Apparently I overstated the case a bit and while it depends upon who you ask when it comes to exactly how much more calories are burned by having more muscle tissue, one thing that they all agree on is that more muscle mass is better as part of a comprehensive weight loss or fitness program. So I stand by weight training as being a worthwhile part of any exercise program and well worth the effort. There is a decent article on about that talks about burning more fat with weight training as part of your program.
Conjugal visits? Mmmm. Not that I know of. Y'know, minimum-security prison is no picnic. I have a client in there right now. He says the trick is: kick someone's ass the first day, or become someone's bitch. Then everything will be all right. W-Why do you ask, anyway?
It is not just the calories that you burn while you are exercising, but the also the amount of calories that your body continues to burn during rest periods in between exercise sessions. A primary benefit of weight training is the creation of larger muscle masses which require additional calories continuously throughout the day. If you can coax your body into maintaining those larger muscles by regularly lifting weights then you will burn several times the number of calories of a skinny person who bikes and swims a lot when you are just sitting at your desk during the workday. Weight training is worth the effort, despite white the no-weights people say.
I think that we are arguing in circles because we are not arguing from the same basis. Therefore, in the interest of clarifying the debate I would like to step back and more fully explain where I am coming from with my pro-market sensibilities. It is my own considered opinion, and one that is shared by many others of higher intellectual caliber than I, that free markets result in the most efficient possible allocation and use of scarce resources. Neither I nor anyone can prove this with any formal method that would yield absolute mathematical certainty (or if it can be proven then I have never seen nor heard of such a proof), but the vast experimental evidence of human civilization suggests that free markets are globally optimal. This does NOT mean that free markets are always, strictly speaking, locally optimal, but rather that they on balance seek and find the most efficient allocations of scarce resources as quickly as possible in a highly distributed manner without involving impossibly complex centralized planning and control mechanisms which have thus far, despite the best efforts of mankind over many decades and even centuries (witness the collapse of the Soviet Union and the fall of Communism), been found wanting. Indeed, it is reasonable to suggest that if central planning were superior to the free market then it would have become apparent by now. The fact that it has failed to supplant the free market in 95% of the world combined with the weight of centuries of experimental evidence strongly suggests that the free market is more efficient, or in other words superior. Now, if one is NOT going to control things centrally then the only other way to organize the collective efforts of mankind is through voluntary association through exchanges made in the free market. This idea that free markets are superior to any other method known for mobilizing the collective efforts of mankind towards our collective self improvement is essential, in my considered opinion, to any discussion of the free market (i.e. there really is no useful alternative to the free market if one wishes to make the most efficient use of our limited resources on a global scale). Now, with that basis defined I can proceed in responding to your points.
These 'right place at right time' situations are defined by the lack of competition in the marketplace.
This is what provides the incentive for people to participate in the marketplace. These local 'right place at right time' windows must be tolerated as a necessary part of the process by which the marketplace reaches the natural equilibrium. This idea was first articulated in publication by Adam Smith in his description of the "invisible hand".
I doubt you are suggesting that the anarchy of post-war Germany is a good example of a high-efficiency free market.
No, it was mentioned to illustrate that markets can still function even under the most adverse and difficult of conditions (the type which have been associated with mankind and survival for the majority of our recorded history).
But do note that neoclassical laissez-faire economics holds anarchy - literally the absence of any state authority to interfere with market forces - to be the ideal precondition for market efficiency.
This is a point of disagreement between myself and the anarcho-capitalists. I will not profess to give a whole answer here, but rather will simply state that it is my opinion that violence and the will to use of force to dominate our fellow man are integral parts of human nature ingrained in our collective psyche. It is therefore inevitable, given enough time, that concentration of the means to do the greatest amount of violence to the greatest number of people will give rise to the state. The formation of states is the final result of a consolidation of group power which begins with the tribe (i.e. two or more family units banding together in cooperation to survive more easily) and leads inexorably to the modern
free markets, as defined by neo-classical laisez-faire economics, cannot be profitable because profit margins of any significance are categorically impossible in a genuinely competitive market, and genuine competition is a pre-requisite for the accepted definition of a 'free' market.
