One thing that I really think is missing here is consideration of the actual words of the amendment.
There is plenty of room to debate whether or not eminent domain was used in this case for the "public good". (I would contend that it doesn't.) But that doesn't... shouldn't matter! The constitution states for public USE, not for public good.
Saying that a new research facility for a private corp to research better penis pills is for the public GOOD is one thing, but claiming that that same privately owned research facility is a public USE of the land is a big fucking stretch.
Unless the result of eminent domain is land that is directly used by the public (for a public service), then it's unconstitutional.
(And I'm not even going to start on my complete disagreement with the "default" perception that more tax revenue is "good" for the public. Everytime our government gets more money, we're more screwed than we were before.)
Tired of the simple phone meme
on
Just a Phone?
·
· Score: 1
I'm still not completely sure why it became so trendy to bash any phone with lots of "gadgets and gizmos" and long for the day where phones were just phones.
I realize that the gadgets on phones haven't yet been too the level of quality that stand alone gadgets have, but surely it isn't lost on the Slashdot masses that the time of high quality gadgets is coming?
I currently have a Nokia 3660, one of those "rediculous" gadget laden phones that contains features like an incredibly low quality video camera. But with my eyes open I've found that the mythological "convergence" of hand held gadgets is getting close.
Do I like to have photographs of fun and memorable events with my friends? Of course! But I loathe the idea of carrying around a digital camera with me everywhere I go. Sure they have very small digital cameras now, but the hassle is just... bleh. Instead the 3660 has a digital camera that will take 640x480 images of moderate quality. It's not ideal, but it definitely enough for a random shot at the (hopefully well lit) bar now and then.
The address book is full synced with the Address Book on my PowerBook, and I can even text search on my phone for contacts in the list (instead of having to go just by the first letter or something). I'm hit with an interface that allows me to sent text messages with great ease, because there are tons of ways to get to the same functionality, not unlike the interfaces I'm used to on my computer. (Send a text message from the contact list when you see the number you want to sent to, or from the inbox on a reply, or from a "new message" in the messaging application.)
The predictive text input is getting really nice, and even remembers all of the words I spell myself in a custom dictionary for future use. (Good when a person wants to use words like "shit","heh","blog" on a regular basis that aren't standard) My previous phone would predictive text, but never remember custom spellings.
Even that crappy video recorder has made for some hilarious 20 second video clips from parties and stuff. Real solid memories that I would have just lost if I would have had to run to my room to grab my digital camera.
A great example would be just last week when I was stranded at O'Hare for the night and wanted to get a little internet. There were no hot spots convienent, and I had just reinstalled with Tiger so I didn't have my ISP's regular dial up number handy. I fired up Agile Messenger, hopped on AIM/MSN/ICQ/Yahoo/Jabber, found a computer literate friend online immediately (a young cousin), and had him look up the dial up number for me. I've found the ability to run Agile Messenger to be vastly superior to the lame clients that come with phones and use provider proxies.
The point is, most of us geeks can see the value in having a cell phone, a PDA, a digital camera, and a music player. There are great products in each category that are certainly better than any "convergence" product. But I'm just not going to carry around a cell phone, a PDA, a digital camera, and a music player all at the same damn time, all the time.
My cell phone is with me all the freaking time anyway, and I love when the functionality of the other devices is worked into it.
I just can't wait until these "convergence" phones get really high quality on all fronts, instead of containing the shitty category-busting features that apparently the slashdot psyche is too cool for. The nice thing is I can see it coming down the pike now, and my phone (Nokia 3660) isn't that far off. Here's my wishlist:
* Better digital camera. (648x480 is nice, but not quite enough. Maybe 1024x768) * A Flash! (I'll give up the battery, I don't care. Too many dark bars.) * Better iCal support (Multiple calenders like in iCal, so using the phone as a first class calendering device is actually feasible.) * an iPod built-in. (I realize that the interface for the iPod is really what makes it work, and this is a non-trivial request. But I be
It's not that it's my fault, but I'm absolutely ashamed that something this obviously wrong made it into our state constitution. But it was easy to have rose-colored glasses here at Kansas State University where I had the pleasure of honking for Vote NO protests as I left campus, and I was more than happy to spend two weeks of my weekly libertarian talk radio show (Freedom to Choose, KSDB Manhattan) talking about just how assinine this ammendment was. I just couldn't convince myself that something so obviously *wrong* could end up passing.
I don't blame you for leaving. I'm a libertarian heterosexual white male in Kansas (read: "unthreatened"), and even I am uncomfortable with the change in political climate in Kansas and other "conservative" states.
After I'm finished here at Kansas State, I'll be leaving too. I've always been proud to be a Kansan, because I've had a great life and everyone that I'm around here in Kansas is phenominal. But first Fred Phelps, and now this.
I'll be happy to leave. Geeks are a remarkedly tolerant people. I hope Kansas gets the "brain drain" it deserves.
And that argument is the most common mistake made by those that don't want to see the clear correllation between lower taxes and higher productivity.
You're thinking entirely in the short term. Which is perfect if you're running for office or looking to provide a legacy for a politician, but is just a shortsighted methodology for any type of "real" analysis.
Add a delay to your analysis of the effects of tax cuts, and you can see that it's certainly plausible that the tax cuts of the Reagan years gave the additional R&D money that lead to the boom (and bubble, probably) of the 90's.
Clinton certainly gets some credit as well, for probably being the most "fiscally conservative" president we've had in a while. At least he wasn't war mongering and blowing money like a drunken sailor. (I think it had a lot to do with the strong republican congress against the democratic president. I wish we coud get some more deadlock so the government would do less and therefore hurt less.)
Because, as an economics student, I have "done all this" as you stated, and there is definitely a very strong relatonship between tax rate and state of the economy, it just doesn't fit nicely inside of presidential tenures like political analysts would prefer.
