Umm.. That would be good. Unless you think Female genital mutilation and allowing terrorist to kill innocent people because you believe in a different god or no god at all is a good thing?
I guess the moral of the story is that if you don't want to be the killed person, then don't support and defend bad things in life. Killing in wars is not necessarily pretty but it doesn't make it bad when the people you are fighting is worse. Without war and killing the enemy, I'm pretty sure you world would be worse off then you think it is.
The problem isn't that it's the cookie's fault, it's that it can be the cookie's fault.
Where you are failing is in the assumption that all websites will be trustworthy. The real world is that they won't be and allowing this possibility for the government to do (which it does have a history of collecting information on people through secret programs) is not something you should want.
Because this is slashdot, I will attempt to put it in a car analogy. Cars can be used as weapons to mow down people and kill them. They aren't most of the time and we license drivers as well as the vehicles to make it more difficult to do so and get away with it. Now imagine a cookie as one of the drivers, sooner or later someone will suffer from road rage and use the vehicle as a weapon. Allowing the government to used cookies is like allowing them to use the car as a weapon except you don't know when they chose to do this.
These are not "guesses" or "assumptions" they are the current scientific interpretation of multiple lines of evidence. The meteor impact is an enormously well supported hypothesis. If you're going to back up one argument with evidence from another field, you should probably find out what the current interpretation of the evidence is. Making shit up doesn't work.
Where is the empirical evidence? The eyewitnesses? Where is all the video footage? They are guesses and assumptions, the fact that they are well supported does not change that. Unless it was documented by an eyewitness in some means, you have no empirical evidence proving the validity of the claims. What you end up with is bits and pieces of evidence supporting the possibility of the claims. That is not fact, that is an assumption or guess that hasn't been proven false yet. You need to look at what scientific theory is and what it's purpose is.
I ask you, can I discover something(s) tomorrow that will completely invalidate any one theory present today? If not, you have left science and entered the realm of religion or religion like practices. If so, then it would be true that they are guesses and assumption made from the evidence we have at hand and are indeed not facts but interpretations. The amount of support for these interpretations do not change this fact because it simply can't be proven without a time machine.
There is, by the way, no "empirical proof" of just about anything you care to think of in science. It's all inference; that's what makes science interesting, instead of just bleeding obvious. But to be honest, I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "empirical proof" in any case--the notion doesn't seem to be coherent to me.
There is empirical proof in many aspects of science. You mix Chemical A with B in a certain process and get Y. It doesn't mean it's the only way to get Y, it just means that A+B in a process makes Y. You doing that experiment provides empirical proof or evidence of it. When you go back to interpreted sciences like biogensis and evolutionary biology or historical sciences like paleontology, you cannot make empirical observations, all you can do is make assumptions and guess to the interpretation of the other evidence present. The fact that new evidence can change the entire working theory should be proof enough of it not being fact but a well supported assumption.
But lets look at how this well supported assumption process can be wrong. Suppose there is someone I don't like. He has some damaging dirt on me and wants to black mail me because of it. I find him in a pub and you happen to be there too. So I tell someone to tell this person you said something derogetory about him, he confronts you and this is seen by all. Lets say it settles down and nothing happens. Later that night, I follow you out, come from behind and inject you with GHB or gamma hydroxybutyric acid and you are out of it by the time you hit your car. I then drive your car (using gloves and protective clothing) to this guys house, park it on the front lawn, grab your tire tool from the car and proceed to kill the guy. Morning comes around, you are passed out in his front yard, have a tire tool in your hand with the victim's blood on it, the victim is dead, you were seen in a confrontation with him the previous night and claim to not remember leaving the bar parking lot. So how are they going to interpret the evidence? That's right, you killed the guy, except you didn't, I did and it just looks like you did. But that is the guess the forensic science team will make when all the evidence is looked at. It would be well supported but as you know, it could be wrong by my own admission. That's the difference between empirical evidence and interpretations or evidence. Interpretations are not facts, they are assumptions to what the facts tell us. The entire "a fucking big rock from space", "birds are dinosaurs" and cold tropical polar regions are, gue
Ummm the 800??? Well if we are making up numbers to suit the argument, how about 1000 at $8 a pop or 800 at $10 a pop?
Don't miss the forest for the trees here. The numbers are arbitrary, the effect is the important thing. When you have a product that costs $2.00 to manufacture and distribute, most all competing products will cost about the same. This is because labor and raw materials as well as energy will be close to the same costs for the manufacturing. Now when the government places artificial shortages on energy and taxes based on emissions caps, then anyone of your competitors subjected to those restrictions and costs will have a similar rise in costs. Let's say it raises the costs from $2.00 up to $10.00 to manufacture and distribute. All your competition will find a similar increase in costs so they have to raise their prices to cover it. Now pick whatever arbitrary numbers you want, the concept is the same, when your competition is forced to sell at a certain high price, then as long as your price is competitive to that, you can turn any additional savings directly into profit. Your costs of production do not factor into it as long as you are making a profit so there is no advantage to passing the savings on to the consumer. In fact, if you undersold the competition by too much because you found a way to manufacture the products at $2.00 a unit again instead of the new $10.00 per unit government imposed BS, you could be facing some serious challenges from the shareholders and certain regulatory entities.
