find something to sell that the world actually looks forward to paying for
I don't know about you guys and gals, but I'm looking forward to giving them money for one of those tabletop touch computers that are not currently being sold to consumers outside, I think, the restaurant industry.
Provided it doesn't cost a kajillion double-dollars.
I find it perfectly acceptable to offer an option of full purchase and metered use. That way, you can minimize your cost based on use and cheaply use expensive software legitimately (a pull factor to stop pirating Photoshop, which increases Adobe's income and decreases torts).
I'm willing to concede that my characterization was not perfect. I'm not sure what an authoritative source would be, but at least one website agrees with me, at least on the relevant issue to this discussion.
What was being discussed was whether NCAs are anti-capitalistic. Wikipedia states that
In capitalism, private rights and property relations are protected by the rule of law of a limited regulatory framework.
Furthermore,
Laissez-faire, which some consider to be the pure form of capitalism in which the state only exercises minimal control over the economy, has never existed in practice.
I see nothing that negates what I said, and in fact things that reinforce what I said. On the other hand, I see nothing that supports what my co-discussor (??) said, but many things that contradict it.
I completely agree with you on the NCA. But I think NDAs are very necessary to keep trade secrets secret. I mean, it's very difficult to work on really awesome military-funded research without signing an NDA.
Depends on your goals, though. If you want ultimate liberty, don't sign away any rights via contract. However, if you want to work on government-funded research, it might be in your best interest.
Companies coming up with NCAs and NDAs do not promote competition and thus they do not promote capitalism.
I agreed with you up until that point. You say that if there is not competition, there is not capitalism.
That is false. You are redefining the word "capitalism" to mean what you want it to mean.
"Capitalism" has a definition, and it has nothing to do with restraint imposed by private contracts. The freedom to contract away your rights is an essential element of capitalism.
You're suggesting that employing capitalism in its purest form negates it. That makes no sense.
I agree with your stance that NDAs and NCAs are anti-competitive. That is practically a tautaulogy.
What I'm disagreeing with is your repeated (apparently tangential) assertion that "anti-competitiveness equals anti-capitalism." This is all I am saying is false.
protectionism by private companies when it starts infringing on ability of people to find employment is anti competitive and is not capitalism.
Anticompetitive actions taken by private entities fit perfectly in the rubrick of capitalism.
I think you're misunderstanding what capitalism is. Pure capitalism is merely the absence of government regulation on private economic activity. That is all. I've said this three times, and you've never addressed this point. This is axiomatic. If you disagree with this (which you seem to, impliedly), then we will not ever reach an agreement on whether NCAs are capitalistic. But by disagreeing with this axiom, you demonstrate that you don't know what capitalism is.
If the market creates an NCA, then it is by definition capitalistic.
I am still absolutely correct that the idea of protectionism is anti-capitalist
No, you're absolutely wrong. Protectionism by private companies is by definition capitalist. Capitalism is merely the interaction of private individuals with minimal (in the purest form, none) government intervention. That is it.
In pure capitalism, if the market creates an NCA, it's capitalism. If the government outlaws NCAs, then it is by definition anticapitalist.
Yes, but how would this be any less reactionary and ill-advised (i.e., to negate the freedom to contract) than passing the PATRIOT Act because of terrorism, etc.?
If we criticize Congress for passing overreactive laws in response to the fear of a terroristic death, shouldn't we also rightly criticize Congress for passing overreactive laws in response to the fear of an economic death?
I worry about Congress, in the current climate, passing an overrestrictive law destroying much of the freedom to contract.
Could you explain about KingBen rips? What makes them especially relevant to the rules of the scene? Google only turns up torrent links, nothing about what's the dealio with KingBen rips. And, while not part of the scene, I tend to have information about its lingo, code, etc. It's trivial to find out what TS, etc. mean.
Perhaps when you get a form letter in return that shows they didn't read your letter in depth, that suggests that they didn't get enough anti-ID letters to put forth a thought-out response.
In other words, the electorate spoke, and it disagrees with your opinion. Thus, the MP went with what the electorate, not one person (or a minority), wanted.
I'm not saying that's what happened, but every time I write to my senator about how I think on an issue, I always get form letters back assuring me I'm wrong.
But then again, that's because I'm pushing progressive policies to one of the most conservative members of the Senate (Hutchinson), who is likely about to declare her intent to run for Governor of Texas.
Not if the child were properly nutritioned. Quinoa, a plant whose seeds are popular among the vegan crowd, is about 12% protein by calories. The FDA's recommended intake of protein is 10%. This makes quinoa higher than recommended.