This assumes that the marketplace will always adjust automatically and instantly to a new equilibrium whenever circumstances change and that is clearly not the case no matter whether the market is perfectly competitive or not. There will always be a window of opportunity (limited in time) wherein an individual with the right good or service in the right place and at the right time will earn a profit. This is true even in situations where there is almost complete anarchy (the city of Berlin in the months immediately following the surrender of Germany in April 1945 for example).
Even in a competitive market, where the equilibrium has been established, profits are not categorically impossible. Suppose that you grew some vegetables and decided to sell them at the local farmers market. Would you sell them for exactly what it cost you to produce them earning zero profit or would you instead try to sell them for a bit more to earn a profit? If you tried to sell them at a profit would you sell zero because the guy selling tomatoes five stalls down the market is selling for a penny less? The answers are, of course, that you would try and sell for a profit and you would probably not sell zero vegetables.
The market is NOT a zero-sum, perfect information, partisan, deterministic strategy game (like a board game), but rather a non-zero sum, imperfect information, partisan, stochastic game with many many players all moving simultaneously. As the market is continually moving to find new equilibriums that are dependent upon many constantly fluctuating variables the opportunities to profit will be continuously appearing and disappearing as circumstances change. No free marketplace is every truly static.
Coercion is NOT limited to regulation imposed by governments.
That is true, but limited choices due to limited resources in a marketplace are not the same thing as coercion. Coercion is the practice of compelling a person or manipulating them to behave in an involuntary way, but the success of others in the marketplace and their subsequent ability to make a greater variety of choices with their greater resources is not coercion if those resources were earned by them or acquired in voluntary trades without resort to force. For example, saying that one was "coerced" into buying the Ford Focus because they wanted the to have the Ferrari instead but couldn't afford it is nonsense.
So if you're a proponent of free markets as they are defined by the academic and political right, you must accept the fact that any profitable market is - by definition - also a failed market:
You rely too heavily on deductive reasoning which is dangerous, especially when your underlying premises are flawed. Does the term non sequitur mean anything to you? A free market is a market in which prices of goods and services are arranged completely by the mutual consent of sellers and buyers. By definition, in a free market environment buyers and sellers do not coerce or mislead each other nor are they coerced by a third party. If one assumes for a moment that such a situation exists (in the real world people do indeed try to mislead each other, but that is another discussion...why we need the state and why the anarchists are wrong) then it does not follow that there can be no profits in such an ideal marketplace. The burden off proof lies with the person who claims that there can be no profit under any circumstances in such a marketplace (even if we limit the marketplace to the case of perfect competition). You have not proven that assertion. To show the opposite, that profits can occur, one ne
That only leaves qualitative/fuzzy social factors as the explanation. And that, of course, throws any quantitative analysis of the market using econometrics right out the window.
Not really, economists call those social factors marginal utility and the amount of utility derived from different goods and services can be (and often is) different for every individual or group.
The price really is 'whatever the market will bear', but what the market will bear has very little to do with the actual costs of production in any industry.
That is correct and most rational thinking economists have never, at least not in modern times, disputed that. In fact the labor theory of value has now been so thoroughly disproved that it is really only of historical interest.
Now think what else this means: any industry with profitable prices (ie high margins) cannot be genuinely competitive
That is not necessarily true. Sometimes a particular firm will be first to market with a spectacular product or service that consumers really want and are willing to pay a premium for, but which is difficult to produce so that competitors do not appear quickly. It is more correct to say that any industry with permanently high prices is not competitive.
One of the defining characteristics of a free market is that consumers are not coerced by force or fraud, where a lack of competition constitutes coercion (think of a monopoly jacking up prices because it has no competitors...).
It is only coercion if the government forces the situation upon the market via legislation with legally enforced monopoly. If there is no force then lack of competition may simply indicate a niche product or service or one that cannot be produced profitably or has low demand relative to the costs of production leading to higher prices (if it costs too much to produce AND consumers aren't willing to buy any at the break even price then the good or service will simply not be produced by private firms).
