It's not the price between the store and vendor that can't be agreed upon, that'd be absurd. It's the price between the store and end consumer that can't be influenced by the vendor.
And that is likewise absurd. If a vendor says, "if you want a contract with us, you need to price your product at $X on the store shelf" - isn't that contractual law, and shouldn't the store be free to accept or refuse to sign the contract, and succeed or fail by their actions?
Anti-trust laws exist to protect the market as a whole
I believe they harm the market by undermining the very rights that make the market possible. People must be free to succeed or fail by their own actions. Any company that would attempt to artificially inflate prices would see their previous customers no longer buy their product, and move on to another product.
in the 90s and early 00s the laws were used to prevent microsoft from using its dominance in one market (Operating Systems) to unfairly crush other businesses with monopolistic business practices.
This sentence has no content. There is nothing inherently wrong with a monopoly, so long as the business is good and the company is not coercing you in any way, nor using government force to their benefit. If the latter, then the government - the provider of the force - would be to blame.
For example Sun's JVM versus Microsoft's JVM, which was a broken implementation designed solely to disrupt Sun and leveraged through Microsoft Windows autoupdate, something Sun could simply not compete with.
So clearly the solution is to spread the word about the incompetence of Microsoft, and persuade people to rationally decide to move away from Microsoft products. Clearly the solution is not to remove all responsibility from consumer actions, and leave consumer safety up to the whims of bureaucrats and their highest-paid lobbyists. No?
It's under German law, that the supplier and retailer can't agree on what the retail price will be.
But isn't that absurd? Isn't the entire concept of trade that the buyer and seller freely agree to the price of their product? If a store demands a company sell a product to them at a certain price in order to get placement in the store, the company is free to agree to the price or not. And vice versa. And a customer is likewise free to buy the product or not. Unless the company was coerced, or the retailer was coerced, or the customer was coerced, what is the problem here? Whose rights are being violated?
I have never understood why a company should consider the detriment to its competition when pricing its products. Can anyone explain this to me? Should a person or organization be free to set the price of its products, whether too high or too low, and likewise be free to succeed or fail based on its actions? Isn't any answer besides "yes" an indication that people have a right to the product. Either that, or one would have to argue that people were somehow coerced into buying the product.
There's certain schools of thought that subscribe to the view that if you can save a complete state of the brain, there's no reason why, with exponentially increasing compute, you couldn't come along later and start it running again
That would be determinism, and would require precise measurements for future reproducibility - the further into the future you go, the more precise they would have to be to remain accurate to reality. And it in no way accounts for stimuli, the very things of which one is conscious. So maybe you could restart a simulation, and it could last a short time, but it would not remain accurate long, and would not be able to handle changes in input.
I can see the inevitable result now. They'll get the whole thing mapped, petabytes of data, the position and connection of every neuron to thousands of other neurons will be known... and they'll be left to say, "now what?"
This may be of use for diseases, but the greatest use - understanding consciousness - is still well beyond simply mapping the brain.
I don't think there should be a problem with what Stevens did. If the government were prohibited from interfering in the economy, there wouldn't be any incentive for a oil company to renovate a politician's house, of all things.
In such situations, all I have to ask is, "where does the actual use of force come into play?" Answer that, and you'll know who is responsible for the violation of rights. In this case, as in the rest, the force - through selective laws that hinder competition and benefit a select few - is supplied by politicians.
I voted "none of the above", and feel sorry for you. This is the exact opposite of what was expected, but it's been par for the course. Besides this, we also have his reversal on the ban on federal funding for stem cell research: one day he signed a bill overturning the ban, and two days later, he reinstated the ban in an omnibus spending bill. He definitely should have read and understood the latter before signing it. In addition is his complete 180 on earmark spending. During his campaign, and early in his election, he was adamantly opposed to earmarks. Then recently he came out in favor of them, and stated that he had always supported them.
Say one thing, do another. Just like Bush and the GOP. Were you really expecting any better from the Dems?
I feel sorry for the people who voted for Obama (I voted "none of the above"). They're getting more of Bush when they wanted to "move on". This is the exact opposite of what they expected, but it's been par for the course. Besides this, we also have his reversal on the ban on federal funding for stem cell research: one day he signed a bill overturning the ban, and two days later, he reinstated the ban in an omnibus spending bill. He definitely should have read and understood the latter before signing it. In addition is his complete 180 on earmark spending. During his campaign, and early in his election, he was adamantly opposed to earmarks. Then recently he came out in favor of them, and stated that he had always supported them.
