Thoughts always predetermine observations. In the rare occasions where one's predetermined observations happen to not fit science advances, for sure. But most of the time the thought change comes first, and with it lots of changes in observation.
Having learned to observe without predetermined thoughts is one of the things that determines the difference between those who discover new things and those who refine existing things. There is nothing wrong with the later, it is quite important even, but without the first there is no science.
I'm sorry you don't understand that the very first step in scientific inquiry is about: developing a theory on what to observe.
Did it ever occur to you that without anything to start with, there is nothing to base a theory on? nothing to think about?
No, theory does not always come before observation, it logically can't. That an observation may have come from before your current 'experiment' and may have caused the thoughts leading to your current experiment does not change this at all.
What you describe is doing an experiment, which is definitely part of science, and which requires a limited scope and all that. During an experiment, you also do observations, and only those for which you setup some way to register or measure them. That requires thought before observation, sure, but that doesn't change that without prior observation, you don't have anything to base the thought on, you won't know what you might want to register or measure, or anything like that.
Science is never about the whole, it's always about subsets of the whole, subsets that must be delimited before any study can even begin.
Sure, still doesn't mean you should construct your subset such that the outcome of your study is predetermined.
It is what you do when someone offers you a bag of money if you can provide them with a convincing argument for 'X' (whatever X might be), but it is not a way to get a scientifically usable result.
At any rate, what you are talking about is registration and measurement during an experiment intended to verify a specific hypothesis or theory.
Your attempt at redefinitions create as much an arbitrary subset of reality as mine
If you make such a claim, how about providing the reasoning that demonstrates this? I did provide the reasoning for why it does so for the definition you provide, and what the scope of the subset is.
Please provide such a reasoning yourself and demonstrate the limited scope.
I'm sure you can find a limited scope, but I am also sure you will have a very hard time demonstrating how that actually predetermines the situations in which the definition is usable.
and all your ad homines and assumptions about my hidden motivations, agendas and the like won't change this.
If you insist on using a politically motivated definition after having been made aware of it being a political motivated definition, and being provided with a better non political definition, then don't start screaming 'ad hominum attack' when people think you are using that definition for a political reason. You yourself are providing good reason for people to think that.
You can either make a convincing argument as to why the definition itself is not politically motivated, or you can stop using it. Everything else you do with regards to it is trying to cloud things.
I don't care to which authors you subscribe, I don't care about your political affiniation either, they should in no way change the validity of your reasoning, unless you start declaring your political view as the only possible valid one, and try to use definitions that preclude any other outcome. You will have to use arguments for that instead if that is what you want to show (and you seem to be saying you don't want to show such a thing here at all anyway).
I finally understood what's the problem. You adopt the empiricist outlook, but don't know philosophy of science sufficiently to spot its shortcomings and weaknesses, as your table is a very naive and surpassed version of it.
Have you ever considered that it is an extremely simplified version intended to get a point across? Really, since you were simply repeatedly failing to get the point alltogether, simplification is all I can do to make it clear to you. That has to do with the level of understanding you are demonstrating, not with my level of knowledge or understanding.
While many things start with thinking, if your thoughts predetermine your observations, you are only going to see what you thought you would be seeing. That was the simple point I am making, and no matter if you call on 1 or a million 'experts', it doesn't change the point at all. Rather, what you do there is a well known and invalid debating technique (calling on authority).
Also nice to see you grasp the very first straw held out to you to try to yet again cloud the argument.
It still comes down to the definition of free market as you used it being a political one, whereas I provided a definition that is not political at all.
Your definition is made specifically for the purpose of demonstrating how libertarian economic policies are THE way to achieve a free market.
You can test libertarian ideas against your definition and see they will match, and you can test any other economic ideas against that definition and see they cannot ever create a free market unless they use the exact same underlying assumptions as libertarian ideas do.
The definition I provided does not depend in any way on such assumptions.
You can test libertarian economic ideas against my definition and see they will in theory result in a free market provided the underlying assumptions for those ideas are true. You can however also do this with any other set of economic ideas and see if they'd in theory result in a free market.
This makes that the definition you use is unusable for any discussion other then one about if libertarian ideas work.
The definition I provided is usable for a discussion of free markets independent of a very specific set of political ideas and their underlying assumptions
Seeing how you have so far completely failed to understand that, while at the same time acting as if you have a scientific background, the only conclusion I can come to is that you are trying to advocate a political agenda, and are not at all interested in an actual discussion, let alone in any science related to it. If you want to show differently, then stop using politically motivated definitions, they only serve political purposes, and preventing any real argument is a large part of their purpose.
See, I wan't going to go on discussing this, but I do want to try to help people understand their own mistakes nonetheless.
You seem to feel attacked by that, well, that is too bad because it is not intended as an attack at all.
I point out that the definition of 'free market' that you use is politically motivated.
That is not a judgement of that political motivation and it does not depend on if I or you agree with the political motivation at all.
It is however pointing at why no reasonable discussion is possible based on that specific definition because that definition was made to have one specific outcome.