So lets recap here, if the product costs X to manufacture and sells for Y, your competition will be in a similar situation. When non-market forces cause X to increase like with the cap and tax, Y grows with X (most likely exponentially because people expect percentages of return so the more investment needed, the more return expected), We end up with something more like Xa and Yb. If you find a way to lose the non-market costs, you will end up with X and Yb because your competition has to deal with Xa. None of the savings past what it takes to be competitive will be passed back to the consumer because non-market forces allow this to be taken directly as profit.
Competition is what drives consumer benefit, not corporate good will. When competition is interrupted by non-market forces, you should not expect a return to previous pricing because there is no competitive advantage to selling your product cheaper then your competition outside of maximizing profits. When the same non-market forces keep your competition's costs high, your advantage is to simply take the profit.
I think that's what I said.
That may be what you think you said but it wasn't. Unless I'm misinterpreting you, you seem to be claiming that the product will be cheaper because someone can get more of a market share. That is what all those numbers were about. It doesn't work that way when the competition is artificially raised too. Where this becomes a problem is when you only have to undercut their artificially inflated prices, and not their true prices. If it costs them twice as much to produce, you can profit almost twice as much while remaining competitive. So instead of seeing products at half the price of the competition, you will see them within 10% or so of the competition because of the artificial inflation of costs to the competition. You simply don't need to undercut them by much more then what they are selling at and there is no advantage to doing so. The inflation is already there and will remain until such time that the non-market inflationary costs are removed in which case, the inflated prices will likely be the norm and still not benefit the consumer. There is no advantage to selling for less then the competition when they are forced to sell high.
Can you give a real world example?
Lol.. You mean your damn phone bill wasn't real world enough? The conn
No. Thats how it works with any company that reports to a board of directors that have public stock holders. The company ios forces by the shareholders to increase profits, and hte company will do what it must to do this. If the shareholders continually do not see returns on their stock price, they can pretty quickly vote out that board and in a new one.
Are you an idiot or what? First, tell me this, if it cost you $2 per product and you can sell 1000 for $4.00 a pop or 800 at $10.00 a pop, then which is more profit? There is no advantage to passing the savings into the consumer when everyone else has to charge the higher price. The only advantage to passing the savings on is to undercut the competition and sell more products at a higher profit. This is nothing different from what the share holders expect and by not passing the savings on, the share holders see an enormous increase in returns.
Even if you only sell 600 at $10.00, your still making more money then 1000 at $4.00 a piece. Lets see, 1000 at $4.00 a piece minus the cost to manufacture, becomes $2000 profit. At $10.00 a pop, you end up with $6,400 profit for selling 800 and $4,800 at selling only 600. And if everyone else is forced to sell their identical or similar product as 10-15 dollars because of artificial taxes and cost of regulation, where is your incentive to sell for less? That's how business works and it is completely in line with satisfying the shareholders.
You are talking about collusion which is illegal.
No, I'm talking about costs imposed onto the companies because of artificial forces through government regulation. IE, cap and tax or trade. You don't think that taxing the energy it takes to produce a car isn't going to raise the prices significantly? Your a fool if you don't understand the concept of having to cover your costs.
The only way every car company would just accept this increase and not do anything is if they had a behind the scenes agreement.
Behind the scenes as in the government creating artificial shortages and taxing what they are using now.
In the real world, the company with the highest profit margin would absorb those extra costs to keep the price the same. This would result in extra pressure on the others to cut costs. If they can't, they lose market share.
No, it wouldn't. It only works that way when there is competition. The more profitable company can lower it's price point to gain an advantage. But when everyone in the game has to jump the costs and prices up because of government manipulation, there is no competition or incentive. Your phone bill is evidence of that, the government required a $2.00 fee to be assessed to every residential line a while back in order to get communications to rural parts of the country. There is no competition in the telecoms so they just placed the fee onto the bill and charged extra to comply with it instead of absorbing the costs. Oh yea, and the phone companies have shareholders too.
When everyone is effected at once, normal market forces won't apply any pressure and there is no advantage to passing savings on when it can be safely taken as profit. You simply can't argue against that.
I like the way you did that. You disproved someone's probably incorrect statement with one that requires an enormous amount of faith as if it was fact when it is all still open to discussion and could possibly be wrong too.
Most of what you said, like the big fucking rock, and the cold warm areas in the polar region is just a well positioned guess. About the only thing that has the most verifiable credibility is that birds are dinosaurs. And why this may be true, it is still an assumption made from piecing distant fossils together into a seemingly cohesive plot of time in an attempt to understand. There is no empirical proof of it, we have no DNA trail or witnesses to the transformation.
You need to understand, the evolution of our past is largely not set in concrete as fact. It's just a logical interpretation of evidence we have found. Our complete understanding of it could be as completely off as the idea of the sun revolving around the earth. It gives us something to work with but is not fact at all.