You know, both situations pretty much suck.
Presidents that get combatative with industry tend to add rediculous and/or arbitrary restrictive executive-lead-legislation that slows progress and helps no one.
Presidents that are buddy-buddy with industry tend to add rediculous and/or arbitrary restrictive executive-lead-legislation that crushes the citizens' rights for short term corporate gain.
I want a President that is a particular flavor of both. I want a President that will assault corporate welfare, demand real results for govt contracts, and support the rights of the citizens' above everything else. Especially when those rights are in conflict with "corporate rights". Corporations have no inherent rights of any kind!
I also want a President that's willing to support those industries that can and will "cut the mustard" all on their own. A government that will get out of the way when the private sector really gets moving, instead of making sure they keep one hand in.
Well. Anyway. That's my favorite pipe dream. Well... my favorite that doesn't involve porn.
I really wish you were wrong... but you're almost completely right.
Economists that aren't completely in political pockets agree, it's not a matter of "if" the US currency charade is going to fail, it's a matter of when.
I could not agree with you more. I can't believe that I'm this excited about a game coming out. I haven't "cared" about gaming like this in, well, four years.
While this may be the first day that a lot of people play DOOM3 Multiplayer, it definitely won't be the first day that anyone has played DOOM3 Multiplayer.
At QuakeCon in 2003 there was a dedicated DOOM3 deathmatch booth that allowed attendees to play DOOM3 multiplayer. They shuffled attendees through in about 15 minute intervals for three days.
It was kick ass.
Travis "Ash" Bradshaw
Director of Staffing
QuakeCon 2004
We have never turned away anyone from the BYOC at any QuakeCon.
Travis "Ash" Bradshaw
Director of Staffing
QuakeCon 2004
Wifi Cattle? Why not, ours are Bluetooth
on
WiFi Gone Wild
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Here in the Computing and Information Sciences department at Kansas State University we have a research project that is using some kind of sensor cluster implanted in cattle. These sensor clustors then take vital signs and other data and respond to researchers who scan the cow/bull with an IPaQ. Kind of like a tricorder, but with the sensors in the cattle instead of in the hand held device.
I don't know too many of the specifics of the project (I'm a systems administrator in the department, rather than a research assistant), but it sounded cool to me. Maybe with some WiFi collars the cattle could make a mesh network and just shoot the data back to the ranch house without needing someone to walk by with an ipaq, heh heh.
Here's a brain-teaser for you: if you assume well-informed, rational voters, then politicians don't need reelection money. If you claim that the above is false (and I would agree, to an extent) then that hurts your free-market arguments about what consumers will tolerate. You went from a tautology to a contradiction.:) However, the extent to which that is not false is really the only hope democracy has.
No no no! You're once again confusing making the 'right' decision with making a rational decision, *and* you're assuming perfect information. A rational decision is based on previous experience, knowledge, and opinion. Election money is always a necessity at the very least to inform the voters of their choices, and asymetry is still possible. Democracy is just mob rule, I really have little interest in the integrity of a democracy, only in the existance of a limited power government. Much more limited than it is now. "I want a government small enough to fit in the constitution."
The gentleman you quote seems to think consumers can't be branded. If they could, they become much more merciful bosses.:) His consumers don't sound very emotional either. Is your strengthening of rationality to a tautology a deviation from your mentors?
No, he's talking of consumers in the aggregate. I'm remaining very consistant.
I'm not claiming business can screw consumers overtly and get away with it. I'm claiming that they can screw labor overtly (which is the same thing as saying consumers can screw business overtly. Since you're arguing consumers have power over producers, then employers have power over labor.)
No, this is not what was stated. The consumers are the sole soveriegn. Consumers also determine the price of labor. There is absolutely no power over labor by employers without government assistance. An employer can only make an offer for employment, and then the labor decides if they want to work or not.
If the GDP grows and labor doesn't benefit, you don't benefit (I'm assuming.) This is happening. Right now. So how does denying the only force other than profit to which business is beholden work to better your rational self-interests? Don't answer right away, I'll reframe this question below.
Profit is not a force, it's only a motive. The only force is Force. The businesses are wholly beholden to me, why would I want to give up that right for politicians I only have a little bit of say over, only every half a decade or so.
Stability is not required for an economy. It is most certainly required for labor organization. By stability, I suppose I really mean is at least a weak form of independence, which is what makes credible the threat of cessation of labor. The first and ultimately last bargaining chip in a truly free model.
You can't have independence without self sufficience. If a group of people were self sufficient and a sweat shop moves in, then they do not *have* to work for a sweat shop. They only do so if they have something to gain. Easier working conditions comes to mind immediately (hours of sweatshop work is still easier than most undeveloped agriculture). And yes, cessation is the only tool of labor. You can choose to work, or choose not to work. It's just that simple. If labor's demands are worth the price to the employer, then the demands will be met. If they are not reasonable, or someone else would like to do the work for less, then the labor is replaced.
The consequences you spell out for closing of a sweatshop argue against even weak independence (choosing not to lose a child is not a choice.) Prostitution is a choice, usually. But it sounds like that's a market you'd prefer was regulated. Cold steel arm of the state legislating morality and all that.
I don't agree that the statement is universally true. That you're framing human rationality as a tautology makes the assumption not terribly useful.
It's incredibly useful. It's the foundation for individuals being personally responsible for the decisions that they make, for better or for worse.
For my money, rationality is contrasted (and sometimes eclipsed by) emotion and psychology. Not always eclipsed, but often. More so when information is skewed and framed... just so.
Emotion and psychology do not preclude or eclipse rational thought at all. Being emotional about something is a reason for making a decision or taking an action. Nothing irrational about it.
There's power everywhere. Politicians do scrounge for election cash. No question. (There are laws that mitigate this, fortunately.) But all the election cash in the world doesn't do a god-damned thing come re-election time if you screw over your constituency. That's where the final accountability comes in.