Really I fail to see the point of your post, just what were you trying to say? That free markets are not profitable or cannot be profitable?
You are absolutely correct about the present state of affairs in higher education here in the United States and really this is probably not a revelation to many of us who are reading it, but political correctness and the insidious power of the teachers unions and "think of the children" have combined to ensure that public non-university education in the United States is, by and large, equally poor for everyone and even the public universities are now beginning to feel the pressure from politicians to relax admissions standards and admit certain groups preferentially, who would not otherwise be admitted, in pursuit of political agendas. Anyone with the temerity to mention this in public however, is immediately tared and feathered by the education establishment (and doubly quickly if they mention vouchers). Unfortunately, there are simply too few honest AND intelligent people left in the United States who are willing to stand up and say that not every child should go to college.
That is a special case that could be handled by proper language in the law. If the individual defendant is not obviously part of a conspiracy or a larger organized group, as is the case with the vast majority of the P2P lawsuits, then the he or she should receive the benefit of the doubt and be submitted only to the means test and the appropriate (428,571 times damages is not fair by any reasonable stretch of the imagination) fines if convicted. The burden to prove that there is a conspiracy (with commensurately larger damages) and organized criminal enterprise should fall upon the plaintiff or perhaps the plaintiff could use the outcome of the criminal case (where the conspiracy and enterprise are explored and proved in detail) in their subsequent civil cases.
Because of this, the *AA would never let such a law get passed, even if someone becomes homeless and makes the national news because they had to pay an insane amount of damages for copying a few MP3s.
They obviously wouldn't want such a law to be passed, but there is a point of diminishing returns with these lawsuits that the RIAA suits fail (or seem to anyway) to realize. At some point the continuing lawsuits against single mothers, homeless people, and the deceased become so utterly notorious and unsavory that even a normally friendly Congressman finds himself hard pressed to even be seen with industry lobbyists, much less accept their donations to his campaign fund for re-election. There is a price attached to bad public relations and the RIAA and the record labels are already paying this price in spades (the artists are bailing, investors won't touch their shares with a ten foot pole, they are being excoriated and burned in effigy on the blogs, and finally an entire generation of young people are growing up and have grown up with ambivalence and even contempt for the recording industry and their products). Sue your customers has never been a viable business model and it never will be, it strikes at the very heart of voluntary association and the free market.
No doubt the defendant and his attorneys will bring this to the attention of the judge (if they haven't already), but I must say that the levels of chutzpah, arrogance, and hypocrisy of these record labels are simply spectacular both in sheer scale and also in their wanton disregard for any semblance of fairness. Have these companies and their attorneys, at long last, no shame left?
This is why punitive damages should be subjected to a means test whereby the damages are adjusted to reflect a fixed percentage of the annual income of a convicted individual. Thus, the poor working mother might only pay several hundred dollars total or perhaps a couple of thousand max whereas the mega corporation could be on the hook for millions. Fixing the absolute dollar amounts in the laws makes very little sense because the relative burdens will obviously fluctuate over time due to inflation while at the same time imposing a regressive burden of punishment when they are applied (i.e. the poor suffer more than the rich for being convicted of the same crime).
but after an engineering analysis, if the cheaper component fits the specified needs (as well as a reasonable safety margin) then by all means use the cheaper version.
Suppose that you and your fellow crew members are sitting on the pad in the shuttle at the cape about to ride 7.5 million pounds of thrust in a massive controlled explosion all the way to orbit 200 miles above the surface of the Earth. Now, would you prefer to have the $800 dollar seat belts along with the best of everything else or would you prefer instead to ride a vehicle with over 2 million moving parts, each supplied by the lowest bidder, knowing full well that there is no reset button in real life and that most failures have a high probability of killing everyone aboard?
I speak from first hand experience when I say that TortoiseSVN is the way to go for basic version tracking and management with subversion in the Windows environment (you need to download the Subversion server to manage the repositories of course or else have access to a server maintained by another). Since my work primarily focuses on software development and project management I also make use of the CruiseControl.NET automated build service + website with NAnt to manage builds and VisualSVN (the only part of my setup which isn't free of charge, but the $50 fee is reasonable and well worth the price if you use Visual Studio) for Visual Studio integration (which wouldn't be an issue for the original poster).
