You're telling that to a guy (D.A.H.) who even if he wouldn't have a degree in economics, contributes more to the field of economics than old Keynes ever did.
For more insightful discussion of IP from people who actually understand how the world works - I'd heavily recommend the works of Stephan Kinsella, and more here and here.
The scarcity argument is a non-starter, because every other resource on this green earth is limited. According to the "commons because of scarcity", everything on this limited earth should then be also public property. Would they really argue such a position?
Argument by way of "scarcity" has the same failure as monopoly theory- the statists reverse the definition of the terms to apply only to the free market instead of correctly pointing to the government as the only true monopoly maker (see USPS) and virtual monopoly maker in the corporate goliath vs. small businesses world (when they raise barriers to market entry by competitors.)
"The problem is that is illegal, per the federal "payola laws"
The question the parent asked is "why is the practice of payola illegal?" and the legal positivist in you couldn't help but respond that payola is illegal because there are laws against it.
To quote a wise man: "The best way to challenge the assertion of legal positivism is to test the limits of the legal positivist's legal positivism: was it wrong to drink alcohol during prohibition? Was it wrong to let blacks and whites sit together during Jim Crow? Was it wrong to help refugees flee the Nazis? Was slavery wrong? Or was it the underground railroad that was wrong for breaking the slave laws?"
"One of the main problems with legal positivism is that it offers no guide to making good law. Confronted with the question of whether "we" should ban flag-burning, the legal positivists can't say anything. All they can do as legal positivists is tell us that it will be wrong after the ban is passed."
Here is the proof that time travel is possible; an article posted on April 1st, 2005 has taken a trip thru a blackhole and found itself on posted on March 17, 2005. If my theory holds true, expect April 5th's dupe on tomorrow's Slashdot queue.
I know this is a bit OT, but it seems that by convention of the English language we have confused the meaning of the word "Revolution".
People use "revolutionary" in the sense of an idea or concept which is mind-blowing, and brings us in a direction we have never encountered prior. "Evolutionary" is used to describe a system which is usefully extended, modded, but altogether not an unforseeable feat from the perspective of the original object or concept's invention.
But I think we have them con-fused. Revolve means to "come around again", hence the idea or object is not a totally novel concept, but a recycled one. Evolve would simply mean the progression from one form to another, and could be utilized in either sense of the conventional "revolutionary", or the actual, stunted form of "evolve".
This was all called to my attention when reading Neal Stephenson's Quicksilver (Vol. 1 of the Baroque Cycle) and his character's explanation of what a revolution is and is not.
Chris Westley wrote a brilliant piece explaining Bastiat's broken window fallacy to the common man (in other words your idiotic Keynesian economist.)
Andy Mukherjee, a Bloomberg columnist wrote this article; to paraphrase their argument "Yes, [they argue that] disasters can generate economic growth so long as they are predictable and frequent. Every time annual floods or hurricanes levels a house or factory or some other physical capital, the replacement usually involves some technological improvement, which is good for economic growth.".
To which one blogger on Mises.org responded "Would he argue that beatings administered to economists can do them a world of good, as long as they are predictable and frequent? That way, their old and broken hypotheses can be beaten out of them and replaced with newer, better hypotheses."
Isn't it ironic, that some people confuse "free" and "coercive" when talking about American or European markets? And no, you can't put "free" and "enforce" in the same sentence, because that's a whole lot like "fucking for virginity".
All in all, if your parents have the means, you are more likely to have a better raw iq, possibly an enhanced measured intelligence, and a better education than someone whose parents are not of means.
Maybe you are looking at it the wrong way; IQ is only an inaccurate measure of intelligence, however it's a very accurate measure of success.
So look at this way, the parents are more successful, because of their intelligence, and the corresponding indicator of that intelligence would be the IQ.
Finally a "voice" of reason in a sea of "jerk"-haters!
