Have you ever watched a person you care for waste away because they couldn't afford the medication they needed? Have you ever asked a person who couldn't afford the medication they needed why they didn't have insurance? Or why they didn't save enough money for an emergency? Or why they live in a country that squashes the rights of its citizens and keeps people poor and in squalor, for fear of the governments might boot squashing them too?
Have you ever wondered why people don't delve into what, for example, has made a country like the USA incredibly wealthy over the short span of a couple centuries, with such a high standard of living?
Have you ever wondered why other countries do not emulate the principles of the U.S, to improve the lot of their own countries?
1. In a free-market, nobody can prevent you from entering a market as "competition".
2. In a free-market, there is no regulation on pricing. (This is where competition and reputation are important).
3. In a free-market, companies sell products to as many people as possible for as much as possible. If they can cut the price 50% and raise sales 10,000%, then they will do that.
4. Earning a profit is good. And I mean 'earn' as in individuals dealing honestly with each other, trading value for value.
they ought to play smarter and drop costs when countries try to negotiate price-the tactic of countries taking a compulsory license is a big weapon against which they have no counter. Wrong. This is where the government should be stepping in to protect America's interests through a combination of diplomatic means, which could ultimately include sanctions, embargoes, etc. As a poorer country, they have much more to lose from us than we have to gain from them, and it is entirely appropriate to demonstrate that fact to them.
the Brazilian government... makes sure every single HIV and AIDS patient in Brazil has the medicines. The only way it can do this is by stealing the formula from somewhere else. There is a reason why these kind of drugs are not invented in Brazil, and that is because people don't invent things in countries where the government takes what it wants, from whomever it wants, whenever it wants.
So - you seem to be perfectly happy to live in a country that routinely tramples over the rights of individuals to the point where you have health "epidemics", and then you are fine with the same government tactic of stealing other people's property to help the problems created by your own government. Could you be any more of an apologist?
Intellectual property is a form of property rights. These rights are required for humans to survive. Conversely, the abrogation of property rights is a force of destruction in humanity.
Brazil does not respect property rights, therefore the people of Brazil produce very little of any value beyond hand-to-mouth, and therefore their government can do nothing but steal from other countries in a blatant attempt to flout the same rights of individuals that allowed individuals to create the achievements in the first place.
are ISP like public roads? If not, then highway owners can block certain brands of cars or limit them to 1 lane I agree with this analogy, and another analogy would be: should people be free to discriminate against other people in business, etc.
However, I believe that people should be allowed to discriminate, that highway owners should be allowed to block brands of cars, and that ISPs should be allowed to mandate arbitrary usage charges for traffic.
The reason those activities should be allowed is not because they are good activities, but because I do not believe it is the purview of the government to mandate what kind of peaceful, voluntary relationships people/businesses may enter into.
As long as entity X is not forcing, defrauding, or otherwise infringing on the individual rights of all parties, the government ought not be involved.
Instead it is up to you, me, citizens, businesses, voluntary watchdog groups, etc. to be conscientious citizens and consumers and drive the marketplace through peaceful, voluntary cultural change. And by leaving businesses free to compete, nothing can stop a competitor for stepping in and providing real value where an unpopular, shady company is currently entrenched.
The 'big stick' approach of government is just a slippery slope: once the government is allowed to proscribe your thoughts, actions, and otherwise voluntary interactions with others, then it is only a matter of time before they are telling you to do/say/act in ways that you disagree with, but will have no power to control (welcome to Russia/China, etc.)
Government getting involved in business is what causes anti-competitive practices in the first places, since they are the only ones who can prevent competition through the use of special franchises, subsidies, political favoritism and protectionism, etc.
The solution is not to get government power more involved in peaceful, voluntary business transactions - but to get it out of the way so real competition can occur.
Fortunately, 'ranting' and 'decrying' does not carry financial penalties. If you want to protect freedom of speech, you have to protect for even the most slimy characters, such as Jack Thompson, or pornographers.
I am native of Japan, and where I grew up nobody but cops were allowed to carry guns.
I do admire how the Japanese culture is generally respectful of law enforcement, and how non-violence is broadly accepted in the culture.
