You want an example of 'natural monopolies'? Take the power grid in Japan. Different companies built two sides of the island's power grid using different systems. From this
TEPCO’s supply situation would look less grim were it not for a quirky split that divides Japan’s power grids in half: While Tokyo and the rest of eastern Japan run on 50-hertz electricity, the big cities southwest of Tokyo and the rest of the country run on alternating current that cycles at 60 Hz. It’s a historical accident from the 19th century, when Tokyo’s electrical entrepreneurs installed 50-Hz generators mainly from Germany, while their counterparts in Osaka selected 60-Hz equipment from the United States.
So yes allowing fragmented systems is inherently bad when it comes some monopolistic areas of effect. And in this case it caused significant damage because they couldn't use the power from the west to help the east.
In October 1962, Licklider was hired by Jack Ruina as Director of the newly established Information Processing Techniques Office (IPTO) within DARPA, with a mandate to interconnect the United States Department of Defense's main computers at Cheyenne Mountain, the Pentagon, and SAC HQ. There he formed an informal group within DARPA to further computer research.
The 'idea' was published prior to this hiring, but the research into making it happen was decidedly government sponsored.
But while the government might have set it up to begin with, make no mistake. The internet you use and enjoy now was built by private industry. These electrons are going over private wires.
You do realize this is exactly what Ron Paul wants to kill. The research and investment of the 'setting it up' part. So yes without the government the internet does NOT exist as it does today.
You can't sue Facebook for that...but you can sue the friend. But then, I'm doubtful you had your friend sign a non-disclosure agreement to the data you gave to them...
I'm curious what Obama has done that is so much 'worse' than the Bush administration?
Most of us lefty liberals did point out (to pointed objection and the frequent charge of treason) just how much Bush was trashing precedent and stomping on civil rights. Glad to see you caught up with us on that:)
It's an interesting philosophical question though...who is 'worse', the initiator of the crimes or the successor who continues to commit them because they are now acceptable.
And even if that were true, so what? Are the Koch brothers or me not allowed to have opinions?
No but if you think the Koch brothers have your interests at heart, you sir are a fool.
Perhaps you should read up on this issue before you complain further? Corporations weren't given rights equivalent to people. And the Citizens United ruling merely gave the people who made up the organization the rights to which they were entitled by the Constitution.
I wasn't aware that they had 'lost' their constitutional rights at any point. If you have evidence that shareholders somehow didn't have free speech rights until Citizens United please show it...
By admitting that Citizen United did in fact 'give' rights to corporations (or 'people' as you claim), you also admit that since they already had those rights, they now have more rights than before - which is my entire point.
The same people end up in jail in that case. I thought the assumption here was that that law had caught up with them.
The *entire* point of incorporation is to shield the owners/shareholders from liability. So no the law doesn't 'catch up' with them for corporate crimes. Individuals may be charged for criminal conduct, but the vast majority of people involved see no penalty whatsoever save the stock loss.
It's really funny that you're saying my conclusions don't follow when you clearly stated that it was ok for FOREIGNERs to have votes through corporations.
Further, even in cases where owners are foreign, there's reciprocity which typically requires one to respect the rights of foreigners so that their citizens have their ownership rights respected in that foreign country.
You sir have drunk the Koch brother's koolaid. They love people who think like you.
Corporations are not bad things in and of themselves. But giving them equivalent rights to people, and yes Citizens United gave them 'speech' rights, only encourages them to behave badly without any of the consequences people face.
Corporations are owned by citizens of some country, hence, they inherit the rights of those owners.
So stock holders give up their rights because the corporation inherited them?
If a person gets a vote, and every corporation they have stock in inherits their rights, then all those corporations get one vote per share holder???? Even if a corporation just gets one vote, the wealthy now have multiple votes since they can buy their way into multiple corporations that the average person can't.
That's not fair in any sense.
Why? Corporations aren't people.