No amount of libertarian or other political ideology is going to change that at all, and it doesn't matter at all if you agree with that ideology or not.
What does matter however is that claiming that the definition you use is identical to the one that I use but worded differently requires believing in a specific assumption that is very much in line with libertarian economic ideas.
You can turn that into an argument about if that assumption is always true, sure, but it still doesn't make your definition a good or usable one.
The simple reason is that defining something by means of how you intend to achieve it will prevent you from seeing other ways to achieve the same thing.
That makes for bad science and also prevents any useful discussion. It is like defining a problem by means of how you think you can solve it, and then using that in turn to show why in theory your solution works. Duh, you just used it to define the problem, so of course it works in theory. This has absolutely no practical value because your definition of the problem is not based on the problem itself.
We don't have to delve into anyones economic theory for that, and doing so only serves as a distraction.
Observe Describe Think
Trying to reverse the order of those makes you end up with incomplete observations and likely wrong conclusions
Ah, now I got your point. Yes, in principle, as a borderline hypothetical case, this makes sense.
You may believe it a borderline hypothetical case, and I say it is a case that is consistent with typical human behavior that you can observe every day, so not likely a corner case. In case you failed to notice, in many markets the situation would instantly occur if it wasn't prevented somewhat by regulations.
But this does not. You don't offer any proof for this assertion. Besides, libertarian thinkers have dealt extensively with this hypothesis, a.k.a. the "natural monopoly theory". Have you perchance studied their arguments before dismissing them as if they didn't exist? Or, worse, as if they didn't matter just because of who wrote them?
I didn't read those, but I have discussed the subject to death with some people doing a way better job explaining it then you did so far. No, they didn't take away the observation every somewhat capable human can make of thousands of years contradicting that theory. Neither did they provide any convincing agruments as to why human psychology would change magically preventing this.
It still comes down to libertarian theories being based on unprovable assumptions that also contradict everyday practise. That the theories are in themselves sound doesn't change this at all, because the flaw is not in the reasoning but in the assumptions the reasoning uses.
And to repeat I AM NOT INTERESTED IN DISCUSSING LIBERTARIAN ECONOMIC THEORY, I AM INTERESTED IN DISCUSSING FREE MARKET AS A CONCENT BEYOND LIBERTARIAN IDEAS If you still don't understand that then you really need a brain transfusion or something.
At any rate, have fun with your political agenda, I am not interested in it, and since you seem unable to discuss things without turning that into pushing your political agenda, I am finished discussing with you, goodbye.
You prefer to define things according to your political preference, thats all fine, but that is defining things by your favored solution instead of by what actually defines those things.
That is no way to do any kind of science, since you limit the outcome of your observations and thoughts beforehand.
I'm not at all interested in discussing libertarian economic ideas specifically, I am interested in discussing free market as a concept, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED to the libertarian view on it. Whatever you believe in is your thing, but it doesn't make it true, neither does the fact that I believe in certain things make them true. If you can't have a discussion without presumptions and a predetermined outcome for yourself, then its pointless to discuss anything with you.
Libertarians don't have a monopoly on the concept of free market, no matter how much you believe your idea of free market is better.
Then, when the customer has no choice due to many possible reasons for any serious amount of time, then no matter how free your market is in theory (someone 'could' enter the market in theory even if it is very difficult), it ends up being an effectively non free market. For that simple reason an unregulated market will always carry a risk of becomming an effectively non free market, hence the libertarian idea of unregulated market equals free market does often not work when applied over a longer time on a large scale. It does often work well on a small scale or over a short period of time however.
Last but not least, thanks for making my point about your agenda. If it can't be used to advocate your agenda it is useless? that is absolute bullshit.
If you can describe a state of things by properties that are specific to that state of things, then you have a very workable definition for deciding if you indeed reached that state of things. That is what my 'generic' definition does, and it makes an open discussion possible.
Your definition predetermines that the only way to achieve a free market is libertarian political ideas, and that makes yours absolutely unusable for any discussion, it is only usable for advocating libertarian political ideas, and hence it is a politically motivated definition.
Marketing, FUD and the like can make customers wary of purchasing from a new player, sure. But they cannot prevent the new player from existing, nor do they guarantee victory for the old player. Preventing competition is something that only violence, or the threat of it, can achieve.
You state your opinion as fact, but there are many who believe otherwise, and its not exactly fact either, it is your opinion, shared by quite a few also, and with an amount of reasing behind it, but it is still that, an opinion.
I suggest there is quite a body of historical evidence that shows that under influence of words, people do things that they actually wouldn't want to do, and that defy any reason.
At any rate..
Since you seem to sincerely not understand why your definition is politically motivated..
Your definition depends on the assumption that the only real anti competitive factor is the government or government like bodies that can use violence or threaten it.
Seeing how there are many that hold that 'barriers to entry' are also anti competitive, your assumption is definitely not shared by everyone.
However, your definition does depend on it, and it also is tendentious with regards to how a 'free market' should be achieved as a result.
The direction it points in falls quite in line with libertarian political ideas incidentely.
