You only oppose something like this when they didn't already have it. India can already blow up the world, so why contest it? The goal is to have as few countries as possible with the capability of blowing up the world. If Switzerland didn't have a nuclear weapon (i am assuming they do, but if they don't, even better) and they tried to get one, other countries would try to stop it. Once you are there, you are in "in the club". Hence the desire behind North Korea and other countries. You aren't respected until you have the power to kill everyone.
What rights do companies trample? That is the job of the government. Are you saying that information you willfully hand over to a company is some kind of invasion of privacy?
The problems aren't about corporate freedom. They are about corporate control of government and government control of corporations. It is a lack of freedom.
You don't take over a country for their resources anymore. You take over their people and use them to accomplish your goals about the resources. That means you can't just kill everyone. But if everyone can defend themselves, then you will have to kill everyone. And to that means, it is pointless to try, as you will never take control of the people.
This is why a country without a government is so darn hard to take over. What good is governing a country without people or people who abide by the rules?
The GP is actually proposing that without money, all the reserves could be spent doing things like this. There would be a single entity that redistributes the excess time/resources to "advance" society in certain directions. It is basically communism without money.
In this case, society would produce food/shelter/energy and we would do away with vehicles, vacations, TV, games, entertainment, luxuries, etc... in order to fund a space elevator that may or may not work; and if it works, may or may not amount to anything of value. The wonderful world of central planning.
I agree. I don't have as much a "Big Brother" issue with this as I do with there being yet another mandated cost for all manufacturing of vehicles. Good luck starting your own car company. GM and Ford will have no problem streamlining the inclusion of these in all cars. It is a bigger cost on the margin for the small ones or ones that could have existed.
This is like all the paperwork laws that crush small companies.
Anyone wonder why the biggest area of entrepreneurship is in software? It is because the "hump" of regulation and legal costs are practically $0.
Hold them accountable by buying hundreds of millions of their product? Or do you just want to impose morals on companies through law? Because that works.
You trust them with something because you teach them responsibility.
Should I be able to sue a car company if my child crashes my car? Should I be able to sue Bieber because he entices my child to buy his albums? This is purely a case about personal responsibility and it is the parent's responsibility to endow responsibility in their children, and the must deal with the consequences together.
CIOs shouldn't be tech savy. They should be business process and information savy. Likewise, CTOs shouldn't be tech savy. They should be business process foresight savy. CIOs and CTOs have underlings to be tech savy.
I agree. Those externalities should be priced or be subject to civil lawsuits. This is part of the free market idea. Property rights and contracts must be enforced to maintain a free market. After all, it isn't an anarchist market.
As a libertarian-leaning person myself, you are right on so many levels. SpaceX is entering into a heavily subsidized field. But the jury is still out on what they do after get through the POC. That will be new ground.
Will the "international government" allow for colonization on the moon? Mars? If they do these and issue Moon/Mars property rights, they could actually create quite a tourism market. Rich people would spend oodles of money on a day or two luxury vacation on the Moon.
But until the concept of "new markets" isn't in the equation, it will be a Keynesian drain on the government. We'll dig ditches just to fill them back up.
PS: I don't like the idea of drilling the moon; I don't want mass transported from the Moon to Earth and have the orbit get screwed up and send the Moon crashing into Earth. I think it is best to just avoid that temptation.
Yes, I understand it. Dark Matter tries to explain the missing gravitation force we are seeing in deep space. And by missing gravitation force, there appears to be more matter than what we are seeing to justify the gravitational forces we are seeing. Dark Energy is the energy needed to have an acceleratingly expanding Universe.
These are based off of the assumption that we have one Universe (or at least a reasonably isolated one). Dark Energy could be matter (other Universes pulling our Universe apart) and Dark Matter could be energy...a force much like the electro-magnetic force, but something we don't experience here in the Milky Way. Who says the Big Bang would be the beginning too? What if our perception of the acceleration of Universe expansion is an optical illusion because of some other unknown entity?
