How can anyone argue with somebody who has such extraordinary debating skills.
How? By having facts on their side? I simply don't see any away to concede the debate when the opposing side's argument amounts to saying "this is totally new -- it hasn't happened for 20 years and the last time it happened before then was 400 years ago."
No, in fact, if it happened 400 years ago, then it is even less indicative of some unprecedented change. It is only indicative of repetition of conditions of 400 years ago. The claim which this puts into question is that the new conditions are somehow unprecedented.
Another hint: low probability events happen. According the report itself they had worse or similar snow 20 years ago. This isn't "climate change(tm)." At least not anymore than normal climate change that always happens is "climate change(tm)."
If this lawyer refers to every time he and his wife have sex as the "first time he ever had sex." This so clearly demonstrates the lack of understanding the word "first", they he should literally have his examined. Let't not be too harsh on the guy. I can understand someone doing that as a consequence of having suffered a stroke. Perhaps he has a history of mental illness. There is all kinds of mitigating factors to explain this filing. "First use" doesn't have to be first if the person doesn't understand what "first" means. Maybe he simply needs to have a clot in his brain removed. No need to be too harsh on someone this mentally ill. Of course, he could be just relying on the Big Lie theory.
Why surprised? Democrats are in Hollywood's pocket (no, not as much as Republicans... much, much, much more). The only reason that Republicans are against net neutrality is that it's bad business for the Newscorp-Microsoft deal. And Republicans are in the Newscorp's pockets. Other than net neutrality, most laws restricting Internet and general computer use come from Democrats.
You know if you are going to deliberately disregard the logic present in my argument which refutes your follow-up arguments. You should at least misquote me. When you put up my own quote which already addresses the questions you raise in your the follow ups, I don't see any point in replying.
His "popularity" has nothing to do with it. The traffic was stopped because of the street closures by the Secret Service. He was there for a fund raiser in person BECAUSE the people in the Hollywood business are such prolific Democratic party donors. Stop spinning.
Reagan comparison wouldn't be a fair comparison for 3 reasons: (1) he was a California politician (he was a governor of California); (2) he was a President too long ago so the Secret Service procedures were probably different; (3) he was a member of the Academy (in fact served as the head of SAG before getting into an elected office). Basically, Reagan was a Hollywood insider. But even a modern Hollywood insider such Thompson received less in Hollywood money than most Democratic candidates did during the primaries.
I am not sure why you would think that there is something special about Bush which made him less likely to receive Hollywood money. He enjoyed higher popularity ratings during the same period of his administration than Obama does now.
No, not really. Their contributions to Democrats dwarf their contributions to Republicans. When was the last time LA traffic was stopped because GW Bush went to Hollywood for a fundraiser? Never. It already happened twice in the 2.5 years of Obama's administration.
Democrats are married to Hollywood. Anyone really surprised that they would try for a law which would let Hollywood to punish people as soon as they are accused of "piracy"?
I was tired and kept making errors of omission which made points opposite of the one I wanted to make.
The monopoly of land-based cable is likely to persist for quite a while, as well as the power line monopoly.
Now I just think you are ribbing me. Of course, the power monopoly persists. It does so by law. It's supported by multiple local and regional regulators.
They would continue without government assistance. In the case of one, the power line, it would be relative madness to do it any other way than current, and the same forces I mentioned previously apply: no one would.
No, they would not. The examples of substitute infrastructure getting built (in the absence of laws prohibiting it or increasing barrier for its entry) are plentiful. Unless, of course, by "assistance" you mean some sort of subsidy. Because they would persist without any subsidies as long as laws keep the barriers to entry high for their competition. I know that's a form of assistance as well, but I am just not sure if you include this type of assistance in your definition of the word.
Also, "monopoly" is hardly the only concern of a thriving market. A handful of players is simply not enough, because these players will virtually always collude tacitly (on prices), if given any opportunity. Small markets tend to form ad-hoc oligopolies.
You wanna explain how cell phone service keep dropping in price and increasing in quality even though there is only 4 national providers? Sure, the drops are not as precipitous as they used to be, but that's mostly due to the fact that competition has driven the prices almost down to the cost levels. Or would you like to suggest that cell service does not have a naturally high barrier to entry? Or that it is not thriving? What you call ad-hoc oligopolies might be temporary conditions which result from prices getting driven so close to the costs by the market. At that point price levels decline only gradually (as technology improves). The idea of "tacit collusion" is absurd. In fact, it's a bona fide oxymoron. I apologize for the level of abrasiveness of this statement, but I do stand by its content.
