In the 1980s, the company began piping wastewater as far as 14 miles to evaporation ponds... This pipeline repeatedly ruptured during cleaning operations... federal investigation later found that some 60 spills—some unreported—occurred between 1984 and 1998... about 600,000 gallons of radioactive and other hazardous waste flowed onto the desert floor
Likely took the alternate, RP101 (Rape & Pillage 101); This beginning course in self destructive economics will provide you with the foundation of modern day slash & burn or salt & till economics. Prerequisites include RJ101 (Religious Justification), IC101 (Inhibiting your Conscience), and RB101 (Robber Barons)
if price had increased, demand would have decreased in a more natural way
Actually the demand would still be there. People would still want to turn on the AC, they would still want to watch the TV and play on the internet, and businesses would definitely still want to run their production lines and data centers.
But they would cut back due to the high prices.
Profit margins for all power generators and market makers would increase while their investments in facilities and upkeep would be reduced. There would be no incentive to break ranks and risk lower profit margins or the need to invest in facilities. The results of their collusion and market manipulation would have put them in a far better position than competing and long term investment ever would.
With other businesses having their own profit margins trimmed to top off the profit margins of the power generators and market makers they would soon begin leaving California for areas where power was regulated. With the jobs going away and the quality of life in California reduced the population would also start to leave for areas where power was regulated.
Would the exodus from California finally create an actual reduction in demand that causes competition, better service and lower prices, possibly. But at this point California's economy would be decimated and what would likely happen is they would just keep shutting down power generation facilities to continue the false impression of limited supply until they finally sucked as much life as was possible out of California.
The problem is that the purpose of for profit businesses is to make a profit. They will do what they can with or without regulation to increase profits.
Businesses don't care about better service or lower prices unless there is some driving factor that forces them to reduce prices or invest in the business. In the California power case the various suppliers and market makers colluded to increase prices and their profits. It seems nobody considered the possibility that instead of competing they would work together to raise all their profit margins rather than competing to provide a better product.
This does not mean that any and all regulations are inherently well written.
Nope, and you would absolutely never see me arguing to implement regulation willy nilly. And it appears that they tried to make some sense out of the California deregulation when they considered that there was no way to remove the monopoly of distribution to consumers. But as I stated there seems to be a lot of naivety about the free market and motivating factors for suppliers.
And while not all regulation is good neither is removing regulation in the name free markets that will self correct. This is either pure ignorance, naivety, or just dumb greed.
Luckily regulators and politicians are not susceptible to the greed factor
Granted I did not specify my position on government corruption but it seems absurd to presuppose that since I refuse to accept one extreme in economic or political ideology that I must somehow be on the other extreme. I have not looked deep enough into the California deregulation scam to know for sure but I always wondered if there were any money ties to the government officials in California that made the scam possible in the first place. A lot of people made millions off the fraud that was perpetrated against the people and businesses of California, I would not be surprised at how deep the spoilage ran.
A monopoly has all the problems of a natural monopoly with no threat of entry.
Yes, thus the need for regulation.
A monopoly is a government created monopoly, a natural monopoly is a business in an industry which benefits from extreme economies of scale.
Actually a monopoly is not always a government created monopoly. There are government mandated monopolies but even in a free market with entrepreneurs monopolies arise. And it is not always a bad situation either but it does present those with the overwhelming control over the market the opportunity to engage in business practices that are meant to both maintain the monopoly status and maintain artificially high prices. In these cases you no longer have a free market. Entrepreneurs, competitors and consumers will suffer while the market bends to the whim of a single entity.
If you pretend that one system will have none of the faults of the other, you're wrong, because they aren't inherent in the system, but the market/industry/customers as a whole.
No pretending here, the pretending was that selling off all the regulated power generation in California to the free wheeling free market entrepreneurs would do away with the evil commie government regulation and result in better service and lower prices due to free market competition.
Unfortunately nobody seemed to consider the possibility that the unregulated portion of the market would decide to collude instead of compete in an attempt to increase profits rather than engage in the difficult practice of competition that would have resulted in better service and prices.
if you read the VERY article you linked others to most of the discussion is on the regulation that led to this crisis
And if you read my comment you would have noticed that I did in fact read the entire article and I am fully aware of the complaints that the free market failed because it was not a completely free market. And this is an easy crock to debunk because when you read the article you also discover that the prices on the exchange were not free market prices because a fraud was being perpetrated. The so called free market competitors were manipulating demand and supply to control prices. The fact that prices were not propagated to end consumers is a meaningless argument because the prices were artificially inflated by the concerted fraud of free market suppliers.
Market makers placed fake demand orders to make it appear the distribution system was over loaded and artificially increase prices.
Market suppliers shut down power generation facilities to remove supply from the market and artificially increase prices.
The free market colluded to perpetrate a fraud, it is as simple as that. Regulation did not make the collusion possible, deregulation made it possible.
