As for offshoring, it damages worker's rights and environment in the USA. Chinese companies do not pay the cost of worker's rights and privileges (e.g. disability insurance) and the cost of protecting the environment. Hence, Chinese companies can undercut American companies.
Umm, sure, but what business of yours is it what the Chinese or Indians do with their environment? If they want to ruin it and so gain an advantage, that's their choice, not yours (at least in the case where they aren't emitting CO2 or something). Or is that somehow "unfair"? Not to mention the fact that whether people in the US belong to unions or agree to work for a lower standard isn't your business either, so why should somebody elses? Maybe they should have all the same standards as you do, so they have no way to compete with you? Seriously, just how selfish and deceptive can you be?
This isn't somebody being "noble", it's just some fool trying to make sure he doesn't have to compete and lose.
The point is exactly in the fact that that a moron is unable to throw people into space. That certainly doesn't stop them from claiming to be able. Not to mention the fact that having money doesn't mean that the buyers will be interested in doing research. And what fucking insurance covers getting loved ones killed from falling debris? Sometimes the idiocy of certain "libertarians" just astounds me.
I find it ridiculous that the universities themselves are paying anything to the scumbags. How can anyone even consider the possibility that random schools have anything to do with their students actions, much less have legal responsibility for those actions?
Even more amazing is the fact that the universities are making any kinds of contracts for the students. Back here in Europe, their purpose is to provide education, but I guess it's pretty much different in the US, where they are more of a kindergarten than a place of research and study.
Considering that Elvis was a complete redneck from the deepest South with probably no idea of what copyright meant, no, I think that the record companies were the only party with a clue about this.
I think you have it pretty much wrong. You seem to be missing the point that just an ordinary guitar is not much less technical than a Moog, just because it looks simple and most people playing them are idiots. (Consider for instance what it means that the strings are made of certain material, and how it affects the sound.) Music has for a long long time been extremely technical and "geeky", it's just that recently with popular music, there are "artists" who have no clue about the true workings of their instrument. Look at punk rockers who are unable to play at all (which is not to say that they don't sound great) or Britney Spears who can't even sing (which is to say that she sounds awful). Then on the other hand we have people like J.S. Bach or Jimi Hendrix, who knew their instruments better anything, for them it was the most important thing in their life. Quite geeky I'd say.
Nope, the phones themselves have a unique identifier, the IMEI code, which are quite trackable. Once you know who's using which IMEI, you can listen to them pretty easily even when they're using a prepaid account.
In related news, the Finnish "RIAA", Teosto, actually lobbied to get money from kindergartens etc. whenever the kids there sang/whatever. Not so funny I'd say.
There's just a bit of a problem with removing them. From the article: "The proposed EU Intellectual Property Enforcement Directive (see FIPR analysis) would specifically forbid Europeans from removing or deactivating Radio Frequency (RFID) tags embedded in clothing and other consumer devices!"
I wouldn't be so sure that the Dragon Chip is going to offer any freedom; if the Chinese government has a say, it most certainly will do only Party-approved things.
What gives you the idea that they haven't figured it out already how many slots they have, and just auction that amount? I'd like to point out to you that an auction is just a monopoly that is capable of first degree price discrimination -> it gives out the maximum profit by itself.
Huh? how are the rich getting a "handout"? last I checked, they were going to _pay_ for the passes, so it most definately isn't a "freebie", as in IT'S NOT FREE FOR THEM. Seriously, what is it with you people, is Pareto efficiency so hard to understand?
Also, in economic theory, this is probably the best possible way to study the willingness to pay, assuming they put up on auction as many passes as they will really sell. Especially since the amount will be large enough to make them affordable to more than 1%.
I think you're quite wrong here. First, the stickers will almost certainly be so expensive, that only companies that do transportation will afford them, except for some top level executives, who are so rare that it doesn't really matter (obviously, this depends on the amount that will actually be released). Second, the ones who can't afford them, are most certainly not any worse off after than before, they're stuck in the traffic now too, aren't they? So if they were going to be fired for being late, it would have already happened, and allowing goods to be transported swiftly isn't going to make a difference./economist
It's bad because it distorts the relative prices of goods and thus makes an pareto efficient market equilibrium impossible. Yes, income tax does this too, but so much less so, because the disruption happens only in the job market./economist
Actually, your privacy is no more "violated" after this than before, as the positional data created by the GSM base station system exists anyway, regardless of any further use, especially if in this case the users (of the data) do not receive any other data except amount. For instance, the phone company can do it already, and the police almost certainly will be able to access it, at least with a court order. And you can't track who somebody is with, because the base stations are about 200m (or more) apart from each other, and cant give any more positional data than that a cell phone is using it. So it's like saying that I'm with somebody, only they can be on the other side of town/whatever.
Slashdot Mirror
As for offshoring, it damages worker's rights and environment in the USA. Chinese companies do not pay the cost of worker's rights and privileges (e.g. disability insurance) and the cost of protecting the environment. Hence, Chinese companies can undercut American companies.