Care to elaborate? Based on your username, you are a scientist. Do you just apply your knowledge of physics or do you explore? Exploration requires thought. It requires an opinion that you can follow to start your inquiry. You may have to make assumptions. But, you need to go back and prove those assumptions before you can call your conclusion "science".
I am just stating that ID isn't science, but it could be if they can prove that God exists. Is there anything wrong with that? It is easy to say God doesn't exist. Just like it is easy to say intelligent Aliens haven't roamed earth, ghosts don't exist, or the Loch Ness Monster doesn't exist. In fact, normal people should assume they don't. But someone pursuing ID will not only assume God exists, but they SHOULD be trying to prove that he does or their argument won't hold water.
PS: In no way am I saying God exists, just presenting arguments...and I am a scientist
I want to state the ID is bogus. I'm not an idiot. I also want to say that I never said opinion is science or ID is science.
Einstein's thought experiments were not science. But the insight they provided turned into science when he put them down on paper.
ID is not incompatible with science. In its current form, it is. They need to resolve the assumptions. ID won't be incompatible if they can ever prove there is a God. Likewise, String Theory is also incompatible with science. You can't falsify it right now. But just because it isn't falsifiable right now, doesn't mean it won't always be unfalsifiable.
This is a really bad precedent. Since the argument isn't about the physical material, but the "Intellectual Property"; couldn't a school in the US sue a former student that now teaches in India? After all, he is exporting knowledge and "Intellectual Property".
Because they downgraded your service and added "new feature here" that used to be with your old service. It is a money grab. If only there were competition in communications... and energy... and law... and transit... and...
Some Americans think that companies are public entities and should be held accountable to the public. I don't know where the notion comes from, but I seem to remember that people and companies are supposed to be accountable to the law, not the public.
Slashdot Mirror
You only oppose something like this when they didn't already have it. India can already blow up the world, so why contest it? The goal is to have as few countries as possible with the capability of blowing up the world. If Switzerland didn't have a nuclear weapon (i am assuming they do, but if they don't, even better) and they tried to get one, other countries would try to stop it. Once you are there, you are in "in the club". Hence the desire behind North Korea and other countries. You aren't respected until you have the power to kill everyone.
What rights do companies trample? That is the job of the government. Are you saying that information you willfully hand over to a company is some kind of invasion of privacy?
The problems aren't about corporate freedom. They are about corporate control of government and government control of corporations. It is a lack of freedom.
So Hoover Dam is the greenest building...
You don't take over a country for their resources anymore. You take over their people and use them to accomplish your goals about the resources. That means you can't just kill everyone. But if everyone can defend themselves, then you will have to kill everyone. And to that means, it is pointless to try, as you will never take control of the people.
This is why a country without a government is so darn hard to take over. What good is governing a country without people or people who abide by the rules?
I want to see them take Michael Phelps to court over it.
We thought we solved the Y2K problem, but these are its effects...
Google Maps
Earth's Moon
Your Rating: 4 stars!
You would also like the Rock of Gibraltar
5 other people have +1 Earth's Moon.
The GP is actually proposing that without money, all the reserves could be spent doing things like this. There would be a single entity that redistributes the excess time/resources to "advance" society in certain directions. It is basically communism without money.
In this case, society would produce food/shelter/energy and we would do away with vehicles, vacations, TV, games, entertainment, luxuries, etc... in order to fund a space elevator that may or may not work; and if it works, may or may not amount to anything of value. The wonderful world of central planning.
That's an assumption. They should have to attach/detach when i get on their road.
But what is this Constitution you speak of? I thought the majority could do what they wanted?
I agree. I don't have as much a "Big Brother" issue with this as I do with there being yet another mandated cost for all manufacturing of vehicles. Good luck starting your own car company. GM and Ford will have no problem streamlining the inclusion of these in all cars. It is a bigger cost on the margin for the small ones or ones that could have existed.
This is like all the paperwork laws that crush small companies.
Anyone wonder why the biggest area of entrepreneurship is in software? It is because the "hump" of regulation and legal costs are practically $0.