When I said the "right to an opportunity" I was NOT talking about an opportunity provided by someone else against their will (i.e. the government levied taxes and used the proceeds to fund the opportunity) or even an equal opportunity, but rather the right not to be interfered with by force in such a way that opportunities which otherwise would be available are foreclosed (i.e. by explicit government interference). I agree that "right to an opportunity" could be construed, depending upon the circumstances, as a positive right but that is not what I meant in this instance.
However, I think people generally agree that scholarships and bursaries are necessary to ensure that we educate the most talented young people, whatever their socioeconomic background.
I believe that they are desirable, but not necessary in the same way that police, courts, and the national defense are necessary. I would prefer that scholarships and bursaries be the province of private foundations dependent upon voluntary economic activity rather than supported by taxes backed up with government power of force.
I have never seen one, have you? How can you be certain that it has five fingers and toes? As for the other features, suppose for the sake of argument that intelligent alien life forms had evolved elsewhere in the universe under circumstances substantially similar to our own including a homeworld where water is or was plentiful orbiting within the habitable region of its star. It is very likely that certain basic features such as walking upright, large brain, stereoscopic forward facing eyes, etc would evolve elsewhere under similar evolutionary pressures as occurred here on Earth. Perhaps the humanoid bipedal form is merely the most likely for intelligent life everywhere, the most probable result of similar evolutionary processes where specific details (i.e. number of digits) might be different but overall form is substantially similar.
Well take Steam as an example. They have tens of thousands of paying customer players who are all quite happy with the content even though WalMart might not carry it. Stardock is another example, albeit smaller, of a successful online game developer / online retailer of their own games. As long as the game publishers make it easy and convenient to obtain the games online and don't resort to onerous and insulting copy protection, I don't foresee any major difficulties. As the above two examples show there are already companies who have blazed the trail for other game publishers to follow and are successfully using this business model. It is always better to get into WalMart too if you can, but if your game is niche (as most games are anyway) then your best and cheapest option, from a distribution standpoint, is online sales either through Amazon or over your own distribution system like the aforementioned Steam.
As per my response to Psmylie above, my preference would be for a voluntary rating system rather than one enforced by the government which is indeed what we have or at least had (if you live in New York) up until now. The publishers decided to implement a rating system ten (10) years ago now (M for mature, AO for adults only, etc) as a service to their paying customers and also because of implicit threat of government regulation, which is unfortunate (the implied government force part) but unavoidable at least here in the United States.
Now, if a private business does not want to stock M17+ games as part of a company policy to appear more "family friendly" then I support their right to make that decision in their own private business. The game could become harder to obtain, but that is a possibility that one must be prepared to accept as part of private enterprise, the associations are all voluntary (i.e. the store decides what to stock and you decide whether or not to buy some, all, or none of that stock). However, it is my opinion that just as some stores will attempt to be "family friendly" there will also be businesses which cater to adults. The marketplace will ensure that those who want M17+ games and are willing to pay for them will be able to obtain them as easily as possible, trust the invisible hand, it won't let you down.
The end result - involuntary censorship, and pushing games "underground".
I have observed that "underground" economic activity really only occurs on a substantial level when the government steps in, using the power of force (i.e. violence or threat thereof), to make a certain good or service illegal (or in less severe cases legal but heavily taxed like cigarettes). For example, the War on Drugs has driven those products underground, but even they can still be obtained easily and at relatively low prices historically. As long as M17+ games are legal, a few "family friendly" businesses refusing to carry them are not going to drive the M17+ game market underground. You may not be able to get them for that "everyday low price" at WalMart, but such is life.
Another solution to the problem is to not use labelling, but to rather use community websites to review and rate games.
Whatever we decide to do it would be better if the marketplace decided and not the government.
