I do NOT accept at all the common interpretation on the creation account. Quite frankly it is a vision of the creation of the earth and solar system, seen from the perspective of the earth, described by an uneducated man completely (or at least mostly) ignorant of modern science, who did not really understand what he was seeing. It was then transcribed by people who knew even less. For a more detailed description of what happens in genisis chap. 1 see any modern text on the formation of the earth and solar system.
Short version, the order of things occuring in genisis is the same as modern theory. "in the beginning the earth was void and without form" big cloud of dust (aka pre-planetary ring of dust around the forming star) anyone? "let there be light" the sun finally lit, before the dust cloud obscured all the other stars etc. Now there was light, but all you could see was thick dust (think dense fog, where is the sun?) "and god divided the light from the darkness" the solar wind started to blow away the dust and you could tell when the sun was up, but not yet see the sun distinctly. etc. Even "and the earth brought forth grass... " etc describes the evolution of life very well. you can fill in the rest, I do not have time. Modern theory and genisis are describing the exact same event. Any differences are due to 1) misunderstanding the bible, and 2) incomplete understanding of the formation of the earth. Mostly 1 and not 2 anymore. Oh, and most 'christians' are still stuck on the old greek ideas of 'ex nihilo' (god made the world 'out of nothing') or 'poof, and then there was...'
Actually, the pyramids in egypt are anomolies, almost all other pyrimids (old and new world!) have temples of some sort on the top. The ancient world had a facination with mountains, and saw little difference between a mountain and a temple. They made their temples look like mountains, and used mountains when they did not have temples (Remember moses and mount sinai? and the temple in jerusalem being built on a (small) mountain?) The tower of babel was a tower to get to heaven, just not by walking there.
This is the trouble with most biblical stories. Not the story itself, but the interpretation. They usually are from, say a renaissance painting like you said, instead of an understanding of the culture and history of the people that the bible is talking about. This also wouldn't be that much of a problem, except most people are kind of stupid. Especially many of the religious types. If I said in church (yes, I go there most sundays) that Noah's flood did not cover all of the land on the planet, I would be gaurenteed an argument despite tons of geologic evidence to the contrary. Most religious people equate their ignorant interpretation of the bible with 'the way it happened' and take any attempt to correct their ignorance as an attempt to disprove the bible.
I ran into a similar problem with the 2.4.x series and the nvidia drivers. The file (modversion.h in 2.4.x) is only generated if you have a certain option selected in the.config. I believe it is CONFIG_MODVERSIONS. There is a similar option in 2.6.x under Loadable Module Support.
I am starting to suspect we have different ideas of what the "best" economic system will do. Yours seems to be one that does not allow people to die on the streets, and that this takes precedence over producing lots of wealth and a high average (both mean and median) standard of living.
I am of the opinion that this is dangerous. If you take those who would be dying on the street and give them enough to be somewhat comfortable, there is less incentive for that person to really work hard and produce something. Doing nothing has a smaller cost - somewhat comfortable instead of starving in the street. The cost to society as a whole is the cost of supporting these people, and the lost production that these people would have provided. This cost goes directly to those who produce, increasing the cost of doing something productive without providing any bennifit (asside from the 'no more annoying beggars dying in the streets' I guess) This sets up a positive feedback loop: more people go on the dole, - more taxes and higher costs (lost production!) - less incentive to produce - more people on the dole . . . Usually what also happens here is those in power get themselves various tax exemptions/perks etc, because the arguments for this are almost identical to the arguments for greater welfare. The end result is a few really rich and a lot of people on the dole, and not enough peoduction to go around. This is exactally the dynamic that destroyed the Roman Empire.
The only way to control this is by defining exactally what 'somewhat comfortable' is. You have to keep this low enough to avoid the death spirial. Unfortunatly this is a very complex chaotic system that is extreamly difficult to mannage like that. It is inherantly unstable, and the ballance point is almost impossible to determine with any accuracy. The only real solution is to let them starve on the street, harsh as that sounds, in order to prevent the economic system from collapsing and causing lots more people to starve, without the means to produce at all.