Passing the fake prices on to the end consumer would not change the fact that the prices were fake. And in fact, using free market principles, the California economy would be decimated and both businesses and consumers would have left California in droves to areas where electrical power generation was regulated and they could escape the fake prices created by
Distribution is a natural monopoly, without splitting the two then you do not have a free market, you have no competition, prices will increase to the maximum sustainable profit to consumer who can afford the rates ratio.
once he inter-ties were fully loaded no more power could be imported and prices(to the distributors) rose
Read the results of investigations, inter-ties were not fully loaded, the bookings were fake, this was intentional fraud with full knowledge that prices would be artificially increased. And one of the selling concepts of competing generators was lower prices, instead demand and supply were fraudulently manipulated to create artificially high prices.
California's deregulation failed due to corporate greed that drove them to engage in fraud to artificially increase prices. With no government oversight many consumers and businesses in California paid a heavy price. I suspect it will be a long time before they make that mistake again.
<SARCASM> When California implemented deregulation and created multiple competing power generators they shut down their power generation facilities to cause rolling brown outs so they could force prices to increase. Since they were shutting down facilities they will last much longer and should degrade slower. So deregulation will result in longer lasting infrastructure.;) </SARCASM>
the free market would degrade into monopolies and become based on greed if left unregulated
Very true and a proven principle over and over again. Unfortunately, markets like electrical power generation are susceptible to the greed factor due to the virtual impossibility of end consumers using their wallets to regulate with natural market forces. Governmental regulation is absolutely necessary to have a viable electrical power market supplying consumers and industry.
Case in point, is the California electricity crisis that stemmed from naive deregulation of power generation and unnatural manipulation of the market to raise prices. Of course there are many that claim it failed because the price hikes were not propagated to the end consumers but this is a crock because the end result would not have been an end to the manipulation it would have meant many consumers would have to do without electricity, many businesses would go out of business due to costs, and those who could pay would be stuck paying artificially high prices due to the concerted manipulation by Enron and power generators to increase their profits. It turned into a greed driven market even though there were "competing" power generators.
It cannot be stressed enough, in the age of the 'greed is good' 'privatize everything' crowd demanding the rise of a plutocracy, the government is a democratically elected representative republic, your vote is your say, you don't get to vote for corporations and as history shows us over and over again they are very good at circumventing any perceived control anyone believes they may have with their wallet.
It is not even necessary to go back to the history of Standard Oil to understand how regulation is in fact necessary to keep the free market from self destruction, the deregulation and privatization of electrical power generation in California and the rise and fall of Enron is a clear sign of the absolute and total corruption and deception that results from unchecked greed.
The full blazing glory of unregulated capitalism is exactly what Enron exuded while conspiring with power generating companies to create fake power shortages and manipulation of market orders to create fake excessive demand on distribution systems.
When free market capitalism morphs into an organized criminal system that avoids any semblance of competition or free market pricing the only thing stopping the fleecing of the population is the elected government that must kick these assholes in the balls or find themselves kicked out of office.
It's too bad that Mr Perry agreed to the NDA. (I signed one a few years ago, was reluctant at the time, and will never sign one again, beer money be-damned.)
The first NDA I signed was after college and it was required for the job. To me the agreement was overreaching but I was basically penniless out of school so I signed it.
In recent times I have turned down gigs that required an NDA after reading the agreement and explaining to the employer that I could not sign it because it was overreaching. I did not get the gigs but I am not in a financial situation that required me to give up my rights.
I actually did sign another NDA recently but in this case when I pointed out the parts of the agreement that were overreaching they agreed to remove them and we ended up with a good agreement that protects both parties.
So I guess what I am trying to say is that in some cases NDAs are negotiable, give it a shot.
all you have to do is get people to contribute to the code
Perhaps you simply worded this incorrectly but the way you stated that is not true. Contributing code to a project does not guarantee that it will end up in that project. I know this from experience in providing patches to some open source PHP based application to enable LDAP based SSO. Not only did project coordinators not accept my code willy nilly but in most cases they seemed to be too busy to even consider my code so it never made it into the project.
In the case of a company, you have to either subvert or plant employees there.
Your not even trying to consider how the FBI would go about back dooring commercial software. Since it is closed source and a privately owned code base all the FBI has to do is have a discussion with management and it may not even cost anything to have an FBI back door developed into the software. And being closed source your not going to get the major auditing that is about to happen to many open source projects now. And if you don't believe that corporations would work closely with the government to spy on citizens then I think you had better start doing some googling and reading, but keep in mind that there is a high probability that everything you search and read is monitored even if you don't use a single bit of open source code.
if this turns out to be true (please note I am doubtful of that) it shows a weakness in the "many eyes" idea.
Agreed, it should be very interesting to see what is discovered in the coming audits. But I will say this, if it turns out to be true and the code made it into production use it will definitely demand some answers as to why it was overlooked but the ability to view open source code will remain a strong benefit because without access to the code this e-mail would only end in speculation as there would be no audit of the commercial code that is locked away from view.
Are you seriously making the argument that if it weren't for local government in California, the federal government would have made medical marijuana available?