However, Japanese live under the thumb of the government, who have broad search and seizure capabilities. There are many in the U.S.A. who believe that the ability of the public to arm itself is a means of securing our freedoms from within and from without. So - for example - there will be no 'Emperor Hirohito' who takes power over the U.S.A using legal and extralegal means (such as happened in Japan leading up to WWII). We also believe in limited government power, whereas the Japanese are willing to accept the broad authority of law enforcement to do basically whatever it wishes - which seems ok, until another HiroHito comes along and attaches a leash to that collared neck.
What do you mean that the customer 'paid for the internet'? What the customer paid for was access to a long chain of telecom equipment provided by businesses who engineered, deployed, and marketed their services.
Tiered services are a part of many industries, including Customer Service, Shipping, Transportation (first class anyone?), and many others.
Forcing businesses into government-mandated business models is wrong. It only stifles the creation of new business and innovation, while increasing the control of politicians over citizens lives.
You may be allergic to cities, but many people enjoy the culture and convenience of living in dense populations. For one thing, they allow for much more industrial specialization (in a big city, you might have a specialty shop to repair/clothe dolls, for example). For another thing, the sheer number of cultural activities (theater, art, music, social gatherings, special interest clubs, etc.) exceeds anything in a sub-urban, or rural setting.
It is the opposite of lifeless - it is full of living, industrious activity. People are not trying to 'escape the million sets of eyes which lurk' - they seek and find meaning in their existence. You don't need to live in a mud hut in the wilderness, sleeping on piles of muddy leaves in order to have a philosophically meaningful existence. Nature is a great place to visit, but I wouldn't want to live there...
One of the inevitable consequences of capitalism is that it distributes scarce goods inequitably. In a drought, the poor go thirsty while the rich water their golf courses. In a famine, the poor starve while the rich put biodiesel into their SUVs. Actually, you've got it all backwards. Take a look around - have you noticed that the condition of the poor is directly proportional to the amount of Capitalism in a country. American poor are tremendously better off than Ethiopian poor, and any poor of today are better off then the poor of 500 years ago.
In a free (Capitalist) nation, nobody can stop a poor person from rising as far as his ability will take him. In non-free countries, you are subject to the whims of your rulers and masters.
And just because someone is poor does not mean they are deserving of sympathy. In non-Capitalistic countries, it is easy to sympathize with people who are unable to break the chains of the oppressive regimes they struggle under. But in free countries, only a small minority of poor are actually incapable of producing wealth to sustain themselves.
Who would be a paid shill for the "global warming is a serious threat to us all" side? And who is paying them? That's easy: Someone lusting for political and financial power by using the US government as an instrument of power. If you can put yourself in a position of legislative or executive decision making over commerce and industry, then you can award favors and perks to companies that you like, and punish companies that you don't like. (enter the lobbyists)
It has taken OpenOffice almost two years since standardization and still they cannot fully support ODF yet
Not only that, but the simple fact that a standard exists does not automatically mean that it is the best thing, the only thing, and that everyone should use it now and forever. There is room for debate, disagreement, and non-conformity in the standards arena - and I find it somewhat disturbing when there is a tremendous amount of peer/community pressure for you to comply with the current groupthink.
Yes, and if if people on slashdot starting saying the earth was actually a giant cube, they owuld[sic] have the same results.
This is a red-herring. The 'results' that would be achieved on Slashdot are irrelevant to the argument for/against man-made global-warming.
Before throwing your hat in with this guy, you might want to research his motivations.
This is an ad-hominem attack. You are substituting an attack on his motivations for what should be an attack on the actual claim.
Also, he is a geographer, not a climatologist. Has written zero papers on climatology, has no experience in climatology.
This is a valid point. However, are you a climatologist who has written papers? Because you also try to offer up "proof" of global warming, which might come across as hypocritical in the extreme.
MOST scientists agree that humans have impacted the enviroment[sic] and are a major contributer to global climate change.
This is the bandwagon fallacy (argument ad populem.) It does not matter how many people agree are in agreement on any topic - agreement, per se, does not make something true.
You go ahead and bury your head in the sand; where you can make yourself believe the humans haven't impact their enviroment at all.
This is an appeal to ridicule, substituting mockery for an actual argument.
I am baffled how such a befuddled attempt at making an argument could have been modded up so high.
something would of probably been done about global worming 10 - 15 years ago, however due to lobbying from very wealthy...
Your desire to persecute the wealthy not-withstanding... 10-15 years ago scientists were just getting past the previous scare that the Earth was experiencing global cooling. Earth warming and cooling occurs in 40 year cycles, which exist within larger 400 year cycles, which exist in yet larger 20,000 year cycles, etc.