Obviously, as the water moves closer, the property will lose it's value before the damage occurs. the smart rich will sell at minor losses (much less then they take from market swings in the stock market), and those buyers will take a small loss too. The water is not going to come over night and as long as usage of the property remains viable over the course of the increasing water levels, then no losses will be had at all because you can extract the value lost from the use. The only difference is that instead of becoming an investment that appreciates in value, you need to treat it like one the depreciates similar to cars and so on.
If some rich person is still claiming their swamp land is worth 2 million dollars, I have absolutely no sympathy for them. This will not happen over night and they were not properly watching their assets if they expect the value at the top of the last bubble to still be the same value after it's a foot under water. Hell, it's value is in most cases, not as much as it was 5 years ago. So even losing value isn't anything new.
The point is you *can't count on taking out of a business's hide after the fact*. It is in the business's rational interest to externalize the cost. Even in the case of the *legal* tire dump, perverse incentives exist to take money needed to deal with the problem out as profit.
Sure you can if it was illegal when the act was done. You can attach all of the holdings of the company and personally prosecute the people within the company who made the decisions to violate the law. And no corporate separation will absolve someone of a personal act they do in the company's name.
Now, your right in that you might not be able to recover all of the costs or maybe it was legal at one time and is now illegal or something. But at the same time, those costs are generally exaggerated. This is done by paying prevailing and inflated wages instead of a going wage (government is good at that kind of waste), they pick their dumps or disposal facilities instead of cheaper ones down the road a bit further and so on. And that doesn't even start with the cheaper and maybe no cost alternatives.
As for taking the money out as profit instead of dealing with a legal obligation, that is called embezzlement and will often follow the owners past the corporate veil and attach to their personal holdings if they acted in anyway to accomplish it. It is illegal to take profit instead of fulfilling your obligations.
You've got to build the cost of recycling the tires *into* the cost of the tire. That forces economic rationality much more effectively than regulation. If there were a ten dollar deposit on each tire, then a twenty million tires is two hundred millions of dollars.
In my state, it is. Well, it is when you leave a tire at a shop instead of disposing of them yourself. The problem with building the costs into the tire is that people do recycle tires themselves. I cut them down and drive a large I bolt through them and use them as bump stops for the wagons and the barn dock. I have also used them as bumpers for the boat dock, made swings out of them, and even burned them with a lot of other rubbish. There is also a recyling center that will give you $1.00 per tire for most tires because they do something with them that ends up making more money. And $1.00 per 20 million tires is twenty million dollars saved by the consumers instead of 200 million being added to the bill.
With respect to recycling tires as filler -- of course. That makes sense, given that you are forced to do something responsible with the. The notion that this application is economically rational on its own is self-evidently false. If old tires were worth enough money to do this, then there wouldn't be illegal tire dumps.
I don't think the problem of illegal tire dumps are as wide spread as you think. Many times they were there before it even became illegal. People are using tires as filler in buildings, baling them to reinforce embankments, and they are building affordable homes/buildings with them. This is something sort of in it's infancy because large collections of tires weren't as abundant as they are becoming now. Building codes are being more accepted of those techniques and there is some sound engineering on the concepts. Building using used tires is a relatively new concept, give it time.
That's how business works when there is an advantage to it. When that advantage is gone as would be the case with cap and trade because no one else could make the crap that cheap due to the taxes, then there is no incentive to pass the savings along.
Don't confuse business working in a free market with business being artificially manipulated by government entities. They are two entirely different concepts. In a free or open market, you get an advantage by undercutting the competition. When the government regulated it, typically, it only hits part of a market so there is a cheaper alternative and the advantage is to get into the market strength. All of these forces go out the window when everything is effected equally. If every car in the country went up in price by $2,000, then there is no incentive to absorb those costs because all your competition is at the same disadvantage.
They will just change their name is it gets too bad. Maybe hire some mid level managers and advertise "now under new management".
There are tons of ways to get away from a bad image. The biggest hurdle might be the housing authority in the area. Some areas need to have the property inspected before it can be listed as a rental and the authority serves as a complaint compartment to investigate slums and stuff when the land lord refuses to fix problems. A lot of times this is associated with some program that allows government rent assistance or similar but isn't completely limited to them. For instance, in my area, if there is a problem that makes the house unlivable, the local housing authority can act as a middleman and hold the rent payments (you make the payment to them when this happens instead of the landlord) until repairs are made and it's illegal to evict you when this happens. Anyways, they could refuse to validate the properties in his or the company's name. But then again, a name change or a restructure could get around that.
No, our military involvement in the middle east has been about protecting our national interest period. If those interest include oil, so be it. But you (and whoever) are being disingenuous and purposely misleading by singling out oil if and when it's an objective. Our national security is the reasoning and if oil is part of that, it doesn't negate our national security.
This still creates no special benefit for oil companies verses green tech.
Your freedoms don't give you the ability to impose on my freedoms.
As for the constitution, it is a document that gives the federal government powers and prohibits certain actions it can take. It is not and never was a document governing the people. The first amendment only applies to the governments and that was in doubt until the 14th amendment was ratified.
So you are right that you have free speech, but when that speech harms someone else, they have a right to recourse. The only thing stopping recourse is when the government is behind it. I think the confusions become hard to differentiate when you end up with natural rights and legally protected rights. Free speech is both but not in an all encompassing way.