Most of the other posters here are authoritarians who want to control every facet of people's lives, inventing laws to inhibit jerks from the use of their liberties, because it "annoys" them. I've always believed that people found cell phone usage annoying because its exclusionary, and people hate to see jerks involved in a private, one-way conversation that they can't participate or even fully understand. The same goes for driving, and that strawman or straw-soccermom argument involving that SUV-from-hell-while-using-their-cellphone-and-swer ving-lane-to-lane. Come'on people, its time to invent new strawmen! I think your SUV-cellphone-jerk already was shot down, if he hasn't gone ove a cliff right now, taking half the other cars on the road with him.
The second observation the parent mentioned - foriegn language, also rings true with me. I have been subject to listening to Russians and Chinese passengers on the F, B and Q lines in the NYC subways, and no matter how hard I try to ignore them and read my book, their voices pervade my sphere of reading and annoy the hell out of me. But then again, so do those M&M peanut vendors, and homeless collectors who announce themselves, give their life stories and then shove a hand in your face. But I tolerate it. And all those authoritarian jerks who claim to be tolerant, I piss on yer' graves for passing laws where only common sense is needed.
Could be useful for scientific simulations or even getting closer to the idea of "ToyStory in realtime"...
I propose a new acronym, TSIRT which will be the standard of rendering performance, similar to the "LOC" (Library Of Congress) reference when comparing download speeds.
Only because government requires every driver to be insured. If it wasn't a requirement, the insurance companies would be fighting for your business, doing everything in their power to make you sign up with them.
The SPF's website says, "Have confidence that mail that SAYS it's coming from your bank, your credit card company, or the government really is!"
The problem arises though when the phisher/spammer uses a domain which is fairly similar to your bank or credit cards website, for example www.XYZCapitol.com instead of www.XYZCapital.com.
Actually I do know what liberalism means- never having to say your sorry, or something like that.
And if you take issue with my singling out of "liberals", you would realize that it applies to the liberal elements of every political party. And for the specific reason that anyone who advocates a responsibility to the world's tired and oppressed, better explain why they are against seeing the third world prosper at our our expense, after all that is what they wanted.
I don't get liberals- they tell us that we are supposed to care about third-world countries, and stop being greedy a--holes, but when it comes to discussions of outsourcing, all prior arguements are revered 180 degrees.
Slashdot Mirror
You're telling that to a guy (D.A.H.) who even if he wouldn't have a degree in economics, contributes more to the field of economics than old Keynes ever did.
For more insightful discussion of IP from people who actually understand how the world works - I'd heavily recommend the works of Stephan Kinsella, and more here and here.
Far more simple, you can butter both sides of a slice of bread, and *presto!*, you've got flying bread!
Tu ne cede malis!
Argument by way of "scarcity" has the same failure as monopoly theory- the statists reverse the definition of the terms to apply only to the free market instead of correctly pointing to the government as the only true monopoly maker (see USPS) and virtual monopoly maker in the corporate goliath vs. small businesses world (when they raise barriers to market entry by competitors.)
"The problem is that is illegal, per the federal "payola laws"
The question the parent asked is "why is the practice of payola illegal?" and the legal positivist in you couldn't help but respond that payola is illegal because there are laws against it.
To quote a wise man: "The best way to challenge the assertion of legal positivism is to test the limits of the legal positivist's legal positivism: was it wrong to drink alcohol during prohibition? Was it wrong to let blacks and whites sit together during Jim Crow? Was it wrong to help refugees flee the Nazis? Was slavery wrong? Or was it the underground railroad that was wrong for breaking the slave laws?"
"One of the main problems with legal positivism is that it offers no guide to making good law. Confronted with the question of whether "we" should ban flag-burning, the legal positivists can't say anything. All they can do as legal positivists is tell us that it will be wrong after the ban is passed."
What the hell was he just talking about?
What, no overlords joke tie-in?
Here is the proof that time travel is possible; an article posted on April 1st, 2005 has taken a trip thru a blackhole and found itself on posted on March 17, 2005. If my theory holds true, expect April 5th's dupe on tomorrow's Slashdot queue.
People use "revolutionary" in the sense of an idea or concept which is mind-blowing, and brings us in a direction we have never encountered prior. "Evolutionary" is used to describe a system which is usefully extended, modded, but altogether not an unforseeable feat from the perspective of the original object or concept's invention.