The definition I gave on the other hand does not depend on assumptions about what makes for anti competitive influences, and is neutral to how such a situation could be achieved.
And then, political programs deal with ideals, and it is not wrong in any way to study such an ideal. Actual politics however deal with reality, and the use of political study for that is somewhat limited indeed. Management and psychology are a lot more useful there.
Only governments and government-like organization, i.e., persons who threat the usage of violent means, can prevent competition from arising.
So you claim, but that doesn't make it true.
preventing competition can easily be done without (threat of) violent means, by simple means of disinformation.
This means your definition and mine are the same, only expressed with other words.
No, it doesn't.
The difference is in 2 things:
1. You provide a definition of what is not a free market and then say everything else is. I provide a definition of the condition that makes a free market 'free'.
2. You fail to account for human psychology and esp. the way humans deal with information.
Its too bad, but humans are not perfect, and the world is not ideal. If both were different, your line of thought would be perfectly usable.
Bottomline, you present a definition that is meant to further a political agenda, not one that can be used to determine if there is a free market or not independent of political agenda.
If you have government interfering in consensual acts between two responsible individual that don't affect unrelated 3rd parties, you have a market that isn't free. That's as precise and to the point a definition as you can get.
That is ONE POSSIBLE definition of what is NOT a free market, it is not at all a definition of what is a free market however.
A free market is a market free of anti competitive influences.
Why should cabin systems be the pilot's responsibility at all? Let the flight attendants attend to seatbelts and lighting and climate control, and let the pilot keep his attention on flying the plane.
Because the cabin systems directly affect resource usage.
- An enterprising hijacker could use this to drain the available electrical energy and make operating the aircraft difficult to impossible
- A pilot needs to be able to shutdown systems in case of emergency (like, we only have 50% generator capacity because we lost an engine, is it going to be used to actually fly the airplane, or to present nice pictures on displays in the cabin)
Even when you make flight attendants responsible for it in normal circumstances, you do need a way to override it from the cockpit.
And wouldn't it be the task of the justice to spot legally false statements and not consider them in the findings of law? I am just a layman myself, but I guess the justice was educated in the law.
I'm also just a layman myself, tho I have been in court as expert witness at more then one occation.
The judge should rule out any obviously false statements, but considering how much 'law' exists, I really wouldn't count on this protecting you from miscarriage of justice.
No. Because making an argument that most people would assume the worst, but that is technically true, is totally okay.
How is claiming that something is infringement while it is not 'technically true' ?
I agree that the defense should have spotted this, and should have dealt with it, but that doesn't change that someone has been lying in court, likely misdirecting the jurors on purpose, which in itself is a serious enough issue to deal with, unless you believe that a properly functioning legal systemn isn't very important.
I'm "boggled" by how rude you are, and how completely you're missing my points. I never claimed that NZ is part of the EU or Europe, and that has nothing to do with the discussion.
It has a lot to do with the discussion seeing how it is about 'Court Order Against German T-Mobile iPhone Sales' and the purpose of the mobile phone related regulations in the EU.
Sure, you can bring in countries outside the EU and expand the discussion, but if you do so, maybe take a look at their local regulations and contrast them with those in the EU together with looking for which turns out better?
GSM fanboys tout GSM as working everywhere, so country boundaries shouldn't matter. Perhaps your magic Dutch SIM card would work everywhere in NZ, but I've seen personally that a GSM phone from the US doesn't.
And surely enough, both the USA and New Zealand have different regulations regarding mobile phone networks then the EU. It shows why the regulations for this in the EU work, but I doubt it was the point you were trying to make.
Your beef is with your provider and their crappy roaming contracts, find a better one.
Claiming that the phones work everywhere with GSM is sophistry, given that one apparently still has to rip them apart and pay for a collection of [fragile] SIM cards to get them to work across borders. And, actually, my CDMA phone did work in many parts of NZ.
My GSM phone has worked about everywhere where I went, thanks to my provider having roaming provisions with almost every other provider in the world, and at a very decent price.
This has everything to do with providers and their services, and absolutely nothing with GSM technology.
What has to do with GSM technology is that even when I can't get roaming somewhere (which never happened) or when it is economically interesting (because I stay somewhere for a longer time, and having local call fees is going to matter enough, which happens at times), there is alternative in the form of picking up a local sim.
So, when traveling to, say, New Zealand, you're saying that it's entirely reasonable to have to pre-purchase a SIM card from every provider, and rotate them through one's phone looking for one that works every time one wants to make a call?
Last I checked, New Zealand is not exactly part of the EU or Europe even. That they adapted the GSM standard does not mean they adapted the EU regulations, and it so happens we were discussing those.
Also, a small difference might be that when you stay inside the USA, you stay within the same country?
I have to wonder, are you always this dense?
How is this an advantage over the US, where for the most part CDMA phones work almost everwhere?