Not really, if someone is sued on shaky grounds, it is often dismissed before it even goes to trial. Also there is a slap law that states it's illegal to retaliate in the specific way you mentioned. In almost every area, if you can't afford a lawyer, you can find a legal aid who will either pay for the service or in most cases, almost every firm have pro bono charities that allow for the defense of people who can't afford their own.
What you see is a lot of past cases that brought about laws like the anti-slap laws. It shouldn't be a problem like you described today except in a few screwed up states like california.
Not really, the lawsuit could be attempting to use the exposure to prove damages. It would work something like only 20 people seeing it verses 20 million people. SO the exposure could actually be making it worse for the tenant not the landlord.
IF the mold wasn't known, I doubt anyone state could enforce penalties.
Generally, when you buy a house, you request a full and complete disclosure from the seller. This is where you list everything you know that could be considered wrong and effect any aspect of the sale. If you can prove they knew about it and failed to disclose it, then you can pretty much recoup damages because of their failure to disclose. However, some people don't know there is mold and therefore can't be held to it. This is where a competent inspector is a good idea.
And when checking out your inspector, find out what kind of insurance and so on they have. Often if the inspector misses something, they can be made to pay (their insurance) for their lack of thoroughness. This isn't screwing the inspector or being lawsuit happy as it may sound either. You paid them to disclose anything and everything about the house and used their professional findings as a basis for your decision for a major purchase.
And how has operation Ajax helped out oil? You bring up an example of the exact opposite of what you want to claim.
And yes, we would have bases in the middle east regardless of oil. Our first marine action under Thomas Jefferson made this happen when the Muslim Pirates were put at bay. Kuwait has long been a port of safe harbor for the US even under the ottoman empire which was somewhat hostile to us. And WWI is something that proved our need to remain in the area all independent of oil.
Also, as I said, the subsidies for oil was not to their benefit, it was to get the oil companies to do things they wouldn't otherwise do. If you read any of the links to the actual subsidies, you would know this as you have already demonstrated the ability not to remain ignorant by searching for the facts. You just seem to have stopped well short of getting them.
Now just so you are clear on the subsidies, someone in congress did not just wake up one day and say Exxon needs more money. They said we need this to happen, oil companies said it would cost so much and there wouldn't be a profit, and the congress in turned alleviated part of the losses in order to make it happen. That is how the subsidies work and most of the oil companies actually lose money on the projects that qualify to get them. Government is not propping oil up unless you completely ignore this fact, but then you would end up making wild accusations and looking silly to anyone who invested the time to look.
The military is not helping oil out. That's just crazy. The government subsidies aren't either. Those are targeted at getting oil companies to do things they wouldn't already be doing and helps recoup some of the costs.
Look around and get in line with reality. I'm getting sick of half informed idiots claiming completely false crap in order to push an agenda that will end up costing me shitloads of money.
I think you might be a little confused. First, the legal tire depot could have stayed the same without the cleanup costs being paid. Second, the illegal tire dump should have been charged back to those who dumped there. In other words, the costs could have been recuperated. But even just sitting on the property without doing any cleanup could lead to making money from them when recycling becomes more profitable and more uses can be found for them. One example of this could be the use of the tires as filler in adobe style buildings that are popular out west. The 125 million tons of tires could have been shipped to people who would purchase them for this goal or they could come and pick them up on their own. So the costs was only there because of a specific decision made, not because it is a burden on the public.
However, in my state, there is a disposal fee charged for all tires that is marked and shown separate on the bill any time you leave the tires at the shop. So unless the tire dumps started at some time before it became illegal to dump them, I'm not sure how the money wouldn't have already been collected if the other states did the same. It costs something like $2.50 to $5.00 per tire for disposal fees with the higher prices generally going to special recycling plants who do something different in their disposal that is supposed to be more sound or something.
There will be trash. That is a given when humans live there. That is a problem of the entire society, not the ones who pollute. Most fast food wrappers are biodegradable nowadays and outside of the asthetic issue, doesn't present too much of a problem.
I think you are confusing people finding ways to do this through market forces verses forcing it by government. There is a difference because the efficiencies gained were driven primarily by market forces that allowed increased profits where government mandates don't have that edge. Look at your phone bill, it hasn't gotten cheaper with time and they typically separate the government mandated fees so you can understand why their $30 per month service is actually billed at $45.
If people can make things more efficiently and pay for it in savings, then fine, let it happen. Forcing it is more or less a license to not pass the savings on and keep it as profit. Seriously, If I could make a car that was 7 times as efficient as today's vehicles while being just as safe if not safer and costing 25% less, and the government jacked the prices of everything up to promote the use of the inefficient and more costly green tech, why would I pass the savings on to the consumer when the costs are artificially in place and all my competition has to pay more? All I have to do then is beat my competition's price slightly and pocket the remainder.
