How about the underwear bomber? None of the security schemes at the time or presently would detect that. What did stop him? Passengers.
In any case, if you're goal is just to blow up a plane, why just not blow-up a bus? Why not the TSA line? There are a million ways to inflict terror. The best way and only way to manage that risk in a free society is using intelligence.
The 9/11 strategy will never work again due to 1. Fortified cockpit doors 2. Most importantly, hostile passengers. The best you will get now is to blow up an airplane with a bomb and not use it as missle. There a million other vectors that a terrorist could use to kill about 300 people, not sure why air travel should be made such a pain for that. It's just a risk we have to manage. Also, if you figure in the fact that people are less likely to travel due to the invasive procedures at airports, the TSA has undoubtedly caused more deaths indirectly than the 9/11 hijackers.
Actually.. yes they do have jurisdiction over you on the "public roadways." Google TSA VIPR. Its basically the most Orwellian government agency imaginable.
I just recently bought a monitor and SSD for around $800 from Amazon vs Newegg because the former's return policy is so much better. Bestbuy is really shooting themselves in the foot here..
Huh? Future markets are very much limited by supply and demand. At a given price, you'll only be able to purchase so many futures.
What futures allow is stockpiling oil in dollars rather than in actual physical oil. This can increase demand for oil because to meet those contracts you must have oil. However, it also serves to allow more actual oil on the market. If I'm Southwest and want to hedge my bets on oil I don't have to actually acquire and store 10s of billions of dollars of oil which would be off the market.
What is a single situation where the government knows exactly what to produce? And how would it ever be able to keep that number accurate, and further, why would the government doing that be better than the market?
Assuming its an insulated container surrounded by air. No heat can escape the container. I would imagine the cycle would look something like Metal -> Light -> Wall of Container -> Air -> Metal
Interesting -- so if our ambient temperature happened to be 1000F or so we could use a piece of glowing metal to cool the room and provide "free" electricity and not break any laws of physics (although, I still don't really understand why this doesn't break the second law). I wonder if this LED light invention is essentially a tricky way of coaxing that black body radiation into a different wavelength.
Would it be theoretically possible to develop a material that glows white hot at room temperature?
If so, wouldn't that mean you could have a block of material sitting in your living room cooling it and have two wires coming out the back with electric?
Is this effect they are explaining similar to how a piece of metal will glow when hot? I've always wondered how glowing metal aligns with the second law of thermodynamics. It seems to directly convert heat (lower order energy) to light.
When metal glows when hot is it consuming anything or utilizing the difference in temperature in some way?
Or said another way, if you put a piece of metal in a perfectly insulated hot box would it still glow forever?
I too see the tyranny of businesses around me -- through cooperation with the government. Through unreasonable patents and copyright. Through regulatory capture. Through a million different means. And their enabler is the state. The bigger the state the more power you give to the well connected.
In any case, no, it would not be like use a fire hydrant. It would be like using a top-loading washing machine vs a HE front-loader. Which has pros and cons as well.
Blue Jeans require electric to be manufactured. They require pesticides, gasoline, oil, and many other materials in their production from cotton. I don't see under what measure you could suppose that those alleged excesses are worse than the excesses of incandescent lighting.
There are many reasons to choose incandescent lighting. Its truly instant-on, it has a load factor of zero, it can sustain frequent on/off cycles, less capital outlay, more variety of sizing, less risk when broken, less fragile, different sprectrum graphs (less peaky), no flicker, better cold performance, works recessed fixtures, dimmable, different failure modes. There some CFLs that try to address some of these differences, but they tend to be more pricey and still not perform as well for some metrics.
I haven't found Orwell's arguments very convincing on how restraint of government leads to tyranny of businesses in any case.
How about Blue Jeans? Should they be subject to prolifigate laws? If you have more than say, 14 pairs? I would consider more than that to be prolifigate. But I have absolutely no business using threat of violence (the law) to limit someone to only owning 14 pairs. Or, to say, you can't put Nylon into jeans because pantie hose are more necessary. It is arbitrary and its no way for a free people to live.