Note: this argument assumes that the majority of people who are on the edge of dying on the street, have sufficient means avaliable to go to work and avoid starving, (jobs, or resources available to make stuff/grow food etc.) A healthy economy unfetterd by stupid regulations will always provide this in abundance, and even a recession will not seriously change this. On the other hand, I am not certain that this is the situation we have right now in the US. Dropping welfare without making other changes may not be a good idea at all.
"No, sorry. Those theories failed in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century"
Could you please point out just where economic theory failed to correctly predict the behavior of people, given the incentives and environment that they had in that time period?
That is how a theory fails. It predicts something that does not happen. I think that you are talking about specific implimentations of capitalistic economic systems. Those can fail by not producing enough goods, or the wrong kinds of goods, or by causing lots of poverty, etc. If that is what you are talking about, I at least partly agree with you. I am also aware that this is the time period where modern corporations were forming. It may well be that the modern welfare state system is necessary to prevent our current corporatist system of capatilism from collapsing.
The only way that economic theory could fail here however, is to predict that our current version of capatilsim can/cannot survive without governmnet redistribution of wealth, and be wrong! I have seen exactally zero evidence of this, and while I am not an economist, I see lots of evidence that current economic theory does correctly predict the outcome.
I still hold to my original point, that the best* economic system is one where each person spends his own resources in his own best interest, as he sees fit. And any and all government redistribution of wealth results in a sub-optimal solution. My point of this paragraph is this however: At no point in history has this ever been fully realized. Including the late 19th and early 20th century The best we can do for examples is to look at systems that were close, and compare them to systems that aren't. Looking at any time in history and saying 'look, this failed. that means truely free markets are bad' is wrong, 'cause that wasn't a truly free market.
"A truly free market can't work for the same reason pure communism can't work - human nature won't allow it."
What do you mean by 'work'? If you mean 'make sure that everybody has at least so much' then I agree with you totally. Laziness is part of human nature, and that means that in a truly free market, the lazy often do not get the basics 'cause they didn't do enough to get them. My definition would be something like 'provides the best median standard of living with some nice statistical distribution'. Free markets are unmatched for that.
I suppose you could rename all of your custom libraries and link to them. That way they would only get used for your game and nothing else.
Can you have a binary use one library or another based on an option, say --use-custom-libs? (runtime, not compile option?) Also, what, if anything would you break doing this?
Ummm, I said general economic theory, not capitalism, which is such a general term that it is almost meaningless in this context. The best term that I have for our current economic system is corporatism, which would be a subcategory of capitalism. Economic theory is not capitialism. It merely predicts that a specific economic system, which also fits under the classification of capitalism, is the best possible one for humans. (note: all capatilist systems are not equal) The theory also predicts that welfare will result in those who own the means to produce will get richer, those who do the producing (our current middle class) will get squeezed into the lower class, and the poor will grow in numbers and laziness, until there is no one left to produce and the economy declines rapidly. This is what we can see in the world today, and what history tells us killed Rome. Government welfare, to a large extent, is the fatal flaw in communisim.
Communisim is not the best economic system for humans, precicely for those reasons that you gave. It is a wonderful economic system for ants, which explains why there are more ants by weight than people. The economic theories that I was refering to specifically take these aspects of human nature into account, and correctly predict the outcome of communisim. And predict that allowing people to spend their own resources in their own best interest will result in the greatest amount of wealth. both mean and median.
These theories have been around for close to 200 years. If they did not perdict what we can observe fairly well, they would have been scrapped a long time ago. Unlike the theory of communisim, or socialism, THEY WORK!!!
Evidence: Most of it is general economic theory, that allowing people to spend their own resources in their own best interest, as they see it, results in the best (or at least, much better than any other practical system known) overall level of wealth and comfort. (general welfare) Government welfare systems (welfare in general) always result in less effecient allocatations of resources and less final wealth. (assumption, free markets, of which I also see precious little in todays economy . ..)
