> In a purely Communist political system, do I have FREEDOM to own property?
In the USA, do you have the freedom to take cocaine? To kill the president? Individual freedom stops where you start threatening society itself. Any society that does not limit your freedom in this way is doomed to fail, hence all current societies do that.
Owning property that can be used for industrial/agricultural production threatens a socialist society, that's why it is forbidden (_not_ individual property in general). Being allowed to take cocaine would threaten the American society, and that's why it is forbidden there.
Re:Improved supported hardware database would be n
on
SUSE 10.0 OSS Released
·
· Score: 1
You might want to take a look at Suse's Hardware Compatibility List http://www.opensuse.org/HCL. Still needs to be expanded, but the notebook section is already quite populated. Remember, it's a wiki, so you can easily add stuff.
With version 10.0 they opened the distribution to the community, or at least they have started the process. This version had the first ever public beta test for Suse Linux. I think that is quite revolutionary when you compare it to how things used to be.
I'm sure many people download a lot of stuff that they would be willing to pay exactly nothing for.
If it does not have any value for you, then why are you downloading it, investing your time, bandwidth and diskspace? It must have some value for you, however small, which means you would be willing to pay money for it. Maybe just 1 cent, but there is a value.
What the music industry failed to do is to enter this market segment and try to make revenue by selling songs for 1 cent over the internet to the kind of people that would otherwise download them.
I always thought something was worth whatever you actually paid for it.
Close, but not quite correct. It is worth as much as you would be _willing_ to pay for it. So the actual loss is much lower, but certainly not zero.
Assume 1 million songs get illegally downloaded that would usually cost $1, but the downloaders would be willing to pay at most $0.5. Then the loss is $500k, not zero or $1M.
To quote from the BBC article that was linked (and quoted) in the/. article:
"Industrialised countries will have until 2012 to cut their collective emissions of six key greenhouse gases to 5.2% below the 1990 level."
This sounds like a constant percentage to me. Do you want to deny obvious facts? And in case you mean that 5.2% will result in higher absolute number for bigger countries: duh! This is the point.
By being punative toward countries with large pollution, it is simultaneously punative toward countries with large economies.
The point is that it is not punative towards countries with large pollution, but punative towards countries with increasing pollution. According to the treaty you have to reduce your CO2 output by a certain percentage compared to earlier values. You do not have to lower it to a certain absolute number.
What would be better would be if the punative measures were based on the RATIO of pollution to economic benefit produced
This would not make much sense. OPEC countries like Saudi Arabia are making billions of dollars with pumping oil out of the ground, which produces hardly any CO2. Other countries have a steel industry with similar economic value that produces lots of CO2. As a result, your pollution/benefit ratio would be extremely unfair. The way it is handled in the Kyoto treaty makes sure everyone will have to contribute.
Slashdot Mirror
> In a purely Communist political system, do I have FREEDOM to own property?
In the USA, do you have the freedom to take cocaine? To kill the president? Individual freedom stops where you start threatening society itself. Any society that does not limit your freedom in this way is doomed to fail, hence all current societies do that.
Owning property that can be used for industrial/agricultural production threatens a socialist society, that's why it is forbidden (_not_ individual property in general). Being allowed to take cocaine would threaten the American society, and that's why it is forbidden there.
You might want to take a look at Suse's Hardware Compatibility List http://www.opensuse.org/HCL. Still needs to be expanded, but the notebook section is already quite populated. Remember, it's a wiki, so you can easily add stuff.
With version 10.0 they opened the distribution to the community, or at least they have started the process. This version had the first ever public beta test for Suse Linux. I think that is quite revolutionary when you compare it to how things used to be.
I'm sure many people download a lot of stuff that they would be willing to pay exactly nothing for.
If it does not have any value for you, then why are you downloading it, investing your time, bandwidth and diskspace? It must have some value for you, however small, which means you would be willing to pay money for it. Maybe just 1 cent, but there is a value.
What the music industry failed to do is to enter this market segment and try to make revenue by selling songs for 1 cent over the internet to the kind of people that would otherwise download them.
I always thought something was worth whatever you actually paid for it.
Close, but not quite correct. It is worth as much as you would be _willing_ to pay for it. So the actual loss is much lower, but certainly not zero.
Assume 1 million songs get illegally downloaded that would usually cost $1, but the downloaders would be willing to pay at most $0.5. Then the loss is $500k, not zero or $1M.
That percentage is not constant.
/. article:
To quote from the BBC article that was linked (and quoted) in the
"Industrialised countries will have until 2012 to cut their collective emissions of six key greenhouse gases to 5.2% below the 1990 level."
This sounds like a constant percentage to me. Do you want to deny obvious facts? And in case you mean that 5.2% will result in higher absolute number for bigger countries: duh! This is the point.
By being punative toward countries with large pollution, it is simultaneously punative toward countries with large economies.
The point is that it is not punative towards countries with large pollution, but punative towards countries with increasing pollution. According to the treaty you have to reduce your CO2 output by a certain percentage compared to earlier values. You do not have to lower it to a certain absolute number.
What would be better would be if the punative measures were based on the RATIO of pollution to economic benefit produced
This would not make much sense. OPEC countries like Saudi Arabia are making billions of dollars with pumping oil out of the ground, which produces hardly any CO2. Other countries have a steel industry with similar economic value that produces lots of CO2. As a result, your pollution/benefit ratio would be extremely unfair. The way it is handled in the Kyoto treaty makes sure everyone will have to contribute.