Absolutely not.
I'm saying that medical marijuana laws were passed in California, many local California governments in contradiction to the wishes of the people of California created bans on the dispensaries of medical marijuana, the case was taken to the Supreme Court and so far the Federal branch of the government has upheld the position of the citizens in California.
California is not a homogeneous conglomeration of single mind, single belief, single position politics. Even without a Federal government your idea of medical marijuana is doomed by local government. You wont be running across state lines to escape marijuana laws, your going to running across county lines, city lines, etc. Where as if you have a legal case the Supreme Court will make sure you don't have to run anywhere.
This whole Ron Paul if you don't like it leave position is bullshit anyway. If Ron Paul and his supporters are so oppressed under the Constitution of the United States then leave.
And as I just showed you with a news article the Federal government is actively supporting your position so you can't say they are oppressing you. Admittedly that is an over simplification but so is your claim of Federal oppression and the idea that elimination of the Federal government will set you free.
I can think of some crazier forms of government. What about the Communists under Stallin? That government did plenty of evil without the help of religion.
This is true, and the Pol Pot regime, the Nazi Regime, etc.
The trick is to keep a sense of balance and proportion so that the crazier whims of any faction are not heeded.
Agreed, but it is not a balance and proportion of individual rights and religion. The freedom to practice religion is an individual right, the right to impose the most popular religious dogma on others is not a right and is contrary to the Constitution and the reasoning behind the war of independence.
what about the federal government busting medical marijuana producers and distributors in California?
Perhaps you missed this part: "Don't get me wrong, it is not perfect and oppression still occurs but make no mistake, you do have options under the Constitution to protect your rights."
That said, it is ironic that you made this post while a quick search of the news shows that local California government is trying to ban medical marijuana while at the same time the third branch of the Federal government, the Supreme Court, is on a path to end the oppression against medical marijuana.
So it appears that your problems with medical marijuana are not simply the big meanie Federal government stomping all over your rights but in fact the Federal government is playing a role in protecting your rights against local California government.
In the Ron Paul Libertarian universe you would have no Federal Constitution, no Federal Court, and only the individual rights that the local mob decides you may have.
Something else that is funny about Ron Paul's foreign land grab.
Ron and other Libertarians are supposed to be all about small government, privatization of spending, and free market.
WTF is Ron Paul doing, trying to protect almost $500 million in annual tax payer expenses in a foreign country to operate what is mostly a commercial venture?
If you look at the results of the 1977 treaty the operation of the canal has been reverted to a private company and the United States tax payers are no longer on the hook to pay for the operation of a commercial venture.
And the free market has jumped in and several businesses and nations are today investing in expansion and updates to the canal.
Just more contradictions and inconsistencies in Ron Paul and his supporters.
In 2002 Ron gave his position on the Iraq war. Nowhere did Ron express any concept of 'Get out of Iraq or Commit fully'. Ron gave an exceptional speech on the illegality and fallacy of the process, logic and reasoning. Ron noted that Iraq was in no way a threat or an aggressor against the United States.
If you can direct me to Ron's new position on Iraq where we should get out or commit fully through annexation of the areas where we have invested capital then please do.
In 1989 the Panamanian government under Noriega declared war on the United States in violation of the Torrijos–Carter Treaties of 1977. Of course Noriega made his own claims about the United States violating the treaty but I think these were overblown.
The purpose of the 1989 invasion was not to take over Panama nor the dismantle the 1977 treaty. In fact, the invasion was justified by 1) the declaration of war by Panama and 2) the 1977 treaty gives the United States permanent authority to protect the neutrality of the canal.
And Ron's bill has nothing to do with the 1989 invasion of Panama. Ron's bill is simply an attempt to roll back the foreign policy clock about 100 years to a more Imperialistic time.
And the "0) Historical stuff happened" is more than historical, it is pertinent. You intentionally left out the most important parts of the relationship between the United States and Panama so you could make a feeble attempt to justify Ron's Imperialistic annexation of foreign territory whose status was already well established through treaties.
In 1903 the United States signed a treaty and paid $40 million to a FRENCH diplomat to gain rights to the land needed to take over the canal project. The reason the deal was made with a French diplomat was because that same diplomat had financed a revolution to separate the isthmus of Panama from Colombia.
From 1903 to 1977 this Imperialistic land grab was a source on continual contention between the people of Panama and the United States. The 1977 treaty was an amenable solution that retained United States interest in the neutrality of the water way.
This is not ancient history, you can't just put a zero to it and say "uh, stuff, who cares".
Holy smoke, of all the nonsensical and ignorant things to say.
Religion is the belief and faith in the super natural.
Atheism is a lack of belief or faith in the super natural.
Religion is marked by rituals and often culturally based practices and requires indoctrination to take hold, it is not spontaneous.
Atheism has no rituals, no culture, no indoctrination. It can be spontaneous in religious cultures when someone has an epiphany but in less religious cultures it is not even necessary to consider if one is atheist.