To paraphrase Peter from OfficeSpace. "But you know, that's only going to make someone work just hard enough not to get fired." Final accountability isn't enough when you describe a system where it is in the politicians best interest to screw over the constituency as much as possible, but just not enough to miss a re-election. And with the two poor choices that are typically available, that leaves a lot of room to screw teh constituents.
For instance: it doesn't sound like there's anything Bush can say on TV for you to give him your vote again.
But that's not enough, that's just me. It's very likely that he's screwed over the consitutients only so much that it will still let him be re-elected.
The nature of power is that everyone wants to be buddy-buddy with it. There are really two major sources of power in the US today: The.gov, and big money. One of those is controlled (albeit indirectly) by you, and the other is controlled by people whose interests conflict directly with yours.
First, this is missing an important delination. The gov't power is the power to kill, imprison, and steel. The power of force. Big money is just the power to market, to persuade, to convince. The problem is when Big Money uses their pursuasion on politicians, who then use force on their behalf.
Second, I don't have control over the government, I have control of 1/260,000,000th of the government, which is effectively nothing. Business interests are not in conflict with mine at all. I am the consumer, I am in command. Here is a quote from the epitome of wisdom, _Human Action_ by Ludwig von Mises pg. 269:
The direction of all economic affairs is in the market society a task of the entrepreneurs. Theirs is the control of production. They are at the helm and steer the ship. A superficial observer would believe that they are supreme. But they are not. They are bound to obey unconditionally the captain's orders. The captain is the consumer. [p. 270] Neither the entrepreneurs nor the farmers nor the capitalists determine what has to be produced. The consumers do that. If a businessman does not strictly obey the orders of the public as they are conveyed to him by the structure of market prices, he suffers losses, he goes bankrupt, and is thus removed from his eminent position at the helm. Other men who did better in satisfying the demand of the consumers replace him.
The consumers patronize those shops in which they can buy what they want at the cheapest price. Their buying and their abstention from buying decides who should own and run the plants and the farms. They make poor people rich and rich people poor. They determine precisely what should be produced, in what quality, and in what quantities. They are merciless bosses, full of whims and fancies, changeable and unpredictable. For them nothing counts other than their own satisfaction. They do
Hmmm, I don't think I see minivans as feminine. My dad would love one. I see minivans as... old. But, that's the nature of individual preference... it's individual.
There is nothing wrong with including emotions and psychology in rational thought. Those are important variables to be considered in any decision, and indeed everyone does. We don't agree on what "rational" means, I guess. Taking into account the costs and benefits of taking any action is--by default--what every human does.
"Rational" does not mean only a facts based always correct decision making process, it simply means a logical decision, something like "Based on earlier or otherwise known statements, events, or conditions; reasonable". The opinion that I've always seen soccer moms and pops in minivans and don't want to be like them, that's logical, just not factual. Consumer preference and other facets of microeconomic theory deal with this considerably.
I do not have any mistrust of the rich, I consistantly believe that every person will act it their best interest. However with a government that meddles in the market, it's in everyone's interest to get buddy-buddy with the government. It just so happens that the "rich" have something that the politicians want, and can do that more than everyone else. As the P.J. O'Rourke quote in my email sig goes: "When buying and selling are controlled by legislation, the first thing to be bought and sold are legislators."
Where I had to laugh, is where you said that corporations are beholden to profits (so true) and the government is beholden to voters.... HA! Hardly! I made the horrible mistake of voting for Bush last presidential election (I will never make the mistake of voting for a Republican or a Democrat again). But did I vote for Rumsfield? Did I vote for Ashcroft? Not even. Hell, Ashcroft couldn't even beat a dead guy.
There are over 3.5 million employees in the executive branch, and I vote for exactly two... on one ballot. I can't even tell who they are going to be until after the election, and I can't get rid of any of them while they are there.
I also can't protect my rights from government intrusion if I don't have the majority on my side. The Castle Coalition does some great work on trying to shed light and provide defense (through the Institute for Justice) for people that are victims of eminent domain.
Having to choose between two evils that are in collusion is not accountability to the voters. It's just feigned legitimacy.
In regards to income distribution, while I agree that the rich get more money, I'm not at all concerned with the numbers in the bank account, I care about the quality of life. The quality of life change from Rich to Really Rich is debatable. The quality of life change from living on 1 dollar a day to 2.50 a day is tremendous. In some parts of the world, that could mean the difference between eating every two days and eating every day. Or even having enough for medical supplies, or specifically infant care. That's significant.
Regarding urbanization, you provide an example of where people seem "forced" into sweatshops by circumstances beyond their control. That would be unfortunate. However, in cases where sweatshops were closed due to protest and regulation, infant mortality rates doubled or tripled and malnutrition sky rockets. Sweatshops suck, but they are somewhat of a natural transition to higher grade work environments. They help the local area, raising the quality of life to the point where people can afford to organize and demand better wages and conditions.
This is a commonly forgotten principle, in my opinion. We often think about the "higher things" in life, equality, values, etc. These are all human endeavors that are only possible because we have a standard of living above "survival". If you just let the market happen, it will bring these poverty stricken areas out of the sustainence level faster than any other method, and then we can start to have social r
Nope, we're talking about the exact same kind of branding. Even branding targeted at kids has the identical goal. Children learn something that they enjoy and have fun with, and they want more of it. The criteria for a successful brand might be different, but it's still the same.
As a person that is currently shopping around for an SUV, you couldn't be more wrong. A minivan has a stigma to it, and as a CS/Econ college student without a family I can't really picture myself driving a minivan. But an SUV, yeah, that's all the utility of a minivan, but still a little... cooler.
This is the problem: "from an economics perspective, as a minivan and a few thousand dollars in cash in pocket."