Soy is another food with a high protein concentration. If you produce soy isolate, you get something that is about 70% protein, 20% carbs, and 10% fat/ash/water/etc. You can even get it up to 90%. And soy provides all the essential amino acids, too.
IANAV nor V (I eat poultry every day and red meat occasionally), but I do know many.
That is extremely interesting. We only touch on this in law school in the US (unless you take elective courses regarding foreign legal systems).
We learn in Constitutional Law that one reason we have a trifurcated system because it was the "natural" progression and reaction to the trend in England at the time.
In my understanding, the basic trend was that supreme power was vested in the monarch. The Crown controlled Parliament and the judiciary was subservient to the it as well, being appointed and controlled by the monarch.
Basically, the Parliament of the UK was once merely councils of advisors to the Crown*. Then the Magna Carta came into being, forcing the Crown to cede some regulatory powers (over taxation) ultimately to tenants-in-chief (high nobles who had advised the monarch, among other things), which eventually became the Parliament.
So, with the Magna Carta, the legislative body began breaking out and forming its own distinctive "branch" of government. Then came the English Bill of Rights and other things. Eventually, it became almost automatic for the monarch to approve of acts of Parliament, weakening the doctrine of Royal Assent (Royal Assent could be withheld to block legislation. In theory, the Queen could block legislation to this very day (if my understanding of the UK is correct--which it very well may not be), but in practice she wouldn't because it undoubtedly would soil the reputation of the Royal institution (by getting involved in politics).
In a similar manner (but later in time), the judiciary became a distinct branch. The modern Common Law judiciary began about 1000 years ago in England (and Wales?). In the 12th century distinct courts were created (King's Bench, Courts of Assize, etc.) by the monarch. By the 1500s, the judiciary was drifting away from the monarch while still remaining quasi-executive in nature because it was not completely independent of the Crown.
Technically speaking, it was not until 2006 that the judiciary of the UK became fully independent with the Constitutional Reform Act of 2005. But in practice, the judiciary has been fully independent since the 1700s. In 1701, the Act of Settlement established the right of judges to hold office in times of good behavior (we see echoes of this in the United States Constitution).
It is in this milieu that the United States Constitution was written and ratified. And because it's extremely difficult to modify the US Constitution, the system has remained the way it was designed. However, I'm not sure how we would modify the courts even if we could. I think most people are relatively pleased that the courts are not subservient to the Congress or President. However, I bet a few anti-abortionists would prefer if federal judges were controlled by the President or were popularly elected.
But this entire post was off-topic. I just find the development of English courts and the seeds of US government fascinating.
* Interestingly but almost irrelevantly, before William the Conqueror came over, the Anglo-Saxon equivalent of advisors to the Crown were the Witenagemot, which sounds an awful lot like the high court in Harry Potter, the Wizengamot. I can't help but think that JK Rowling did this on purpose. It's possible she knows some Old English, because Witenagemot is Old English for "meeting of wise men." Perhaps "Wizengamot" would be quasi-Old English for "meeting of wizards."
Any UKers out there want to correct misstatements I made about UK institutions, feel free!
Interesting. I wikipediaed "prime minister." It says the PM the head of the executive branch. I'm primarily confused because I thought the PM was chosen from all members of parliament by parliament and not by popular vote (this is the way in the UK, no? not sure about Italy).
Since parliament is the legislature, and the PM is chosen by parliament, does this mean the head of the executive branch is not elected by the people? That seems odd to me, but then again, I've spent the 25 years of my life in a system in which the only head-of-branch who is not democratically elected is the Chief Justice of the SCOTUS. And parliamentary citizens might find that odd if their judges are popularly elected.
To get technical, applying utilitarian activity is applying utilitarianism, a philosophy which uses the morality of "maximising the public good" as its metric (approximately).
Since they work with the cops, it's safe to assume they only show the guilty ones, so those found innocent aren't being misrepresented.
There are cases from episodes that aired in 2006 that still haven't finished at trial yet. An episode from last year still hasn't had trials begin yet.
I will commend Hansen because he has distinguished between pedophilia (a disease in the DSM, the psychiatry Bible) and sexual predation (a crime).
As for whether he's the President Elect or not, I'd like to quote the Presidential Transition Act of 1963, which created the office:
The term[] "President-elect" . . . as used in this Act shall mean such person[] as [is] the apparent successful candidate[] for the office of the President . . . as ascertained by the Administrator following the general elections held to determine the electors of the President and Vice-President in accordance with title 3, United States code, sections 1 and 2. (Emphasis added.)
Looks to me like he's the president elect under the act that created the office.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't know about you guys and gals, but I'm looking forward to giving them money for one of those tabletop touch computers that are not currently being sold to consumers outside, I think, the restaurant industry.
