The whole DNS system is not a free market. You have a corporation (major interference) with a monopoly (major interference), constrained by IP laws (major interference).
Nice answer, but what does it have to do with the question?
Everything! Absent a government-created, quasi-government administered DNS, a libertarian would have confidence that the free market would take care of any DNS system that allowed such shenanigans. Consumers would prefer a system that let them type Ron Paul's name and get his website, and so these private registries would generally have rules which favored "legitimate" sites and discouraged cyber squatting. Cyber squatting would not be a moral hazard, but it would be an economic hazard for any company that allowed it. I assume it would look like the search engine wars or - going back a ways - the yellow pages wars.
Note that I do not consider myself to be a libertarian, but their ideology is quite consistent.
It's a contract to include a domain name in a directory, that's it.
Yeah, in a government-created monopoly. If you want a web presence, you have no practical alternative. Absent a "free-market", one certainly cannot be blamed for working within the existing rules.
In other words, he's the one bringing in the IP in the debate and demanding to protect his intellectual property.
He's not bringing IP into the debate. One is subjected to IP rules involuntarily just by existing. One can advocate for change while still working within the confines of the existing system - this does not make him a hypocrite.
So please, to any libertarians -- can you give me a purely libertarian explanation of why cybersquatting is wrong?
Well, it relies upon the government creation of intellectual property. I can only think of one larger example of government regulation, and that is the corporation.
Once you accept the concept of intellectual property, the rules are completely arbitrary. There is no moral case to be made for working within the existing rules, or even for seeking to change the rules. In this case, there is a whole dispute resolution process set up for exactly this sort of thing.
"Libertarian unwilling to pay market value for property, asks for government help."
This is not property in the libertarian sense. This is intellectual property, which is by definition arbitrated by the government. You cannot have a free market solution for a government invention. There is no way for Ron Paul to navigate the world of IP without interacting with some kind of government-enabled entity.
Of course, none of that could apply to the concept of intellectual property, which is one of the largest examples we have of government intrusion in the free market.
You are right about the 30 mile range, but probably not about hauling around the gasoline engine. That adds a lot of expense and complexity to the car, and will probably kill any economic incentive to buying such a beast unless gas gets REALLY expensive. The Prius makes sense for high-mileage city driving (like Taxis) and not much else. The Volt almost never makes sense. The Leaf has too much battery, and so also makes no economic sense. When we have $8 gas, it'll be a whole different equation - but even then, you'll need to own the car for a long time before you get a return on your investment.
Most of us married folks have two cars. In my family, we are very lucky (well, we picked our house based partly on our job locations...) and my wife's commute is 5 miles while mine is 10. Time-wise, they are both around 20 minutes. If one of our cars were electric, we wouldn't need much range at all. On the off chance that we needed more range, we could borrow the gasoline car. Thing is, they don't make an electric car that fits my very meager needs. I explored a good old fashioned lead-acid conversion, but even that is pricey compared to a similar vintage gasoline vehicle. And with our little tiny fuel bill, it would never pay off.
Furthermore, just to illustrate how silly your inference is, try to answer these questions: Does he mean that averaging people driving speeds they exceed which speed exactly by 5 mph? Does he means in highways? In the city? In every street? If so in peak traffic time? During the night? In zones where there are radars and photographic surveillance? If some zones are excluded does it means in others people go in average beyond this speed to compensate?
Wow, no. Why don't you ask him? The whole point of his post is that most people speed, so real-world estimates of mileage should reflect this. If that's not the way you read his comment, then I'm sorry but you're parser is borked.
Yes, keeping your speeds to 10-over-the-limit or less will not protect you from profiling:)
I was once pulled over for an "obscured license plate" (obscured by what?) and it happened to be when my black girlfriend was in the car. It was also the only time I was ever pulled over by more than one cop car.
Well, the Times has a vested interest in selling papers and Tesla has a vested interest in selling cars, so I'm not sure we'll ever hear the real truth. It sounds like terrible marketing on Tesla's part and a bit of a flourish by the Times writer.
You've been watching too many movies. Gasoline is more "flammable" than "explosive". The simple innovation of shutting off the fuel pump in an impact prevents most fires.
Goodness, that's pedantic. He means "if you AVERAGE up EVERYONE's speed, it will be about 5 over". It's not the most well-constructed sentence, but most native speakers should be able to figure out what he was saying.
Since I'm not rich enough to afford one of these, yet I still have two cars, I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that I wouldn't expect people to use their electric luxury car for long trips. Hell, we take our less-efficient car (minivan) on trips because it is more comfortable. It seems to me that the Times was looking for a way to fail the car to make their story better. Most of us would probably commute in this thing.
Slashdot Mirror
The whole DNS system is not a free market. You have a corporation (major interference) with a monopoly (major interference), constrained by IP laws (major interference).
ICANN has a monopoly - you are forced to use their services.
Your cute.
Nice answer, but what does it have to do with the question?
Everything! Absent a government-created, quasi-government administered DNS, a libertarian would have confidence that the free market would take care of any DNS system that allowed such shenanigans. Consumers would prefer a system that let them type Ron Paul's name and get his website, and so these private registries would generally have rules which favored "legitimate" sites and discouraged cyber squatting. Cyber squatting would not be a moral hazard, but it would be an economic hazard for any company that allowed it. I assume it would look like the search engine wars or - going back a ways - the yellow pages wars.