You just said they inherited the rights of the people who own stock. Citizens United ruling would also seem to confer 'speech' rights onto corporations. They are gaining the 'rights' without the penalties. If any person couldn't be imprisoned for committing crimes...don't you think they'd go right back to the same crimes?
Usually such fraud is either face-saving for the government and its benefactors.
This is a 'good' thing how exactly?
When the crime is legitimate fraud, then the business typically closes permanently.
Only to reopen tomorrow as a newly formed corporation. If the same people are running the ship, they same outcomes can be expected.
Countries are not in existence for corporations. They are in existence for their *citizens*. Corporations *should* get short shrift in the law making process.
There should not be *any* voice in government for corporations until they can have the exact penalties enacted against them that individuals can. If a corporation is convicted of fraud, they can't do business for 3-5 years...until the CEO gets out of jail himself.
The fact that any corporate money is allowed in politics is nothing but pure bribery.
We should hold corporations responsible for their actions UNDER THE LAW. Currently that law has been either massively gutted or never existed in the first place.
So yes, you protest the entity who makes the LAW, i.e. the government.
Netflix said streaming was the way of the future and I don't disagree. That doesn't mean it's 'cheaper'.
You rightly point out the multitude of costs associated with physical movie discs. Which I don't dispute. Movie studios are scared shitless of streaming because they see it as 'copying' on steroids.
Much like I could record a song off the radio, which they fought to make illegal before being shot down, they are worried that the tech will get to a point that I can stream a movie and then just record it to my hard drive.
Ala Flash Movie recorders on computers today, this will happen. A physical DVD still required an extra step for people to make the copy. With streaming the copy will just be made as part of the software the person uses. It isn't there yet but trust me it will be before 5 years are up. Now people simply stream once and have it forever in a perfect copy.
If you believe Netflix wasn't profitable before this announcement/cancellation I've got a bridge to sell you:)
Actually, it is more expensive to stream. Not because of physical transportation/shipping costs but from the licensing costs the studios require for streaming.
The key question is whether a specific collection of facts can be copyrighted.
Facts obviously can't be copyrighted, but if I made a piece of 'art' made up of simple facts on a piece of paper, that piece of 'art' would be copyrighted but not the underlying facts.
Could you claim a database is that piece of 'art'?
It's a pathetic copyright troll to be sure, but I'm just playing devil's advocate.
uh...you design the overhang into the structure, you know like the porch roof covers the front door? You do the same with windows to keep unwanted sunlight out.
The new green designs even have retractable shades that cover in hot times and let sun in during cooler times.
Is it common to have 'no' windows on the sunny side, or just have shades/overhangs to keep out the, I'm assuming, stronger sun?
It's a fair point that in the tropics the sun might not be as welcome inside as in the more northern latitudes, and that it's angled much more vertically further lessening the usefulness of anything on a vertical window surface.
BR
I still think it's an interesting idea that has potential.
I don't believe the 'heat' is present in the environment 42 million miles from the sun.
The 'heat' is the solar radiation heating up what it strikes. That heat will radiate back out into space. Likewise the dark side of the space craft will be close to absolute zero. So there's a quite clear delineation of heat zones.
If the probe orbits the sun and has a long tail radiator that's always in shadow/dark it will have the necessary heat differential needed to produce power.
Funny thing, people generally prefer bigger windows on the sunny sides of their houses...what with the natural 'light' thing and all:)
While they won't be angled outside of vertical in most cases, it is an interesting use of an existing space to produce power. Much like the solar shingles that already exist.
Enough of these things that make existing space dual use and pretty soon it becomes a significant input to the power supply with little effect compared to installing solar panels on top of the roof or in the yard. Google's solar trees are another example of making something dual use to provide power. (Parking plus solar panels and the cars are cooler due to shade further reducing energy usage to cool them when people drive away.
