Oh, I don't know. To be commercially viable it also has to produce substantially more power than it consumes on an ongoing basis.
Well, obviously that's a given, but I'm talking about being capable of competing against alternative sources of energy on the open market. If, to make an energy source competitive on the market, the government must subsidize the industry with billions of dollars, it's only giving the illusion of competitiveness. In reality, everyone is paying thousands per person into one industry to have that industry be a viable choice against alternative industries. The question is, why?
Power, how? Political power? Economic power? Power to do what? To force you to buy their product? How do they force you? Do you believe you have a right to their product? What gives you that right?
We have economic evidence that competitive markets are better for both consumers, corporations, and innovation than free markets.
Since when do the ends justify the means? How do you justify the violation of rights in this non-free market.
we as a society have decided that we value a competitive market more than a free market
Who is this "we as a society"? When was this decision made, and where? I must not have gotten the memo about signing my rights away.
Simply put, the fact that the current state exists does not make it moral. The majority cannot vote away the rights of the minority.
You are assuming that free = better, and therefore free = right.
No, what is free is what is moral because no rights are violated, not because of some random study showing that a free society leads to better results. A moral system can't be built on the end result, because in practice you have no way of knowing in advance that the moral choice you make will definitely have that result.
They did in fact use their position to destroy others before they could compete, which is fine, unless you have a monopoly.
How'd they destroy them? With dynamite? C4? What sort of explosives are we talking about here? Or did they hack into their computers and wipe their hard drives? What destruction occurred, and how did it occur?
Or do you simply mean that Microsoft made contractual obligations with its clients? How is that equivalent to destruction, or even force? It's a requirement for the delivery and sale of a product, and violates no rights.
You're right. Similarly, if Microsoft doesn't want to agree to the terms of doing business in the United States, where we require businesses to not behave in anti-competitive behaviour, they are perfectly free to take their business elsewhere.
Begging the question. We're arguing what's right, not what's legal. There are immoral laws, and they should be overturned. That's what we're arguing. Or did you confuse this with a legal discussion board?
"You can't ship Linux on your computers unless you agree that 99% of your computers have Windows installed, regardless of what your customers ask for", and you say "No! I will not agree to that!"
If Dell refused Microsoft's terms, then Microsoft loses Dell's business, which would also be a huge loss for them. They both lose if they can't agree to a deal.
That's anti-competitive behavior
What does "anti-competitive" means? Care to define it in clearly concrete terms? If you believe force was applied - how? in what way? where are the guns?
No rights were violated. Nobody was forced to sign a contract at gun point, by a thug, or otherwise blackmailed. No fraud was committed. This is the free market. In the same way McDonald's demands its beef suppliers do exclusive business with them, and my company demands its resellers do exclusive business with us in order to get our products at a discount, Microsoft did the same. That is the definition of a free market - a market free of force, in which rights are violated. Anti-trust legislation is force, and violates the rights of those at Microsoft to set the terms of their agreements.
In other words, because it was funded by outside sources from around the world, rather than the people of the region where it will provide power, it will be able to compete against alternatives in the region. Of course, that would also be true of anything else.
I've got some excellent windmills I'd like to sell you for 50 cents each - I just need to get global funding to the tune of $10B first.
The is the whole point of a "monopoly position", they didn't just make a product, they eliminated all other reasonable alternatives to their product, creating an artificially high price.
How exactly did they "eliminate alternatives" - did they use thugs and tommy guns? Ohh -- you mean they made a superior product, and made contractual obligations with their resellers. *gasp*
No, actually it's nothing like that. Reading a book doesn't require anything proprietary and it doesn't have to work with other software, etc.
Neither does your OS. It wouldn't be good for business, but there's no requirement that the OS must work with anything else. How is your statement relevant to my analogy, again? It's like arguing that I've made a false analogy because JK Rowling is a woman and Bill Gates is a man - it's true, but irrelevant.
But I'm sure you have more knowledge about the case than the judge who made the decision.
If a judge correctly interprets an immoral law, does that make the law alright? Stop begging the question. I'm arguing what's right, not what's legal.