All you're arguing for is a massive, tyrannical Federal government and NOT following the Constitution.
Read Ron's legislation, he wants to REMOVE sections of the Constitution.
You and Ron hate individual freedom and liberty, you and Ron hate the Constitution of the United States. You and Ron are the ones trying very hard to gut the Constitution not because some law was passed that oppresses you, no, you want to gut the Constitution so YOU can pass NEW laws that oppress the rights of individuals YOU dislike.
Would he oppose further such land grabs in the future? Certainly.
(a couple seconds later)
Militaries take territory from one another from time to time. So long as the rule of law is followed, it isn't really that big of a deal.
And I am quixotic? LOL, I can only guess then that you suffer from a dissociative identity disorder and can switch between your Mahatma Gandhi persona and your Napoleon Bonaparte character in mid post.
The rule of law is often a good choice to resolve indifferences, and so after more than 70 years of contention between Panama and the United States over a treaty that was signed between the United States and a French diplomat, an amenable solution was agreed upon in the 1977 treaty between the United States and an actual Panamanian government.
Rather than accept the amenable treaty Ron Paul would have us jump back to the foreign policy of a century ago. Talk about a dumbfounded foreign policy.
Rabid secularists? *knock* *knock* Hello, is there anyone in there?
It is not the secularists who are attempting to remove constitutional rights of individuals and replace them with states rights to enable mob rules. If the religious mob would stop attempting to enforce their dogma on the secularists and be happy that they can practice their religion in peace then there would be no conflict.
A secularist standing up against the oppression of a religious mob is not rabid, they are free. Hating the freedom of individuals and trying to oppress them is insane.
Religion is the most insane and immoral method of governance created by man. If you read the writings of the founders you will learn that a big driving force behind the design of the government was to prevent the religious insanity that tormented Europe for centuries.
I find this hilarious, at first you equate the law of government and the law of religion then you leave a quote stating that only individuals in government are insane. Since religion is a form of government then I guess the quote is correct.
But there is a large crowd who want very much to dismantle rights of individuals that are protected by the Constitution so they can replace them with State's Rights that they will use to enforce their retardation on the rest of us.
Once individual rights are converted to states rights then we will progress to all America being retarded.
Are you assuming they are opposed to Glenn Beck?:)
Once Ron is in the President's office and has wiped out the Constitutional protections of individuals rights and starts implementing his mob democracy policies I'm sure he can put Glenn Beck in charge as the head of the new state church. Since according to Ron there is no separation of church and state.
I'd assume he's advocating a common line he always trends towards: You can't have it both ways.
Either make it US territory, or pull out entirely.
That is interesting, I was under the false impression from Ron's speeches that he was against Imperialism, invading sovereign countries and generally meddling in other nations affairs.
His speeches led me to dig further into this interesting man and read some of his actual legislation which is how I came across the Panama legislation.
The land grab in the legislation was contradictory to the view I had formed of Ron Paul on foreign policy but you are telling me that actually it was my impression that was wrong.
So Ron Paul is all for Imperialist actions by the United States as long is we go all out to forcibly take what we want from foreign nations. After all, what are the Panamanians going to do against our military might, we'll just bomb the shit out of them. It might have been different if they had been able to stop the French from separating them from Colombia in 1903 because they would at least be a little larger, then again, nah, we would still kick their ass and take their land.
If that is true then there is no way I could ever vote for this man, that is an insane foreign policy, might makes right. I owe you a debt of gratitude for clarifying this.
When the US federal gov't infringes on your rights, there's basically nothing you, a citizen, can do about it.
This statement is about as dead wrong as you can get. The Federal government as established under the Constitution of the United States has checks and balances to provide even individual citizens with the power to challenge the super power.
Don't get me wrong, it is not perfect and oppression still occurs but make no mistake, you do have options under the Constitution to protect your rights.
Now compare this to (T)Ron Paul's option.
Yes, by all means do compare.
In Ron Pauls Religious Freedom Act he doesn't intend for there to be religious freedom for individuals like the Constitution, no, he intends "REMOVAL OF RELIGIOUS FREEDOM-RELATED CASES FROM FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT JURISDICTION" which means you will no longer have the protection of the Constitution and no recourse to the Supreme Court when the local mob in your state creates oppressive laws based on religion.
The reality is quite the opposite of what you are describing.
you would be free to vote with your feet
This is an interesting and common solution among Ron Paul supporters, don't like the oppression then leave, but here is the deal, the United State as defined by the Constitution was here before you and before Ron Paul. If you have so much trouble with the liberty and freedom of individuals that is protected by the Constitution then leave. Nobody is forcing Ron or anyone else to stay in the United States.
Any biologist will tell you that evolution proceeds fastest when it takes place in small groups.