The free market is often good. But it isn't always good
It isn't good or bad. It's ethics neutral. It's just the equilibrium condition of the current state of knowledge and the current availability of resources. Anything which interferes with it introduces inefficiencies. Inefficient use of knowledge hinders progress and inefficient use of resources creates waste (of resources).
Give them another 5 and they'd be Ma Bell again, if they could.
Give them regulation and it will keep other players off the market. Right now you have a lot of phone over ip activity. They already fired the 1st shot with forcing vonage to support 911 calls. But you still have skype and ventrilo (not to mention the ease of rolling your own phone over ip server). Try dealing with a government organization and you'll see what technological inertia is like (they think faxes are still a form of communication).
Are you saying that government interventions forced them into their M&A spree?
Ha??? When? When did I say that the government helps formation of monopolies? I said it helps to perpetuate them. Competition breaks them up or at least reduces their market share. I said government keeps competition away and thus prolongs monopolies. I am not saying, by the way, that it doesn't encourage them to form. I am just saying that I haven't delved into the subject of their formation -- only into the subject of their persistence.
You do know that FIOS competes with cable, do you not? And you do know that it has to lay down new cables to do it, right? You just keep saying that there is a cable monopoly in 1 region, bu
Actually, no. Dan Neil pointed out that Americans have a potential bias against cooperative behavior. It is BBC which went much further and called it unAmerican -- a phrase which is much more extreme in its meaning than a report of a potential bias. It's almost as if the BBC is actually guilty of "orthogonal thinking." That's the phrase that the article used to accuse Americans of accepting false dichotomy of individualism vs cooperation. And yet the article itself doesn't get the subtle difference between a predisposition in one direction and a complete lack of ability to go in the other direction. Happy 4th.
It's interesting that cooperation and yielding to others is considered "un-American" by at least some Americans. That simple statements speaks volumes about the dire straights that the United States is in.
Look at the source. It's BBC. They are just exercising their inferiority complex on the 4th of July.
Also, "will lead to higher taxes". Fucking hell. I know the Tea Party people are fucking insane but I didn't realise they were that batshit.
Hmm... I never met a person who self-ascribes tea party membership who is actually psychologically damaged. But I do see a lot of people who claim that Tea Party is insane who themselves foam at the mouth at the first opportunity. Well, you may not be in a good company, but you can always console yourself by the fact that you are in a large company.
Buah.. tired.. ok... i am gonna try this again just because i am tired of this lord of the flies being used as a manual in governing:
My argument was NOT placed on a shifting sand. You attempted to state that a regional monopoly of a certain cable company implies that permanent monopolies are possible. You had to be suggesting the permanent nature of that particular monopoly because you were countering the argument that monopolies (without government assistance) do not last. My retort (that other types of businesses could be providing the same service through other technologies even if they couldn't do it with the same technology so long as the local government didn't stand in the way) does not go outside the scope of the original argument. The monopoly is not on selling a particular technology. It is on providing a particular type of service. A different technology providing the same type of service in the same market would amount to a substitute. And if there a substitute service, then the original provider does not have a monopoly. I cannot wait for you to spew something along the lines of "so you agree that it is a monopoly?" I can just check myself into an insane asylum right then and there. This insanity that is calling itself progressive thought just might not reach me there. Just in case, you do have an attention span that is at least 1 sentence long, I'll repeat. Monopolies do exist. They just don't LAST without laws to protect them. Please, remember what technology is. It's people changing natural resources into things which other people find useful. People will continue to do that whether people who wear suits and smile and nod approve of it or not.
Just so we are clear, naming technologies which can compete with cable does not put the argument "cable company X has a monopoly" on a shifting sand. It shows quite clearly that the argument that a monopoly which is held by a cable company may be broken by other technology companies. Thus it shows that the argument "cable company X has a monopoly" does not imply the conclusion which you attempting to suggest: "the cable company X will always have a monopoly in that area."
Slashdot Mirror
Whoever made the ruling never read slashdot.
How can anyone argue with somebody who has such extraordinary debating skills.
How? By having facts on their side? I simply don't see any away to concede the debate when the opposing side's argument amounts to saying "this is totally new -- it hasn't happened for 20 years and the last time it happened before then was 400 years ago."