Umm, sure, but what business of yours is it what the Chinese or Indians do with their environment? If they want to ruin it and so gain an advantage, that's their choice, not yours (at least in the case where they aren't emitting CO2 or something). Or is that somehow "unfair"? Not to mention the fact that whether people in the US belong to unions or agree to work for a lower standard isn't your business either, so why should somebody elses? Maybe they should have all the same standards as you do, so they have no way to compete with you? Seriously, just how selfish and deceptive can you be?
This isn't somebody being "noble", it's just some fool trying to make sure he doesn't have to compete and lose.
The point is exactly in the fact that that a moron is unable to throw people into space. That certainly doesn't stop them from claiming to be able. Not to mention the fact that having money doesn't mean that the buyers will be interested in doing research. And what fucking insurance covers getting loved ones killed from falling debris? Sometimes the idiocy of certain "libertarians" just astounds me.
Too bad it doesn't meet Economics 201, not to mention Anti-Delusions 101.
I think most of them realize it quite well, but the problem is they don't care at all.
I find it ridiculous that the universities themselves are paying anything to the scumbags. How can anyone even consider the possibility that random schools have anything to do with their students actions, much less have legal responsibility for those actions? Even more amazing is the fact that the universities are making any kinds of contracts for the students. Back here in Europe, their purpose is to provide education, but I guess it's pretty much different in the US, where they are more of a kindergarten than a place of research and study.
Considering that Elvis was a complete redneck from the deepest South with probably no idea of what copyright meant, no, I think that the record companies were the only party with a clue about this.
I think you have it pretty much wrong. You seem to be missing the point that just an ordinary guitar is not much less technical than a Moog, just because it looks simple and most people playing them are idiots. (Consider for instance what it means that the strings are made of certain material, and how it affects the sound.) Music has for a long long time been extremely technical and "geeky", it's just that recently with popular music, there are "artists" who have no clue about the true workings of their instrument. Look at punk rockers who are unable to play at all (which is not to say that they don't sound great) or Britney Spears who can't even sing (which is to say that she sounds awful). Then on the other hand we have people like J.S. Bach or Jimi Hendrix, who knew their instruments better anything, for them it was the most important thing in their life. Quite geeky I'd say.
Nope, the phones themselves have a unique identifier, the IMEI code, which are quite trackable. Once you know who's using which IMEI, you can listen to them pretty easily even when they're using a prepaid account.
In related news, the Finnish "RIAA", Teosto, actually lobbied to get money from kindergartens etc. whenever the kids there sang/whatever. Not so funny I'd say.
There's just a bit of a problem with removing them. From the article: "The proposed EU Intellectual Property Enforcement Directive (see FIPR analysis) would specifically forbid Europeans from removing or deactivating Radio Frequency (RFID) tags embedded in clothing and other consumer devices!"
I wouldn't be so sure that the Dragon Chip is going to offer any freedom; if the Chinese government has a say, it most certainly will do only Party-approved things.
What gives you the idea that they haven't figured it out already how many slots they have, and just auction that amount? I'd like to point out to you that an auction is just a monopoly that is capable of first degree price discrimination -> it gives out the maximum profit by itself.
Huh? how are the rich getting a "handout"? last I checked, they were going to _pay_ for the passes, so it most definately isn't a "freebie", as in IT'S NOT FREE FOR THEM. Seriously, what is it with you people, is Pareto efficiency so hard to understand? Also, in economic theory, this is probably the best possible way to study the willingness to pay, assuming they put up on auction as many passes as they will really sell. Especially since the amount will be large enough to make them affordable to more than 1%.
I think you're quite wrong here. First, the stickers will almost certainly be so expensive, that only companies that do transportation will afford them, except for some top level executives, who are so rare that it doesn't really matter (obviously, this depends on the amount that will actually be released). Second, the ones who can't afford them, are most certainly not any worse off after than before, they're stuck in the traffic now too, aren't they? So if they were going to be fired for being late, it would have already happened, and allowing goods to be transported swiftly isn't going to make a difference. /economist
It's bad because it distorts the relative prices of goods and thus makes an pareto efficient market equilibrium impossible. Yes, income tax does this too, but so much less so, because the disruption happens only in the job market. /economist
Actually, it isn't a law, it's just a demand Teosto made up. So objecting to it isn't civil disobedience.
Actually, your privacy is no more "violated" after this than before, as the positional data created by the GSM base station system exists anyway, regardless of any further use, especially if in this case the users (of the data) do not receive any other data except amount. For instance, the phone company can do it already, and the police almost certainly will be able to access it, at least with a court order. And you can't track who somebody is with, because the base stations are about 200m (or more) apart from each other, and cant give any more positional data than that a cell phone is using it. So it's like saying that I'm with somebody, only they can be on the other side of town/whatever.