Note that I do not consider myself to be a libertarian, but their ideology is quite consistent.
It's a contract to include a domain name in a directory, that's it.
Yeah, in a government-created monopoly. If you want a web presence, you have no practical alternative. Absent a "free-market", one certainly cannot be blamed for working within the existing rules.
In other words, he's the one bringing in the IP in the debate and demanding to protect his intellectual property.
He's not bringing IP into the debate. One is subjected to IP rules involuntarily just by existing. One can advocate for change while still working within the confines of the existing system - this does not make him a hypocrite.
So please, to any libertarians -- can you give me a purely libertarian explanation of why cybersquatting is wrong?
Well, it relies upon the government creation of intellectual property. I can only think of one larger example of government regulation, and that is the corporation.
Once you accept the concept of intellectual property, the rules are completely arbitrary. There is no moral case to be made for working within the existing rules, or even for seeking to change the rules. In this case, there is a whole dispute resolution process set up for exactly this sort of thing.
"Libertarian unwilling to pay market value for property, asks for government help."
This is not property in the libertarian sense. This is intellectual property, which is by definition arbitrated by the government. You cannot have a free market solution for a government invention. There is no way for Ron Paul to navigate the world of IP without interacting with some kind of government-enabled entity.
Of course, none of that could apply to the concept of intellectual property, which is one of the largest examples we have of government intrusion in the free market.
Apparently you can't tell when someone has figured out how to irritate a pendant.
You are right about the 30 mile range, but probably not about hauling around the gasoline engine. That adds a lot of expense and complexity to the car, and will probably kill any economic incentive to buying such a beast unless gas gets REALLY expensive. The Prius makes sense for high-mileage city driving (like Taxis) and not much else. The Volt almost never makes sense. The Leaf has too much battery, and so also makes no economic sense. When we have $8 gas, it'll be a whole different equation - but even then, you'll need to own the car for a long time before you get a return on your investment.
Most of us married folks have two cars. In my family, we are very lucky (well, we picked our house based partly on our job locations...) and my wife's commute is 5 miles while mine is 10. Time-wise, they are both around 20 minutes. If one of our cars were electric, we wouldn't need much range at all. On the off chance that we needed more range, we could borrow the gasoline car. Thing is, they don't make an electric car that fits my very meager needs. I explored a good old fashioned lead-acid conversion, but even that is pricey compared to a similar vintage gasoline vehicle. And with our little tiny fuel bill, it would never pay off.
It was you, wasn't it???
the one who brought absolutely nothing to the discussion except personal attacks.
When irony attacks.
Furthermore, just to illustrate how silly your inference is, try to answer these questions: Does he mean that averaging people driving speeds they exceed which speed exactly by 5 mph? Does he means in highways? In the city? In every street? If so in peak traffic time? During the night? In zones where there are radars and photographic surveillance? If some zones are excluded does it means in others people go in average beyond this speed to compensate?
Wow, no. Why don't you ask him? The whole point of his post is that most people speed, so real-world estimates of mileage should reflect this. If that's not the way you read his comment, then I'm sorry but you're parser is borked.
Yes, keeping your speeds to 10-over-the-limit or less will not protect you from profiling :)
I was once pulled over for an "obscured license plate" (obscured by what?) and it happened to be when my black girlfriend was in the car. It was also the only time I was ever pulled over by more than one cop car.
Well, I understood him just fine. Are you a native English speaker? You seem to write well enough.
Well, the Times has a vested interest in selling papers and Tesla has a vested interest in selling cars, so I'm not sure we'll ever hear the real truth. It sounds like terrible marketing on Tesla's part and a bit of a flourish by the Times writer.
it was a sentence that transmitted an absurd idea.
That should have been your clue that you were mus-interpreting it.
That is certainly true... if you are driving something built 30 or 40 years ago!
You've been watching too many movies. Gasoline is more "flammable" than "explosive". The simple innovation of shutting off the fuel pump in an impact prevents most fires.
Usually because they are bad at math or love the environment, but yes - they do seem pretty loyal.
Two miles in Manhattan can take hours, especially if there is a bridge or tunnel involved. I've never lived anywhere so small that felt so big. :)
I don't know where you are from, but in the US you almost never get pulled over if you stay below 10-over-the-limit.
Goodness, that's pedantic. He means "if you AVERAGE up EVERYONE's speed, it will be about 5 over". It's not the most well-constructed sentence, but most native speakers should be able to figure out what he was saying.
Since I'm not rich enough to afford one of these, yet I still have two cars, I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that I wouldn't expect people to use their electric luxury car for long trips. Hell, we take our less-efficient car (minivan) on trips because it is more comfortable. It seems to me that the Times was looking for a way to fail the car to make their story better. Most of us would probably commute in this thing.
And, while that has happened to me, at least the gas station was only 3 blocks away and the generous thieves left enough for me to get there.
That's because they show that the reporter made a stop to drop of guns in Sandy Hook.