When I am travelling to say Germany or New Zealand for that matter, I have a choice between 2 options:
1. Keep my (Dutch) card, and I can be called and call on about every GSM network outside the Netherlands (more precise, every network that my provider has a roaming contract with, which in practise is virtually every GSM network in any country), which works out exactly
2. Buy a local prepay card or subscription, which might work as well and be cheaper, depending on circumstances.
See, you have choice, whereas your CDMA phone wouldn't work outside your country at all.
I'm boggled by how you somehow manage to miss the later.
It's not clear that a GSM phone and GSM service are as independent as you indicate. I've seen a GSM phone work in only a very small area of a country that has GSM everywhere.
And why was that? You should be able to get a card from a provider that does a better job at providing actual coverage, or a subscription that isn't limited to a specific area.
The independence between phone and service are exactly about being able to do that, not about what specific services one specific network offers at which location.
So if I get this straight, in Germany if Company A offers me $X dollars for my product, and Company B offers me $X+5, and I decide to do business only with Company B because I don't like Company A's deal, Company A can then sue me for anti-competitive practices? Sounds like I don't want to do business there...
You are not understanding the issue it seems.
You can sell it through an exclusive reseller without any trouble, but you are not allowed to tie it to one specific service provider forever.
With some exceptions, most notably the cell phone industry, Europe has far less consumer protection than the US, and far more anticompetitive regulations. For instance, try to buy cold medicine at the Venice airport on a Sunday.
Sales of medicine is heavily regulated in the EU. How nice your example is in fact the exception and not the rule.
While the apple iPhone is indeed the 'hot' new device, and does offer a currently unique set of features, should anybody be pretending that this will sink any cell phone provider that doesn't get the iPhone?
Not as such no.
What is does is prevent one of the things that have caused the mobile market in the EU to function as well as it does, the seperation of hardware and services.
As for the limited rate selection - why not? It's a PDA, data services are probably assumed.
Because it limits choice for consumers. Why shouldn't I be able to buy a phone seperately from my subscription? Why shouldn't I be able to get a different subscription and keep using my phone?
Why should I? because it means more choice for me as a consumer, and it means providers have to stay competitive in their services instead of being able to 'buy' into fashionable items. It makes it easier for new providers to enter the market because they can directly compete on quality of service instead of exclusive fashion items.
Oh, but why not let the market figure it out?
The market could quite figure it out if most consumers were well informed. Its often kinda ignored, but informed customers are an essential part of a functioning free market, and if you don't have those, you'll have to compensate for that or you end up with effective monopolies.
Its one reason why if 2 products can be seperated easily (in this case a phone using the GSM standard, and the GSM network service) then in general, you can sell them as a bundle as long as you also allow people to buy the products seperately. Some parts of the EU have stronger laws in this then others, but the basic idea stays the same. This is the same kind of issue that Microsoft ran into with regards to tying things into Windows that are technically seperate products. Sure, they can do that as long as they also allow you to buy the unbundeled products.
You grossly misunderestimate (hehe) our enemies. The Theocracy in charge of Iran is first a religious organization, and second a government. Perhaps you have been lucky enough to never meet anyone religious enough to actually want the apocolypse to happen. I have, and don't put the same trust in their ability to think rationally anymore. Moreover, Iran would be unlikely to attack us so long as their hatred is focused on Israel. Iran's president has said that he will wipe Israel from the map and that all it would take is one nuclear weapon.
It is well known that that quote is a mistranslation, either deliberate or not.
Iran's president has said he wants to remove the Israeli administration, not whipe out the country. Doing the later would actually directly conflict with the scripture he so strongly believes in.
I suggest you go read the various transcripts of his speech and pay close attention to how different that specific piece gets translated depending on the source of the transcript, and those around me who happen to actually understand the language he speaks say without exception that the 'we want to wipe Israel from the planet' translation is wrong.
Says who? You? Get real. Those may seem like great reasons to you. However you ignore a fourth reason: Iran denies Israel's right to exist. Let me repeat, the Iranian government would love to see every Jew in the middle east dead. Perhaps you missed this development:
Parhaps you read too much propaganda and are absolutely completely clueless as to how the real world looks:)
Parhaps you should start realizing that whenever someone even suggests wanting to research the truth of some small detail of the holocaust story, they are instantly painted as anti semetic, and maybe this president of Iran made use of that for the serious amount of publicity it would get him? Maybe you also don't realize that Israel (which definitely has a right to exist btw) is partial cause of some major problems in the middle east, and it is easy to make use of that to increase your popularity in the region?
I'm not sure if you consider yourself intelligent, but I suppose you do. I do consider it a sign of intelligence however when you can actually realize that your opinion on something has little value if it is based on a one sided version of the story.
You arrogance belies your ignorance. From my memory: - Iran supported Hezbollah with money and weapons and people during the Israeli-Lebanon conflict less than a year ago. - More recently, Iran crossed into international waters and attacked British troops, taking some hostage. That was in March. - US forces have arrested a number of Iranian military units operating illegally within Iraq. Is sending troops into a country and invasion?
USA supported various groups in southern America that did things like throw over elected governments, torture and dissapear people who didn't agree with them, kill and loot randomly and what not. Therefore, the USA and everyone in it are a bunch of bandits who invaded the southern Americas.