Fair enough. I would be alright with that change as long as recourse is available to the buyer in the case of fraud or negligence (i.e. misrepresenting, either intentionally for fraud or should have known for negligence, a product such that a "reasonable person" would be confused about what they are actually purchasing).
hold on their chief, it is true that if there is enough demand then manufacturers will provide. It is not a good thing when a vocal minority, that wants a good or service at a lower price than it would cost to provide it, uses the power of the government by proxy to compel the supplier to provide it at that price. Even before the seat belt laws it was possible to have them installed after market IF the consumer was willing to pay the extra costs. When the majority wants something at the right price then the market will provide and government force is unnecessary, but in the meantime be careful about praising the use of force by the government. You may like the result this time (i.e. seat belts), but the next time the government forces you or someone else to do something you might find that you dislike it intensely, but have no recourse and that is not a good situation to be in.
I agree, it is not the fault of society that the grand parent cannot have the lifestyle that he expects or has become accustomed to without working full time or managing his finances better. He chose to have children so he is responsible for them and he cannot expect society to take a "rights cut" so that he can work full time for that leased luxury car and be a slacker parent without suffering the consequences of rebellious children.
Slashdot Mirror
How come other forums don't use a moderation system like /.?
Well, not everyone can be as enlightened and 133t as we Slashdotters are after all...
Guess what laser weapons don't do well in?
Outer Space?
Apparently I overstated the case a bit and while it depends upon who you ask when it comes to exactly how much more calories are burned by having more muscle tissue, one thing that they all agree on is that more muscle mass is better as part of a comprehensive weight loss or fitness program. So I stand by weight training as being a worthwhile part of any exercise program and well worth the effort. There is a decent article on about that talks about burning more fat with weight training as part of your program.
Conjugal visits? Mmmm. Not that I know of. Y'know, minimum-security prison is no picnic. I have a client in there right now. He says the trick is: kick someone's ass the first day, or become someone's bitch. Then everything will be all right. W-Why do you ask, anyway?
Do they have uncontrolled immigration as well?
universal health care + unlimited social security + uncontrolled immigration = bankruptcy
It is not just the calories that you burn while you are exercising, but the also the amount of calories that your body continues to burn during rest periods in between exercise sessions. A primary benefit of weight training is the creation of larger muscle masses which require additional calories continuously throughout the day. If you can coax your body into maintaining those larger muscles by regularly lifting weights then you will burn several times the number of calories of a skinny person who bikes and swims a lot when you are just sitting at your desk during the workday. Weight training is worth the effort, despite white the no-weights people say.
These 'right place at right time' situations are defined by the lack of competition in the marketplace.
This is what provides the incentive for people to participate in the marketplace. These local 'right place at right time' windows must be tolerated as a necessary part of the process by which the marketplace reaches the natural equilibrium. This idea was first articulated in publication by Adam Smith in his description of the "invisible hand".
I doubt you are suggesting that the anarchy of post-war Germany is a good example of a high-efficiency free market.
No, it was mentioned to illustrate that markets can still function even under the most adverse and difficult of conditions (the type which have been associated with mankind and survival for the majority of our recorded history).
But do note that neoclassical laissez-faire economics holds anarchy - literally the absence of any state authority to interfere with market forces - to be the ideal precondition for market efficiency.
This is a point of disagreement between myself and the anarcho-capitalists. I will not profess to give a whole answer here, but rather will simply state that it is my opinion that violence and the will to use of force to dominate our fellow man are integral parts of human nature ingrained in our collective psyche. It is therefore inevitable, given enough time, that concentration of the means to do the greatest amount of violence to the greatest number of people will give rise to the state. The formation of states is the final result of a consolidation of group power which begins with the tribe (i.e. two or more family units banding together in cooperation to survive more easily) and leads inexorably to the modern
free markets, as defined by neo-classical laisez-faire economics, cannot be profitable because profit margins of any significance are categorically impossible in a genuinely competitive market, and genuine competition is a pre-requisite for the accepted definition of a 'free' market.
This assumes that the marketplace will always adjust automatically and instantly to a new equilibrium whenever circumstances change and that is clearly not the case no matter whether the market is perfectly competitive or not. There will always be a window of opportunity (limited in time) wherein an individual with the right good or service in the right place and at the right time will earn a profit. This is true even in situations where there is almost complete anarchy (the city of Berlin in the months immediately following the surrender of Germany in April 1945 for example).