No, that's not "from an economics perspective" at all, economics isn't just the study of money. Perhaps that's from an accountants perspective. Economics is the study of rational decision making, not just what is cheapest and gets the most work done. Things like consumer preferences are very much part of economics, in fact, the fictional "utility" unit used for microeconomics is often defined as units of *happiness*, of all things. Consumers maximize their happiness, not just their bank accounts.
All modern free market models handle uncertainty and information asymmetry. In a free market there is no irrational consumer behavior, only individual actors doing what they think will maximize their happiness (sometimes they are just wrong, that's some of the uncertainty... but perhaps it's just a definitional thing, maybe this is what you mean by irrational behavior, I'd call it rational but wrong).
As far as decentralizing wealth distribution, I have two things. First, there is nothing wrong with having extreme rich, the only thing that I personally think sucks is the extreme poor. Having government controlled markets is exactly where we get in trouble though, because those richies with connects start making the rules and getting their money with guns and not products that serve the consumer.
However, it's very interesting to note that the free-er markets are, strangly enough, the more equitable it becomes. Here's a quote from Johan Norberg's _In Defense of Global Capitalism_ (I'll explain the source more later):
Between 1965 and 1998, the everage world citizen's income practically doubled from $2,497 to $4,839, adjusted for purchasing power and inflation. That increase has not come about through the industralized nations multiplying their incomes. During this period the richest fifth of the world's population increased their average income from $8,315 to $14,623, or by roughly 75 percent. For the poorest fifth of the world's population, the increase has been faster still, with average income more than doubling during the same period from $551 to $1,137. World consumption today is more than twice what it was in 1960.
[Foot notes for this section: Arne Melchior, Kjetil Telle, and Henrik Wiig, _Globalisering och ulikhet: Verdens inntektsfordeling og levestandard, 1960-1998_ (Oslo: Royal Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 2000). Also available in an abridged English version: _Globalization and Inequality: World Income Distribution and Living Standards, 1960-1998_, Studies on Foreign Policy Issues, Report 6:b, 2000, chap. 2, http://xodin.dep.no/ud/engelsk/publ/rapporter/0320 01-990349/index-dok000-b-n-a.html.]
The fact show (even from UN stats) that the more globalization and free markets, the higher quality of life gets for the poor.
From what you've said, I think it's clear that you're not really the systems oriented econ type that's looking for max efficiency and elegant generalized solutions. I think you're really more interested in the benefit to society from a system and the way that it effects real people. While I personally am kind of systems oriented, I have become facinated with the recent splurge or free market economics work that has been published with the specific goal of handling
The second that my university decides that the RIAA and the MPAA should be administering the network to decide if any violations are made, is the second I transfer to another university.
I don't pay a huge "technology fee" just to have the wolves guarding the hen house. The MPAA and RIAA are a modern mafia, complete with government support.
Attention Universities: Some of you should realize that there is a market for a bastion of freedom. I'd gladly pay a legal fee in my student fees/tuition if it meant I could be protected from fucking cartels like the RIAA and bullshit legislation like the DMCA.
I'll spend money on whoever can create me the highest quality good for the least amount of money. Maximization isn't just for corporations, it's the smart thing to do. It allows me to get the most benefit for my labor.
Adam Smith is dead and classical economists had a lot right (and some things wrong), but free market advocates aren't just going on old stale economic ideas. (It's a nice little jab to try and make us sound irrelevent though, it's tempting to do the same thing with mindless keynesians... but I'll hold back.)
The Austrian school of economics is alive and well, with fantastic papers and insightful books coming out pretty frequently.
But what's interesting to me is this:
Example:
If branding as a marketing technique can yield positive gains then consumers are not rational as per his assumptions. Banding works. Therefore, one of the key assumptions behind the free market model fails: rationality. QED. The other assumptions are just as trivially broken today as well. Symmetry of information. Right. Go fish.
There is no reason why branding shouldn't yield gains. Branding is a form of consumer protection, I am able to build a level of trust with a brand and reasonably expect that protect to maintain the same level of quality and effectivness. There's a reason hotel/motels are successful nationwide chains; no matter what unfamiliar place in the nation you are, you know what to expect from a given hotel/motel. Choosing brands not rational? Hardly!
The other point you make is just laughable, however. "Symmetry of Information" is not just trivially broken, it's completely unrealistic. But that's not just from some free market theorist, the Perfect Competition market is a absolutely ficticous and impossible model that is used by interventionists to justify their counterproductive meddling. "Perfect Competition" is the keynesian's heaven or utopia, and their intervention is the their way to try to force that utopia on a free people. You're actually trying to critique free market advocates using Keynesian theory! I have to agree! Your protectionists are wrong!
If you would like there are a myriad of papers about the fallacies of the "perfect competition" model that you accidently attributed to the free market thinkers. It becomes very clear when examining how the "perfect competition" model has no considerations for absolutely fundamental things like entrepreneurism, customer service, and uncertainty. No small oversight.
I won't even touch your class-warfare drivel at the end there, but no, I most certainly do not feel robbed by my free market. I feel robbed by the decades of statist bullshit before me that has robbed the world of countless advancements in science, technology, and art that would have came to fruition with all the deadweight loss from taxes (not even counting the amazing weight of real taxes) and the constricting destruction of regulation.
Let's put this in the real world so that you can wake up from your politically loaded by narrowly defined false world:
* Company X outsources, laying off 1,000 engineers who made an average of $75K/year.
* Company X provides their product domestically at lower prices to stay competitive, thanks to labor savings.
* Because Company X offers their product at a price lower than before, Companies A, B, C, D, E, and F save money on costs.
* Because of a drop-off in costs, companies A, B, C, D, E, and F are able to produce more goods for the public at lower prices, or hire $var new employees, or provide $var in much needed pay raises.
* The products made by A, B, C, D, E, and F are now provided to the public for lower prices, the public is now able to buy more goods and services from Companies Y and Z.