But, IIRC, most of these cases had to do with Microsoft strong-arming OEMS (Dell,HP, etc) by forcing them to only ship Windows and Office on their computers.
"Strong-arming" how? Did they have guns? Automatic or semi-auto?
Ohh, right, you mean Microsoft said that unless Dell agrees to the terms of their contract, they would not sign the contract. *gasp* How horrible of them to not let Dell have their business without agreeing to the terms of their contract!
That would be like JK Rowling using her "monopoly position" on Harry Potter to overcharge for her books. They made it, they should be able to set the price for their product.
The Bible says to test a prophecy by seeing if it comes true.
If you accept the mystical, then there can be no "test" of anything - God or some other supernatural being or "force" could always happen to interfere in your test without you knowing about it. Knowledge is impossible.
I thought the test of a prophet was whether *every* prediction came true or not.
Well, if you accept the mystical, then there can be no "test" of anything - God or some other supernatural being or "force" could always be interfering in your test without your knowing it. Knowledge is impossible.
Prophesies cannot be tested so long as they provide no basis for their claim - but then, that would turn a prophet into a mere weatherman, and there's no money in that.
If every person on Earth predicts a single (different) date as being the end of the world, and one of them ends up being correct - does that mean their prophesy was true? Certainly not. There was no basis for their claim - it should rightly be rejected as arbitrary, even if it happened to coincide with reality.
Although at that point - the end of the world - epistemology is probably not going to be your biggest concern. I'll refer you to the rules of Zombieland for further guidance.
Wait a minute, how do you "debunk" a myth or religious belief? The only way to "debunk" it is to wait until Dec 13th and then say, "See, the world didn't end afterall."
Actually, even if the world does end on the predicted date, the prophesies are still not true. There's no basis for their claims, so they're arbitrary.
Ok, so then quantify it--at what point does a disease require mandatory vaccination?
I'm not sure, what do you think?
That's rather situation dependent!
I was just looking for an average.
The more people that are infected, the greater the risk of more virulent mutations.
Again, without any sort of numbers, this "risk" means nothing and should be disregarded as arbitrary.
Again I ask, WHY do you think the vaccine is not in your best interest?
A lot of unnecessary procedures are by definition in my best interest for the simple reason that they have not been shown to be necessary.
The flu absolutely CAN be a major epidemic (definition of plague?).
Again, without numbers this is an arbitrary claim. Is it more likely than getting in a car accident, or having a family member with cancer? The Black Death easily beat even those numbers.
Those two numbers represent two different things. The first - attack rate - refers to the total % of Americans getting the flu - and is quite different from the secondary attack rate you define in your quote.
To get an accurate comparison, you would have to provide either the primary attack rate % for H1N1, or the secondary attack rate % for seasonal flu.
And if you drive drunk there's only a probability of an accident occurring. Are you really arguing against the epidemiologists here?
Your analogy would only be valid if you could show that the probability of getting/spreading H1N1 is equivalent or even on the order of the probability of drunk driving causing an accident. Since determining this equivalence would require knowing the number for which I originally asked, it would probably be easier for you to simply provide the number for which I originally asked.
Certain groups--pregnant women, children, elderly, etc--are in general more susceptible to influenza, and certain groups react differently to h1n1 than other flu strains.
Then clearly it is in their interest to get such a vaccine - provided, of course, that you show the probability is relatively high of getting it, or at least that the probability is rapidly increasing. It's still of no concern to me, though.
try searching for a few minutes, its not hard to get the numbers....
And, this number, what is it? You can give me a ballpark if you don't remember the exact number. You say with certainty that you know it exists, so I'm going to assume that you've actually read the number at some point.
the fact that it is spreading over the world like crazy
Slashdot Mirror
Oh, I don't know. To be commercially viable it also has to produce substantially more power than it consumes on an ongoing basis.
Well, obviously that's a given, but I'm talking about being capable of competing against alternative sources of energy on the open market. If, to make an energy source competitive on the market, the government must subsidize the industry with billions of dollars, it's only giving the illusion of competitiveness. In reality, everyone is paying thousands per person into one industry to have that industry be a viable choice against alternative industries. The question is, why?
So it's right for those with power to abuse it?