The USA has sent its army into various states there as well over the years btw.
I suppose you disagree with what I just said, and might think its absured. Well, I definitely agree. I do however apply that same standard to others, and find your reasoning about Iran as absurd.
Ok, so my example has absolutely nothing to do with it, but nonetheless can be translated into an example that in some sense could have something to do with it:
Your example of Portuguese and Brasilian portuguse did. Your argument that there is a lot of distance between Portugal and Brazil, while there isn't between the Netherlands and Germany however has nothing to do with if what is spoken in all those places are mere variations of the same language, or different languages.
I had to consult Wikipedia about this one: it says "Official languages [of The Netherlands Antilles (Dutch: Nederlandse Antillen), previously known as the Netherlands West Indies or Dutch Antilles/West Indies are:] Dutch, English, Papiamento.
And the first of those is a variation on the Dutch language, one that is distinctively different from what is spoken in the Netherlands, but not so different that people speaking those two variations will have trouble understanding eachother beyond the scope of very simple things, without having to learn eachothers 'language' first.
And that is unlike for example a Dutch and a German speaking person trying to have any kind of conversation that isn't limited to very basic things.
Just look the density of languages that we mention: starting with Dutch, English and German, then extending it to Portugese, Brasilian-Portugese, Vlamish, and eventually Dutch Antiles-Dutch and Papiamento (about which Wikipedia says: "Papiamento is a language that has been evolving through the centuries and absorbed many words from other languages like Spanish, Dutch, English, African dialects, and Portuguese.")... If we were to continue this for a year or so into the future we would have encountered the Wikipedia's:
I happen to understand Papiamento somewhat because.. I understand Dutch and English very well, and can make educated guesses at quite a few Spanish and Portuguese words. Yet, that is enough to understand what is being talked about, but by far not enough to understand many of the details, and it in no way means I can speak it.
That language is closely related to German, not to Dutch. That it is called Dutch has a lot to do with how we came to this discussion to begin with, my comment on the improper use of the word know.
If you'd want to have a 'modern' version of that word, it would be Pennsylvanian Deutsch.
Deutch is the German word for German Dutch is the English word for the people of the Netherlands, and the family of languages spoken in the Netherlands and a number of its current and former colonies.
Most of the time, spelling mistakes are utterly irrelevant for the meaning of what is being written, but sometimes they are not.
I very much doubt that one could ask the same, because, well, Brasil is across the seven seas from Portugal.
Which has absolutely nothing to do with if the languages spoken there are two variations of the same language or two different languages.
You could ask the same question with regards to Dutch as spoken in the Netherlands and on the Dutch Antiles.
Those, just like Portuguese and Brasilian-Portuguese are variations of languages.
This is not true for Dutch and German, neither is it true for Dutch and English or German and English.
At any rate, you have confirmed a few times too often that you are either extremely dense, or you want to act as if you are. I'll leave the rest of your rant for what it is. Please go grow some brain or something.
Which reminds me of my initial question: when one speaks English, German and Dutch, how many languages one speaks? Is this the same number as when one speaks English, Dutch and Portuguese?
Three in both cases.
Then, what is the difference between understanding the language and using it correctly in the example of the Brazilian-Portuguese and Portuguese?
You could ask the same about say Dutch and Vlamish (which is by all definitions a member of the family of Dutch languages, and very similar tho not identical). Its not the same as asking the same question about say Dutch and German, or French and Italian.
Try again what?
Next time when in Amsterdam, try not being stoned all the time like the typical visitor, and you might notice that since most Dutchies understand English pretty well and will at least understand some German, they will also understand your 'Dutch' as a result.
Questions pile ohne Ende...
Which of course doesn't contain a single word of Dutch, but will be understood by many Dutch people regardless.
Most of us here get more then a few years of foreign language education, starting in primary school, and actually get to practise what they learn. That is why you are understood here regardless of speaking German, English or Dutch, or whatever silly mix of those you might come up with.
I don't quite get what similarity to what I'm talking about you're talking about: French and Italian and...? Which other language?
If you need a 3rd language to understand the point, take portuguese for example.
The point is that eventho some languages are similar, they are not the same language, and speaking one doesn't mean you automatically speak or understand the other one (or ones), let alone use it correctly.
It's like this: when I brush up on my German I'm gonna take a trip to Amsterdam and then... WHAM! Friends with the knowledge of both English and German but no knowledge of Dutch tell me it's a very trippy experience to talk Dutch!
Amsterdam eh? tell them to stop smoking and try again.
How many languages is that? I mean, Dutch being a mixture of English and German as some say...
Historically, Dutch, German and English do have some common roots, that is true of course. Your argument however is similar to saying that someone who speaks French and Italian speaks only one language since they are similar and come from the same roman origins.
Without actually learning German, a native Dutch speaker has a decent chance on understanding slowly spoken, simple German, but no chance whatsoever to understand more then a fraction of a normal conversation, and the same is true the other way around (again, this is without actually learning the language).