* Thanks to the emerging market found by Companies Y and Z, they provide a good/service making life better for the public, and perhaps, just maybe, need some engineers.
* Nicely, the Quality of Life has improved for most involved, with the notable exception of those currently unemployed. Thankfully the engineers in this scenario have a marketable skill, and are later able to differentiate themselves to find a job that is not easily outsourced (or that they are particularly skilled.)
Moral of the story: Outsourcing is a correction of an imbalance in wage prices. It is difficult for those people who are no longer competitive (a difficulty not easily dismissed) but the price advantages lead to better and less expensive products for everyone. It also is a clear market signal to those workers displaced that they are no longer providing a needed service at their current price, and that they should retrain or reprice to provide a service that the people are willing to pay for.
This is exactly right, there is nothing wrong with keeping your money local.
As long as you don't do it with laws that force everyone to do what you want with their money or pay steep penalties/jail time, then I agree with you 110%.
Civic pride is valuable and I encourage everyone to spend their money with those that they feel deserve it most. Just don't punish me for preferring to spend my money with those that provide me the product for the cheaper price, I'm going to spend the savings here at home anyway.
So you advocate an alternative, that instead of having people pay for what they want... you have taxes take money from everyone to make movies and music that most people don't want.
I love clever hard sci-fi movies, and I make sure to support those couple low budget movies so that maybe they'll hopefully make enough to bring another. But I would never want the state to act as armed thugs stealing money from the people so that I can personally enjoy an unpopular movie format.
Sheesh, and planners say that capitalism is selfish...
Seriously. Why is Verisign still entrusted with the root servers for any top level domains.
They have abused their position, they are completely untrustworthy, and they are now suing the very body that (I would assume) allowed them to have this power in the first place.
I want Verisign's power of DNS revoked: Now. What is the inherent barrier? Why are they still allowed to intentionally fuck over the globe?
Does no one have the revoking power? Is inertia on their side? What is going on that gives them this power?
Slashdot Mirror
Or perhaps, more importantly, not yet.
One thing that I really think is missing here is consideration of the actual words of the amendment.
There is plenty of room to debate whether or not eminent domain was used in this case for the "public good". (I would contend that it doesn't.) But that doesn't... shouldn't matter! The constitution states for public USE, not for public good.
Saying that a new research facility for a private corp to research better penis pills is for the public GOOD is one thing, but claiming that that same privately owned research facility is a public USE of the land is a big fucking stretch.
Unless the result of eminent domain is land that is directly used by the public (for a public service), then it's unconstitutional.
(And I'm not even going to start on my complete disagreement with the "default" perception that more tax revenue is "good" for the public. Everytime our government gets more money, we're more screwed than we were before.)
I'm still not completely sure why it became so trendy to bash any phone with lots of "gadgets and gizmos" and long for the day where phones were just phones.
I realize that the gadgets on phones haven't yet been too the level of quality that stand alone gadgets have, but surely it isn't lost on the Slashdot masses that the time of high quality gadgets is coming?
I currently have a Nokia 3660, one of those "rediculous" gadget laden phones that contains features like an incredibly low quality video camera. But with my eyes open I've found that the mythological "convergence" of hand held gadgets is getting close.
Do I like to have photographs of fun and memorable events with my friends? Of course! But I loathe the idea of carrying around a digital camera with me everywhere I go. Sure they have very small digital cameras now, but the hassle is just... bleh. Instead the 3660 has a digital camera that will take 640x480 images of moderate quality. It's not ideal, but it definitely enough for a random shot at the (hopefully well lit) bar now and then.
The address book is full synced with the Address Book on my PowerBook, and I can even text search on my phone for contacts in the list (instead of having to go just by the first letter or something). I'm hit with an interface that allows me to sent text messages with great ease, because there are tons of ways to get to the same functionality, not unlike the interfaces I'm used to on my computer. (Send a text message from the contact list when you see the number you want to sent to, or from the inbox on a reply, or from a "new message" in the messaging application.)
The predictive text input is getting really nice, and even remembers all of the words I spell myself in a custom dictionary for future use. (Good when a person wants to use words like "shit","heh","blog" on a regular basis that aren't standard) My previous phone would predictive text, but never remember custom spellings.
Even that crappy video recorder has made for some hilarious 20 second video clips from parties and stuff. Real solid memories that I would have just lost if I would have had to run to my room to grab my digital camera.
A great example would be just last week when I was stranded at O'Hare for the night and wanted to get a little internet. There were no hot spots convienent, and I had just reinstalled with Tiger so I didn't have my ISP's regular dial up number handy. I fired up Agile Messenger, hopped on AIM/MSN/ICQ/Yahoo/Jabber, found a computer literate friend online immediately (a young cousin), and had him look up the dial up number for me. I've found the ability to run Agile Messenger to be vastly superior to the lame clients that come with phones and use provider proxies.
The point is, most of us geeks can see the value in having a cell phone, a PDA, a digital camera, and a music player. There are great products in each category that are certainly better than any "convergence" product. But I'm just not going to carry around a cell phone, a PDA, a digital camera, and a music player all at the same damn time, all the time.
My cell phone is with me all the freaking time anyway, and I love when the functionality of the other devices is worked into it.
I just can't wait until these "convergence" phones get really high quality on all fronts, instead of containing the shitty category-busting features that apparently the slashdot psyche is too cool for. The nice thing is I can see it coming down the pike now, and my phone (Nokia 3660) isn't that far off. Here's my wishlist:
* Better digital camera. (648x480 is nice, but not quite enough. Maybe 1024x768)
* A Flash! (I'll give up the battery, I don't care. Too many dark bars.)
* Better iCal support (Multiple calenders like in iCal, so using the phone as a first class calendering device is actually feasible.)
* an iPod built-in. (I realize that the interface for the iPod is really what makes it work, and this is a non-trivial request. But I be
As a fellow Kansan, I just want to apologize.