Political oppression and tyranny are not ruled by natural selection and they do not experience variance due to random mutation. Besides, oppressive governments have been tested many times, they don't work, there is no reason to trash the Constitution and revert the states to some ridiculous mob rules democracy where the desires of the mob no matter how absurd take precedence over the rights of individuals.
do you not understand concepts such as "move to another state", "elect new politicians" or "pass a referendum to add / remove a law by popular vote
It is not necessary to move out of state, the Constitition protects the liberties of individual citizens from oppression by the mob democracy you support. It is not a question of whether you believe this or not, as James Madison noted, part of the reason the Constitution came to be was to address such oppressive behavior.
We don't live in North Korea, Iran, not even Communist Soviet Russia. If you have such a hard time adjusting to the government established by the Constitution of the United States and you believe it is so important that states have the power to dictate people's personal lives and throw them in prison because they don't fit the local religious dogma then leave the country.
Nobody is forcing you to stay here and suffer under the oppressive rule of liberty for individuals and protection from the tyrannical rule of ignorant religious mob democracy. If you hate liberty so much that you feel the need to support mob mentality then move to a nation that has a repressive regime that suites your needs. Iran has some really ugly laws that put the Texas unconstitutional laws to shame, you might start there.
Slashdot Mirror
It is not that hard to research the facts...
Mountain Pass Mine Environmental Impact
Likely took the alternate, RP101 (Rape & Pillage 101); This beginning course in self destructive economics will provide you with the foundation of modern day slash & burn or salt & till economics. Prerequisites include RJ101 (Religious Justification), IC101 (Inhibiting your Conscience), and RB101 (Robber Barons)
Actually the demand would still be there. People would still want to turn on the AC, they would still want to watch the TV and play on the internet, and businesses would definitely still want to run their production lines and data centers.
But they would cut back due to the high prices.
Profit margins for all power generators and market makers would increase while their investments in facilities and upkeep would be reduced. There would be no incentive to break ranks and risk lower profit margins or the need to invest in facilities. The results of their collusion and market manipulation would have put them in a far better position than competing and long term investment ever would.
With other businesses having their own profit margins trimmed to top off the profit margins of the power generators and market makers they would soon begin leaving California for areas where power was regulated. With the jobs going away and the quality of life in California reduced the population would also start to leave for areas where power was regulated.
Would the exodus from California finally create an actual reduction in demand that causes competition, better service and lower prices, possibly. But at this point California's economy would be decimated and what would likely happen is they would just keep shutting down power generation facilities to continue the false impression of limited supply until they finally sucked as much life as was possible out of California.
The problem is that the purpose of for profit businesses is to make a profit. They will do what they can with or without regulation to increase profits.
Businesses don't care about better service or lower prices unless there is some driving factor that forces them to reduce prices or invest in the business. In the California power case the various suppliers and market makers colluded to increase prices and their profits. It seems nobody considered the possibility that instead of competing they would work together to raise all their profit margins rather than competing to provide a better product.
Nope, and you would absolutely never see me arguing to implement regulation willy nilly. And it appears that they tried to make some sense out of the California deregulation when they considered that there was no way to remove the monopoly of distribution to consumers. But as I stated there seems to be a lot of naivety about the free market and motivating factors for suppliers.
And while not all regulation is good neither is removing regulation in the name free markets that will self correct. This is either pure ignorance, naivety, or just dumb greed.
Granted I did not specify my position on government corruption but it seems absurd to presuppose that since I refuse to accept one extreme in economic or political ideology that I must somehow be on the other extreme. I have not looked deep enough into the California deregulation scam to know for sure but I always wondered if there were any money ties to the government officials in California that made the scam possible in the first place. A lot of people made millions off the fraud that was perpetrated against the people and businesses of California, I would not be surprised at how deep the spoilage ran.
Yes, thus the need for regulation.
Actually a monopoly is not always a government created monopoly. There are government mandated monopolies but even in a free market with entrepreneurs monopolies arise. And it is not always a bad situation either but it does present those with the overwhelming control over the market the opportunity to engage in business practices that are meant to both maintain the monopoly status and maintain artificially high prices. In these cases you no longer have a free market. Entrepreneurs, competitors and consumers will suffer while the market bends to the whim of a single entity.
No pretending here, the pretending was that selling off all the regulated power generation in California to the free wheeling free market entrepreneurs would do away with the evil commie government regulation and result in better service and lower prices due to free market competition.
Unfortunately nobody seemed to consider the possibility that the unregulated portion of the market would decide to collude instead of compete in an attempt to increase profits rather than engage in the difficult practice of competition that would have resulted in better service and prices.
And if you read my comment you would have noticed that I did in fact read the entire article and I am fully aware of the complaints that the free market failed because it was not a completely free market. And this is an easy crock to debunk because when you read the article you also discover that the prices on the exchange were not free market prices because a fraud was being perpetrated. The so called free market competitors were manipulating demand and supply to control prices. The fact that prices were not propagated to end consumers is a meaningless argument because the prices were artificially inflated by the concerted fraud of free market suppliers.
Market makers placed fake demand orders to make it appear the distribution system was over loaded and artificially increase prices.
Market suppliers shut down power generation facilities to remove supply from the market and artificially increase prices.