Slashdot Mirror
TEPCO’s supply situation would look less grim were it not for a quirky split that divides Japan’s power grids in half: While Tokyo and the rest of eastern Japan run on 50-hertz electricity, the big cities southwest of Tokyo and the rest of the country run on alternating current that cycles at 60 Hz. It’s a historical accident from the 19th century, when Tokyo’s electrical entrepreneurs installed 50-Hz generators mainly from Germany, while their counterparts in Osaka selected 60-Hz equipment from the United States.
So yes allowing fragmented systems is inherently bad when it comes some monopolistic areas of effect. And in this case it caused significant damage because they couldn't use the power from the west to help the east.
it's all in government funded labs in your world, eh?
Dunno, is it all for profit, private universities in yours?
In October 1962, Licklider was hired by Jack Ruina as Director of the newly established Information Processing Techniques Office (IPTO) within DARPA, with a mandate to interconnect the United States Department of Defense's main computers at Cheyenne Mountain, the Pentagon, and SAC HQ. There he formed an informal group within DARPA to further computer research.
The 'idea' was published prior to this hiring, but the research into making it happen was decidedly government sponsored.
But while the government might have set it up to begin with, make no mistake. The internet you use and enjoy now was built by private industry. These electrons are going over private wires.
You do realize this is exactly what Ron Paul wants to kill. The research and investment of the 'setting it up' part. So yes without the government the internet does NOT exist as it does today.
The important question...anybody seen Seal Team Six lately? ;-)
You can't sue Facebook for that...but you can sue the friend. But then, I'm doubtful you had your friend sign a non-disclosure agreement to the data you gave to them...
I'd prefer to 'make a deposit' ;-)
I'm curious what Obama has done that is so much 'worse' than the Bush administration?
:)
Most of us lefty liberals did point out (to pointed objection and the frequent charge of treason) just how much Bush was trashing precedent and stomping on civil rights. Glad to see you caught up with us on that
It's an interesting philosophical question though...who is 'worse', the initiator of the crimes or the successor who continues to commit them because they are now acceptable.
She may claim I'm a 'small business', I prefer to think of myself as 'too big to fail'!
Nevermind, but would you mind wearing this mask while we have sex?
And even if that were true, so what? Are the Koch brothers or me not allowed to have opinions?
No but if you think the Koch brothers have your interests at heart, you sir are a fool.
Perhaps you should read up on this issue before you complain further? Corporations weren't given rights equivalent to people. And the Citizens United ruling merely gave the people who made up the organization the rights to which they were entitled by the Constitution.
I wasn't aware that they had 'lost' their constitutional rights at any point. If you have evidence that shareholders somehow didn't have free speech rights until Citizens United please show it...
By admitting that Citizen United did in fact 'give' rights to corporations (or 'people' as you claim), you also admit that since they already had those rights, they now have more rights than before - which is my entire point.
The same people end up in jail in that case. I thought the assumption here was that that law had caught up with them.
The *entire* point of incorporation is to shield the owners/shareholders from liability. So no the law doesn't 'catch up' with them for corporate crimes. Individuals may be charged for criminal conduct, but the vast majority of people involved see no penalty whatsoever save the stock loss.
It's really funny that you're saying my conclusions don't follow when you clearly stated that it was ok for FOREIGNERs to have votes through corporations.
Further, even in cases where owners are foreign, there's reciprocity which typically requires one to respect the rights of foreigners so that their citizens have their ownership rights respected in that foreign country.
You sir have drunk the Koch brother's koolaid. They love people who think like you.
Corporations are not bad things in and of themselves. But giving them equivalent rights to people, and yes Citizens United gave them 'speech' rights, only encourages them to behave badly without any of the consequences people face.
You are correct about 'now'. I was speaking hypothetically about 5 years from now. If it's an HD quality signal, it can be saved as such.
Corporations are owned by citizens of some country, hence, they inherit the rights of those owners.
So stock holders give up their rights because the corporation inherited them?
If a person gets a vote, and every corporation they have stock in inherits their rights, then all those corporations get one vote per share holder???? Even if a corporation just gets one vote, the wealthy now have multiple votes since they can buy their way into multiple corporations that the average person can't.
That's not fair in any sense.