It's entirely possible that both realities are completely true and the length of time to get into compliance was simply legal delays ensuring they had a right to the code and that the code wouldn't move into other licensed code they had. Meanwhile, not producing the source code when you distribute something is something that is almost always violated. Even major distributions do it when they offer binary update services and don't provide the source code along side it or keep it availible for 3 years. It's petty in the scheme of things and never gets complained about or called evil when distros do it.
They are obligated to make it apparent on how to get the source code though. If they chose to mail the source upon request, then they needed to include that written offer with the binary to make it obvious.
If the code is in the kernel tree, wouldn't the exception apply?
However, as a special exception, the source code distributed need not include anything that is normally distributed (in either source or binary form) with the major components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of the operating system on which the executable runs, unless that component itself accompanies the executable.
Yes, the truth is a troll when you don't want to see it.
Oh well, it will be corrected in meta moderation just like the other times these global warming fanboys have to face the hard facts. And no, it's not like the Pixie fairies of bubble-yum forest were if you have to believe hard enough.
Slashdot Mirror
Umm.. That would be good. Unless you think Female genital mutilation and allowing terrorist to kill innocent people because you believe in a different god or no god at all is a good thing?
I guess the moral of the story is that if you don't want to be the killed person, then don't support and defend bad things in life. Killing in wars is not necessarily pretty but it doesn't make it bad when the people you are fighting is worse. Without war and killing the enemy, I'm pretty sure you world would be worse off then you think it is.
Yes, this is change you can believe in.
The problem isn't that it's the cookie's fault, it's that it can be the cookie's fault.
Where you are failing is in the assumption that all websites will be trustworthy. The real world is that they won't be and allowing this possibility for the government to do (which it does have a history of collecting information on people through secret programs) is not something you should want.
Because this is slashdot, I will attempt to put it in a car analogy. Cars can be used as weapons to mow down people and kill them. They aren't most of the time and we license drivers as well as the vehicles to make it more difficult to do so and get away with it. Now imagine a cookie as one of the drivers, sooner or later someone will suffer from road rage and use the vehicle as a weapon. Allowing the government to used cookies is like allowing them to use the car as a weapon except you don't know when they chose to do this.
Where is the empirical evidence? The eyewitnesses? Where is all the video footage? They are guesses and assumptions, the fact that they are well supported does not change that. Unless it was documented by an eyewitness in some means, you have no empirical evidence proving the validity of the claims. What you end up with is bits and pieces of evidence supporting the possibility of the claims. That is not fact, that is an assumption or guess that hasn't been proven false yet. You need to look at what scientific theory is and what it's purpose is.
I ask you, can I discover something(s) tomorrow that will completely invalidate any one theory present today? If not, you have left science and entered the realm of religion or religion like practices. If so, then it would be true that they are guesses and assumption made from the evidence we have at hand and are indeed not facts but interpretations. The amount of support for these interpretations do not change this fact because it simply can't be proven without a time machine.
There is empirical proof in many aspects of science. You mix Chemical A with B in a certain process and get Y. It doesn't mean it's the only way to get Y, it just means that A+B in a process makes Y. You doing that experiment provides empirical proof or evidence of it. When you go back to interpreted sciences like biogensis and evolutionary biology or historical sciences like paleontology, you cannot make empirical observations, all you can do is make assumptions and guess to the interpretation of the other evidence present. The fact that new evidence can change the entire working theory should be proof enough of it not being fact but a well supported assumption.
But lets look at how this well supported assumption process can be wrong. Suppose there is someone I don't like. He has some damaging dirt on me and wants to black mail me because of it. I find him in a pub and you happen to be there too. So I tell someone to tell this person you said something derogetory about him, he confronts you and this is seen by all. Lets say it settles down and nothing happens. Later that night, I follow you out, come from behind and inject you with GHB or gamma hydroxybutyric acid and you are out of it by the time you hit your car. I then drive your car (using gloves and protective clothing) to this guys house, park it on the front lawn, grab your tire tool from the car and proceed to kill the guy. Morning comes around, you are passed out in his front yard, have a tire tool in your hand with the victim's blood on it, the victim is dead, you were seen in a confrontation with him the previous night and claim to not remember leaving the bar parking lot. So how are they going to interpret the evidence? That's right, you killed the guy, except you didn't, I did and it just looks like you did. But that is the guess the forensic science team will make when all the evidence is looked at. It would be well supported but as you know, it could be wrong by my own admission. That's the difference between empirical evidence and interpretations or evidence. Interpretations are not facts, they are assumptions to what the facts tell us. The entire "a fucking big rock from space", "birds are dinosaurs" and cold tropical polar regions are, gue
Don't miss the forest for the trees here. The numbers are arbitrary, the effect is the important thing. When you have a product that costs $2.00 to manufacture and distribute, most all competing products will cost about the same. This is because labor and raw materials as well as energy will be close to the same costs for the manufacturing. Now when the government places artificial shortages on energy and taxes based on emissions caps, then anyone of your competitors subjected to those restrictions and costs will have a similar rise in costs. Let's say it raises the costs from $2.00 up to $10.00 to manufacture and distribute. All your competition will find a similar increase in costs so they have to raise their prices to cover it. Now pick whatever arbitrary numbers you want, the concept is the same, when your competition is forced to sell at a certain high price, then as long as your price is competitive to that, you can turn any additional savings directly into profit. Your costs of production do not factor into it as long as you are making a profit so there is no advantage to passing the savings on to the consumer. In fact, if you undersold the competition by too much because you found a way to manufacture the products at $2.00 a unit again instead of the new $10.00 per unit government imposed BS, you could be facing some serious challenges from the shareholders and certain regulatory entities.