Even in a competitive market, where the equilibrium has been established, profits are not categorically impossible. Suppose that you grew some vegetables and decided to sell them at the local farmers market. Would you sell them for exactly what it cost you to produce them earning zero profit or would you instead try to sell them for a bit more to earn a profit? If you tried to sell them at a profit would you sell zero because the guy selling tomatoes five stalls down the market is selling for a penny less? The answers are, of course, that you would try and sell for a profit and you would probably not sell zero vegetables.
The market is NOT a zero-sum, perfect information, partisan, deterministic strategy game (like a board game), but rather a non-zero sum, imperfect information, partisan, stochastic game with many many players all moving simultaneously. As the market is continually moving to find new equilibriums that are dependent upon many constantly fluctuating variables the opportunities to profit will be continuously appearing and disappearing as circumstances change. No free marketplace is every truly static.
Coercion is NOT limited to regulation imposed by governments.
That is true, but limited choices due to limited resources in a marketplace are not the same thing as coercion. Coercion is the practice of compelling a person or manipulating them to behave in an involuntary way, but the success of others in the marketplace and their subsequent ability to make a greater variety of choices with their greater resources is not coercion if those resources were earned by them or acquired in voluntary trades without resort to force. For example, saying that one was "coerced" into buying the Ford Focus because they wanted the to have the Ferrari instead but couldn't afford it is nonsense.
So if you're a proponent of free markets as they are defined by the academic and political right, you must accept the fact that any profitable market is - by definition - also a failed market:
You rely too heavily on deductive reasoning which is dangerous, especially when your underlying premises are flawed. Does the term non sequitur mean anything to you? A free market is a market in which prices of goods and services are arranged completely by the mutual consent of sellers and buyers. By definition, in a free market environment buyers and sellers do not coerce or mislead each other nor are they coerced by a third party. If one assumes for a moment that such a situation exists (in the real world people do indeed try to mislead each other, but that is another discussion...why we need the state and why the anarchists are wrong) then it does not follow that there can be no profits in such an ideal marketplace. The burden off proof lies with the person who claims that there can be no profit under any circumstances in such a marketplace (even if we limit the marketplace to the case of perfect competition). You have not proven that assertion. To show the opposite, that profits can occur, one ne
That only leaves qualitative/fuzzy social factors as the explanation. And that, of course, throws any quantitative analysis of the market using econometrics right out the window.
Not really, economists call those social factors marginal utility and the amount of utility derived from different goods and services can be (and often is) different for every individual or group.
The price really is 'whatever the market will bear', but what the market will bear has very little to do with the actual costs of production in any industry.
That is correct and most rational thinking economists have never, at least not in modern times, disputed that. In fact the labor theory of value has now been so thoroughly disproved that it is really only of historical interest.
Now think what else this means: any industry with profitable prices (ie high margins) cannot be genuinely competitive
That is not necessarily true. Sometimes a particular firm will be first to market with a spectacular product or service that consumers really want and are willing to pay a premium for, but which is difficult to produce so that competitors do not appear quickly. It is more correct to say that any industry with permanently high prices is not competitive.
One of the defining characteristics of a free market is that consumers are not coerced by force or fraud, where a lack of competition constitutes coercion (think of a monopoly jacking up prices because it has no competitors...).
It is only coercion if the government forces the situation upon the market via legislation with legally enforced monopoly. If there is no force then lack of competition may simply indicate a niche product or service or one that cannot be produced profitably or has low demand relative to the costs of production leading to higher prices (if it costs too much to produce AND consumers aren't willing to buy any at the break even price then the good or service will simply not be produced by private firms). Really I fail to see the point of your post, just what were you trying to say? That free markets are not profitable or cannot be profitable?