It's not that it's my fault, but I'm absolutely ashamed that something this obviously wrong made it into our state constitution. But it was easy to have rose-colored glasses here at Kansas State University where I had the pleasure of honking for Vote NO protests as I left campus, and I was more than happy to spend two weeks of my weekly libertarian talk radio show (Freedom to Choose, KSDB Manhattan) talking about just how assinine this ammendment was. I just couldn't convince myself that something so obviously *wrong* could end up passing.
I don't blame you for leaving. I'm a libertarian heterosexual white male in Kansas (read: "unthreatened"), and even I am uncomfortable with the change in political climate in Kansas and other "conservative" states.
After I'm finished here at Kansas State, I'll be leaving too. I've always been proud to be a Kansan, because I've had a great life and everyone that I'm around here in Kansas is phenominal. But first Fred Phelps, and now this.
I'll be happy to leave. Geeks are a remarkedly tolerant people. I hope Kansas gets the "brain drain" it deserves.
And that argument is the most common mistake made by those that don't want to see the clear correllation between lower taxes and higher productivity.
You're thinking entirely in the short term. Which is perfect if you're running for office or looking to provide a legacy for a politician, but is just a shortsighted methodology for any type of "real" analysis.
Add a delay to your analysis of the effects of tax cuts, and you can see that it's certainly plausible that the tax cuts of the Reagan years gave the additional R&D money that lead to the boom (and bubble, probably) of the 90's.
Clinton certainly gets some credit as well, for probably being the most "fiscally conservative" president we've had in a while. At least he wasn't war mongering and blowing money like a drunken sailor. (I think it had a lot to do with the strong republican congress against the democratic president. I wish we coud get some more deadlock so the government would do less and therefore hurt less.)
Because, as an economics student, I have "done all this" as you stated, and there is definitely a very strong relatonship between tax rate and state of the economy, it just doesn't fit nicely inside of presidential tenures like political analysts would prefer.
I have nothing significant to add to the conversation, other than "Amen".
You're so fucking right it restores faith in the intellegence of the world to have just read your comment.
You know, both situations pretty much suck. Presidents that get combatative with industry tend to add rediculous and/or arbitrary restrictive executive-lead-legislation that slows progress and helps no one. Presidents that are buddy-buddy with industry tend to add rediculous and/or arbitrary restrictive executive-lead-legislation that crushes the citizens' rights for short term corporate gain. I want a President that is a particular flavor of both. I want a President that will assault corporate welfare, demand real results for govt contracts, and support the rights of the citizens' above everything else. Especially when those rights are in conflict with "corporate rights". Corporations have no inherent rights of any kind! I also want a President that's willing to support those industries that can and will "cut the mustard" all on their own. A government that will get out of the way when the private sector really gets moving, instead of making sure they keep one hand in. Well. Anyway. That's my favorite pipe dream. Well... my favorite that doesn't involve porn.
Shame.
I really wish you were wrong... but you're almost completely right.
Economists that aren't completely in political pockets agree, it's not a matter of "if" the US currency charade is going to fail, it's a matter of when.
I could not agree with you more. I can't believe that I'm this excited about a game coming out. I haven't "cared" about gaming like this in, well, four years.
While this may be the first day that a lot of people play DOOM3 Multiplayer, it definitely won't be the first day that anyone has played DOOM3 Multiplayer.
At QuakeCon in 2003 there was a dedicated DOOM3 deathmatch booth that allowed attendees to play DOOM3 multiplayer. They shuffled attendees through in about 15 minute intervals for three days.
It was kick ass.
Travis "Ash" Bradshaw
Director of Staffing
QuakeCon 2004
We have never turned away anyone from the BYOC at any QuakeCon.
Travis "Ash" Bradshaw
Director of Staffing
QuakeCon 2004
Here in the Computing and Information Sciences department at Kansas State University we have a research project that is using some kind of sensor cluster implanted in cattle. These sensor clustors then take vital signs and other data and respond to researchers who scan the cow/bull with an IPaQ. Kind of like a tricorder, but with the sensors in the cattle instead of in the hand held device.
I don't know too many of the specifics of the project (I'm a systems administrator in the department, rather than a research assistant), but it sounded cool to me. Maybe with some WiFi collars the cattle could make a mesh network and just shoot the data back to the ranch house without needing someone to walk by with an ipaq, heh heh.
No no no! You're once again confusing making the 'right' decision with making a rational decision, *and* you're assuming perfect information. A rational decision is based on previous experience, knowledge, and opinion. Election money is always a necessity at the very least to inform the voters of their choices, and asymetry is still possible. Democracy is just mob rule, I really have little interest in the integrity of a democracy, only in the existance of a limited power government. Much more limited than it is now. "I want a government small enough to fit in the constitution."
No, he's talking of consumers in the aggregate. I'm remaining very consistant.
No, this is not what was stated. The consumers are the sole soveriegn. Consumers also determine the price of labor. There is absolutely no power over labor by employers without government assistance. An employer can only make an offer for employment, and then the labor decides if they want to work or not.
Profit is not a force, it's only a motive. The only force is Force. The businesses are wholly beholden to me, why would I want to give up that right for politicians I only have a little bit of say over, only every half a decade or so.
You can't have independence without self sufficience. If a group of people were self sufficient and a sweat shop moves in, then they do not *have* to work for a sweat shop. They only do so if they have something to gain. Easier working conditions comes to mind immediately (hours of sweatshop work is still easier than most undeveloped agriculture). And yes, cessation is the only tool of labor. You can choose to work, or choose not to work. It's just that simple. If labor's demands are worth the price to the employer, then the demands will be met. If they are not reasonable, or someone else would like to do the work for less, then the labor is replaced.