So lets recap here, if the product costs X to manufacture and sells for Y, your competition will be in a similar situation. When non-market forces cause X to increase like with the cap and tax, Y grows with X (most likely exponentially because people expect percentages of return so the more investment needed, the more return expected), We end up with something more like Xa and Yb. If you find a way to lose the non-market costs, you will end up with X and Yb because your competition has to deal with Xa. None of the savings past what it takes to be competitive will be passed back to the consumer because non-market forces allow this to be taken directly as profit.
Competition is what drives consumer benefit, not corporate good will. When competition is interrupted by non-market forces, you should not expect a return to previous pricing because there is no competitive advantage to selling your product cheaper then your competition outside of maximizing profits. When the same non-market forces keep your competition's costs high, your advantage is to simply take the profit.
That may be what you think you said but it wasn't. Unless I'm misinterpreting you, you seem to be claiming that the product will be cheaper because someone can get more of a market share. That is what all those numbers were about. It doesn't work that way when the competition is artificially raised too. Where this becomes a problem is when you only have to undercut their artificially inflated prices, and not their true prices. If it costs them twice as much to produce, you can profit almost twice as much while remaining competitive. So instead of seeing products at half the price of the competition, you will see them within 10% or so of the competition because of the artificial inflation of costs to the competition. You simply don't need to undercut them by much more then what they are selling at and there is no advantage to doing so. The inflation is already there and will remain until such time that the non-market inflationary costs are removed in which case, the inflated prices will likely be the norm and still not benefit the consumer. There is no advantage to selling for less then the competition when they are forced to sell high.
Lol.. You mean your damn phone bill wasn't real world enough? The conn
Are you an idiot or what? First, tell me this, if it cost you $2 per product and you can sell 1000 for $4.00 a pop or 800 at $10.00 a pop, then which is more profit? There is no advantage to passing the savings into the consumer when everyone else has to charge the higher price. The only advantage to passing the savings on is to undercut the competition and sell more products at a higher profit. This is nothing different from what the share holders expect and by not passing the savings on, the share holders see an enormous increase in returns.
Even if you only sell 600 at $10.00, your still making more money then 1000 at $4.00 a piece. Lets see, 1000 at $4.00 a piece minus the cost to manufacture, becomes $2000 profit. At $10.00 a pop, you end up with $6,400 profit for selling 800 and $4,800 at selling only 600. And if everyone else is forced to sell their identical or similar product as 10-15 dollars because of artificial taxes and cost of regulation, where is your incentive to sell for less? That's how business works and it is completely in line with satisfying the shareholders.
No, I'm talking about costs imposed onto the companies because of artificial forces through government regulation. IE, cap and tax or trade. You don't think that taxing the energy it takes to produce a car isn't going to raise the prices significantly? Your a fool if you don't understand the concept of having to cover your costs.
Behind the scenes as in the government creating artificial shortages and taxing what they are using now.
No, it wouldn't. It only works that way when there is competition. The more profitable company can lower it's price point to gain an advantage. But when everyone in the game has to jump the costs and prices up because of government manipulation, there is no competition or incentive. Your phone bill is evidence of that, the government required a $2.00 fee to be assessed to every residential line a while back in order to get communications to rural parts of the country. There is no competition in the telecoms so they just placed the fee onto the bill and charged extra to comply with it instead of absorbing the costs. Oh yea, and the phone companies have shareholders too.
When everyone is effected at once, normal market forces won't apply any pressure and there is no advantage to passing savings on when it can be safely taken as profit. You simply can't argue against that.
I like the way you did that. You disproved someone's probably incorrect statement with one that requires an enormous amount of faith as if it was fact when it is all still open to discussion and could possibly be wrong too.
Most of what you said, like the big fucking rock, and the cold warm areas in the polar region is just a well positioned guess. About the only thing that has the most verifiable credibility is that birds are dinosaurs. And why this may be true, it is still an assumption made from piecing distant fossils together into a seemingly cohesive plot of time in an attempt to understand. There is no empirical proof of it, we have no DNA trail or witnesses to the transformation.
You need to understand, the evolution of our past is largely not set in concrete as fact. It's just a logical interpretation of evidence we have found. Our complete understanding of it could be as completely off as the idea of the sun revolving around the earth. It gives us something to work with but is not fact at all.
Obviously, as the water moves closer, the property will lose it's value before the damage occurs. the smart rich will sell at minor losses (much less then they take from market swings in the stock market), and those buyers will take a small loss too. The water is not going to come over night and as long as usage of the property remains viable over the course of the increasing water levels, then no losses will be had at all because you can extract the value lost from the use. The only difference is that instead of becoming an investment that appreciates in value, you need to treat it like one the depreciates similar to cars and so on.