Hold them accountable by buying hundreds of millions of their product? Or do you just want to impose morals on companies through law? Because that works.
You trust them with something because you teach them responsibility.
Should I be able to sue a car company if my child crashes my car? Should I be able to sue Bieber because he entices my child to buy his albums? This is purely a case about personal responsibility and it is the parent's responsibility to endow responsibility in their children, and the must deal with the consequences together.
Tech savvy != Understanding technology
They should be business process first, technology second. Not the other way around.
CIOs shouldn't be tech savy. They should be business process and information savy. Likewise, CTOs shouldn't be tech savy. They should be business process foresight savy. CIOs and CTOs have underlings to be tech savy.
What will fall under the "basic protections" in 10 years?
I agree. Those externalities should be priced or be subject to civil lawsuits. This is part of the free market idea. Property rights and contracts must be enforced to maintain a free market. After all, it isn't an anarchist market.
If you absorb the externalities into the market, then you don't have externalities.
As a libertarian-leaning person myself, you are right on so many levels. SpaceX is entering into a heavily subsidized field. But the jury is still out on what they do after get through the POC. That will be new ground.
Will the "international government" allow for colonization on the moon? Mars? If they do these and issue Moon/Mars property rights, they could actually create quite a tourism market. Rich people would spend oodles of money on a day or two luxury vacation on the Moon.
But until the concept of "new markets" isn't in the equation, it will be a Keynesian drain on the government. We'll dig ditches just to fill them back up.
PS: I don't like the idea of drilling the moon; I don't want mass transported from the Moon to Earth and have the orbit get screwed up and send the Moon crashing into Earth. I think it is best to just avoid that temptation.
Yes, I understand it. Dark Matter tries to explain the missing gravitation force we are seeing in deep space. And by missing gravitation force, there appears to be more matter than what we are seeing to justify the gravitational forces we are seeing. Dark Energy is the energy needed to have an acceleratingly expanding Universe.
These are based off of the assumption that we have one Universe (or at least a reasonably isolated one). Dark Energy could be matter (other Universes pulling our Universe apart) and Dark Matter could be energy...a force much like the electro-magnetic force, but something we don't experience here in the Milky Way. Who says the Big Bang would be the beginning too? What if our perception of the acceleration of Universe expansion is an optical illusion because of some other unknown entity?
Care to elaborate? Based on your username, you are a scientist. Do you just apply your knowledge of physics or do you explore? Exploration requires thought. It requires an opinion that you can follow to start your inquiry. You may have to make assumptions. But, you need to go back and prove those assumptions before you can call your conclusion "science".
I am just stating that ID isn't science, but it could be if they can prove that God exists. Is there anything wrong with that? It is easy to say God doesn't exist. Just like it is easy to say intelligent Aliens haven't roamed earth, ghosts don't exist, or the Loch Ness Monster doesn't exist. In fact, normal people should assume they don't. But someone pursuing ID will not only assume God exists, but they SHOULD be trying to prove that he does or their argument won't hold water.
PS: In no way am I saying God exists, just presenting arguments ...and I am a scientist
I want to state the ID is bogus. I'm not an idiot. I also want to say that I never said opinion is science or ID is science.
Einstein's thought experiments were not science. But the insight they provided turned into science when he put them down on paper.
ID is not incompatible with science. In its current form, it is. They need to resolve the assumptions. ID won't be incompatible if they can ever prove there is a God. Likewise, String Theory is also incompatible with science. You can't falsify it right now. But just because it isn't falsifiable right now, doesn't mean it won't always be unfalsifiable.
This is a really bad precedent. Since the argument isn't about the physical material, but the "Intellectual Property"; couldn't a school in the US sue a former student that now teaches in India? After all, he is exporting knowledge and "Intellectual Property".
Because they downgraded your service and added "new feature here" that used to be with your old service. It is a money grab. If only there were competition in communications ... and energy ... and law ... and transit ... and ...
Some Americans think that companies are public entities and should be held accountable to the public. I don't know where the notion comes from, but I seem to remember that people and companies are supposed to be accountable to the law, not the public.