This posting by emmitt is in violation of the Quickie FAQ, which clearly states that quickies must contain at least two of the following:
* Something by Eric Raymond * Something blasting Microsoft * Something by Eric Raymond blasting Microsoft * Something about Natalie Portman (close on the SW quickie) * Something about hot grits (whatever.) * Something blasting Metallica * Something trumpeting (heh!) Napster * Something by Natalie Portman blasting Metallica while eating hot grits * The Furby Autopsy link that always always always get reposted * My site, which has funny eBay auctions and only made the quickie list once, and that was a year ago. * Something blasting Microsoft * A bad argument about why Jon Katz is a giant giant loser * A good argument about why Jon Katz is a giant giant loser * CowboyNeal
This is from the website of Senator James M. Inhoffe (R-OK), in which he explains his reasons for voting to remove Clinton from office:
In speaking about President Richard Nixon in 1974, a young Arkansas congressional candidate spoke to the need for high standards:
"Yes, the President should resign. He has lied to the American people, time and time again, and betrayed their trust. Since he has admitted guilt, there is no reason to put the American people through an impeachment. He will serve absolutely no purpose in finishing out his term; the only possible solution is for the president to save some dignity and resign."
The candidate, Bill Clinton, set his own perfectly understandable standard:
"If a President of the United States ever lied to the American people, he should resign." Arkansas, Democrat Gazette (8/6/74)
While I am undecided on this issue, I would be remiss to not point out that China has privatized (although not well) many of its businesses. The difference between China and Cuba lies therein. With 2 billion people, it is impossible to prevent private markets from forming, and that is exactly what is happening in China. Cuba has 11 million citizens, and the only real private markets are for rancid meat and prostitutes.
"Market size" can only be motivation if a market exists -- in Cuba, there really is none worth mentioning. In China, a market exists, albeit one whose PCI hovers around $500 annually.
The human rights violations in China and Cuba are both horrendous, but don't think that is the only reason why we do not "trade" with Cuba. The fact of the matter is that any trading with Cuba would go through Castro's hands, while goods sent to China most likely would end up going to the average "Joe." Maybe.
Either way, trading with China could be a BigMistake (tm).
The insidious problem lurking behind the Wall
on
Censorship In China
·
· Score: 1
Quoth the owner of the CFI site: "We didn't write it. We certainly didn't have any bad motive. [Our mistake] was unintentional."
It's clear that his problem is not that he was censored, but that he was silenced for an unintentional "crime." Those who practice Falun Gong in China often do it in protest, but this guy doesn't care about a lack of what Americans see as basic freedoms. The idea that a journalist (which, even if he doesn't admit it, is what he is) would allow an outside power to obstruct his or her ability to disseminate views is preposterous; in China, it seems commonplace.
The Encheferizer: Making KatzKrap readable for all
on
Universal Access
·
· Score: 1
Uneefersel Eccess tu cumpooteeng und zee Net is idgeeng cluser tu reeleety. Bork bork bork! Oone-a cumpuny effter unuzeer is noo ooffffereeng cumpooteeng iqooeepment und Net eccess tu noo impluyees. Um gesh dee bork, bork! inRemp unnuoonced lest veek thet it's ooffffereeng a prugrem tu prufeede-a cumplete-a technulugy beneffeets tu essuceeetes und zeeur femeelies. Um gesh dee bork, bork! Thees is deffeenitely a greet murel (und booseeness) idea vhuse-a teeme-a is cumeeng. Um gesh dee bork, bork!
Guliani's grip was somewhat legitimate (although not legit enough). Why, he asked, should he have to pay for art that offends him?
The removal of the art by government--had it been privately funded and displayed--would have been an obvious violation of the First Amendment. This case was too, but should Guliani and those offended be entitled to their tax money back?
It's similar to the Confederate Flag issue. Why should people have to pay for a flag that offends them?
When government owns stuff, freedoms erode. The right to free speech should include the right not to fund speech you disagree with.