If some rich person is still claiming their swamp land is worth 2 million dollars, I have absolutely no sympathy for them. This will not happen over night and they were not properly watching their assets if they expect the value at the top of the last bubble to still be the same value after it's a foot under water. Hell, it's value is in most cases, not as much as it was 5 years ago. So even losing value isn't anything new.
Lol.. Well, if the raw data doesn't match the raw data, then this would be pointed out.
Sure you can if it was illegal when the act was done. You can attach all of the holdings of the company and personally prosecute the people within the company who made the decisions to violate the law. And no corporate separation will absolve someone of a personal act they do in the company's name.
Now, your right in that you might not be able to recover all of the costs or maybe it was legal at one time and is now illegal or something. But at the same time, those costs are generally exaggerated. This is done by paying prevailing and inflated wages instead of a going wage (government is good at that kind of waste), they pick their dumps or disposal facilities instead of cheaper ones down the road a bit further and so on. And that doesn't even start with the cheaper and maybe no cost alternatives.
As for taking the money out as profit instead of dealing with a legal obligation, that is called embezzlement and will often follow the owners past the corporate veil and attach to their personal holdings if they acted in anyway to accomplish it. It is illegal to take profit instead of fulfilling your obligations.
In my state, it is. Well, it is when you leave a tire at a shop instead of disposing of them yourself. The problem with building the costs into the tire is that people do recycle tires themselves. I cut them down and drive a large I bolt through them and use them as bump stops for the wagons and the barn dock. I have also used them as bumpers for the boat dock, made swings out of them, and even burned them with a lot of other rubbish. There is also a recyling center that will give you $1.00 per tire for most tires because they do something with them that ends up making more money. And $1.00 per 20 million tires is twenty million dollars saved by the consumers instead of 200 million being added to the bill.
I don't think the problem of illegal tire dumps are as wide spread as you think. Many times they were there before it even became illegal. People are using tires as filler in buildings, baling them to reinforce embankments, and they are building affordable homes/buildings with them. This is something sort of in it's infancy because large collections of tires weren't as abundant as they are becoming now. Building codes are being more accepted of those techniques and there is some sound engineering on the concepts. Building using used tires is a relatively new concept, give it time.
That's how business works when there is an advantage to it. When that advantage is gone as would be the case with cap and trade because no one else could make the crap that cheap due to the taxes, then there is no incentive to pass the savings along.
Don't confuse business working in a free market with business being artificially manipulated by government entities. They are two entirely different concepts. In a free or open market, you get an advantage by undercutting the competition. When the government regulated it, typically, it only hits part of a market so there is a cheaper alternative and the advantage is to get into the market strength. All of these forces go out the window when everything is effected equally. If every car in the country went up in price by $2,000, then there is no incentive to absorb those costs because all your competition is at the same disadvantage.
They will just change their name is it gets too bad. Maybe hire some mid level managers and advertise "now under new management".
There are tons of ways to get away from a bad image. The biggest hurdle might be the housing authority in the area. Some areas need to have the property inspected before it can be listed as a rental and the authority serves as a complaint compartment to investigate slums and stuff when the land lord refuses to fix problems. A lot of times this is associated with some program that allows government rent assistance or similar but isn't completely limited to them. For instance, in my area, if there is a problem that makes the house unlivable, the local housing authority can act as a middleman and hold the rent payments (you make the payment to them when this happens instead of the landlord) until repairs are made and it's illegal to evict you when this happens. Anyways, they could refuse to validate the properties in his or the company's name. But then again, a name change or a restructure could get around that.
I do not work for any oil interest.
No, our military involvement in the middle east has been about protecting our national interest period. If those interest include oil, so be it. But you (and whoever) are being disingenuous and purposely misleading by singling out oil if and when it's an objective. Our national security is the reasoning and if oil is part of that, it doesn't negate our national security.
This still creates no special benefit for oil companies verses green tech.
Your freedoms don't give you the ability to impose on my freedoms.
As for the constitution, it is a document that gives the federal government powers and prohibits certain actions it can take. It is not and never was a document governing the people. The first amendment only applies to the governments and that was in doubt until the 14th amendment was ratified.
So you are right that you have free speech, but when that speech harms someone else, they have a right to recourse. The only thing stopping recourse is when the government is behind it. I think the confusions become hard to differentiate when you end up with natural rights and legally protected rights. Free speech is both but not in an all encompassing way.
Not really, if someone is sued on shaky grounds, it is often dismissed before it even goes to trial. Also there is a slap law that states it's illegal to retaliate in the specific way you mentioned. In almost every area, if you can't afford a lawyer, you can find a legal aid who will either pay for the service or in most cases, almost every firm have pro bono charities that allow for the defense of people who can't afford their own.
What you see is a lot of past cases that brought about laws like the anti-slap laws. It shouldn't be a problem like you described today except in a few screwed up states like california.
Not really, the lawsuit could be attempting to use the exposure to prove damages. It would work something like only 20 people seeing it verses 20 million people. SO the exposure could actually be making it worse for the tenant not the landlord.
IF the mold wasn't known, I doubt anyone state could enforce penalties.