Say one thing, do another. Just like Bush and the GOP. Were you really expecting any better from the Dems?
Just look at disasters like flooding, where a community gathers together to save the majority of a town, instead of everyone just protecting their own property.
That's not necessarily altruism. You're part of the town. It would be like saying that health insurance is altruistic because you're paying money to a company that gives that money out to someone else who's sick. Altruism (Latin for "other-ism") is sacrificial in that you are sacrificing a higher value for a lesser value or a non-value. So it would be altruistic if you lived in another state and had no connection to the community, and decided to quit your job and sell all your property in order to help them out - putting yourself in poverty to support strangers.
Shit I think this thing is Hope (Score:3, Funny)
by Yvan256 (722131) Alter Relationship on Monday April 06, @11:49AM (#27476841) Homepage
Let's just hope these new optimizations don't href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/scienceandtechnology/technology/technologynews/5105
Reply to This
You must make a distinction between the egotist and the egoist. The first boasts to his friends and holds their opinions of himself above his own. The second looks to himself for his inspiration and motivation. They both claim "pride", but the former is a false pride. You can expect the first to manipulate/lie to others when it is convenient to do so. The latter would not even conceive of it - not because of some commandment that must be followed, but simply because it would never come to mind.
that was indeed trollish to care more about yourself rather that the family and friends and publicly ask that question.
No it was not. While there is nothing wrong with mourning someone you care about, there is no requirement by anyone else to care, and people should not shy away from that fact, as you would guilt them into doing. There should be no guilt in such a statement. You should ditch your altruistic tendencies in favor of some rational self-interest.
Slashdot Mirror
It's not the price between the store and vendor that can't be agreed upon, that'd be absurd. It's the price between the store and end consumer that can't be influenced by the vendor.
And that is likewise absurd. If a vendor says, "if you want a contract with us, you need to price your product at $X on the store shelf" - isn't that contractual law, and shouldn't the store be free to accept or refuse to sign the contract, and succeed or fail by their actions?
Anti-trust laws exist to protect the market as a whole
I believe they harm the market by undermining the very rights that make the market possible. People must be free to succeed or fail by their own actions. Any company that would attempt to artificially inflate prices would see their previous customers no longer buy their product, and move on to another product.
in the 90s and early 00s the laws were used to prevent microsoft from using its dominance in one market (Operating Systems) to unfairly crush other businesses with monopolistic business practices.
This sentence has no content. There is nothing inherently wrong with a monopoly, so long as the business is good and the company is not coercing you in any way, nor using government force to their benefit. If the latter, then the government - the provider of the force - would be to blame.
For example Sun's JVM versus Microsoft's JVM, which was a broken implementation designed solely to disrupt Sun and leveraged through Microsoft Windows autoupdate, something Sun could simply not compete with.
So clearly the solution is to spread the word about the incompetence of Microsoft, and persuade people to rationally decide to move away from Microsoft products. Clearly the solution is not to remove all responsibility from consumer actions, and leave consumer safety up to the whims of bureaucrats and their highest-paid lobbyists. No?
It's under German law, that the supplier and retailer can't agree on what the retail price will be.
But isn't that absurd? Isn't the entire concept of trade that the buyer and seller freely agree to the price of their product? If a store demands a company sell a product to them at a certain price in order to get placement in the store, the company is free to agree to the price or not. And vice versa. And a customer is likewise free to buy the product or not. Unless the company was coerced, or the retailer was coerced, or the customer was coerced, what is the problem here? Whose rights are being violated?
I have never understood why a company should consider the detriment to its competition when pricing its products. Can anyone explain this to me? Should a person or organization be free to set the price of its products, whether too high or too low, and likewise be free to succeed or fail based on its actions? Isn't any answer besides "yes" an indication that people have a right to the product. Either that, or one would have to argue that people were somehow coerced into buying the product.
There's just no pleasing you people!
What do you mean, you people?
It will stop on Gitmo. The detainees will be moved to another prison on another continent and continue to be tortured there.
There's certain schools of thought that subscribe to the view that if you can save a complete state of the brain, there's no reason why, with exponentially increasing compute, you couldn't come along later and start it running again
That would be determinism, and would require precise measurements for future reproducibility - the further into the future you go, the more precise they would have to be to remain accurate to reality. And it in no way accounts for stimuli, the very things of which one is conscious. So maybe you could restart a simulation, and it could last a short time, but it would not remain accurate long, and would not be able to handle changes in input.