Power, how? Political power? Economic power? Power to do what? To force you to buy their product? How do they force you? Do you believe you have a right to their product? What gives you that right?
We have economic evidence that competitive markets are better for both consumers, corporations, and innovation than free markets.
Since when do the ends justify the means? How do you justify the violation of rights in this non-free market.
we as a society have decided that we value a competitive market more than a free market
Who is this "we as a society"? When was this decision made, and where? I must not have gotten the memo about signing my rights away.
Simply put, the fact that the current state exists does not make it moral. The majority cannot vote away the rights of the minority.
You are assuming that free = better, and therefore free = right.
No, what is free is what is moral because no rights are violated, not because of some random study showing that a free society leads to better results. A moral system can't be built on the end result, because in practice you have no way of knowing in advance that the moral choice you make will definitely have that result.
They did in fact use their position to destroy others before they could compete, which is fine, unless you have a monopoly.
How'd they destroy them? With dynamite? C4? What sort of explosives are we talking about here? Or did they hack into their computers and wipe their hard drives? What destruction occurred, and how did it occur?
Or do you simply mean that Microsoft made contractual obligations with its clients? How is that equivalent to destruction, or even force? It's a requirement for the delivery and sale of a product, and violates no rights.
You're right. Similarly, if Microsoft doesn't want to agree to the terms of doing business in the United States, where we require businesses to not behave in anti-competitive behaviour, they are perfectly free to take their business elsewhere.
Begging the question. We're arguing what's right, not what's legal. There are immoral laws, and they should be overturned. That's what we're arguing. Or did you confuse this with a legal discussion board?
"You can't ship Linux on your computers unless you agree that 99% of your computers have Windows installed, regardless of what your customers ask for", and you say "No! I will not agree to that!"
If Dell refused Microsoft's terms, then Microsoft loses Dell's business, which would also be a huge loss for them. They both lose if they can't agree to a deal.
That's anti-competitive behavior
What does "anti-competitive" means? Care to define it in clearly concrete terms? If you believe force was applied - how? in what way? where are the guns?
No rights were violated. Nobody was forced to sign a contract at gun point, by a thug, or otherwise blackmailed. No fraud was committed. This is the free market. In the same way McDonald's demands its beef suppliers do exclusive business with them, and my company demands its resellers do exclusive business with us in order to get our products at a discount, Microsoft did the same. That is the definition of a free market - a market free of force, in which rights are violated. Anti-trust legislation is force, and violates the rights of those at Microsoft to set the terms of their agreements.
[citation needed]
In other words, because it was funded by outside sources from around the world, rather than the people of the region where it will provide power, it will be able to compete against alternatives in the region. Of course, that would also be true of anything else.
I've got some excellent windmills I'd like to sell you for 50 cents each - I just need to get global funding to the tune of $10B first.
Not the same at all. There are millions of other books to choose from because Rowling's does own all the printing presses.
It is the same. Re-read my post. I said a monopoly on Harry Potter, not a monopoly on books.
The is the whole point of a "monopoly position", they didn't just make a product, they eliminated all other reasonable alternatives to their product, creating an artificially high price.
How exactly did they "eliminate alternatives" - did they use thugs and tommy guns? Ohh -- you mean they made a superior product, and made contractual obligations with their resellers. *gasp*
No, actually it's nothing like that. Reading a book doesn't require anything proprietary and it doesn't have to work with other software, etc.
Neither does your OS. It wouldn't be good for business, but there's no requirement that the OS must work with anything else. How is your statement relevant to my analogy, again? It's like arguing that I've made a false analogy because JK Rowling is a woman and Bill Gates is a man - it's true, but irrelevant.
But I'm sure you have more knowledge about the case than the judge who made the decision.
If a judge correctly interprets an immoral law, does that make the law alright? Stop begging the question. I'm arguing what's right, not what's legal.
But, IIRC, most of these cases had to do with Microsoft strong-arming OEMS (Dell,HP, etc) by forcing them to only ship Windows and Office on their computers.
"Strong-arming" how? Did they have guns? Automatic or semi-auto?
Ohh, right, you mean Microsoft said that unless Dell agrees to the terms of their contract, they would not sign the contract. *gasp* How horrible of them to not let Dell have their business without agreeing to the terms of their contract!