Select group: for social security the group is retirees, widows etc, for Medicade/Medicare it is poor/elderly in need of medicine. food stamps, poor people. HUD, poor homebuyers, etc.
The point of them are to help people who have been marginalized by society.
And that brings me to the original point, there is nothing in the constitution that gives the federal government any power to do that, including the general welfare clause.
Ya know what? I don't give a fuck what their reasons are.
Well, I do. I want to be sure that we have not agrivated the problem. If we are, I want to stop doing so if possible. I want to make sure that the way we stop them is not going to encourage other equally crazy people to take their place. (not all muslims are terrorists, but if we put the terrorists down in a way that looks like we are oppressing them, other muslims will take their place. And I am not interested in pursuing a course that will lead to everyone either dead or not muslim, unless there is no other option. (dead or muslim is not an acceptable option.)) I am also simply curious as to what makes people do the things they do. Understanding that helps me understand myself.
I am not trying to justify their actions. I do not think their actions are just. I do not belive that we deserve their response, but it is at least theoretically possible, and (more to the point)many muslims believe we do.
Do you honestly think we are all good, hard working Americans, who want nothing more than to live in peace? Did you ever hear of Enron, Worldcom, or Haliburton?* Do you remember who put supported Hussien up until he invaded Kuwait? Let him who is without sin cast the first stone, and that would not be the US.
*these are examples of corrupt american corporations, I am not implying that they had anything in particular to do with terrorists, just refuting the good, hardworking americans bit.
The open source bit. Government oversight to release code? No. If you have the code, you can just strip out the backdoor and compile, negating the whole thing. This would simply kill any opensource program that sends data out on the internet.
For this to really work all compilers would have to insert the backdoor into anything they compile, or simply be outlawed. Byebye gcc.
This is assuming they really want to have backdoors in all instant messengers etc. as the article stated. If all they want is to have it in all ISP servers . . .
It says 'general welfare' It does not say 'welfare in general' There is a big difference.
Most social programs are welfare for a select group, not the general population. And I have seen precious little evidence that the general population bennifits from most social programs, here or abroad. There is a fair bit more evidince to the contrary.
Simply have the email client keep track of who you send email to, and never issue a challenge to someone you already sent something to.
Example: Bob sends email to Alice, Alice's client sends Bob a challenge. But Bob's client knows he sent an email to Alice, and so that challenge gets to Bob. Bob gives the responce, and Alice gets Bob's email.
If most people start using filters or other spam-blockers, the idea is that it will no longer be effective to send spam, 'cause almost none of it gets to a person. It would be like everyone having caller-id connected phones that only rang or even went to voice-mail if there was valid ID info. Telemarketers would quit calling or use corect ID info. Once this happens spammers will move on.
A little analogy to help clarify what I am trying to say.
My house has termites/rotting walls/cracking foundations etc. It is becoming structurally unstable. Do I: a) start propping up the walls with random boards. b) sell my heavy furniture and replace it with lighter stuff and go on a diet. c) call an exterminator if necessary and replace/repair the faulty structure of the house.
The answer is obviously c. Or in other words find out exactally why the structure of my house is weak and fix that instead of trying to patch the symptoms or provide other support.
Most of the fixes to the problem that I am hearing are the patch or treat symptom type. I see precious little discusion about what is really the problem. Obviously at some point in the past medical malpractice was not a big problem. It is now. What changed? Why is it now broken? What is the root cause here? We didn't have caps on damages in the past, and so I can't see how that would solve the problem.
"On the other hand, the nice people at T-Mobile usually unlock your phone if you ask them to, especially if you're on contract or have been with them for a while."
According to clark howard they will unlock your phone if you have been with them for 3 months.
"1) Transportation. Getting it there will be more than half the fun. What if there's an accident on the way in? Which town along the way will become the next Chernobyl?"
