.org/content/87/3/651.full.pdf
I didn't say that horse meat is unhealthy, I said that horse meat that was illegally sold as beef could very well be uninspected horse meat, which means it could be unhealthy, too.
Way to miss the point. Even Google had to wait until there was a technological edge to join the internet provider market, because, quite simply, the natural monopoly - the billions of dollars required to lay out miles of cable - would have to have been paid by someone to provide a comparable product. Everyone else (in North America) is stuck with whoever is there right now, with their one or maybe two options, which look remarkably similar and are usually only there because one used to be just cable and the other used to be just telephones, and they both already had cable to the customer. Exactly what novel idea do you think Google stumbled upon when they decided to start their fiber network? I mean, besides, "The customers don't have any other real options, let's just keep screwing them over." Want to know how big a deal bandwidth caps are to Google? Just check their fiber page. Pay the fee to run the fiber and you get typical current speeds for free. This is during a fiber rollout. There is already cable AND telephone to my door, yet they want what Google charges for their Gigabit internet?
Sure, it's all about the money, but not how much I have, rather how much the corporations can squeeze out of us because our viable options are to either pay them or go without.
Something like that would allow him to browse the web, email, take notes, etc.
For the love of god, keep Hawking off the web. It seems we have one great mind left that's exploring how the world works, and you want to sidetrack him with lolcats?!?!
Yes, I'm joking.
So you accept that they lied when they said it was beef, but they certainly wouldn't lie about this "beef" being unhealthy. My confidence wouldn't be so high.
Okay, you're right. If I have as much money as Google, I can start an ISP. Genius! There goes my barrier to entry!
And the reason Google can do this is because they're rolling out something that the cable/telcos could have done for years, but haven't because of, wait for it...natural monopoly! The only reason even someone as big as Google can do this is because the cable/telcos sat on their hands for so long that they were able to be completely leapfrogged on a technological basis. So yes, once the natural monopoly was near obsolescence, and somebody had to run a new cable, there was a possibility for competition. Hurray free market?
Keep in mind that peaceful resistance only works if those who have power still hold human life as valuable. Otherwise, they just order people in tanks to drive over protesters. Or continue killing people for getting raped.
Let's stick on topic here. I have two options to get high-speed data access to your home: Lay new cable, or lease from the incumbent. (Okay, three - wireless. Hmm, wireless is already most places, and is more expensive than cable). How am I to overcome those barriers to entry using either method? Who would fund someone proposing to do either? This is the inherent issue with natural monopoly, which you seemed to ignore entirely.
Failure to solve this issue could result in the unravelling of capitalism as we know it, to either a super class that will need to kill off any pleborian dissidents, or lead to a revolution similar to what the French had.
The first option isn't really feasible - the capitalistic society described still needs consumers. So they will just have to be very good at suppressing revolutions.
Actually, in this case the free marketers are probably right.
If there was a free market, no one (outside of Brazil) would grow plants for fuel-ethanol. It's just too expensive at the moment.
Also, in a proper free market, producers would have to pay for the externalities. Use of common resources - e.g. aquifers - must be paid for properly.
Ah, the "proper free market". Like working, large-scale communism, fairies, and unicorns, it's never been seen. Now will it.