The "average" person out of that 6 billion leads a live of quiet desperation living in a slum on the outskirts of a large city. He tries to scratch a meager existence for him and his family while trying to stay out of the attention of the military and quasi-military dictatorship running his nation state. The amazing scenes of the western consumer society flickering on the TV owned by the local blackmarket thug must seem pretty remote.
Do you expect us to assume that people are suffering because the population of the world hit an arbitary number? I certainly hope not.
I would not accept most of your assertions to be true, and even if I did, I would expect that these people are better off than their economic class "counterparts" 150 years ago. That is, a person who is at the median wealth level now is quite better off than the person at that level in the 1840s.
While I do not usually (ever?) reply to my own posts, I think I have to explain why I said this. You may recall John Glenn's famous "Zero G and feeling fine" quote from both of his treks to space, and this is the same thing.
Who would have believed in the 1920s even that humans would be able to make it to outer space? The technological advances got us there-- and beyond.
The same logic applies to Simon's rebuttal of Malthus. Yes, we may run low on or out of coal and oil, but we will, out of necessity, find newer ways to power cars et al. The lower price bet Simon won is due to this, not due solely to mankind finding more of the currently used resource.
In the 1800's, common transportation required a horse, a psuedo-finite resource.
Now, it requires an internal combustion engine and gasoline (simplified, I know, but I can barely change my oil, so if you wish to reply to this, please do not do so as an auto mechanice), the latter of which is absolutely finite.
But that does not mean that we will run ourselves into a resourceless depression. More likely, we will find a new solution for a similar problem.
If you still believe that population growth is a problem (that is, that Thomas Robert Malthus or Paul Ehrlich are correct), then you have never heard of Julian Simon.
While Malthus (centuries ago) and again Ehrlich (late 1960s) hypothesized that geometric population growth combined with a finite amount of resources would lead to massive problems (mainly starvation), they missed two things that would prevent this: technology and ingenuity.
Combined, we find that people will always be looking for a way to build a better mouse trap, or, in this case, get more use out of less copper, find different ways to grow more livestock, etc. As world population grows, there are many more consumers who are looking for options, and the entrepeneur wins.
Malthus' argument fails to realized the ability of mankind to find solutions to problems, and therefore, is most likely incorrect. Or, at least he grossly miscalculated the maximum possible world population.
Six Billion And Feeling Fine.
For more about Julian Simon, I suggest this obituary, which describes his work quite well.
The only people who would be phazed by "bad press" regarding Linux would certainly not be using it anyway. If someone who has not heard of Linux sees so-called "bad press", they were not using Linux. However, it may pique their interest.
Disney, Nickelodean, they have money, employees, etc that will allow the to comply with this act. It is the small guy who loses by government intervention such as this. Imagine a person trying to market a product made for ADD elementry school children--any information he collects via the Internet is now subject to more paperwork than it is worth to him.
That same principle applies to those newcomers who would wish to provide games and entertainment for 11 year olds. Any information they gather would be subject to miles of red tape, and a small company simply cannot afford to send time dealing with that.
. . . which is quite obvious, because that wasn't funny. Eh, some of it was, considering a '77 Civic is what my cousin drove until three years ago, but the rest just isn't. Maybe if he gave a better BS answer from an economist (no economist in the US, save for maybe some marxist academic, would ever believe you get "rich off" another person), with some highly made up technical terms (the bond market is at fruition, yet not a saturation!), then it could, maybe, be funny.
The U.S. Government, on it's holy quest to stop monopolies, should stop and take a look at the Postal Service and Amtrak. These 'companies' are monopolies by law, not by market effects. While I'm not too happy w/Microsoft, it still seems ominous that a MonopolyMaker like the Federal Government is spreading anti-monopoly propoganda.
Ya know how we have those stupid little white boxes with black text labeling what kind of content a TV show has? Yeah, the ones that give it an arbitrary 'rating' and then say if it has "bad language" (denoted with an L) or "sexual content" (S). Well, they suck. So would Internet ratings. But they do have an "upside".
