I may be preaching to the choir. I interpreted your post as holding government intervention in free markets and antithetical or detrimental to their operation. I have held the opinion that governments taking an active roll in markets can be beneficial if handled in ways that use the market forces rather than fight them, and enjoy discussing and arguing that. If I misread your post, my bad. Sorry You didn't misread the my underlying foundation, which is: government intervention in a free market typically hobbles innovation and efficiency. However, it may not be seen. The question is, without government intervention, would someone instead fix the problem by changing the problem?
Cable lines are often cited as an example of a natural monopoly, and many advocate the regulation of these monopolies. With cables, it is only feasible for a single company to lay cable for a particular region due to economies of scale. The argument then is that such monopolies should be dealt with as a "commons".
If one steps back and looks at the bigger picture, it becomes apparent that the natural monopoly is not on connectivity in general. Instead, it is a monopoly on one form of connectivity.
Smart people, in the search for profit, circumvented what people thought was a natural monopoly by investing in/creating such things as satellite TV, EVDO/Mobile internet, and even things that don't seem to fit, like Netflix.
In this case, the monopoly on the infrastructure provided an increased profit incentive to create otherwise non-obvious channels. This increases choice and creates the basis for a competitve market.
All markets are made by individual actors. Markets are constrained by laws and government, not created by them. As evidence, you will see a given set of commodities become money in almost every society. For example, in prisons and internment camps, markets arise with cigarettes as a store of value.
To frame it the other way around puts the cart before the horse. I see what you are saying about the lack of a real world instance of a completely free market, but that does not preclude the concept of one: "the" free market.
I was pointing out that appropriation by any other name is still appropriation. When a moral decision is involved it is important to call things what they are and not have pretenses about what action is being suggested.
Fair market value only exists in a market. Not in a one-way, non-voluntary transaction. Payment is made, but you say it yourself: "just like when they take..."
To clarify: You don't want to sell me your shoe? Ok. Here's ten dollars, now give me your left shoe or I'll punch you in the face.
I also have a "candy bar" phone, and I hate it. My next phone will be the cheapest available flip phone, just so that I don't accidentally pocket dial people when I forget to turn on key lock.
My current phone is a Sony Ericsson T290a. Worst. Phone. Ever.
This probably explains the preference for the shitty moto phone vs. the nokia.
The internet is beyond the congressionally approved reach of the FCC as it was created. Not to mention that people can (and do) selectively block and delete cookies. I know a number of average joes who know what cookies are and periodically go clear them out.
Maybe paper offers a greater degree of transparency than electronic bits. We shouldn't hope for more secure electronic voting machines, but rather a public realization that sometimes "if it ain't broke, don't fix it."
Sure, cryptography, open-source, signed binaries, etc. begin to offer the transparency we need in voting, but at the moment, the expense greatly outweighs any conceivable benefits (what, no need to argue about chads?).
Paper voting works. Distributed counting means less impact from an individual case of polling-place fraud, and the paper record can be stored for a public recount where many eyes can verify the results.
forgot to mention that I am out of town right now and can't really get an absentee ballot. I think the deadline has passed to have it mailed. I'll look into it though. thanks
I believe your bank should be sending you copies of your "canceled" checks or providing them online. My bank does this, and they make it clear that they are for the same purpose as the real canceled checks were back in the days when banks actually shipped paper checks to the fed.
when I arrive at my polling place and am confronted with an electronic voting machine with no voter-verifiable paper trail, how do I opt out and fill out a paper ballot? Is there a standard procedure that I've been unaware of?
had to reply to remove my unintentional redundant mod. this new ajax moderation system sucks. Finger slipped and you got a redundant instead of an insightful. Hopefully someone else will take care of modding you up.
I'm a Mac user, and I shop at Wal~Mart. I paid more for my Mac because I value having a solidly built computer with a nice OS. I won't pay more for household commodities, because they're largely the same regardless of brand, and especially regardless of retailer.
pwn (v): an intentional misspelling of "own," especially when indicating unauthorized "ownership" of a system. Most commonly seen as pwned or the 1337 variation, pwn3d, as in "i pWn3d j00."
The whole premise of rights is that they are not given. I would argue that we have/every/ right necessary to contract privately to travel by air. The right to do something is the default state so long as it does not interfere with the rights of others.
In US constitutional law, see amendment nine. Further, the first amendment explicitly recognizes a right to assemble. Free movement is an inherent part of the first amendment.
This is true. The LP doesn't get Federal money* like the Republicans and Democrats do. I would hope that if they were ever offered even a fraction of the amount given to the main parties that they would turn it down on principle. But then, they're politicians, too.
Funny that you should say that about the Einstein icon. Einstein wrote the preface for Upton Sinclair's Mental Radio which was a book about remote viewing/telepathy.
I am saying if an event, previously thought paranormal, occurs and is not paranormal, there is no need to revise the definition of paranormal.
Paranormal is by definition outside the realm of science, so scientific inquiry into particular topics that are now considered paranormal would not change the definition, merely the subset of topics it encompasses.
I'd rather not have a paranormal outcome. It is likely that if telepathy is possible, it is not paranormal; rather, certain theories and hypotheses previously thought true would need a little tweaking. If telepathy were possible, and explainable in scientific terms, that would be cool.