Simple, put it into containers made out of good grade 1/4 in. welded steel. I read a book about the expierimental fusion reactors etc, anyway, they had this large piece of equipment they needed for the reactor. It was made out of the 1/4 in. steel mentioned. They had to transport it. They put it on a truck. But the driver made a wrong turn, and came to a bridge that was too low. He though 'they checked out the route, I am ok' and the large steel thing hit the bridge at full speed. Knocked the bridge off it's foundation. The steel thingy still worked perfectly, and it even had to contain a perfect vacuum. The transportation bogey isn't that big of a deal. Worry more about terrorists stealing it to make a dirty bomb than accidents.
Dude, that is going to happen whether you like it or not. Companies will continue to outsource until all jobs that are profitable to outsource have been.
Looking at the jobs that are possible to outsource, (excluding say the local librarian) if the labor is cheaper somewhere else, and the costs of moving the job are less than the labor diff., then the jobs will move until either:
A) forigen workers start to demand more money, due to competition or whatever, or B) domestic workers start to demand less.
Companies that refuse to outsource when profitable will eventually go out of business.
Assuming that minimum wages are currently set higher than this equilibrium point, you are chosing between lower wages and no job at all. All things being equal*, protectionism hurts all concerned, including you. Fighting market forces is never a good idea.
*just so you understand, due to fiat currencies, centeral banks, corporate/financial law, and various trade laws, in roughly that order, things are most definately not equal. They are fighting market forces, and it will and is ruining a lot of people and economies, including the US (what do you think is causing outsourcing to be so much cheaper in the first place? It is not just the internet!) What we are in today is a 'financial new era' aka market mania boom/bust cycle. the same thing triggered the roaring 20's and the great depression. Outsourcing is just one symptom, and a small one at that.
The Other big difference in the analogy though is that it is painfully obvious when you are driving your death-trap on the public roads. Anyone looking can see your car, There is no way to do this privately. It is very easy to use the TV on the public ariwaves with nobody being able to tell that you are doing so.
Back on topic anyway, there are many things that our current government does that I do not believe that it should be doing. For the moment assume that the analogy was perfect. Just because the government does regulate cars like that does not mean that it should do the same for TVs. The idea would be 'We already violate your rights here, here, and there, so it must be ok for us to start violating this right too' Sorry, I do not think so!
The principal advantage of AM radio to FM radio is that it's longer range, particularly at night- which is due to physics rather than regulatory decisions.
Not so fast. The range limitations are mostly due to the frequencies that are used. This is the physics you mentioned. AM radio uses frequencies around 1MHz, and FM around 100Mhz. But why does AM use the lower (and longer range) frequencies? Regulations again. There is no technical or physical reason that you could not broadcast an FM signal on the lower and longer range frequency, or the AM signal on the higher range, there is only a regulatory reason.
I believe you understand this, but your post is not clear on this point.
But everything Bob gets from Alice, both Bob's and Alices p2p clients see. And everything Alice gets from Bob, both clients see. The p2p clients then have both decryption keys. And since they can now decrypt the song, both refuse to upload/download the song. They (the p2p clients) do not need to encrypt at all, and so do not care that they do not have the encryption keys.
I do know how public/private key encryption works!
Slashdot Mirror
Short version, the order of things occuring in genisis is the same as modern theory. "in the beginning the earth was void and without form" big cloud of dust (aka pre-planetary ring of dust around the forming star) anyone? "let there be light" the sun finally lit, before the dust cloud obscured all the other stars etc. Now there was light, but all you could see was thick dust (think dense fog, where is the sun?) "and god divided the light from the darkness" the solar wind started to blow away the dust and you could tell when the sun was up, but not yet see the sun distinctly. etc. Even "and the earth brought forth grass ... " etc describes the evolution of life very well. you can fill in the rest, I do not have time. Modern theory and genisis are describing the exact same event. Any differences are due to 1) misunderstanding the bible, and 2) incomplete understanding of the formation of the earth. Mostly 1 and not 2 anymore. Oh, and most 'christians' are still stuck on the old greek ideas of 'ex nihilo' (god made the world 'out of nothing') or 'poof, and then there was ...'