To quote a June press release from the Libertarian Party (if you are going to comment on this post, please leave the offtopic, probably easily supportable shots at the LP out of them.), "after the federal government mandated a prime-time TV ratings system in 1997, sexual content on the major networks jumped by 42% and offensive language shot up by 30%."
The same source offers the following reason for the jump: Brent Bozell, chairman of the Parents Television Council, said that networks "would insert edgier content into their shows and justify insertions by pointing out that attached ratings warned the audience it was coming."
Perhaps we'll see "freer" speech with the coming of inevitable Internet ratings. Probably not, but maybe.
I'm first referring to this part of the post, which is somewhat off topic, but whenver one gets into a discussion of capitalism and free markets, it is important to quell this common error.
You said: Free markets are about personal choice; capitalism is about control of others and profiting from their labor.
Webster's Dictonary says: capitalism - noun - an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market
While the two are not the same, they are very closely related. I'd even argue that Webster's definition should drop the words "mainly by", as pure capitalism is a free market economic system.
Anyway, capitalism does not have anything to do with "control of others". Rather, it is the economic system of the free market, and therefore is determined by competition and private choice.
Your description of capitalism disallows private ownership for many people. You imply that the worker does not own himself and thereby is not allowed to make his own choices. Your description of capitalism is closer to feudalism than a system based on the free market; that's simply not correct.
Speaking of private choice: If they're doing whiz-bang stuff like chemical production with GM plants, not only do I want them muled, I want them grown in sealed greenhouses with biohazard protections. Belt-and-suspenders.
Right, private choice based on personal preference. My preferences differ--I'd love to have biodegradable plastic, especially if it is cheaper than the current stuff. I do agree that part of the duty of government is to fix problems with asymmetric information, and therefore concur with your request that GM companies "be required to inform consumers that their products contain GM crops".
First, please do me a favor and don't assume that anybody who is a socialist is a Marxist or any other form of authoritarian.
Yeah, that's a fair gripe. But "Socialist-sniper" sounded so good:( Anyway, my beliefs do not lie in central planning, which conflict w/socialism, even if it's not authoritarian per se.
Second, corporations are not leading us to more economically happy ideas and products. They are also not moving our society towards a more positive future.
I think they are. Quite simply, except for when we had a big green push about 10 years ago, environmental values have not been enough of a reason to pay an extra "fee" for an item. That is, most people would rather pay $5.50 for a ream of paper (regular) than $6.50 for post-consumer recycled paper. But some people are, and in most cases, all else equal (including price), people will buy the eco-freindly product.
So, while companies are looking out for their best interests, sometimes it makes sense to help out the environment too. Monsanto has been less than honest about this, but if these plastic plants work, they've done a lot of good too.
I'm probably going to come off sounding like a big time Socialist-sniper, but whatever. It happens. It's amazing that people (read: Sierra Clubbers, Greenpeace, et all) always assume that government will lead the way to more economically happy ideas and products.
Bzzt.
Look at this thing. A plastic making plant. Why? Because fossil fuels (which plastic is made from) is in finite supply--sooner or later, we are going to run out, and as supply gets lower, prices get higher. Also, having biodegradable plastic products means that there is no special dumping fees needed, and thereby lesser costs. Sure, I don't expect us to be using plant plastic anytime soon, nor do I expect the plastic to biodegrade overnight, but it's a step in the right direction.
And it's not because some politician said "make it so" (gratuitious Picard reference), but rather because it will sell. Let's just hope it works.
I really hate when people take someone's or some company's net worth, divide it by some arbitrary # of people (usually the population), and say "Your share: $#"
Whatever. The Bill Gates Wealth Clock claims that he took over 350k$ from my pocket. The Red Hat Wealth Clock implies the same. Like a dollar in my pocket means a dollar out of someone elses.
Slashdot Mirror
This posting by emmitt is in violation of the Quickie FAQ, which clearly states that quickies must contain at least two of the following:
* Something by Eric Raymond
* Something blasting Microsoft
* Something by Eric Raymond blasting Microsoft
* Something about Natalie Portman (close on the SW quickie)
* Something about hot grits (whatever.)