That would be like JK Rowling using her "monopoly position" on Harry Potter to overcharge for her books. They made it, they should be able to set the price for their product.
I think the problem will work itself out when local ISP IT staff get the flu as well.
Ah, but God won't ever intervene to cause true prophecy to not be validated...
Zeus would. Disprove Zeus.
The Bible says to test a prophecy by seeing if it comes true.
If you accept the mystical, then there can be no "test" of anything - God or some other supernatural being or "force" could always happen to interfere in your test without you knowing about it. Knowledge is impossible.
But what if the task I'm assigned to do is to rob a bank? Does the spritz of Windex make my action ethical?
I thought the test of a prophet was whether *every* prediction came true or not.
Well, if you accept the mystical, then there can be no "test" of anything - God or some other supernatural being or "force" could always be interfering in your test without your knowing it. Knowledge is impossible.
Prophesies cannot be tested so long as they provide no basis for their claim - but then, that would turn a prophet into a mere weatherman, and there's no money in that.
If every person on Earth predicts a single (different) date as being the end of the world, and one of them ends up being correct - does that mean their prophesy was true? Certainly not. There was no basis for their claim - it should rightly be rejected as arbitrary, even if it happened to coincide with reality.
Although at that point - the end of the world - epistemology is probably not going to be your biggest concern. I'll refer you to the rules of Zombieland for further guidance.
Wait a minute, how do you "debunk" a myth or religious belief? The only way to "debunk" it is to wait until Dec 13th and then say, "See, the world didn't end afterall."
Actually, even if the world does end on the predicted date, the prophesies are still not true. There's no basis for their claims, so they're arbitrary.
Well that's rather ludicrous--you're asking for probabilities that can't be known.
If there is no evidence, how can you convince me to be concerned?
Perhaps the most telling part of this conversation is that you STILL have not come up with a reason to not get vaccinated beyond "I don't want to."
And that's all I need to not only rule out getting this vaccine, but countless other simple, cheap, but *unnecessary* medical treatments.
What, you're claiming that the flu CAN'T become an epidemic?
No. Anything can happen, but what's important is the probability of it happening.
Ok, so then quantify it--at what point does a disease require mandatory vaccination?
I'm not sure, what do you think?
That's rather situation dependent!
I was just looking for an average.
The more people that are infected, the greater the risk of more virulent mutations.
Again, without any sort of numbers, this "risk" means nothing and should be disregarded as arbitrary.
Again I ask, WHY do you think the vaccine is not in your best interest?
A lot of unnecessary procedures are by definition in my best interest for the simple reason that they have not been shown to be necessary.
The flu absolutely CAN be a major epidemic (definition of plague?).
Again, without numbers this is an arbitrary claim. Is it more likely than getting in a car accident, or having a family member with cancer? The Black Death easily beat even those numbers.
Those two numbers represent two different things. The first - attack rate - refers to the total % of Americans getting the flu - and is quite different from the secondary attack rate you define in your quote.
To get an accurate comparison, you would have to provide either the primary attack rate % for H1N1, or the secondary attack rate % for seasonal flu.
And if you drive drunk there's only a probability of an accident occurring. Are you really arguing against the epidemiologists here?
Your analogy would only be valid if you could show that the probability of getting/spreading H1N1 is equivalent or even on the order of the probability of drunk driving causing an accident. Since determining this equivalence would require knowing the number for which I originally asked, it would probably be easier for you to simply provide the number for which I originally asked.
Certain groups--pregnant women, children, elderly, etc--are in general more susceptible to influenza, and certain groups react differently to h1n1 than other flu strains.
Then clearly it is in their interest to get such a vaccine - provided, of course, that you show the probability is relatively high of getting it, or at least that the probability is rapidly increasing. It's still of no concern to me, though.
try searching for a few minutes, its not hard to get the numbers....
And, this number, what is it? You can give me a ballpark if you don't remember the exact number. You say with certainty that you know it exists, so I'm going to assume that you've actually read the number at some point.
the fact that it is spreading over the world like crazy
What does "like crazy" mean?