In case of Iran, suspected NPT violation. In case of North Korea, I believe they left the NPT, in which case its no loner a violation.
They made a promise and went back on it, or look very close to doing so.
In other words, we don't know, but we THINK Iran might be violating the NPT.
It would be similar to argue that while we don't know, we think you are planning some terrorist attack since well, you had this sudden interest in Islam and also started to learn Arab.. we don't have any proof, but just in case we'll lock you up.
Thinking something is nice, but by far not good enough for taking action in most cases.
(Yes, the US also are violating the NPT as well, but that's a separate conversation).
As a matter of fact, no, it is not a seperate discussion.
Nuclear ambitions of Iran are directly related to: 1. Israel's nuclear capabilities 2. Never ending interference in the ME by the USA.
Since 1. is a consequence of the USA and others having violated the NPT, you can't say that it is a seperate discussion.
Also, not keeping to a treaty yourself and then screaming about violations from others makes you laughable at best, and not someone whoms opinion is regarded highly. This has more then a little bit to do with how succesfull the USA is in trying to get others to keep to the NPT.
Being at fault yourself doesn't invalidate your message, but it does invalidate you as a speaker.
Slashdot Mirror
Having learned to observe without predetermined thoughts is one of the things that determines the difference between those who discover new things and those who refine existing things. There is nothing wrong with the later, it is quite important even, but without the first there is no science.
Did it ever occur to you that without anything to start with, there is nothing to base a theory on? nothing to think about?
No, theory does not always come before observation, it logically can't. That an observation may have come from before your current 'experiment' and may have caused the thoughts leading to your current experiment does not change this at all.
What you describe is doing an experiment, which is definitely part of science, and which requires a limited scope and all that. During an experiment, you also do observations, and only those for which you setup some way to register or measure them. That requires thought before observation, sure, but that doesn't change that without prior observation, you don't have anything to base the thought on, you won't know what you might want to register or measure, or anything like that.
Sure, still doesn't mean you should construct your subset such that the outcome of your study is predetermined.
It is what you do when someone offers you a bag of money if you can provide them with a convincing argument for 'X' (whatever X might be), but it is not a way to get a scientifically usable result.
At any rate, what you are talking about is registration and measurement during an experiment intended to verify a specific hypothesis or theory.
If you make such a claim, how about providing the reasoning that demonstrates this? I did provide the reasoning for why it does so for the definition you provide, and what the scope of the subset is.
Please provide such a reasoning yourself and demonstrate the limited scope.
I'm sure you can find a limited scope, but I am also sure you will have a very hard time demonstrating how that actually predetermines the situations in which the definition is usable.
If you insist on using a politically motivated definition after having been made aware of it being a political motivated definition, and being provided with a better non political definition, then don't start screaming 'ad hominum attack' when people think you are using that definition for a political reason. You yourself are providing good reason for people to think that.
You can either make a convincing argument as to why the definition itself is not politically motivated, or you can stop using it. Everything else you do with regards to it is trying to cloud things.
I don't care to which authors you subscribe, I don't care about your political affiniation either, they should in no way change the validity of your reasoning, unless you start declaring your political view as the only possible valid one, and try to use definitions that preclude any other outcome. You will have to use arguments for that instead if that is what you want to show (and you seem to be saying you don't want to show such a thing here at all anyway).
Sin
Have you ever considered that it is an extremely simplified version intended to get a point across? Really, since you were simply repeatedly failing to get the point alltogether, simplification is all I can do to make it clear to you. That has to do with the level of understanding you are demonstrating, not with my level of knowledge or understanding.
While many things start with thinking, if your thoughts predetermine your observations, you are only going to see what you thought you would be seeing. That was the simple point I am making, and no matter if you call on 1 or a million 'experts', it doesn't change the point at all. Rather, what you do there is a well known and invalid debating technique (calling on authority).
Also nice to see you grasp the very first straw held out to you to try to yet again cloud the argument.
It still comes down to the definition of free market as you used it being a political one, whereas I provided a definition that is not political at all.
Your definition is made specifically for the purpose of demonstrating how libertarian economic policies are THE way to achieve a free market.
You can test libertarian ideas against your definition and see they will match, and you can test any other economic ideas against that definition and see they cannot ever create a free market unless they use the exact same underlying assumptions as libertarian ideas do.
The definition I provided does not depend in any way on such assumptions.
You can test libertarian economic ideas against my definition and see they will in theory result in a free market provided the underlying assumptions for those ideas are true. You can however also do this with any other set of economic ideas and see if they'd in theory result in a free market.
This makes that the definition you use is unusable for any discussion other then one about if libertarian ideas work.
The definition I provided is usable for a discussion of free markets independent of a very specific set of political ideas and their underlying assumptions
Seeing how you have so far completely failed to understand that, while at the same time acting as if you have a scientific background, the only conclusion I can come to is that you are trying to advocate a political agenda, and are not at all interested in an actual discussion, let alone in any science related to it. If you want to show differently, then stop using politically motivated definitions, they only serve political purposes, and preventing any real argument is a large part of their purpose.