* Something blasting Metallica
* Something trumpeting (heh!) Napster
* Something by Natalie Portman blasting Metallica while eating hot grits
* The Furby Autopsy link that always always always get reposted
* My site, which has funny eBay auctions and only made the quickie list once, and that was a year ago.
* Something blasting Microsoft
* A bad argument about why Jon Katz is a giant giant loser
* A good argument about why Jon Katz is a giant giant loser
* CowboyNeal
Yes, I ring in at the top... long live the fart machine.
In speaking about President Richard Nixon in 1974, a young Arkansas congressional candidate spoke to the need for high standards:
"Yes, the President should resign. He has lied to the American people, time and time again, and betrayed their trust. Since he has admitted guilt, there is no reason to put the American people through an impeachment. He will serve absolutely no purpose in finishing out his term; the only possible solution is for the president to save some dignity and resign."
The candidate, Bill Clinton, set his own perfectly understandable standard:
"If a President of the United States ever lied to the American people, he should resign." Arkansas, Democrat Gazette (8/6/74)
While I am undecided on this issue, I would be remiss to not point out that China has privatized (although not well) many of its businesses. The difference between China and Cuba lies therein. With 2 billion people, it is impossible to prevent private markets from forming, and that is exactly what is happening in China. Cuba has 11 million citizens, and the only real private markets are for rancid meat and prostitutes.
"Market size" can only be motivation if a market exists -- in Cuba, there really is none worth mentioning. In China, a market exists, albeit one whose PCI hovers around $500 annually.
The human rights violations in China and Cuba are both horrendous, but don't think that is the only reason why we do not "trade" with Cuba. The fact of the matter is that any trading with Cuba would go through Castro's hands, while goods sent to China most likely would end up going to the average "Joe." Maybe.
Either way, trading with China could be a BigMistake (tm).
It's clear that his problem is not that he was censored, but that he was silenced for an unintentional "crime." Those who practice Falun Gong in China often do it in protest, but this guy doesn't care about a lack of what Americans see as basic freedoms. The idea that a journalist (which, even if he doesn't admit it, is what he is) would allow an outside power to obstruct his or her ability to disseminate views is preposterous; in China, it seems commonplace.
Uneefersel Eccess tu cumpooteeng und zee Net is idgeeng cluser tu reeleety. Bork bork bork! Oone-a cumpuny effter unuzeer is noo ooffffereeng cumpooteeng iqooeepment und Net eccess tu noo impluyees. Um gesh dee bork, bork! inRemp unnuoonced lest veek thet it's ooffffereeng a prugrem tu prufeede-a cumplete-a technulugy beneffeets tu essuceeetes und zeeur femeelies. Um gesh dee bork, bork! Thees is deffeenitely a greet murel (und booseeness) idea vhuse-a teeme-a is cumeeng. Um gesh dee bork, bork!
Did anyone in their wildest dreams think that Chuck D(!) would become their political ally?
Guliani's grip was somewhat legitimate (although not legit enough). Why, he asked, should he have to pay for art that offends him?
The removal of the art by government--had it been privately funded and displayed--would have been an obvious violation of the First Amendment. This case was too, but should Guliani and those offended be entitled to their tax money back?
It's similar to the Confederate Flag issue. Why should people have to pay for a flag that offends them?
When government owns stuff, freedoms erode. The right to free speech should include the right not to fund speech you disagree with.
Dr. Carmen Puliafito, the director of opthomology at the New England Medical center, is perhaps the best in the nation.
He even offered baseball umpires a free checkup and surgery if needed.
Puliafito's contact info is here.
The article about the umps is here.
The "average" person out of that 6 billion leads a live of quiet desperation living in a slum on the outskirts of a large city. He tries to scratch a meager existence for him and his family while trying to stay out of the attention of the military and quasi-military dictatorship running his nation state. The amazing scenes of the western consumer society flickering on the TV owned by the local blackmarket thug must seem pretty remote.