But I think we have them con-fused. Revolve means to "come around again", hence the idea or object is not a totally novel concept, but a recycled one. Evolve would simply mean the progression from one form to another, and could be utilized in either sense of the conventional "revolutionary", or the actual, stunted form of "evolve".
This was all called to my attention when reading Neal Stephenson's Quicksilver (Vol. 1 of the Baroque Cycle) and his character's explanation of what a revolution is and is not.
Also, here is a link to the blog defending Westley from the Bloomberg criticism, in which I found that delightful repartee.
Andy Mukherjee, a Bloomberg columnist wrote this article; to paraphrase their argument "Yes, [they argue that] disasters can generate economic growth so long as they are predictable and frequent. Every time annual floods or hurricanes levels a house or factory or some other physical capital, the replacement usually involves some technological improvement, which is good for economic growth.".
To which one blogger on Mises.org responded "Would he argue that beatings administered to economists can do them a world of good, as long as they are predictable and frequent? That way, their old and broken hypotheses can be beaten out of them and replaced with newer, better hypotheses."
Isn't it ironic, that some people confuse "free" and "coercive" when talking about American or European markets?
And no, you can't put "free" and "enforce" in the same sentence, because that's a whole lot like "fucking for virginity".
Maybe you are looking at it the wrong way; IQ is only an inaccurate measure of intelligence, however it's a very accurate measure of success.
So look at this way, the parents are more successful, because of their intelligence, and the corresponding indicator of that intelligence would be the IQ.
Most of the other posters here are authoritarians who want to control every facet of people's lives, inventing laws to inhibit jerks from the use of their liberties, because it "annoys" them. I've always believed that people found cell phone usage annoying because its exclusionary, and people hate to see jerks involved in a private, one-way conversation that they can't participate or even fully understand. The same goes for driving, and that strawman or straw-soccermom argument involving that SUV-from-hell-while-using-their-cellphone-and-swer ving-lane-to-lane.
Come'on people, its time to invent new strawmen! I think your SUV-cellphone-jerk already was shot down, if he hasn't gone ove a cliff right now, taking half the other cars on the road with him.
The second observation the parent mentioned - foriegn language, also rings true with me. I have been subject to listening to Russians and Chinese passengers on the F, B and Q lines in the NYC subways, and no matter how hard I try to ignore them and read my book, their voices pervade my sphere of reading and annoy the hell out of me. But then again, so do those M&M peanut vendors, and homeless collectors who announce themselves, give their life stories and then shove a hand in your face. But I tolerate it. And all those authoritarian jerks who claim to be tolerant, I piss on yer' graves for passing laws where only common sense is needed.
I propose a new acronym, TSIRT which will be the standard of rendering performance, similar to the "LOC" (Library Of Congress) reference when comparing download speeds.
Well I'm glad someone else here is reading Engadget and followed the subsequent link to the PC World article.
Ellen Feiss might do the trick....oh wait.
Free Republic, meet Democratic Underground. Democratic Underground, Free Republic.
"Have confidence that mail that SAYS it's coming from your bank, your credit card company, or the government really is!"
The problem arises though when the phisher/spammer uses a domain which is fairly similar to your bank or credit cards website, for example www.XYZCapitol.com instead of www.XYZCapital.com.
Ummmm... what about the blank CD-R levy you guys pay?
Corporate Welfare??
Isnt that reverse welfare where the goverment agrees not to mug you for your money?
Actually I do know what liberalism means- never having to say your sorry, or something like that.
And if you take issue with my singling out of "liberals", you would realize that it applies to the liberal elements of every political party. And for the specific reason that anyone who advocates a responsibility to the world's tired and oppressed, better explain why they are against seeing the third world prosper at our our expense, after all that is what they wanted.
Then you should be glad to know that I vote Libertarian. ;)
I don't get liberals- they tell us that we are supposed to care about third-world countries, and stop being greedy a--holes, but when it comes to discussions of outsourcing, all prior arguements are revered 180 degrees.
So what is it, gentlemen?