The free market colluded to perpetrate a fraud, it is as simple as that. Regulation did not make the collusion possible, deregulation made it possible.
Passing the fake prices on to the end consumer would not change the fact that the prices were fake. And in fact, using free market principles, the California economy would be decimated and both businesses and consumers would have left California in droves to areas where electrical power generation was regulated and they could escape the fake prices created by
And you can try to affect the government with your vote, I have yet to see the corporate vote with consumer dollars stop fraud and corruption.
California did implement deregulation. Power generation was split into multiple competing companies.
Distribution is a natural monopoly, without splitting the two then you do not have a free market, you have no competition, prices will increase to the maximum sustainable profit to consumer who can afford the rates ratio.
Read the results of investigations, inter-ties were not fully loaded, the bookings were fake, this was intentional fraud with full knowledge that prices would be artificially increased. And one of the selling concepts of competing generators was lower prices, instead demand and supply were fraudulently manipulated to create artificially high prices.
California's deregulation failed due to corporate greed that drove them to engage in fraud to artificially increase prices. With no government oversight many consumers and businesses in California paid a heavy price. I suspect it will be a long time before they make that mistake again.
<SARCASM> ;)
When California implemented deregulation and created multiple competing power generators they shut down their power generation facilities to cause rolling brown outs so they could force prices to increase. Since they were shutting down facilities they will last much longer and should degrade slower. So deregulation will result in longer lasting infrastructure.
</SARCASM>
Very true and a proven principle over and over again. Unfortunately, markets like electrical power generation are susceptible to the greed factor due to the virtual impossibility of end consumers using their wallets to regulate with natural market forces. Governmental regulation is absolutely necessary to have a viable electrical power market supplying consumers and industry.
Case in point, is the California electricity crisis that stemmed from naive deregulation of power generation and unnatural manipulation of the market to raise prices. Of course there are many that claim it failed because the price hikes were not propagated to the end consumers but this is a crock because the end result would not have been an end to the manipulation it would have meant many consumers would have to do without electricity, many businesses would go out of business due to costs, and those who could pay would be stuck paying artificially high prices due to the concerted manipulation by Enron and power generators to increase their profits. It turned into a greed driven market even though there were "competing" power generators.
I logged in to post basically the same thing.
It cannot be stressed enough, in the age of the 'greed is good' 'privatize everything' crowd demanding the rise of a plutocracy, the government is a democratically elected representative republic, your vote is your say, you don't get to vote for corporations and as history shows us over and over again they are very good at circumventing any perceived control anyone believes they may have with their wallet.
It is not even necessary to go back to the history of Standard Oil to understand how regulation is in fact necessary to keep the free market from self destruction, the deregulation and privatization of electrical power generation in California and the rise and fall of Enron is a clear sign of the absolute and total corruption and deception that results from unchecked greed.
The full blazing glory of unregulated capitalism is exactly what Enron exuded while conspiring with power generating companies to create fake power shortages and manipulation of market orders to create fake excessive demand on distribution systems.
When free market capitalism morphs into an organized criminal system that avoids any semblance of competition or free market pricing the only thing stopping the fleecing of the population is the elected government that must kick these assholes in the balls or find themselves kicked out of office.
The first NDA I signed was after college and it was required for the job. To me the agreement was overreaching but I was basically penniless out of school so I signed it.
In recent times I have turned down gigs that required an NDA after reading the agreement and explaining to the employer that I could not sign it because it was overreaching. I did not get the gigs but I am not in a financial situation that required me to give up my rights.
I actually did sign another NDA recently but in this case when I pointed out the parts of the agreement that were overreaching they agreed to remove them and we ended up with a good agreement that protects both parties.
So I guess what I am trying to say is that in some cases NDAs are negotiable, give it a shot.
Perhaps you simply worded this incorrectly but the way you stated that is not true. Contributing code to a project does not guarantee that it will end up in that project. I know this from experience in providing patches to some open source PHP based application to enable LDAP based SSO. Not only did project coordinators not accept my code willy nilly but in most cases they seemed to be too busy to even consider my code so it never made it into the project.
Your not even trying to consider how the FBI would go about back dooring commercial software. Since it is closed source and a privately owned code base all the FBI has to do is have a discussion with management and it may not even cost anything to have an FBI back door developed into the software. And being closed source your not going to get the major auditing that is about to happen to many open source projects now. And if you don't believe that corporations would work closely with the government to spy on citizens then I think you had better start doing some googling and reading, but keep in mind that there is a high probability that everything you search and read is monitored even if you don't use a single bit of open source code.
Agreed, it should be very interesting to see what is discovered in the coming audits. But I will say this, if it turns out to be true and the code made it into production use it will definitely demand some answers as to why it was overlooked but the ability to view open source code will remain a strong benefit because without access to the code this e-mail would only end in speculation as there would be no audit of the commercial code that is locked away from view.
Absolutely not.
I'm saying that medical marijuana laws were passed in California, many local California governments in contradiction to the wishes of the people of California created bans on the dispensaries of medical marijuana, the case was taken to the Supreme Court and so far the Federal branch of the government has upheld the position of the citizens in California.