So instead of burning businessmen at the stake today, just wait another 5,000 years or so and the Earth will probably be back to a frozen wasteland!
Anyone who cites Ayn Rand or Michael Crichton as a valid source of knowledge has proven they lack a decent education.
Actually, I have a decent education and I have quoted one or the other of these figures as sources of knowledge from time to time. In anticipation of your weak response, I will remind you:
The No True Scotsman fallacy is a way of reinterpreting evidence in order to prevent the refutation of one's position. Proposed counter-examples to a theory are dismissed as irrelevant solely because they are counter-examples, but purportedly because they are not what the theory is about.
Example
If Angus, a Glaswegian, who puts sugar on his porridge, is proposed as a counter-example to the claim No Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge, the 'No true Scotsman' fallacy would run as follows:
(1) Angus puts sugar on his porridge.
(2) No (true) Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge.
Therefore:
(3) Angus is not a (true) Scotsman.
Therefore:
(4) Angus is not a counter-example to the claim that no Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge.
This fallacy is a form of circular argument, with an existing belief being assumed to be true in order to dismiss any apparent counter-examples to it. The existing belief thus becomes unfalsifiable.
we know for sure we could reduce the effect by reducing human output of greenhouse gases
If human beings were simply wiped off the face of the Earth, there would be quite a reduction in 'greenhouse gases'. I think there is not an insignificant percentage of those to whom human existence or well-being in irrelevant to their environmentalist beliefs. 'Nature Good, Humans Bad' is an attitude I hear a lot - as if humans are not a part of nature, and as if 'good' exists outside of human life.
Global Warming has been happening since the end of the last ice age, has happened between every ice age, and would happen with or without the existence of mankind.
Customers using F/OSS projects can take the last free version and continue from there, which is a serious head start compared with starting from scratch.
That is not necessarily true... There could be many ways were starting from scratch could create a better, more maintainable, friendlier product.
tomorrow if IBM decides to change the fee structure and demand an arm and a leg or it thinks it should change the file formats to keep the competition out or decide to drop support for some API to maintain an advantage... Guess what? There is nothing to stop the customers/competitors to take the ball run circles around IBM. That is why Open source is not all that predatory.
That is no different than propietary source - assuming the government has not put up entry barriers, a competitor/customer can always come up with their own propietary solution to run circles around predatory pricing.
Carbon-neutral fuels like ethanol do not cause an appreciable net increase in atmospheric levels of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide. This is because the fuel releases carbon that has only recently been taken up by plants during photosynthesis, the process by which plants convert carbon dioxide to oxygen and sugars. The same is not true for petroleum, in which the carbon contents were removed from the atmosphere millions of years ago.
Am I reading this right? This is saying that the recycler doesn't significantly increase atmospheric CO2 because it is only increasing "new" CO2 instead of "old" CO2. Doesn't this kind of accounting violate Sarbanes-Oxley or something?
Actually, since global warming occurs between every ice-age, regardless of mankind, you can actually THANK global warming for the existence of most of the life on the planet.
Slashdot Mirror
Have you ever wondered why people don't delve into what, for example, has made a country like the USA incredibly wealthy over the short span of a couple centuries, with such a high standard of living?
Have you ever wondered why other countries do not emulate the principles of the U.S, to improve the lot of their own countries?
1. In a free-market, nobody can prevent you from entering a market as "competition".
2. In a free-market, there is no regulation on pricing. (This is where competition and reputation are important).
3. In a free-market, companies sell products to as many people as possible for as much as possible. If they can cut the price 50% and raise sales 10,000%, then they will do that.
4. Earning a profit is good. And I mean 'earn' as in individuals dealing honestly with each other, trading value for value.
So - you seem to be perfectly happy to live in a country that routinely tramples over the rights of individuals to the point where you have health "epidemics", and then you are fine with the same government tactic of stealing other people's property to help the problems created by your own government. Could you be any more of an apologist?
Brazil does not respect property rights, therefore the people of Brazil produce very little of any value beyond hand-to-mouth, and therefore their government can do nothing but steal from other countries in a blatant attempt to flout the same rights of individuals that allowed individuals to create the achievements in the first place.
However, I believe that people should be allowed to discriminate, that highway owners should be allowed to block brands of cars, and that ISPs should be allowed to mandate arbitrary usage charges for traffic.