Provided it doesn't cost a kajillion double-dollars.
I find it perfectly acceptable to offer an option of full purchase and metered use. That way, you can minimize your cost based on use and cheaply use expensive software legitimately (a pull factor to stop pirating Photoshop, which increases Adobe's income and decreases torts).
I'm willing to concede that my characterization was not perfect. I'm not sure what an authoritative source would be, but at least one website agrees with me, at least on the relevant issue to this discussion.
What was being discussed was whether NCAs are anti-capitalistic. Wikipedia states that
Furthermore,
I see nothing that negates what I said, and in fact things that reinforce what I said. On the other hand, I see nothing that supports what my co-discussor (??) said, but many things that contradict it.
I completely agree with you on the NCA. But I think NDAs are very necessary to keep trade secrets secret. I mean, it's very difficult to work on really awesome military-funded research without signing an NDA.
Depends on your goals, though. If you want ultimate liberty, don't sign away any rights via contract. However, if you want to work on government-funded research, it might be in your best interest.
I agreed with you up until that point. You say that if there is not competition, there is not capitalism.
That is false. You are redefining the word "capitalism" to mean what you want it to mean.
"Capitalism" has a definition, and it has nothing to do with restraint imposed by private contracts. The freedom to contract away your rights is an essential element of capitalism.
You're suggesting that employing capitalism in its purest form negates it. That makes no sense.
I agree with your stance that NDAs and NCAs are anti-competitive. That is practically a tautaulogy.
What I'm disagreeing with is your repeated (apparently tangential) assertion that "anti-competitiveness equals anti-capitalism." This is all I am saying is false.
Anticompetitive actions taken by private entities fit perfectly in the rubrick of capitalism.
I think you're misunderstanding what capitalism is. Pure capitalism is merely the absence of government regulation on private economic activity. That is all. I've said this three times, and you've never addressed this point. This is axiomatic. If you disagree with this (which you seem to, impliedly), then we will not ever reach an agreement on whether NCAs are capitalistic. But by disagreeing with this axiom, you demonstrate that you don't know what capitalism is.
If the market creates an NCA, then it is by definition capitalistic.
No, you're absolutely wrong. Protectionism by private companies is by definition capitalist. Capitalism is merely the interaction of private individuals with minimal (in the purest form, none) government intervention. That is it.
In pure capitalism, if the market creates an NCA, it's capitalism. If the government outlaws NCAs, then it is by definition anticapitalist.
I have no idea what the hell you think "capitalism" is, but privately-created protectionism still counts as capitalism, boy-o.
Capitalism in its purest form is the absence of government regulation, not anticompetitive measures taken by private entities such as corporations.
People like to throw around the word "anticapitalism" whenever something happens that they don't like.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism
To be fair, over 50% of all shares in major stock markets today are held by institutional investors--mutual funds, banks, etc.
I have a bank account. But I sure as hell don't know what holdings my bank has. I doubt the average Joe on the street does, either.
So it's not me turning a blind eye to corporate practices when it's institutional investors who control the majority of the market.
Yes, but how would this be any less reactionary and ill-advised (i.e., to negate the freedom to contract) than passing the PATRIOT Act because of terrorism, etc.?
If we criticize Congress for passing overreactive laws in response to the fear of a terroristic death, shouldn't we also rightly criticize Congress for passing overreactive laws in response to the fear of an economic death?
I worry about Congress, in the current climate, passing an overrestrictive law destroying much of the freedom to contract.
4chan is hosted in the US. What was that about the First Amendment failing in the US?
Could you explain about KingBen rips? What makes them especially relevant to the rules of the scene? Google only turns up torrent links, nothing about what's the dealio with KingBen rips. And, while not part of the scene, I tend to have information about its lingo, code, etc. It's trivial to find out what TS, etc. mean.
Perhaps when you get a form letter in return that shows they didn't read your letter in depth, that suggests that they didn't get enough anti-ID letters to put forth a thought-out response.
In other words, the electorate spoke, and it disagrees with your opinion. Thus, the MP went with what the electorate, not one person (or a minority), wanted.
I'm not saying that's what happened, but every time I write to my senator about how I think on an issue, I always get form letters back assuring me I'm wrong.
But then again, that's because I'm pushing progressive policies to one of the most conservative members of the Senate (Hutchinson), who is likely about to declare her intent to run for Governor of Texas.
No, it's more like registering a username on Slashdot, and then being told you're not allowed to use car analogies.
Stop living in the steel age. We welcome you to the wax age!
Not if the child were properly nutritioned. Quinoa, a plant whose seeds are popular among the vegan crowd, is about 12% protein by calories. The FDA's recommended intake of protein is 10%. This makes quinoa higher than recommended.