No no no. I never said that prostitution sh
It's incredibly useful. It's the foundation for individuals being personally responsible for the decisions that they make, for better or for worse. For my money, rationality is contrasted (and sometimes eclipsed by) emotion and psychology. Not always eclipsed, but often. More so when information is skewed and framed... just so. Emotion and psychology do not preclude or eclipse rational thought at all. Being emotional about something is a reason for making a decision or taking an action. Nothing irrational about it.
To paraphrase Peter from OfficeSpace. "But you know, that's only going to make someone work just hard enough not to get fired." Final accountability isn't enough when you describe a system where it is in the politicians best interest to screw over the constituency as much as possible, but just not enough to miss a re-election. And with the two poor choices that are typically available, that leaves a lot of room to screw teh constituents.
But that's not enough, that's just me. It's very likely that he's screwed over the consitutients only so much that it will still let him be re-elected.
First, this is missing an important delination. The gov't power is the power to kill, imprison, and steel. The power of force. Big money is just the power to market, to persuade, to convince. The problem is when Big Money uses their pursuasion on politicians, who then use force on their behalf.
Second, I don't have control over the government, I have control of 1/260,000,000th of the government, which is effectively nothing. Business interests are not in conflict with mine at all. I am the consumer, I am in command. Here is a quote from the epitome of wisdom, _Human Action_ by Ludwig von Mises pg. 269:
Hmmm, I don't think I see minivans as feminine. My dad would love one. I see minivans as... old. But, that's the nature of individual preference... it's individual.
There is nothing wrong with including emotions and psychology in rational thought. Those are important variables to be considered in any decision, and indeed everyone does. We don't agree on what "rational" means, I guess. Taking into account the costs and benefits of taking any action is--by default--what every human does.
"Rational" does not mean only a facts based always correct decision making process, it simply means a logical decision, something like "Based on earlier or otherwise known statements, events, or conditions; reasonable". The opinion that I've always seen soccer moms and pops in minivans and don't want to be like them, that's logical, just not factual. Consumer preference and other facets of microeconomic theory deal with this considerably.
I do not have any mistrust of the rich, I consistantly believe that every person will act it their best interest. However with a government that meddles in the market, it's in everyone's interest to get buddy-buddy with the government. It just so happens that the "rich" have something that the politicians want, and can do that more than everyone else. As the P.J. O'Rourke quote in my email sig goes: "When buying and selling are controlled by legislation, the first thing to be bought and sold are legislators."
Where I had to laugh, is where you said that corporations are beholden to profits (so true) and the government is beholden to voters.... HA! Hardly! I made the horrible mistake of voting for Bush last presidential election (I will never make the mistake of voting for a Republican or a Democrat again). But did I vote for Rumsfield? Did I vote for Ashcroft? Not even. Hell, Ashcroft couldn't even beat a dead guy.
There are over 3.5 million employees in the executive branch, and I vote for exactly two... on one ballot. I can't even tell who they are going to be until after the election, and I can't get rid of any of them while they are there.
I also can't protect my rights from government intrusion if I don't have the majority on my side. The Castle Coalition does some great work on trying to shed light and provide defense (through the Institute for Justice) for people that are victims of eminent domain.
Having to choose between two evils that are in collusion is not accountability to the voters. It's just feigned legitimacy.
In regards to income distribution, while I agree that the rich get more money, I'm not at all concerned with the numbers in the bank account, I care about the quality of life. The quality of life change from Rich to Really Rich is debatable. The quality of life change from living on 1 dollar a day to 2.50 a day is tremendous. In some parts of the world, that could mean the difference between eating every two days and eating every day. Or even having enough for medical supplies, or specifically infant care. That's significant.
Regarding urbanization, you provide an example of where people seem "forced" into sweatshops by circumstances beyond their control. That would be unfortunate. However, in cases where sweatshops were closed due to protest and regulation, infant mortality rates doubled or tripled and malnutrition sky rockets. Sweatshops suck, but they are somewhat of a natural transition to higher grade work environments. They help the local area, raising the quality of life to the point where people can afford to organize and demand better wages and conditions.
This is a commonly forgotten principle, in my opinion. We often think about the "higher things" in life, equality, values, etc. These are all human endeavors that are only possible because we have a standard of living above "survival". If you just let the market happen, it will bring these poverty stricken areas out of the sustainence level faster than any other method, and then we can start to have social r
Nope, we're talking about the exact same kind of branding. Even branding targeted at kids has the identical goal. Children learn something that they enjoy and have fun with, and they want more of it. The criteria for a successful brand might be different, but it's still the same.
As a person that is currently shopping around for an SUV, you couldn't be more wrong. A minivan has a stigma to it, and as a CS/Econ college student without a family I can't really picture myself driving a minivan. But an SUV, yeah, that's all the utility of a minivan, but still a little... cooler.
This is the problem: "from an economics perspective, as a minivan and a few thousand dollars in cash in pocket."
No, that's not "from an economics perspective" at all, economics isn't just the study of money. Perhaps that's from an accountants perspective. Economics is the study of rational decision making, not just what is cheapest and gets the most work done. Things like consumer preferences are very much part of economics, in fact, the fictional "utility" unit used for microeconomics is often defined as units of *happiness*, of all things. Consumers maximize their happiness, not just their bank accounts.
All modern free market models handle uncertainty and information asymmetry. In a free market there is no irrational consumer behavior, only individual actors doing what they think will maximize their happiness (sometimes they are just wrong, that's some of the uncertainty... but perhaps it's just a definitional thing, maybe this is what you mean by irrational behavior, I'd call it rational but wrong).
As far as decentralizing wealth distribution, I have two things. First, there is nothing wrong with having extreme rich, the only thing that I personally think sucks is the extreme poor. Having government controlled markets is exactly where we get in trouble though, because those richies with connects start making the rules and getting their money with guns and not products that serve the consumer.