Why? Corporations aren't people.
You just said they inherited the rights of the people who own stock. Citizens United ruling would also seem to confer 'speech' rights onto corporations. They are gaining the 'rights' without the penalties. If any person couldn't be imprisoned for committing crimes...don't you think they'd go right back to the same crimes?
Usually such fraud is either face-saving for the government and its benefactors.
This is a 'good' thing how exactly?
When the crime is legitimate fraud, then the business typically closes permanently.
Only to reopen tomorrow as a newly formed corporation. If the same people are running the ship, they same outcomes can be expected.
Countries are not in existence for corporations. They are in existence for their *citizens*. Corporations *should* get short shrift in the law making process.
There should not be *any* voice in government for corporations until they can have the exact penalties enacted against them that individuals can. If a corporation is convicted of fraud, they can't do business for 3-5 years...until the CEO gets out of jail himself.
The fact that any corporate money is allowed in politics is nothing but pure bribery.
We should hold corporations responsible for their actions UNDER THE LAW. Currently that law has been either massively gutted or never existed in the first place.
So yes, you protest the entity who makes the LAW, i.e. the government.
Netflix said streaming was the way of the future and I don't disagree. That doesn't mean it's 'cheaper'.
:)
You rightly point out the multitude of costs associated with physical movie discs. Which I don't dispute. Movie studios are scared shitless of streaming because they see it as 'copying' on steroids.
Much like I could record a song off the radio, which they fought to make illegal before being shot down, they are worried that the tech will get to a point that I can stream a movie and then just record it to my hard drive.
Ala Flash Movie recorders on computers today, this will happen. A physical DVD still required an extra step for people to make the copy. With streaming the copy will just be made as part of the software the person uses. It isn't there yet but trust me it will be before 5 years are up. Now people simply stream once and have it forever in a perfect copy.
If you believe Netflix wasn't profitable before this announcement/cancellation I've got a bridge to sell you
Actually, it is more expensive to stream. Not because of physical transportation/shipping costs but from the licensing costs the studios require for streaming.
The key question is whether a specific collection of facts can be copyrighted.
Facts obviously can't be copyrighted, but if I made a piece of 'art' made up of simple facts on a piece of paper, that piece of 'art' would be copyrighted but not the underlying facts.
Could you claim a database is that piece of 'art'?
It's a pathetic copyright troll to be sure, but I'm just playing devil's advocate.
iProfit more likely
uh...you design the overhang into the structure, you know like the porch roof covers the front door? You do the same with windows to keep unwanted sunlight out.
The new green designs even have retractable shades that cover in hot times and let sun in during cooler times.
Is it common to have 'no' windows on the sunny side, or just have shades/overhangs to keep out the, I'm assuming, stronger sun?
It's a fair point that in the tropics the sun might not be as welcome inside as in the more northern latitudes, and that it's angled much more vertically further lessening the usefulness of anything on a vertical window surface.
BR I still think it's an interesting idea that has potential.
I don't believe the 'heat' is present in the environment 42 million miles from the sun.
The 'heat' is the solar radiation heating up what it strikes. That heat will radiate back out into space. Likewise the dark side of the space craft will be close to absolute zero. So there's a quite clear delineation of heat zones.
If the probe orbits the sun and has a long tail radiator that's always in shadow/dark it will have the necessary heat differential needed to produce power.
Funny thing, people generally prefer bigger windows on the sunny sides of their houses...what with the natural 'light' thing and all :)
While they won't be angled outside of vertical in most cases, it is an interesting use of an existing space to produce power. Much like the solar shingles that already exist.
Enough of these things that make existing space dual use and pretty soon it becomes a significant input to the power supply with little effect compared to installing solar panels on top of the roof or in the yard. Google's solar trees are another example of making something dual use to provide power. (Parking plus solar panels and the cars are cooler due to shade further reducing energy usage to cool them when people drive away.
googling "Illinois HOT Lanes" brought back quite a few results. Example from 2008...