See, I wan't going to go on discussing this, but I do want to try to help people understand their own mistakes nonetheless.
You seem to feel attacked by that, well, that is too bad because it is not intended as an attack at all.
I point out that the definition of 'free market' that you use is politically motivated.
That is not a judgement of that political motivation and it does not depend on if I or you agree with the political motivation at all.
It is however pointing at why no reasonable discussion is possible based on that specific definition because that definition was made to have one specific outcome.
No amount of libertarian or other political ideology is going to change that at all, and it doesn't matter at all if you agree with that ideology or not.
What does matter however is that claiming that the definition you use is identical to the one that I use but worded differently requires believing in a specific assumption that is very much in line with libertarian economic ideas.
You can turn that into an argument about if that assumption is always true, sure, but it still doesn't make your definition a good or usable one.
The simple reason is that defining something by means of how you intend to achieve it will prevent you from seeing other ways to achieve the same thing.
That makes for bad science and also prevents any useful discussion. It is like defining a problem by means of how you think you can solve it, and then using that in turn to show why in theory your solution works. Duh, you just used it to define the problem, so of course it works in theory. This has absolutely no practical value because your definition of the problem is not based on the problem itself.
We don't have to delve into anyones economic theory for that, and doing so only serves as a distraction.
Observe
Describe
Think
Trying to reverse the order of those makes you end up with incomplete observations and likely wrong conclusions
You may believe it a borderline hypothetical case, and I say it is a case that is consistent with typical human behavior that you can observe every day, so not likely a corner case. In case you failed to notice, in many markets the situation would instantly occur if it wasn't prevented somewhat by regulations.
I didn't read those, but I have discussed the subject to death with some people doing a way better job explaining it then you did so far. No, they didn't take away the observation every somewhat capable human can make of thousands of years contradicting that theory. Neither did they provide any convincing agruments as to why human psychology would change magically preventing this.
It still comes down to libertarian theories being based on unprovable assumptions that also contradict everyday practise. That the theories are in themselves sound doesn't change this at all, because the flaw is not in the reasoning but in the assumptions the reasoning uses.
And to repeat I AM NOT INTERESTED IN DISCUSSING LIBERTARIAN ECONOMIC THEORY, I AM INTERESTED IN DISCUSSING FREE MARKET AS A CONCENT BEYOND LIBERTARIAN IDEAS If you still don't understand that then you really need a brain transfusion or something.
At any rate, have fun with your political agenda, I am not interested in it, and since you seem unable to discuss things without turning that into pushing your political agenda, I am finished discussing with you, goodbye.
You prefer to define things according to your political preference, thats all fine, but that is defining things by your favored solution instead of by what actually defines those things.
That is no way to do any kind of science, since you limit the outcome of your observations and thoughts beforehand.
I'm not at all interested in discussing libertarian economic ideas specifically, I am interested in discussing free market as a concept, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED to the libertarian view on it. Whatever you believe in is your thing, but it doesn't make it true, neither does the fact that I believe in certain things make them true. If you can't have a discussion without presumptions and a predetermined outcome for yourself, then its pointless to discuss anything with you.
Libertarians don't have a monopoly on the concept of free market, no matter how much you believe your idea of free market is better.
Then, when the customer has no choice due to many possible reasons for any serious amount of time, then no matter how free your market is in theory (someone 'could' enter the market in theory even if it is very difficult), it ends up being an effectively non free market. For that simple reason an unregulated market will always carry a risk of becomming an effectively non free market, hence the libertarian idea of unregulated market equals free market does often not work when applied over a longer time on a large scale. It does often work well on a small scale or over a short period of time however.
Last but not least, thanks for making my point about your agenda. If it can't be used to advocate your agenda it is useless? that is absolute bullshit.
If you can describe a state of things by properties that are specific to that state of things, then you have a very workable definition for deciding if you indeed reached that state of things. That is what my 'generic' definition does, and it makes an open discussion possible.
Your definition predetermines that the only way to achieve a free market is libertarian political ideas, and that makes yours absolutely unusable for any discussion, it is only usable for advocating libertarian political ideas, and hence it is a politically motivated definition.
You state your opinion as fact, but there are many who believe otherwise, and its not exactly fact either, it is your opinion, shared by quite a few also, and with an amount of reasing behind it, but it is still that, an opinion.
I suggest there is quite a body of historical evidence that shows that under influence of words, people do things that they actually wouldn't want to do, and that defy any reason.
At any rate..
Since you seem to sincerely not understand why your definition is politically motivated..
Your definition depends on the assumption that the only real anti competitive factor is the government or government like bodies that can use violence or threaten it.
Seeing how there are many that hold that 'barriers to entry' are also anti competitive, your assumption is definitely not shared by everyone.
However, your definition does depend on it, and it also is tendentious with regards to how a 'free market' should be achieved as a result.
The direction it points in falls quite in line with libertarian political ideas incidentely.
The definition I gave on the other hand does not depend on assumptions about what makes for anti competitive influences, and is neutral to how such a situation could be achieved.