You have acknowledged there are a myriad of reasons for someone to choose incandescent lighting. You choose to use more CCFL and other energy efficient lighting and you wish to force your superior wisedom on others using the threat of violence. That's what it comes down to and thats why people are upset about it. I sincerely hope that you will reconsider the limits of your knowledge (and I will acknowledge that you are quite knowledgeable about a number of things!)
I confess that I prefer true but imperfect knowledge, even if it leaves much indetermined and unpredictable, to a pretence of exact knowledge that is likely to be false. - F.A Hayek
Yes and our law makers will form a committee like I outlined above. And they will pass laws in the interest of vested corporate interests. Its assine to label some one elses set of preferences as "prolifigate" which is why the don't tread on me crowd gets upset. This is exactly what Hayek is talking about in his Nobel speech The Pretence of Knowledge.
How are you going to feel when the law makers feel the amount of internet bandwidth you are using is prolifigate?
The price paid by the consumer does NOT assume an infinite supply. And who says who gets to determine what "profligate use" is? You? The "Committee of Equalization and Prolifigate Use"? Which, by the way, will be lobbied by the corporate interest that want their patented CCFL technologies to increase in demand?
I'm not sure where "rights" got involved in this. If you want to give people a "right" to an allotement of electricity, now you're just talking about general subsidies/welfare.
Watt-hours vs illumination produced is not an externality. Its an internality and it is reflected in the energy bill by the producer. There are many things to consider when purchasing a bulb -- its location, its life expectancy, its color, its flicker, load factor, etc. Maybe you live on a block where people are incapable of assessing these benefits for themselves, but around here people seem to be aware. My guess is that those around you are also aware, but you place different values on different properties.
If you see energy use (or production) in-and-of-itsself to be an evil, then you should regulate it there. I disagree.
Or.. the government could respect us to determine when use of CCFL vs Indcascent is the best choice and just stay out of it.
Really any "prolifigate" energy consumption in the form of indcascent light will have no effect on you. Its also entirely possible that pushing CCFLs will lead to higher energy use as it makes light cheaper. Consider, before CCFLs I was more likely to leave my porch lights off, now I leave them on because of the cost-benefit analysis. Residential lighting only accounts for ~%2 of electricity usage in any case.
Its just part of a long line of "feel good" do-nothing legislation.
Only on slashdot would posting a nobel-prize winning economists view on socialism be labeled as a troll and flamebait. All I can say is: read the book and see if its not persuasive.
In any case, I do think it would be pretty hard to argue that true laissez faire (and its implied individualism) capitalism leads to tyranny. I think if you read Isaiah Berlin's two concepts of liberty he also makes a very good philosophical argument for why "positive liberties" embodied by socialism will in fact lead to tyranny.
Re:Internet wins...
on
House Kills SOPA
·
· Score: -1, Flamebait
I think, though, it can be argued quite strongly that the end game to socialism is fascism. I think Hayek made that argument quite well in The Road to Serfdom.
Erm... I'm pretty sure RP has a much, much better mathematical background in economics than any of the other candidates. He has actually written books on it, is a member of the Mises institute, and has photos of Hayek, Mises, and Rothbard on his wall.
I'm not sure if I agree %100 on his monetary policies, but he's certainly learned about it. You might prefer Keynesian economics but its certainly not more based in mathematics.
This kind of police state activity is why I am currently so behind Ron Paul. Do I necessarily agree with his foreign policy? No. Do I necessarily agree with his monetary policy? No (although I do agree with substantial parts).
But this I do know, out of all the candidates for our next president he is the only one interested in preserving our liberty. As the primaries and subsequent elections come to your state remember that. Everything else is really pretty meaningless in comparison.
Slashdot Mirror
How about the underwear bomber? None of the security schemes at the time or presently would detect that. What did stop him? Passengers.