You are absolutely correct about the present state of affairs in higher education here in the United States and really this is probably not a revelation to many of us who are reading it, but political correctness and the insidious power of the teachers unions and "think of the children" have combined to ensure that public non-university education in the United States is, by and large, equally poor for everyone and even the public universities are now beginning to feel the pressure from politicians to relax admissions standards and admit certain groups preferentially, who would not otherwise be admitted, in pursuit of political agendas. Anyone with the temerity to mention this in public however, is immediately tared and feathered by the education establishment (and doubly quickly if they mention vouchers). Unfortunately, there are simply too few honest AND intelligent people left in the United States who are willing to stand up and say that not every child should go to college.
Because of this, the *AA would never let such a law get passed, even if someone becomes homeless and makes the national news because they had to pay an insane amount of damages for copying a few MP3s.
They obviously wouldn't want such a law to be passed, but there is a point of diminishing returns with these lawsuits that the RIAA suits fail (or seem to anyway) to realize. At some point the continuing lawsuits against single mothers, homeless people, and the deceased become so utterly notorious and unsavory that even a normally friendly Congressman finds himself hard pressed to even be seen with industry lobbyists, much less accept their donations to his campaign fund for re-election. There is a price attached to bad public relations and the RIAA and the record labels are already paying this price in spades (the artists are bailing, investors won't touch their shares with a ten foot pole, they are being excoriated and burned in effigy on the blogs, and finally an entire generation of young people are growing up and have grown up with ambivalence and even contempt for the recording industry and their products). Sue your customers has never been a viable business model and it never will be, it strikes at the very heart of voluntary association and the free market.
No doubt the defendant and his attorneys will bring this to the attention of the judge (if they haven't already), but I must say that the levels of chutzpah, arrogance, and hypocrisy of these record labels are simply spectacular both in sheer scale and also in their wanton disregard for any semblance of fairness. Have these companies and their attorneys, at long last, no shame left?
This is why punitive damages should be subjected to a means test whereby the damages are adjusted to reflect a fixed percentage of the annual income of a convicted individual. Thus, the poor working mother might only pay several hundred dollars total or perhaps a couple of thousand max whereas the mega corporation could be on the hook for millions. Fixing the absolute dollar amounts in the laws makes very little sense because the relative burdens will obviously fluctuate over time due to inflation while at the same time imposing a regressive burden of punishment when they are applied (i.e. the poor suffer more than the rich for being convicted of the same crime).
but after an engineering analysis, if the cheaper component fits the specified needs (as well as a reasonable safety margin) then by all means use the cheaper version.
Suppose that you and your fellow crew members are sitting on the pad in the shuttle at the cape about to ride 7.5 million pounds of thrust in a massive controlled explosion all the way to orbit 200 miles above the surface of the Earth. Now, would you prefer to have the $800 dollar seat belts along with the best of everything else or would you prefer instead to ride a vehicle with over 2 million moving parts, each supplied by the lowest bidder, knowing full well that there is no reset button in real life and that most failures have a high probability of killing everyone aboard?
I roll to attack with my +5 hackmaster...(rolls)...it's a natural twenty!
I speak from first hand experience when I say that TortoiseSVN is the way to go for basic version tracking and management with subversion in the Windows environment (you need to download the Subversion server to manage the repositories of course or else have access to a server maintained by another). Since my work primarily focuses on software development and project management I also make use of the CruiseControl.NET automated build service + website with NAnt to manage builds and VisualSVN (the only part of my setup which isn't free of charge, but the $50 fee is reasonable and well worth the price if you use Visual Studio) for Visual Studio integration (which wouldn't be an issue for the original poster).
Right now, the software industry is in a period of change from 100% proprietary code to now about 25% proprietary and 75% OSS.
You meant to say 20% proprietary and 80% OSS right?
However, I think people generally agree that scholarships and bursaries are necessary to ensure that we educate the most talented young people, whatever their socioeconomic background.
I believe that they are desirable, but not necessary in the same way that police, courts, and the national defense are necessary. I would prefer that scholarships and bursaries be the province of private foundations dependent upon voluntary economic activity rather than supported by taxes backed up with government power of force.