The reason those activities should be allowed is not because they are good activities, but because I do not believe it is the purview of the government to mandate what kind of peaceful, voluntary relationships people/businesses may enter into.
As long as entity X is not forcing, defrauding, or otherwise infringing on the individual rights of all parties, the government ought not be involved.
Instead it is up to you, me, citizens, businesses, voluntary watchdog groups, etc. to be conscientious citizens and consumers and drive the marketplace through peaceful, voluntary cultural change. And by leaving businesses free to compete, nothing can stop a competitor for stepping in and providing real value where an unpopular, shady company is currently entrenched.
The 'big stick' approach of government is just a slippery slope: once the government is allowed to proscribe your thoughts, actions, and otherwise voluntary interactions with others, then it is only a matter of time before they are telling you to do/say/act in ways that you disagree with, but will have no power to control (welcome to Russia/China, etc.)
Government getting involved in business is what causes anti-competitive practices in the first places, since they are the only ones who can prevent competition through the use of special franchises, subsidies, political favoritism and protectionism, etc.
The solution is not to get government power more involved in peaceful, voluntary business transactions - but to get it out of the way so real competition can occur.
Fortunately, 'ranting' and 'decrying' does not carry financial penalties. If you want to protect freedom of speech, you have to protect for even the most slimy characters, such as Jack Thompson, or pornographers.
I do admire how the Japanese culture is generally respectful of law enforcement, and how non-violence is broadly accepted in the culture.
However, Japanese live under the thumb of the government, who have broad search and seizure capabilities. There are many in the U.S.A. who believe that the ability of the public to arm itself is a means of securing our freedoms from within and from without. So - for example - there will be no 'Emperor Hirohito' who takes power over the U.S.A using legal and extralegal means (such as happened in Japan leading up to WWII). We also believe in limited government power, whereas the Japanese are willing to accept the broad authority of law enforcement to do basically whatever it wishes - which seems ok, until another HiroHito comes along and attaches a leash to that collared neck.
Tiered services are a part of many industries, including Customer Service, Shipping, Transportation (first class anyone?), and many others.
Forcing businesses into government-mandated business models is wrong. It only stifles the creation of new business and innovation, while increasing the control of politicians over citizens lives.
It is the opposite of lifeless - it is full of living, industrious activity. People are not trying to 'escape the million sets of eyes which lurk' - they seek and find meaning in their existence. You don't need to live in a mud hut in the wilderness, sleeping on piles of muddy leaves in order to have a philosophically meaningful existence. Nature is a great place to visit, but I wouldn't want to live there...
In a free (Capitalist) nation, nobody can stop a poor person from rising as far as his ability will take him. In non-free countries, you are subject to the whims of your rulers and masters.
And just because someone is poor does not mean they are deserving of sympathy. In non-Capitalistic countries, it is easy to sympathize with people who are unable to break the chains of the oppressive regimes they struggle under. But in free countries, only a small minority of poor are actually incapable of producing wealth to sustain themselves.
You have heard of politics before - right?
I am baffled how such a befuddled attempt at making an argument could have been modded up so high.
So instead of burning businessmen at the stake today, just wait another 5,000 years or so and the Earth will probably be back to a frozen wasteland!
(From http://www.logicalfallacies.info/notruescotsman.ht ml):
The No True Scotsman fallacy is a way of reinterpreting evidence in order to prevent the refutation of one's position. Proposed counter-examples to a theory are dismissed as irrelevant solely because they are counter-examples, but purportedly because they are not what the theory is about.
Example
If Angus, a Glaswegian, who puts sugar on his porridge, is proposed as a counter-example to the claim No Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge, the 'No true Scotsman' fallacy would run as follows:
(1) Angus puts sugar on his porridge.
(2) No (true) Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge. Therefore:
(3) Angus is not a (true) Scotsman. Therefore:
(4) Angus is not a counter-example to the claim that no Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge.
This fallacy is a form of circular argument, with an existing belief being assumed to be true in order to dismiss any apparent counter-examples to it. The existing belief thus becomes unfalsifiable.
Global Warming has been happening since the end of the last ice age, has happened between every ice age, and would happen with or without the existence of mankind.
Actually, since global warming occurs between every ice-age, regardless of mankind, you can actually THANK global warming for the existence of most of the life on the planet.