In any case, if you're goal is just to blow up a plane, why just not blow-up a bus? Why not the TSA line? There are a million ways to inflict terror. The best way and only way to manage that risk in a free society is using intelligence.
The 9/11 strategy will never work again due to 1. Fortified cockpit doors 2. Most importantly, hostile passengers. The best you will get now is to blow up an airplane with a bomb and not use it as missle. There a million other vectors that a terrorist could use to kill about 300 people, not sure why air travel should be made such a pain for that. It's just a risk we have to manage. Also, if you figure in the fact that people are less likely to travel due to the invasive procedures at airports, the TSA has undoubtedly caused more deaths indirectly than the 9/11 hijackers.
Unlikely. The airlines know the security theatre is costing them big $$$. They will scale it back.
Actually.. yes they do have jurisdiction over you on the "public roadways." Google TSA VIPR. Its basically the most Orwellian government agency imaginable.
I just recently bought a monitor and SSD for around $800 from Amazon vs Newegg because the former's return policy is so much better. Bestbuy is really shooting themselves in the foot here..
Huh? Future markets are very much limited by supply and demand. At a given price, you'll only be able to purchase so many futures.
What futures allow is stockpiling oil in dollars rather than in actual physical oil. This can increase demand for oil because to meet those contracts you must have oil. However, it also serves to allow more actual oil on the market. If I'm Southwest and want to hedge my bets on oil I don't have to actually acquire and store 10s of billions of dollars of oil which would be off the market.
What is a single situation where the government knows exactly what to produce? And how would it ever be able to keep that number accurate, and further, why would the government doing that be better than the market?
Assuming its an insulated container surrounded by air. No heat can escape the container. I would imagine the cycle would look something like Metal -> Light -> Wall of Container -> Air -> Metal
Interesting -- so if our ambient temperature happened to be 1000F or so we could use a piece of glowing metal to cool the room and provide "free" electricity and not break any laws of physics (although, I still don't really understand why this doesn't break the second law). I wonder if this LED light invention is essentially a tricky way of coaxing that black body radiation into a different wavelength.
Would it be theoretically possible to develop a material that glows white hot at room temperature?
If so, wouldn't that mean you could have a block of material sitting in your living room cooling it and have two wires coming out the back with electric?
Is this effect they are explaining similar to how a piece of metal will glow when hot? I've always wondered how glowing metal aligns with the second law of thermodynamics. It seems to directly convert heat (lower order energy) to light.
When metal glows when hot is it consuming anything or utilizing the difference in temperature in some way?
Or said another way, if you put a piece of metal in a perfectly insulated hot box would it still glow forever?
Brilliantly said. Thank you.
I too see the tyranny of businesses around me -- through cooperation with the government. Through unreasonable patents and copyright. Through regulatory capture. Through a million different means. And their enabler is the state. The bigger the state the more power you give to the well connected.
In any case, no, it would not be like use a fire hydrant. It would be like using a top-loading washing machine vs a HE front-loader. Which has pros and cons as well.
Blue Jeans require electric to be manufactured. They require pesticides, gasoline, oil, and many other materials in their production from cotton. I don't see under what measure you could suppose that those alleged excesses are worse than the excesses of incandescent lighting.
There are many reasons to choose incandescent lighting. Its truly instant-on, it has a load factor of zero, it can sustain frequent on/off cycles, less capital outlay, more variety of sizing, less risk when broken, less fragile, different sprectrum graphs (less peaky), no flicker, better cold performance, works recessed fixtures, dimmable, different failure modes. There some CFLs that try to address some of these differences, but they tend to be more pricey and still not perform as well for some metrics.
I haven't found Orwell's arguments very convincing on how restraint of government leads to tyranny of businesses in any case.
How about Blue Jeans? Should they be subject to prolifigate laws? If you have more than say, 14 pairs? I would consider more than that to be prolifigate. But I have absolutely no business using threat of violence (the law) to limit someone to only owning 14 pairs. Or, to say, you can't put Nylon into jeans because pantie hose are more necessary. It is arbitrary and its no way for a free people to live.