...or responsible
No, in fact, if it happened 400 years ago, then it is even less indicative of some unprecedented change. It is only indicative of repetition of conditions of 400 years ago. The claim which this puts into question is that the new conditions are somehow unprecedented.
Calling the same event as the one which occurred 20 years ago a symptom of some sort of "change" is a bit puzzling to me.
Improbable events are not impossible events.
Another hint: low probability events happen. According the report itself they had worse or similar snow 20 years ago. This isn't "climate change(tm)." At least not anymore than normal climate change that always happens is "climate change(tm)."
If this lawyer refers to every time he and his wife have sex as the "first time he ever had sex." This so clearly demonstrates the lack of understanding the word "first", they he should literally have his examined. Let't not be too harsh on the guy. I can understand someone doing that as a consequence of having suffered a stroke. Perhaps he has a history of mental illness. There is all kinds of mitigating factors to explain this filing. "First use" doesn't have to be first if the person doesn't understand what "first" means. Maybe he simply needs to have a clot in his brain removed. No need to be too harsh on someone this mentally ill. Of course, he could be just relying on the Big Lie theory.
Not if you compare blocking websites to burning books.
Why surprised? Democrats are in Hollywood's pocket (no, not as much as Republicans... much, much, much more). The only reason that Republicans are against net neutrality is that it's bad business for the Newscorp-Microsoft deal. And Republicans are in the Newscorp's pockets. Other than net neutrality, most laws restricting Internet and general computer use come from Democrats.
You know if you are going to deliberately disregard the logic present in my argument which refutes your follow-up arguments. You should at least misquote me. When you put up my own quote which already addresses the questions you raise in your the follow ups, I don't see any point in replying.
If only he took up a more intellectual past time like golf like a normal person instead.
His "popularity" has nothing to do with it. The traffic was stopped because of the street closures by the Secret Service. He was there for a fund raiser in person BECAUSE the people in the Hollywood business are such prolific Democratic party donors. Stop spinning.
Reagan comparison wouldn't be a fair comparison for 3 reasons: (1) he was a California politician (he was a governor of California); (2) he was a President too long ago so the Secret Service procedures were probably different; (3) he was a member of the Academy (in fact served as the head of SAG before getting into an elected office). Basically, Reagan was a Hollywood insider. But even a modern Hollywood insider such Thompson received less in Hollywood money than most Democratic candidates did during the primaries.
I am not sure why you would think that there is something special about Bush which made him less likely to receive Hollywood money. He enjoyed higher popularity ratings during the same period of his administration than Obama does now.
No, not really. Their contributions to Democrats dwarf their contributions to Republicans. When was the last time LA traffic was stopped because GW Bush went to Hollywood for a fundraiser? Never. It already happened twice in the 2.5 years of Obama's administration.
Democrats are married to Hollywood. Anyone really surprised that they would try for a law which would let Hollywood to punish people as soon as they are accused of "piracy"?
Three responses to my message? Really?
I was tired and kept making errors of omission which made points opposite of the one I wanted to make.
The monopoly of land-based cable is likely to persist for quite a while, as well as the power line monopoly.
Now I just think you are ribbing me. Of course, the power monopoly persists. It does so by law. It's supported by multiple local and regional regulators.
They would continue without government assistance. In the case of one, the power line, it would be relative madness to do it any other way than current, and the same forces I mentioned previously apply: no one would.
No, they would not. The examples of substitute infrastructure getting built (in the absence of laws prohibiting it or increasing barrier for its entry) are plentiful. Unless, of course, by "assistance" you mean some sort of subsidy. Because they would persist without any subsidies as long as laws keep the barriers to entry high for their competition. I know that's a form of assistance as well, but I am just not sure if you include this type of assistance in your definition of the word.
Also, "monopoly" is hardly the only concern of a thriving market. A handful of players is simply not enough, because these players will virtually always collude tacitly (on prices), if given any opportunity. Small markets tend to form ad-hoc oligopolies.
You wanna explain how cell phone service keep dropping in price and increasing in quality even though there is only 4 national providers? Sure, the drops are not as precipitous as they used to be, but that's mostly due to the fact that competition has driven the prices almost down to the cost levels. Or would you like to suggest that cell service does not have a naturally high barrier to entry? Or that it is not thriving? What you call ad-hoc oligopolies might be temporary conditions which result from prices getting driven so close to the costs by the market. At that point price levels decline only gradually (as technology improves). The idea of "tacit collusion" is absurd. In fact, it's a bona fide oxymoron. I apologize for the level of abrasiveness of this statement, but I do stand by its content.