California is not a homogeneous conglomeration of single mind, single belief, single position politics. Even without a Federal government your idea of medical marijuana is doomed by local government. You wont be running across state lines to escape marijuana laws, your going to running across county lines, city lines, etc. Where as if you have a legal case the Supreme Court will make sure you don't have to run anywhere.
This whole Ron Paul if you don't like it leave position is bullshit anyway. If Ron Paul and his supporters are so oppressed under the Constitution of the United States then leave.
And as I just showed you with a news article the Federal government is actively supporting your position so you can't say they are oppressing you. Admittedly that is an over simplification but so is your claim of Federal oppression and the idea that elimination of the Federal government will set you free.
This is true, and the Pol Pot regime, the Nazi Regime, etc.
Agreed, but it is not a balance and proportion of individual rights and religion. The freedom to practice religion is an individual right, the right to impose the most popular religious dogma on others is not a right and is contrary to the Constitution and the reasoning behind the war of independence.
Perhaps you missed this part:
"Don't get me wrong, it is not perfect and oppression still occurs but make no mistake, you do have options under the Constitution to protect your rights."
That said, it is ironic that you made this post while a quick search of the news shows that local California government is trying to ban medical marijuana while at the same time the third branch of the Federal government, the Supreme Court, is on a path to end the oppression against medical marijuana.
So it appears that your problems with medical marijuana are not simply the big meanie Federal government stomping all over your rights but in fact the Federal government is playing a role in protecting your rights against local California government.
In the Ron Paul Libertarian universe you would have no Federal Constitution, no Federal Court, and only the individual rights that the local mob decides you may have.
Something else that is funny about Ron Paul's foreign land grab.
Ron and other Libertarians are supposed to be all about small government, privatization of spending, and free market.
WTF is Ron Paul doing, trying to protect almost $500 million in annual tax payer expenses in a foreign country to operate what is mostly a commercial venture?
If you look at the results of the 1977 treaty the operation of the canal has been reverted to a private company and the United States tax payers are no longer on the hook to pay for the operation of a commercial venture.
And the free market has jumped in and several businesses and nations are today investing in expansion and updates to the canal.
Just more contradictions and inconsistencies in Ron Paul and his supporters.
In 2002 Ron gave his position on the Iraq war. Nowhere did Ron express any concept of 'Get out of Iraq or Commit fully'. Ron gave an exceptional speech on the illegality and fallacy of the process, logic and reasoning. Ron noted that Iraq was in no way a threat or an aggressor against the United States.
If you can direct me to Ron's new position on Iraq where we should get out or commit fully through annexation of the areas where we have invested capital then please do.
In 1989 the Panamanian government under Noriega declared war on the United States in violation of the Torrijos–Carter Treaties of 1977. Of course Noriega made his own claims about the United States violating the treaty but I think these were overblown.
The purpose of the 1989 invasion was not to take over Panama nor the dismantle the 1977 treaty. In fact, the invasion was justified by 1) the declaration of war by Panama and 2) the 1977 treaty gives the United States permanent authority to protect the neutrality of the canal.
And Ron's bill has nothing to do with the 1989 invasion of Panama. Ron's bill is simply an attempt to roll back the foreign policy clock about 100 years to a more Imperialistic time.
And the "0) Historical stuff happened" is more than historical, it is pertinent. You intentionally left out the most important parts of the relationship between the United States and Panama so you could make a feeble attempt to justify Ron's Imperialistic annexation of foreign territory whose status was already well established through treaties.
In 1903 the United States signed a treaty and paid $40 million to a FRENCH diplomat to gain rights to the land needed to take over the canal project. The reason the deal was made with a French diplomat was because that same diplomat had financed a revolution to separate the isthmus of Panama from Colombia.
From 1903 to 1977 this Imperialistic land grab was a source on continual contention between the people of Panama and the United States. The 1977 treaty was an amenable solution that retained United States interest in the neutrality of the water way.
This is not ancient history, you can't just put a zero to it and say "uh, stuff, who cares".
Holy smoke, of all the nonsensical and ignorant things to say.
Religion is the belief and faith in the super natural.
Atheism is a lack of belief or faith in the super natural.
Religion is marked by rituals and often culturally based practices and requires indoctrination to take hold, it is not spontaneous.
Atheism has no rituals, no culture, no indoctrination. It can be spontaneous in religious cultures when someone has an epiphany but in less religious cultures it is not even necessary to consider if one is atheist.
Read Ron's legislation, he wants to REMOVE sections of the Constitution.
You and Ron hate individual freedom and liberty, you and Ron hate the Constitution of the United States. You and Ron are the ones trying very hard to gut the Constitution not because some law was passed that oppresses you, no, you want to gut the Constitution so YOU can pass NEW laws that oppress the rights of individuals YOU dislike.
Grow up and leave the Constitution alone.