Generally, when you buy a house, you request a full and complete disclosure from the seller. This is where you list everything you know that could be considered wrong and effect any aspect of the sale. If you can prove they knew about it and failed to disclose it, then you can pretty much recoup damages because of their failure to disclose. However, some people don't know there is mold and therefore can't be held to it. This is where a competent inspector is a good idea.
And when checking out your inspector, find out what kind of insurance and so on they have. Often if the inspector misses something, they can be made to pay (their insurance) for their lack of thoroughness. This isn't screwing the inspector or being lawsuit happy as it may sound either. You paid them to disclose anything and everything about the house and used their professional findings as a basis for your decision for a major purchase.
And how has operation Ajax helped out oil? You bring up an example of the exact opposite of what you want to claim.
And yes, we would have bases in the middle east regardless of oil. Our first marine action under Thomas Jefferson made this happen when the Muslim Pirates were put at bay. Kuwait has long been a port of safe harbor for the US even under the ottoman empire which was somewhat hostile to us. And WWI is something that proved our need to remain in the area all independent of oil.
Also, as I said, the subsidies for oil was not to their benefit, it was to get the oil companies to do things they wouldn't otherwise do. If you read any of the links to the actual subsidies, you would know this as you have already demonstrated the ability not to remain ignorant by searching for the facts. You just seem to have stopped well short of getting them.
Now just so you are clear on the subsidies, someone in congress did not just wake up one day and say Exxon needs more money. They said we need this to happen, oil companies said it would cost so much and there wouldn't be a profit, and the congress in turned alleviated part of the losses in order to make it happen. That is how the subsidies work and most of the oil companies actually lose money on the projects that qualify to get them. Government is not propping oil up unless you completely ignore this fact, but then you would end up making wild accusations and looking silly to anyone who invested the time to look.
The military is not helping oil out. That's just crazy. The government subsidies aren't either. Those are targeted at getting oil companies to do things they wouldn't already be doing and helps recoup some of the costs.
Look around and get in line with reality. I'm getting sick of half informed idiots claiming completely false crap in order to push an agenda that will end up costing me shitloads of money.
I think you might be a little confused. First, the legal tire depot could have stayed the same without the cleanup costs being paid. Second, the illegal tire dump should have been charged back to those who dumped there. In other words, the costs could have been recuperated. But even just sitting on the property without doing any cleanup could lead to making money from them when recycling becomes more profitable and more uses can be found for them. One example of this could be the use of the tires as filler in adobe style buildings that are popular out west. The 125 million tons of tires could have been shipped to people who would purchase them for this goal or they could come and pick them up on their own. So the costs was only there because of a specific decision made, not because it is a burden on the public.
However, in my state, there is a disposal fee charged for all tires that is marked and shown separate on the bill any time you leave the tires at the shop. So unless the tire dumps started at some time before it became illegal to dump them, I'm not sure how the money wouldn't have already been collected if the other states did the same. It costs something like $2.50 to $5.00 per tire for disposal fees with the higher prices generally going to special recycling plants who do something different in their disposal that is supposed to be more sound or something.
There will be trash. That is a given when humans live there. That is a problem of the entire society, not the ones who pollute. Most fast food wrappers are biodegradable nowadays and outside of the asthetic issue, doesn't present too much of a problem.
I think you are confusing people finding ways to do this through market forces verses forcing it by government. There is a difference because the efficiencies gained were driven primarily by market forces that allowed increased profits where government mandates don't have that edge. Look at your phone bill, it hasn't gotten cheaper with time and they typically separate the government mandated fees so you can understand why their $30 per month service is actually billed at $45.
If people can make things more efficiently and pay for it in savings, then fine, let it happen. Forcing it is more or less a license to not pass the savings on and keep it as profit. Seriously, If I could make a car that was 7 times as efficient as today's vehicles while being just as safe if not safer and costing 25% less, and the government jacked the prices of everything up to promote the use of the inefficient and more costly green tech, why would I pass the savings on to the consumer when the costs are artificially in place and all my competition has to pay more? All I have to do then is beat my competition's price slightly and pocket the remainder.
How do you know the spin wasn't the truth?
It's entirely possible that both realities are completely true and the length of time to get into compliance was simply legal delays ensuring they had a right to the code and that the code wouldn't move into other licensed code they had. Meanwhile, not producing the source code when you distribute something is something that is almost always violated. Even major distributions do it when they offer binary update services and don't provide the source code along side it or keep it availible for 3 years. It's petty in the scheme of things and never gets complained about or called evil when distros do it.
They are obligated to make it apparent on how to get the source code though. If they chose to mail the source upon request, then they needed to include that written offer with the binary to make it obvious.
If the code is in the kernel tree, wouldn't the exception apply?
However, as a special exception, the source code distributed need not include anything that is normally distributed (in either source or binary form) with the major components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of the operating system on which the executable runs, unless that component itself accompanies the executable.
Yes, the truth is a troll when you don't want to see it.
Oh well, it will be corrected in meta moderation just like the other times these global warming fanboys have to face the hard facts. And no, it's not like the Pixie fairies of bubble-yum forest were if you have to believe hard enough.