The free market is often good. But it isn't always good
It isn't good or bad. It's ethics neutral. It's just the equilibrium condition of the current state of knowledge and the current availability of resources. Anything which interferes with it introduces inefficiencies. Inefficient use of knowledge hinders progress and inefficient use of resources creates waste (of resources).
Give them another 5 and they'd be Ma Bell again, if they could.
Give them regulation and it will keep other players off the market. Right now you have a lot of phone over ip activity. They already fired the 1st shot with forcing vonage to support 911 calls. But you still have skype and ventrilo (not to mention the ease of rolling your own phone over ip server). Try dealing with a government organization and you'll see what technological inertia is like (they think faxes are still a form of communication).
Are you saying that government interventions forced them into their M&A spree?
Ha??? When? When did I say that the government helps formation of monopolies? I said it helps to perpetuate them. Competition breaks them up or at least reduces their market share. I said government keeps competition away and thus prolongs monopolies. I am not saying, by the way, that it doesn't encourage them to form. I am just saying that I haven't delved into the subject of their formation -- only into the subject of their persistence.
You do know that FIOS competes with cable, do you not? And you do know that it has to lay down new cables to do it, right? You just keep saying that there is a cable monopoly in 1 region, bu
Make you a deal. We'll keep setting the example. And you keep anything that BBC is fond of off our shores. Deal?
Actually, no. Dan Neil pointed out that Americans have a potential bias against cooperative behavior. It is BBC which went much further and called it unAmerican -- a phrase which is much more extreme in its meaning than a report of a potential bias. It's almost as if the BBC is actually guilty of "orthogonal thinking." That's the phrase that the article used to accuse Americans of accepting false dichotomy of individualism vs cooperation. And yet the article itself doesn't get the subtle difference between a predisposition in one direction and a complete lack of ability to go in the other direction. Happy 4th.
It's interesting that cooperation and yielding to others is considered "un-American" by at least some Americans. That simple statements speaks volumes about the dire straights that the United States is in.
Look at the source. It's BBC. They are just exercising their inferiority complex on the 4th of July.
Also, "will lead to higher taxes". Fucking hell. I know the Tea Party people are fucking insane but I didn't realise they were that batshit.
Hmm... I never met a person who self-ascribes tea party membership who is actually psychologically damaged. But I do see a lot of people who claim that Tea Party is insane who themselves foam at the mouth at the first opportunity. Well, you may not be in a good company, but you can always console yourself by the fact that you are in a large company.
BBC gets snide about Americans on the 4th July. Eat your pudding
iOS's lead in phones is still in the double-digits
That simply isn't true. There are more Android phones than there are iPhones.
Buah.. tired.. ok... i am gonna try this again just because i am tired of this lord of the flies being used as a manual in governing:
My argument was NOT placed on a shifting sand. You attempted to state that a regional monopoly of a certain cable company implies that permanent monopolies are possible. You had to be suggesting the permanent nature of that particular monopoly because you were countering the argument that monopolies (without government assistance) do not last. My retort (that other types of businesses could be providing the same service through other technologies even if they couldn't do it with the same technology so long as the local government didn't stand in the way) does not go outside the scope of the original argument. The monopoly is not on selling a particular technology. It is on providing a particular type of service. A different technology providing the same type of service in the same market would amount to a substitute. And if there a substitute service, then the original provider does not have a monopoly. I cannot wait for you to spew something along the lines of "so you agree that it is a monopoly?" I can just check myself into an insane asylum right then and there. This insanity that is calling itself progressive thought just might not reach me there. Just in case, you do have an attention span that is at least 1 sentence long, I'll repeat. Monopolies do exist. They just don't LAST without laws to protect them. Please, remember what technology is. It's people changing natural resources into things which other people find useful. People will continue to do that whether people who wear suits and smile and nod approve of it or not.
Just so we are clear, naming technologies which can compete with cable does not put the argument "cable company X has a monopoly" on a shifting sand. It shows quite clearly that the argument that a monopoly which is held by a cable company may be broken by other technology companies. Thus it shows that the argument "cable company X has a monopoly" does not imply the conclusion which you attempting to suggest: "the cable company X will always have a monopoly in that area."