This is the trouble with most biblical stories. Not the story itself, but the interpretation. They usually are from, say a renaissance painting like you said, instead of an understanding of the culture and history of the people that the bible is talking about. This also wouldn't be that much of a problem, except most people are kind of stupid. Especially many of the religious types. If I said in church (yes, I go there most sundays) that Noah's flood did not cover all of the land on the planet, I would be gaurenteed an argument despite tons of geologic evidence to the contrary. Most religious people equate their ignorant interpretation of the bible with 'the way it happened' and take any attempt to correct their ignorance as an attempt to disprove the bible.
I ran into a similar problem with the 2.4.x series and the nvidia drivers. The file (modversion.h in 2.4.x) is only generated if you have a certain option selected in the .config. I believe it is CONFIG_MODVERSIONS. There is a similar option in 2.6.x under Loadable Module Support.
Honestly, the question is almost worthless. Does pluto change because I say it is/isn't a planet? Does it get bigger? It it worth more?
Pluto is pluto. whether it is a planet or not is mere bookkeeping, not even worth discussion.
I am of the opinion that this is dangerous. If you take those who would be dying on the street and give them enough to be somewhat comfortable, there is less incentive for that person to really work hard and produce something. Doing nothing has a smaller cost - somewhat comfortable instead of starving in the street. The cost to society as a whole is the cost of supporting these people, and the lost production that these people would have provided. This cost goes directly to those who produce, increasing the cost of doing something productive without providing any bennifit (asside from the 'no more annoying beggars dying in the streets' I guess) This sets up a positive feedback loop: more people go on the dole, - more taxes and higher costs (lost production!) - less incentive to produce - more people on the dole . . . Usually what also happens here is those in power get themselves various tax exemptions/perks etc, because the arguments for this are almost identical to the arguments for greater welfare. The end result is a few really rich and a lot of people on the dole, and not enough peoduction to go around. This is exactally the dynamic that destroyed the Roman Empire.
The only way to control this is by defining exactally what 'somewhat comfortable' is. You have to keep this low enough to avoid the death spirial. Unfortunatly this is a very complex chaotic system that is extreamly difficult to mannage like that. It is inherantly unstable, and the ballance point is almost impossible to determine with any accuracy. The only real solution is to let them starve on the street, harsh as that sounds, in order to prevent the economic system from collapsing and causing lots more people to starve, without the means to produce at all.
Note: this argument assumes that the majority of people who are on the edge of dying on the street, have sufficient means avaliable to go to work and avoid starving, (jobs, or resources available to make stuff/grow food etc.) A healthy economy unfetterd by stupid regulations will always provide this in abundance, and even a recession will not seriously change this. On the other hand, I am not certain that this is the situation we have right now in the US. Dropping welfare without making other changes may not be a good idea at all.
Could you please point out just where economic theory failed to correctly predict the behavior of people, given the incentives and environment that they had in that time period?
That is how a theory fails. It predicts something that does not happen. I think that you are talking about specific implimentations of capitalistic economic systems. Those can fail by not producing enough goods, or the wrong kinds of goods, or by causing lots of poverty, etc. If that is what you are talking about, I at least partly agree with you. I am also aware that this is the time period where modern corporations were forming. It may well be that the modern welfare state system is necessary to prevent our current corporatist system of capatilism from collapsing.
The only way that economic theory could fail here however, is to predict that our current version of capatilsim can/cannot survive without governmnet redistribution of wealth, and be wrong! I have seen exactally zero evidence of this, and while I am not an economist, I see lots of evidence that current economic theory does correctly predict the outcome.