I can see the inevitable result now. They'll get the whole thing mapped, petabytes of data, the position and connection of every neuron to thousands of other neurons will be known... and they'll be left to say, "now what?"
This may be of use for diseases, but the greatest use - understanding consciousness - is still well beyond simply mapping the brain.
Kind of like cutting off your arm to get rid of a hangnail, eh?
A better analogy would be cutting off the ropes that bind your arms.
Now lying, on the other hand, is contemptible, and if the charge is true, Stevens should be held to account.
I don't think there should be a problem with what Stevens did. If the government were prohibited from interfering in the economy, there wouldn't be any incentive for a oil company to renovate a politician's house, of all things.
In such situations, all I have to ask is, "where does the actual use of force come into play?" Answer that, and you'll know who is responsible for the violation of rights. In this case, as in the rest, the force - through selective laws that hinder competition and benefit a select few - is supplied by politicians.
No, not that omnibus spending bill... a different omnibus spending bull. :)
Soylent Green is made of.. PEOPLE!
I voted "none of the above", and feel sorry for you. This is the exact opposite of what was expected, but it's been par for the course. Besides this, we also have his reversal on the ban on federal funding for stem cell research: one day he signed a bill overturning the ban, and two days later, he reinstated the ban in an omnibus spending bill. He definitely should have read and understood the latter before signing it. In addition is his complete 180 on earmark spending. During his campaign, and early in his election, he was adamantly opposed to earmarks. Then recently he came out in favor of them, and stated that he had always supported them.
Say one thing, do another. Just like Bush and the GOP. Were you really expecting any better from the Dems?
I feel sorry for the people who voted for Obama (I voted "none of the above"). They're getting more of Bush when they wanted to "move on". This is the exact opposite of what they expected, but it's been par for the course. Besides this, we also have his reversal on the ban on federal funding for stem cell research: one day he signed a bill overturning the ban, and two days later, he reinstated the ban in an omnibus spending bill. He definitely should have read and understood the latter before signing it. In addition is his complete 180 on earmark spending. During his campaign, and early in his election, he was adamantly opposed to earmarks. Then recently he came out in favor of them, and stated that he had always supported them.
Say one thing, do another. Just like Bush and the GOP. Were you really expecting any better from the Dems?
"Doc, Doc... what the hell is a jiggawatt?!"
I don't know about you, but I tend toward this word whenever the possibility arises.
Just look at disasters like flooding, where a community gathers together to save the majority of a town, instead of everyone just protecting their own property.
That's not necessarily altruism. You're part of the town. It would be like saying that health insurance is altruistic because you're paying money to a company that gives that money out to someone else who's sick. Altruism (Latin for "other-ism") is sacrificial in that you are sacrificing a higher value for a lesser value or a non-value. So it would be altruistic if you lived in another state and had no connection to the community, and decided to quit your job and sell all your property in order to help them out - putting yourself in poverty to support strangers.
You mean, like flair? You know, the Nazis had pieces of flair that they made the Jews wear.
Shit I think this thing is Hope (Score:3, Funny) by Yvan256 (722131) Alter Relationship on Monday April 06, @11:49AM (#27476841) Homepage Let's just hope these new optimizations don't href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/scienceandtechnology/technology/technologynews/5105 Reply to This
I've got a buttload of achievements listed, but not all are described in the help. What do they all mean?
You must make a distinction between the egotist and the egoist. The first boasts to his friends and holds their opinions of himself above his own. The second looks to himself for his inspiration and motivation. They both claim "pride", but the former is a false pride. You can expect the first to manipulate/lie to others when it is convenient to do so. The latter would not even conceive of it - not because of some commandment that must be followed, but simply because it would never come to mind.
that was indeed trollish to care more about yourself rather that the family and friends and publicly ask that question.
No it was not. While there is nothing wrong with mourning someone you care about, there is no requirement by anyone else to care, and people should not shy away from that fact, as you would guilt them into doing. There should be no guilt in such a statement. You should ditch your altruistic tendencies in favor of some rational self-interest.
It seems pretty logical to me to care more about myself then the family of some guy who made a tool I happen to use.
That is correct. It is called rational self-interest or egoism, and is opposed to the more common morality of altruism, which is irrational.
I know I used to die in the streets daily before Social Security came along.
Now I just die in spirit.
I can't disable IE because all of my work related crap requires it.
Clearly it's time to update your resume and pack your bags.