However, it's very interesting to note that the free-er markets are, strangly enough, the more equitable it becomes. Here's a quote from Johan Norberg's _In Defense of Global Capitalism_ (I'll explain the source more later):
The fact show (even from UN stats) that the more globalization and free markets, the higher quality of life gets for the poor.
From what you've said, I think it's clear that you're not really the systems oriented econ type that's looking for max efficiency and elegant generalized solutions. I think you're really more interested in the benefit to society from a system and the way that it effects real people. While I personally am kind of systems oriented, I have become facinated with the recent splurge or free market economics work that has been published with the specific goal of handling
The second that my university decides that the RIAA and the MPAA should be administering the network to decide if any violations are made, is the second I transfer to another university.
I don't pay a huge "technology fee" just to have the wolves guarding the hen house. The MPAA and RIAA are a modern mafia, complete with government support.
Attention Universities: Some of you should realize that there is a market for a bastion of freedom. I'd gladly pay a legal fee in my student fees/tuition if it meant I could be protected from fucking cartels like the RIAA and bullshit legislation like the DMCA.
Thanks!
I'll spend money on whoever can create me the highest quality good for the least amount of money. Maximization isn't just for corporations, it's the smart thing to do. It allows me to get the most benefit for my labor.
Adam Smith is dead and classical economists had a lot right (and some things wrong), but free market advocates aren't just going on old stale economic ideas. (It's a nice little jab to try and make us sound irrelevent though, it's tempting to do the same thing with mindless keynesians... but I'll hold back.)
The Austrian school of economics is alive and well, with fantastic papers and insightful books coming out pretty frequently.
But what's interesting to me is this: Example:
If branding as a marketing technique can yield positive gains then consumers are not rational as per his assumptions. Banding works. Therefore, one of the key assumptions behind the free market model fails: rationality. QED. The other assumptions are just as trivially broken today as well. Symmetry of information. Right. Go fish.
There is no reason why branding shouldn't yield gains. Branding is a form of consumer protection, I am able to build a level of trust with a brand and reasonably expect that protect to maintain the same level of quality and effectivness. There's a reason hotel/motels are successful nationwide chains; no matter what unfamiliar place in the nation you are, you know what to expect from a given hotel/motel. Choosing brands not rational? Hardly!
The other point you make is just laughable, however. "Symmetry of Information" is not just trivially broken, it's completely unrealistic. But that's not just from some free market theorist, the Perfect Competition market is a absolutely ficticous and impossible model that is used by interventionists to justify their counterproductive meddling. "Perfect Competition" is the keynesian's heaven or utopia, and their intervention is the their way to try to force that utopia on a free people. You're actually trying to critique free market advocates using Keynesian theory! I have to agree! Your protectionists are wrong!
If you would like there are a myriad of papers about the fallacies of the "perfect competition" model that you accidently attributed to the free market thinkers. It becomes very clear when examining how the "perfect competition" model has no considerations for absolutely fundamental things like entrepreneurism, customer service, and uncertainty. No small oversight.
I won't even touch your class-warfare drivel at the end there, but no, I most certainly do not feel robbed by my free market. I feel robbed by the decades of statist bullshit before me that has robbed the world of countless advancements in science, technology, and art that would have came to fruition with all the deadweight loss from taxes (not even counting the amazing weight of real taxes) and the constricting destruction of regulation.
Let's put this in the real world so that you can wake up from your politically loaded by narrowly defined false world:
* Company X outsources, laying off 1,000 engineers who made an average of $75K/year.
* Company X provides their product domestically at lower prices to stay competitive, thanks to labor savings.
* Because Company X offers their product at a price lower than before, Companies A, B, C, D, E, and F save money on costs.
* Because of a drop-off in costs, companies A, B, C, D, E, and F are able to produce more goods for the public at lower prices, or hire $var new employees, or provide $var in much needed pay raises.
* The products made by A, B, C, D, E, and F are now provided to the public for lower prices, the public is now able to buy more goods and services from Companies Y and Z.
* Thanks to the emerging market found by Companies Y and Z, they provide a good/service making life better for the public, and perhaps, just maybe, need some engineers.
* Nicely, the Quality of Life has improved for most involved, with the notable exception of those currently unemployed. Thankfully the engineers in this scenario have a marketable skill, and are later able to differentiate themselves to find a job that is not easily outsourced (or that they are particularly skilled.)
Moral of the story: Outsourcing is a correction of an imbalance in wage prices. It is difficult for those people who are no longer competitive (a difficulty not easily dismissed) but the price advantages lead to better and less expensive products for everyone. It also is a clear market signal to those workers displaced that they are no longer providing a needed service at their current price, and that they should retrain or reprice to provide a service that the people are willing to pay for.
This is exactly right, there is nothing wrong with keeping your money local.
As long as you don't do it with laws that force everyone to do what you want with their money or pay steep penalties/jail time, then I agree with you 110%.
Civic pride is valuable and I encourage everyone to spend their money with those that they feel deserve it most. Just don't punish me for preferring to spend my money with those that provide me the product for the cheaper price, I'm going to spend the savings here at home anyway.
well fucking put
So you advocate an alternative, that instead of having people pay for what they want... you have taxes take money from everyone to make movies and music that most people don't want.
I love clever hard sci-fi movies, and I make sure to support those couple low budget movies so that maybe they'll hopefully make enough to bring another. But I would never want the state to act as armed thugs stealing money from the people so that I can personally enjoy an unpopular movie format.
Sheesh, and planners say that capitalism is selfish...
Seriously. Why is Verisign still entrusted with the root servers for any top level domains.
They have abused their position, they are completely untrustworthy, and they are now suing the very body that (I would assume) allowed them to have this power in the first place.
I want Verisign's power of DNS revoked: Now. What is the inherent barrier? Why are they still allowed to intentionally fuck over the globe?
Does no one have the revoking power? Is inertia on their side? What is going on that gives them this power?