Do you expect us to assume that people are suffering because the population of the world hit an arbitary number? I certainly hope not.
I would not accept most of your assertions to be true, and even if I did, I would expect that these people are better off than their economic class "counterparts" 150 years ago. That is, a person who is at the median wealth level now is quite better off than the person at that level in the 1840s.
Six Billion And Feeling Fine
While I do not usually (ever?) reply to my own posts, I think I have to explain why I said this. You may recall John Glenn's famous "Zero G and feeling fine" quote from both of his treks to space, and this is the same thing.
Who would have believed in the 1920s even that humans would be able to make it to outer space? The technological advances got us there-- and beyond.
The same logic applies to Simon's rebuttal of Malthus. Yes, we may run low on or out of coal and oil, but we will, out of necessity, find newer ways to power cars et al. The lower price bet Simon won is due to this, not due solely to mankind finding more of the currently used resource.
In the 1800's, common transportation required a horse, a psuedo-finite resource.
Now, it requires an internal combustion engine and gasoline (simplified, I know, but I can barely change my oil, so if you wish to reply to this, please do not do so as an auto mechanice), the latter of which is absolutely finite.
But that does not mean that we will run ourselves into a resourceless depression. More likely, we will find a new solution for a similar problem.
If you still believe that population growth is a problem (that is, that Thomas Robert Malthus or Paul Ehrlich are correct), then you have never heard of Julian Simon.
While Malthus (centuries ago) and again Ehrlich (late 1960s) hypothesized that geometric population growth combined with a finite amount of resources would lead to massive problems (mainly starvation), they missed two things that would prevent this: technology and ingenuity.
Combined, we find that people will always be looking for a way to build a better mouse trap, or, in this case, get more use out of less copper, find different ways to grow more livestock, etc. As world population grows, there are many more consumers who are looking for options, and the entrepeneur wins.
Malthus' argument fails to realized the ability of mankind to find solutions to problems, and therefore, is most likely incorrect. Or, at least he grossly miscalculated the maximum possible world population.
Six Billion And Feeling Fine.
For more about Julian Simon, I suggest this obituary, which describes his work quite well.
I dunno about you guys, but I wanna see Hemos build a Lego industrial park.
That'd be neato.
The only people who would be phazed by "bad press" regarding Linux would certainly not be using it anyway. If someone who has not heard of Linux sees so-called "bad press", they were not using Linux. However, it may pique their interest.
Disney, Nickelodean, they have money, employees, etc that will allow the to comply with this act. It is the small guy who loses by government intervention such as this. Imagine a person trying to market a product made for ADD elementry school children--any information he collects via the Internet is now subject to more paperwork than it is worth to him.
That same principle applies to those newcomers who would wish to provide games and entertainment for 11 year olds. Any information they gather would be subject to miles of red tape, and a small company simply cannot afford to send time dealing with that.
. . . which is quite obvious, because that wasn't funny. Eh, some of it was, considering a '77 Civic is what my cousin drove until three years ago, but the rest just isn't. Maybe if he gave a better BS answer from an economist (no economist in the US, save for maybe some marxist academic, would ever believe you get "rich off" another person), with some highly made up technical terms (the bond market is at fruition, yet not a saturation!), then it could, maybe, be funny.
But it isn't.
The U.S. Government, on it's holy quest to stop monopolies, should stop and take a look at the Postal Service and Amtrak. These 'companies' are monopolies by law, not by market effects. While I'm not too happy w/Microsoft, it still seems ominous that a MonopolyMaker like the Federal Government is spreading anti-monopoly propoganda.
1000 monkeys with 1000 typewriters can write the great American novel.
So I guess 100 Kangaroos with 1000 whatever-machine-they-use-down-there can create the server the US Government can't break into.
Fear the power of the Roo.
Right. Only self imposed positions. But the argument is that these restrictions would be lessened--you knew it was coming.
Ya know how we have those stupid little white boxes with black text labeling what kind of content a TV show has? Yeah, the ones that give it an arbitrary 'rating' and then say if it has "bad language" (denoted with an L) or "sexual content" (S). Well, they suck. So would Internet ratings. But they do have an "upside".