(a couple seconds later)
And I am quixotic? LOL, I can only guess then that you suffer from a dissociative identity disorder and can switch between your Mahatma Gandhi persona and your Napoleon Bonaparte character in mid post.
The rule of law is often a good choice to resolve indifferences, and so after more than 70 years of contention between Panama and the United States over a treaty that was signed between the United States and a French diplomat, an amenable solution was agreed upon in the 1977 treaty between the United States and an actual Panamanian government.
Rather than accept the amenable treaty Ron Paul would have us jump back to the foreign policy of a century ago. Talk about a dumbfounded foreign policy.
Rabid secularists? *knock* *knock* Hello, is there anyone in there?
It is not the secularists who are attempting to remove constitutional rights of individuals and replace them with states rights to enable mob rules. If the religious mob would stop attempting to enforce their dogma on the secularists and be happy that they can practice their religion in peace then there would be no conflict.
A secularist standing up against the oppression of a religious mob is not rabid, they are free. Hating the freedom of individuals and trying to oppress them is insane.
Religion is the most insane and immoral method of governance created by man. If you read the writings of the founders you will learn that a big driving force behind the design of the government was to prevent the religious insanity that tormented Europe for centuries.
I find this hilarious, at first you equate the law of government and the law of religion then you leave a quote stating that only individuals in government are insane. Since religion is a form of government then I guess the quote is correct.
No, some of us have not lost our minds. :)
But there is a large crowd who want very much to dismantle rights of individuals that are protected by the Constitution so they can replace them with State's Rights that they will use to enforce their retardation on the rest of us.
Once individual rights are converted to states rights then we will progress to all America being retarded.
Are you assuming they are opposed to Glenn Beck? :)
Once Ron is in the President's office and has wiped out the Constitutional protections of individuals rights and starts implementing his mob democracy policies I'm sure he can put Glenn Beck in charge as the head of the new state church. Since according to Ron there is no separation of church and state.
That is interesting, I was under the false impression from Ron's speeches that he was against Imperialism, invading sovereign countries and generally meddling in other nations affairs.
His speeches led me to dig further into this interesting man and read some of his actual legislation which is how I came across the Panama legislation.
The land grab in the legislation was contradictory to the view I had formed of Ron Paul on foreign policy but you are telling me that actually it was my impression that was wrong.
So Ron Paul is all for Imperialist actions by the United States as long is we go all out to forcibly take what we want from foreign nations. After all, what are the Panamanians going to do against our military might, we'll just bomb the shit out of them. It might have been different if they had been able to stop the French from separating them from Colombia in 1903 because they would at least be a little larger, then again, nah, we would still kick their ass and take their land.
If that is true then there is no way I could ever vote for this man, that is an insane foreign policy, might makes right. I owe you a debt of gratitude for clarifying this.
This statement is about as dead wrong as you can get. The Federal government as established under the Constitution of the United States has checks and balances to provide even individual citizens with the power to challenge the super power.
Case in point, Welsh vs United States and here Leary vs United States and here Muhammad Ali vs United States.
Don't get me wrong, it is not perfect and oppression still occurs but make no mistake, you do have options under the Constitution to protect your rights.
Yes, by all means do compare.
In Ron Pauls Religious Freedom Act he doesn't intend for there to be religious freedom for individuals like the Constitution, no, he intends "REMOVAL OF RELIGIOUS FREEDOM-RELATED CASES FROM FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT JURISDICTION" which means you will no longer have the protection of the Constitution and no recourse to the Supreme Court when the local mob in your state creates oppressive laws based on religion.
The reality is quite the opposite of what you are describing.
This is an interesting and common solution among Ron Paul supporters, don't like the oppression then leave, but here is the deal, the United State as defined by the Constitution was here before you and before Ron Paul. If you have so much trouble with the liberty and freedom of individuals that is protected by the Constitution then leave. Nobody is forcing Ron or anyone else to stay in the United States.
Political oppression and tyranny are not ruled by natural selection and they do not experience variance due to random mutation. Besides, oppressive governments have been tested many times, they don't work, there is no reason to trash the Constitution and revert the states to some ridiculous mob rules democracy where the desires of the mob no matter how absurd take precedence over the rights of individuals.
It is not necessary to move out of state, the Constitition protects the liberties of individual citizens from oppression by the mob democracy you support. It is not a question of whether you believe this or not, as James Madison noted, part of the reason the Constitution came to be was to address such oppressive behavior.
We don't live in North Korea, Iran, not even Communist Soviet Russia. If you have such a hard time adjusting to the government established by the Constitution of the United States and you believe it is so important that states have the power to dictate people's personal lives and throw them in prison because they don't fit the local religious dogma then leave the country.
Nobody is forcing you to stay here and suffer under the oppressive rule of liberty for individuals and protection from the tyrannical rule of ignorant religious mob democracy. If you hate liberty so much that you feel the need to support mob mentality then move to a nation that has a repressive regime that suites your needs. Iran has some really ugly laws that put the Texas unconstitutional laws to shame, you might start there.