I have never seen one, have you? How can you be certain that it has five fingers and toes? As for the other features, suppose for the sake of argument that intelligent alien life forms had evolved elsewhere in the universe under circumstances substantially similar to our own including a homeworld where water is or was plentiful orbiting within the habitable region of its star. It is very likely that certain basic features such as walking upright, large brain, stereoscopic forward facing eyes, etc would evolve elsewhere under similar evolutionary pressures as occurred here on Earth. Perhaps the humanoid bipedal form is merely the most likely for intelligent life everywhere, the most probable result of similar evolutionary processes where specific details (i.e. number of digits) might be different but overall form is substantially similar.
Well take Steam as an example. They have tens of thousands of paying customer players who are all quite happy with the content even though WalMart might not carry it. Stardock is another example, albeit smaller, of a successful online game developer / online retailer of their own games. As long as the game publishers make it easy and convenient to obtain the games online and don't resort to onerous and insulting copy protection, I don't foresee any major difficulties. As the above two examples show there are already companies who have blazed the trail for other game publishers to follow and are successfully using this business model. It is always better to get into WalMart too if you can, but if your game is niche (as most games are anyway) then your best and cheapest option, from a distribution standpoint, is online sales either through Amazon or over your own distribution system like the aforementioned Steam.
As per my response to Psmylie above, my preference would be for a voluntary rating system rather than one enforced by the government which is indeed what we have or at least had (if you live in New York) up until now. The publishers decided to implement a rating system ten (10) years ago now (M for mature, AO for adults only, etc) as a service to their paying customers and also because of implicit threat of government regulation, which is unfortunate (the implied government force part) but unavoidable at least here in the United States.
Now, if a private business does not want to stock M17+ games as part of a company policy to appear more "family friendly" then I support their right to make that decision in their own private business. The game could become harder to obtain, but that is a possibility that one must be prepared to accept as part of private enterprise, the associations are all voluntary (i.e. the store decides what to stock and you decide whether or not to buy some, all, or none of that stock). However, it is my opinion that just as some stores will attempt to be "family friendly" there will also be businesses which cater to adults. The marketplace will ensure that those who want M17+ games and are willing to pay for them will be able to obtain them as easily as possible, trust the invisible hand, it won't let you down.
The end result - involuntary censorship, and pushing games "underground".
I have observed that "underground" economic activity really only occurs on a substantial level when the government steps in, using the power of force (i.e. violence or threat thereof), to make a certain good or service illegal (or in less severe cases legal but heavily taxed like cigarettes). For example, the War on Drugs has driven those products underground, but even they can still be obtained easily and at relatively low prices historically. As long as M17+ games are legal, a few "family friendly" businesses refusing to carry them are not going to drive the M17+ game market underground. You may not be able to get them for that "everyday low price" at WalMart, but such is life.
Another solution to the problem is to not use labelling, but to rather use community websites to review and rate games.
Whatever we decide to do it would be better if the marketplace decided and not the government.
Fair enough. I would be alright with that change as long as recourse is available to the buyer in the case of fraud or negligence (i.e. misrepresenting, either intentionally for fraud or should have known for negligence, a product such that a "reasonable person" would be confused about what they are actually purchasing).
Please mod the parent up as insightful. I wish that more parents understood this.
hold on their chief, it is true that if there is enough demand then manufacturers will provide. It is not a good thing when a vocal minority, that wants a good or service at a lower price than it would cost to provide it, uses the power of the government by proxy to compel the supplier to provide it at that price. Even before the seat belt laws it was possible to have them installed after market IF the consumer was willing to pay the extra costs. When the majority wants something at the right price then the market will provide and government force is unnecessary, but in the meantime be careful about praising the use of force by the government. You may like the result this time (i.e. seat belts), but the next time the government forces you or someone else to do something you might find that you dislike it intensely, but have no recourse and that is not a good situation to be in.
I agree, it is not the fault of society that the grand parent cannot have the lifestyle that he expects or has become accustomed to without working full time or managing his finances better. He chose to have children so he is responsible for them and he cannot expect society to take a "rights cut" so that he can work full time for that leased luxury car and be a slacker parent without suffering the consequences of rebellious children.