Slashdot Mirror
Cable lines are often cited as an example of a natural monopoly, and many advocate the regulation of these monopolies. With cables, it is only feasible for a single company to lay cable for a particular region due to economies of scale. The argument then is that such monopolies should be dealt with as a "commons".
If one steps back and looks at the bigger picture, it becomes apparent that the natural monopoly is not on connectivity in general. Instead, it is a monopoly on one form of connectivity.
Smart people, in the search for profit, circumvented what people thought was a natural monopoly by investing in/creating such things as satellite TV, EVDO/Mobile internet, and even things that don't seem to fit, like Netflix.
In this case, the monopoly on the infrastructure provided an increased profit incentive to create otherwise non-obvious channels. This increases choice and creates the basis for a competitve market.
The end result is lower prices, ceteris paribus.
All markets are made by individual actors. Markets are constrained by laws and government, not created by them. As evidence, you will see a given set of commodities become money in almost every society. For example, in prisons and internment camps, markets arise with cigarettes as a store of value. To frame it the other way around puts the cart before the horse. I see what you are saying about the lack of a real world instance of a completely free market, but that does not preclude the concept of one: "the" free market.
I was pointing out that appropriation by any other name is still appropriation. When a moral decision is involved it is important to call things what they are and not have pretenses about what action is being suggested.
Fair market value only exists in a market. Not in a one-way, non-voluntary transaction. Payment is made, but you say it yourself: "just like when they take..."
To clarify: You don't want to sell me your shoe? Ok. Here's ten dollars, now give me your left shoe or I'll punch you in the face.
I also have a "candy bar" phone, and I hate it. My next phone will be the cheapest available flip phone, just so that I don't accidentally pocket dial people when I forget to turn on key lock.
My current phone is a Sony Ericsson T290a. Worst. Phone. Ever.
This probably explains the preference for the shitty moto phone vs. the nokia.
What are you trying to say?
The internet is beyond the congressionally approved reach of the FCC as it was created. Not to mention that people can (and do) selectively block and delete cookies. I know a number of average joes who know what cookies are and periodically go clear them out.
One accepts a cookie. It is not forced.
Cowardly and bitter. The people who get rich are the talented people with vision and an understanding of their own self-worth.
Certainly the talent for organization plays into this, but that doesn't preclude other talents.
Oh come on. Live a little.
it puts the lotion in the basket.
Maybe paper offers a greater degree of transparency than electronic bits. We shouldn't hope for more secure electronic voting machines, but rather a public realization that sometimes "if it ain't broke, don't fix it."
Sure, cryptography, open-source, signed binaries, etc. begin to offer the transparency we need in voting, but at the moment, the expense greatly outweighs any conceivable benefits (what, no need to argue about chads?).
Paper voting works. Distributed counting means less impact from an individual case of polling-place fraud, and the paper record can be stored for a public recount where many eyes can verify the results.
forgot to mention that I am out of town right now and can't really get an absentee ballot. I think the deadline has passed to have it mailed. I'll look into it though. thanks
I believe your bank should be sending you copies of your "canceled" checks or providing them online. My bank does this, and they make it clear that they are for the same purpose as the real canceled checks were back in the days when banks actually shipped paper checks to the fed.
too late... :(
when I arrive at my polling place and am confronted with an electronic voting machine with no voter-verifiable paper trail, how do I opt out and fill out a paper ballot? Is there a standard procedure that I've been unaware of?
Who else will be trying this?
had to reply to remove my unintentional redundant mod. this new ajax moderation system sucks. Finger slipped and you got a redundant instead of an insightful. Hopefully someone else will take care of modding you up.
Way to see the forest.
Don't be too irritated by my semi-pedantic dig. It wasn't against the researchers.
Would it be more appropriate to say that element 118 has been successfully instantiated in a laboratory for the first time?
This is not a rhetorical question.
I'm a Mac user, and I shop at Wal~Mart. I paid more for my Mac because I value having a solidly built computer with a nice OS. I won't pay more for household commodities, because they're largely the same regardless of brand, and especially regardless of retailer.
pwn (v): an intentional misspelling of "own," especially when indicating unauthorized "ownership" of a system. Most commonly seen as pwned or the 1337 variation, pwn3d, as in "i pWn3d j00."
The whole premise of rights is that they are not given. I would argue that we have /every/ right necessary to contract privately to travel by air. The right to do something is the default state so long as it does not interfere with the rights of others.
In US constitutional law, see amendment nine. Further, the first amendment explicitly recognizes a right to assemble. Free movement is an inherent part of the first amendment.
Pak.
Chooie.
Unf.
This is true. The LP doesn't get Federal money* like the Republicans and Democrats do. I would hope that if they were ever offered even a fraction of the amount given to the main parties that they would turn it down on principle. But then, they're politicians, too.
* read: your money, for those in the US.
Funny that you should say that about the Einstein icon. Einstein wrote the preface for Upton Sinclair's Mental Radio which was a book about remote viewing/telepathy.
I am saying if an event, previously thought paranormal, occurs and is not paranormal, there is no need to revise the definition of paranormal.
Paranormal is by definition outside the realm of science, so scientific inquiry into particular topics that are now considered paranormal would not change the definition, merely the subset of topics it encompasses.
I'd rather not have a paranormal outcome. It is likely that if telepathy is possible, it is not paranormal; rather, certain theories and hypotheses previously thought true would need a little tweaking. If telepathy were possible, and explainable in scientific terms, that would be cool.