To quote a June press release from the Libertarian Party (if you are going to comment on this post, please leave the offtopic, probably easily supportable shots at the LP out of them.), "after the federal government mandated a prime-time TV ratings system in 1997, sexual content on the major networks jumped by 42% and offensive language shot up by 30%."
The same source offers the following reason for the jump:
Brent Bozell, chairman of the Parents Television Council, said that networks "would insert edgier content into their shows and justify
insertions by pointing out that attached ratings warned the audience it was coming."
Perhaps we'll see "freer" speech with the coming of inevitable Internet ratings. Probably not, but maybe.
I'm first referring to this part of the post, which is somewhat off topic, but whenver one gets into a discussion of capitalism and free markets, it is important to quell this common error.
You said:
Free markets are about personal choice; capitalism is about control of others and profiting from their labor.
Webster's Dictonary says:
capitalism - noun - an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market
While the two are not the same, they are very closely related. I'd even argue that Webster's definition should drop the words "mainly by", as pure capitalism is a free market economic system.
Anyway, capitalism does not have anything to do with "control of others". Rather, it is the economic system of the free market, and therefore is determined by competition and private choice.
Your description of capitalism disallows private ownership for many people. You imply that the worker does not own himself and thereby is not allowed to make his own choices. Your description of capitalism is closer to feudalism than a system based on the free market; that's simply not correct.
Speaking of private choice:
If they're doing whiz-bang stuff like chemical production with GM plants, not only do I want them muled, I want them grown in sealed greenhouses with biohazard protections. Belt-and-suspenders.
Right, private choice based on personal preference. My preferences differ--I'd love to have biodegradable plastic, especially if it is cheaper than the current stuff. I do agree that part of the duty of government is to fix problems with asymmetric information, and therefore concur with your request that GM companies "be required to inform consumers that their products contain GM crops".
First, please do me a favor and don't assume that anybody who is a socialist is a Marxist or any other form of authoritarian.
:( Anyway, my beliefs do not lie in central planning, which conflict w/socialism, even if it's not authoritarian per se.
Yeah, that's a fair gripe. But "Socialist-sniper" sounded so good
Second, corporations are not leading us to more economically happy ideas and products. They are also not moving our society towards a more positive future.
I think they are. Quite simply, except for when we had a big green push about 10 years ago, environmental values have not been enough of a reason to pay an extra "fee" for an item. That is, most people would rather pay $5.50 for a ream of paper (regular) than $6.50 for post-consumer recycled paper. But some people are, and in most cases, all else equal (including price), people will buy the eco-freindly product.
So, while companies are looking out for their best interests, sometimes it makes sense to help out the environment too. Monsanto has been less than honest about this, but if these plastic plants work, they've done a lot of good too.
I'm probably going to come off sounding like a big time Socialist-sniper, but whatever. It happens. It's amazing that people (read: Sierra Clubbers, Greenpeace, et all) always assume that government will lead the way to more economically happy ideas and products.
Bzzt.
Look at this thing. A plastic making plant. Why? Because fossil fuels (which plastic is made from) is in finite supply--sooner or later, we are going to run out, and as supply gets lower, prices get higher. Also, having biodegradable plastic products means that there is no special dumping fees needed, and thereby lesser costs. Sure, I don't expect us to be using plant plastic anytime soon, nor do I expect the plastic to biodegrade overnight, but it's a step in the right direction.
And it's not because some politician said "make it so" (gratuitious Picard reference), but rather because it will sell. Let's just hope it works.
oh, yeah, first post (I think).
please, please email me about it. I'm running out of funny eBay auctions :)
I really hate when people take someone's or some company's net worth, divide it by some arbitrary # of people (usually the population), and say "Your share: $#"
Whatever. The Bill Gates Wealth Clock claims that he took over 350k$ from my pocket. The Red Hat Wealth Clock implies the same. Like a dollar in my pocket means a dollar out of someone elses.
/rant