Soy is another food with a high protein concentration. If you produce soy isolate, you get something that is about 70% protein, 20% carbs, and 10% fat/ash/water/etc. You can even get it up to 90%. And soy provides all the essential amino acids, too.
IANAV nor V (I eat poultry every day and red meat occasionally), but I do know many.
That is extremely interesting. We only touch on this in law school in the US (unless you take elective courses regarding foreign legal systems).
We learn in Constitutional Law that one reason we have a trifurcated system because it was the "natural" progression and reaction to the trend in England at the time.
In my understanding, the basic trend was that supreme power was vested in the monarch. The Crown controlled Parliament and the judiciary was subservient to the it as well, being appointed and controlled by the monarch.
Basically, the Parliament of the UK was once merely councils of advisors to the Crown*. Then the Magna Carta came into being, forcing the Crown to cede some regulatory powers (over taxation) ultimately to tenants-in-chief (high nobles who had advised the monarch, among other things), which eventually became the Parliament.
So, with the Magna Carta, the legislative body began breaking out and forming its own distinctive "branch" of government. Then came the English Bill of Rights and other things. Eventually, it became almost automatic for the monarch to approve of acts of Parliament, weakening the doctrine of Royal Assent (Royal Assent could be withheld to block legislation. In theory, the Queen could block legislation to this very day (if my understanding of the UK is correct--which it very well may not be), but in practice she wouldn't because it undoubtedly would soil the reputation of the Royal institution (by getting involved in politics).
In a similar manner (but later in time), the judiciary became a distinct branch. The modern Common Law judiciary began about 1000 years ago in England (and Wales?). In the 12th century distinct courts were created (King's Bench, Courts of Assize, etc.) by the monarch. By the 1500s, the judiciary was drifting away from the monarch while still remaining quasi-executive in nature because it was not completely independent of the Crown.
Technically speaking, it was not until 2006 that the judiciary of the UK became fully independent with the Constitutional Reform Act of 2005. But in practice, the judiciary has been fully independent since the 1700s. In 1701, the Act of Settlement established the right of judges to hold office in times of good behavior (we see echoes of this in the United States Constitution).
It is in this milieu that the United States Constitution was written and ratified. And because it's extremely difficult to modify the US Constitution, the system has remained the way it was designed. However, I'm not sure how we would modify the courts even if we could. I think most people are relatively pleased that the courts are not subservient to the Congress or President. However, I bet a few anti-abortionists would prefer if federal judges were controlled by the President or were popularly elected.
But this entire post was off-topic. I just find the development of English courts and the seeds of US government fascinating.
* Interestingly but almost irrelevantly, before William the Conqueror came over, the Anglo-Saxon equivalent of advisors to the Crown were the Witenagemot, which sounds an awful lot like the high court in Harry Potter, the Wizengamot. I can't help but think that JK Rowling did this on purpose. It's possible she knows some Old English, because Witenagemot is Old English for "meeting of wise men." Perhaps "Wizengamot" would be quasi-Old English for "meeting of wizards."
Any UKers out there want to correct misstatements I made about UK institutions, feel free!
How often do you resize your browser window that any performance hit would be measurable?
Interesting. I wikipediaed "prime minister." It says the PM the head of the executive branch. I'm primarily confused because I thought the PM was chosen from all members of parliament by parliament and not by popular vote (this is the way in the UK, no? not sure about Italy).
Since parliament is the legislature, and the PM is chosen by parliament, does this mean the head of the executive branch is not elected by the people? That seems odd to me, but then again, I've spent the 25 years of my life in a system in which the only head-of-branch who is not democratically elected is the Chief Justice of the SCOTUS. And parliamentary citizens might find that odd if their judges are popularly elected.
To get technical, applying utilitarian activity is applying utilitarianism, a philosophy which uses the morality of "maximising the public good" as its metric (approximately).
But isn't a PM usually head of the legislature, not the executive branch?
There are cases from episodes that aired in 2006 that still haven't finished at trial yet. An episode from last year still hasn't had trials begin yet.
I will commend Hansen because he has distinguished between pedophilia (a disease in the DSM, the psychiatry Bible) and sexual predation (a crime).
eSeamonk is better. It's got the rhetro "e" prefix, and sounds like it's a kung fu pirate program.
As for whether he's the President Elect or not, I'd like to quote the Presidential Transition Act of 1963, which created the office:
Looks to me like he's the president elect under the act that created the office.
I'd like to quote the campaign of the nice, respected figure Thomas Jefferson about his rival, John Adams, who has a
Adams, likewise, said of Jefferson being
So, no, it was never not like this. Except the older insults were much more colorful and daring.