You have acknowledged there are a myriad of reasons for someone to choose incandescent lighting. You choose to use more CCFL and other energy efficient lighting and you wish to force your superior wisedom on others using the threat of violence. That's what it comes down to and thats why people are upset about it. I sincerely hope that you will reconsider the limits of your knowledge (and I will acknowledge that you are quite knowledgeable about a number of things!)
I confess that I prefer true but imperfect knowledge, even if it leaves much indetermined and unpredictable, to a pretence of exact knowledge that is likely to be false. - F.A Hayek
Yes and our law makers will form a committee like I outlined above. And they will pass laws in the interest of vested corporate interests. Its assine to label some one elses set of preferences as "prolifigate" which is why the don't tread on me crowd gets upset. This is exactly what Hayek is talking about in his Nobel speech The Pretence of Knowledge.
How are you going to feel when the law makers feel the amount of internet bandwidth you are using is prolifigate?
The price paid by the consumer does NOT assume an infinite supply. And who says who gets to determine what "profligate use" is? You? The "Committee of Equalization and Prolifigate Use"? Which, by the way, will be lobbied by the corporate interest that want their patented CCFL technologies to increase in demand?
I'm not sure where "rights" got involved in this. If you want to give people a "right" to an allotement of electricity, now you're just talking about general subsidies/welfare.
Watt-hours vs illumination produced is not an externality. Its an internality and it is reflected in the energy bill by the producer. There are many things to consider when purchasing a bulb -- its location, its life expectancy, its color, its flicker, load factor, etc. Maybe you live on a block where people are incapable of assessing these benefits for themselves, but around here people seem to be aware. My guess is that those around you are also aware, but you place different values on different properties.
If you see energy use (or production) in-and-of-itsself to be an evil, then you should regulate it there. I disagree.
The externalities of leaded gas are evident and high. Lead everywhere. Seems like as strawman to me...
What are the externalities you are proposing for indcascent light?
Or.. the government could respect us to determine when use of CCFL vs Indcascent is the best choice and just stay out of it.
Really any "prolifigate" energy consumption in the form of indcascent light will have no effect on you. Its also entirely possible that pushing CCFLs will lead to higher energy use as it makes light cheaper. Consider, before CCFLs I was more likely to leave my porch lights off, now I leave them on because of the cost-benefit analysis. Residential lighting only accounts for ~%2 of electricity usage in any case.
Its just part of a long line of "feel good" do-nothing legislation.
If you conside the aborted to be a human being, I'm pretty sure not being killed by your mother/doctor is a civil liberty.
Only on slashdot would posting a nobel-prize winning economists view on socialism be labeled as a troll and flamebait. All I can say is: read the book and see if its not persuasive.
In any case, I do think it would be pretty hard to argue that true laissez faire (and its implied individualism) capitalism leads to tyranny. I think if you read Isaiah Berlin's two concepts of liberty he also makes a very good philosophical argument for why "positive liberties" embodied by socialism will in fact lead to tyranny.
I think, though, it can be argued quite strongly that the end game to socialism is fascism. I think Hayek made that argument quite well in The Road to Serfdom.
Erm... I'm pretty sure RP has a much, much better mathematical background in economics than any of the other candidates. He has actually written books on it, is a member of the Mises institute, and has photos of Hayek, Mises, and Rothbard on his wall.
I'm not sure if I agree %100 on his monetary policies, but he's certainly learned about it. You might prefer Keynesian economics but its certainly not more based in mathematics.
This kind of police state activity is why I am currently so behind Ron Paul. Do I necessarily agree with his foreign policy? No. Do I necessarily agree with his monetary policy? No (although I do agree with substantial parts).
But this I do know, out of all the candidates for our next president he is the only one interested in preserving our liberty. As the primaries and subsequent elections come to your state remember that. Everything else is really pretty meaningless in comparison.
Post as non-AC