I still hold to my original point, that the best* economic system is one where each person spends his own resources in his own best interest, as he sees fit. And any and all government redistribution of wealth results in a sub-optimal solution. My point of this paragraph is this however: At no point in history has this ever been fully realized. Including the late 19th and early 20th century The best we can do for examples is to look at systems that were close, and compare them to systems that aren't. Looking at any time in history and saying 'look, this failed. that means truely free markets are bad' is wrong, 'cause that wasn't a truly free market.
"A truly free market can't work for the same reason pure communism can't work - human nature won't allow it."
What do you mean by 'work'? If you mean 'make sure that everybody has at least so much' then I agree with you totally. Laziness is part of human nature, and that means that in a truly free market, the lazy often do not get the basics 'cause they didn't do enough to get them. My definition would be something like 'provides the best median standard of living with some nice statistical distribution'. Free markets are unmatched for that.
*see last paragraph for what I mean by 'best'
Can you have a binary use one library or another based on an option, say --use-custom-libs? (runtime, not compile option?) Also, what, if anything would you break doing this?
Communisim is not the best economic system for humans, precicely for those reasons that you gave. It is a wonderful economic system for ants, which explains why there are more ants by weight than people. The economic theories that I was refering to specifically take these aspects of human nature into account, and correctly predict the outcome of communisim. And predict that allowing people to spend their own resources in their own best interest will result in the greatest amount of wealth. both mean and median.
These theories have been around for close to 200 years. If they did not perdict what we can observe fairly well, they would have been scrapped a long time ago. Unlike the theory of communisim, or socialism, THEY WORK!!!
IIRC the Berne convention allows longer terms. It does not allow shorter ones. The US is in compliance with the Berne convention (as far as I know)
Evidence: Most of it is general economic theory, that allowing people to spend their own resources in their own best interest, as they see it, results in the best (or at least, much better than any other practical system known) overall level of wealth and comfort. (general welfare) Government welfare systems (welfare in general) always result in less effecient allocatations of resources and less final wealth. (assumption, free markets, of which I also see precious little in todays economy . . .)
Select group: for social security the group is retirees, widows etc, for Medicade/Medicare it is poor/elderly in need of medicine. food stamps, poor people. HUD, poor homebuyers, etc.
The point of them are to help people who have been marginalized by society.
And that brings me to the original point, there is nothing in the constitution that gives the federal government any power to do that, including the general welfare clause.
Well, I do. I want to be sure that we have not agrivated the problem. If we are, I want to stop doing so if possible. I want to make sure that the way we stop them is not going to encourage other equally crazy people to take their place. (not all muslims are terrorists, but if we put the terrorists down in a way that looks like we are oppressing them, other muslims will take their place. And I am not interested in pursuing a course that will lead to everyone either dead or not muslim, unless there is no other option. (dead or muslim is not an acceptable option.)) I am also simply curious as to what makes people do the things they do. Understanding that helps me understand myself.
I am not trying to justify their actions. I do not think their actions are just. I do not belive that we deserve their response, but it is at least theoretically possible, and (more to the point)many muslims believe we do.
Do you honestly think we are all good, hard working Americans, who want nothing more than to live in peace? Did you ever hear of Enron, Worldcom, or Haliburton?* Do you remember who put supported Hussien up until he invaded Kuwait? Let him who is without sin cast the first stone, and that would not be the US.
*these are examples of corrupt american corporations, I am not implying that they had anything in particular to do with terrorists, just refuting the good, hardworking americans bit.
For this to really work all compilers would have to insert the backdoor into anything they compile, or simply be outlawed. Byebye gcc.
This is assuming they really want to have backdoors in all instant messengers etc. as the article stated. If all they want is to have it in all ISP servers . . .
Most social programs are welfare for a select group, not the general population. And I have seen precious little evidence that the general population bennifits from most social programs, here or abroad. There is a fair bit more evidince to the contrary.
Simply have the email client keep track of who you send email to, and never issue a challenge to someone you already sent something to.
Example: Bob sends email to Alice, Alice's client sends Bob a challenge. But Bob's client knows he sent an email to Alice, and so that challenge gets to Bob. Bob gives the responce, and Alice gets Bob's email.
That is the theory anyhow.
In the case where bob's email address is spoofed, wouldn't a cr loop be a Good Thing?
I don't WANT to understand how my table saw operates internally, just as much as I don't give a toss for how my joiner or my planer works.
I just want to build a friggin chest of drawers.
(This is not a troll, but a (very) sarcastic comment to show that lusers are not really a typical representation of logical people)
My house has termites/rotting walls/cracking foundations etc. It is becoming structurally unstable. Do I:
a) start propping up the walls with random boards.
b) sell my heavy furniture and replace it with lighter stuff and go on a diet.
c) call an exterminator if necessary and replace/repair the faulty structure of the house.
The answer is obviously c. Or in other words find out exactally why the structure of my house is weak and fix that instead of trying to patch the symptoms or provide other support.
Most of the fixes to the problem that I am hearing are the patch or treat symptom type. I see precious little discusion about what is really the problem. Obviously at some point in the past medical malpractice was not a big problem. It is now. What changed? Why is it now broken? What is the root cause here? We didn't have caps on damages in the past, and so I can't see how that would solve the problem.
According to clark howard they will unlock your phone if you have been with them for 3 months.
Simple, put it into containers made out of good grade 1/4 in. welded steel. I read a book about the expierimental fusion reactors etc, anyway, they had this large piece of equipment they needed for the reactor. It was made out of the 1/4 in. steel mentioned. They had to transport it. They put it on a truck. But the driver made a wrong turn, and came to a bridge that was too low. He though 'they checked out the route, I am ok' and the large steel thing hit the bridge at full speed. Knocked the bridge off it's foundation. The steel thingy still worked perfectly, and it even had to contain a perfect vacuum. The transportation bogey isn't that big of a deal. Worry more about terrorists stealing it to make a dirty bomb than accidents.
Hmmm. I bet this is because the only other time you expierience that kind of silence is when you _do_ have a lot of pressure in your ears.
Looking at the jobs that are possible to outsource, (excluding say the local librarian) if the labor is cheaper somewhere else, and the costs of moving the job are less than the labor diff., then the jobs will move until either:
A) forigen workers start to demand more money, due to competition or whatever, or B) domestic workers start to demand less.
Companies that refuse to outsource when profitable will eventually go out of business.Assuming that minimum wages are currently set higher than this equilibrium point, you are chosing between lower wages and no job at all. All things being equal*, protectionism hurts all concerned, including you. Fighting market forces is never a good idea.
*just so you understand, due to fiat currencies, centeral banks, corporate/financial law, and various trade laws, in roughly that order, things are most definately not equal. They are fighting market forces, and it will and is ruining a lot of people and economies, including the US (what do you think is causing outsourcing to be so much cheaper in the first place? It is not just the internet!) What we are in today is a 'financial new era' aka market mania boom/bust cycle. the same thing triggered the roaring 20's and the great depression. Outsourcing is just one symptom, and a small one at that.
Back on topic anyway, there are many things that our current government does that I do not believe that it should be doing. For the moment assume that the analogy was perfect. Just because the government does regulate cars like that does not mean that it should do the same for TVs. The idea would be 'We already violate your rights here, here, and there, so it must be ok for us to start violating this right too' Sorry, I do not think so!
Not so fast. The range limitations are mostly due to the frequencies that are used. This is the physics you mentioned. AM radio uses frequencies around 1MHz, and FM around 100Mhz. But why does AM use the lower (and longer range) frequencies? Regulations again. There is no technical or physical reason that you could not broadcast an FM signal on the lower and longer range frequency, or the AM signal on the higher range, there is only a regulatory reason.
I believe you understand this, but your post is not clear on this point.
I do know how public/private key encryption works!