And then, political programs deal with ideals, and it is not wrong in any way to study such an ideal. Actual politics however deal with reality, and the use of political study for that is somewhat limited indeed. Management and psychology are a lot more useful there.
So you claim, but that doesn't make it true.
preventing competition can easily be done without (threat of) violent means, by simple means of disinformation.
No, it doesn't.
The difference is in 2 things:
1.
You provide a definition of what is not a free market and then say everything else is.
I provide a definition of the condition that makes a free market 'free'.
2.
You fail to account for human psychology and esp. the way humans deal with information.
Its too bad, but humans are not perfect, and the world is not ideal. If both were different, your line of thought would be perfectly usable.
Bottomline, you present a definition that is meant to further a political agenda, not one that can be used to determine if there is a free market or not independent of political agenda.
That is ONE POSSIBLE definition of what is NOT a free market, it is not at all a definition of what is a free market however.
A free market is a market free of anti competitive influences.
Because the cabin systems directly affect resource usage.
- An enterprising hijacker could use this to drain the available electrical energy and make operating the aircraft difficult to impossible
- A pilot needs to be able to shutdown systems in case of emergency (like, we only have 50% generator capacity because we lost an engine, is it going to be used to actually fly the airplane, or to present nice pictures on displays in the cabin)
Even when you make flight attendants responsible for it in normal circumstances, you do need a way to override it from the cockpit.
I'm also just a layman myself, tho I have been in court as expert witness at more then one occation.
The judge should rule out any obviously false statements, but considering how much 'law' exists, I really wouldn't count on this protecting you from miscarriage of justice.
How is claiming that something is infringement while it is not 'technically true' ?
I agree that the defense should have spotted this, and should have dealt with it, but that doesn't change that someone has been lying in court, likely misdirecting the jurors on purpose, which in itself is a serious enough issue to deal with, unless you believe that a properly functioning legal systemn isn't very important.
You forgot a little detail... 'in real time'.
It has a lot to do with the discussion seeing how it is about 'Court Order Against German T-Mobile iPhone Sales' and the purpose of the mobile phone related regulations in the EU.
Sure, you can bring in countries outside the EU and expand the discussion, but if you do so, maybe take a look at their local regulations and contrast them with those in the EU together with looking for which turns out better?
And surely enough, both the USA and New Zealand have different regulations regarding mobile phone networks then the EU. It shows why the regulations for this in the EU work, but I doubt it was the point you were trying to make.
Your beef is with your provider and their crappy roaming contracts, find a better one.
My GSM phone has worked about everywhere where I went, thanks to my provider having roaming provisions with almost every other provider in the world, and at a very decent price.
This has everything to do with providers and their services, and absolutely nothing with GSM technology.
What has to do with GSM technology is that even when I can't get roaming somewhere (which never happened) or when it is economically interesting (because I stay somewhere for a longer time, and having local call fees is going to matter enough, which happens at times), there is alternative in the form of picking up a local sim.
Last I checked, New Zealand is not exactly part of the EU or Europe even. That they adapted the GSM standard does not mean they adapted the EU regulations, and it so happens we were discussing those.
Also, a small difference might be that when you stay inside the USA, you stay within the same country?
I have to wonder, are you always this dense?
When I am travelling to say Germany or New Zealand for that matter, I have a choice between 2 options:
1. Keep my (Dutch) card, and I can be called and call on about every GSM network outside the Netherlands (more precise, every network that my provider has a roaming contract with, which in practise is virtually every GSM network in any country), which works out exactly
2. Buy a local prepay card or subscription, which might work as well and be cheaper, depending on circumstances.
See, you have choice, whereas your CDMA phone wouldn't work outside your country at all.
I'm boggled by how you somehow manage to miss the later.
And why was that?
You should be able to get a card from a provider that does a better job at providing actual coverage, or a subscription that isn't limited to a specific area.
The independence between phone and service are exactly about being able to do that, not about what specific services one specific network offers at which location.
You are not understanding the issue it seems.
You can sell it through an exclusive reseller without any trouble, but you are not allowed to tie it to one specific service provider forever.
Sales of medicine is heavily regulated in the EU. How nice your example is in fact the exception and not the rule.
Not as such no.
What is does is prevent one of the things that have caused the mobile market in the EU to function as well as it does, the seperation of hardware and services.
Because it limits choice for consumers.
Why shouldn't I be able to buy a phone seperately from my subscription?
Why shouldn't I be able to get a different subscription and keep using my phone?
Why should I? because it means more choice for me as a consumer, and it means providers have to stay competitive in their services instead of being able to 'buy' into fashionable items. It makes it easier for new providers to enter the market because they can directly compete on quality of service instead of exclusive fashion items.
Oh, but why not let the market figure it out?
The market could quite figure it out if most consumers were well informed. Its often kinda ignored, but informed customers are an essential part of a functioning free market, and if you don't have those, you'll have to compensate for that or you end up with effective monopolies.
Its one reason why if 2 products can be seperated easily (in this case a phone using the GSM standard, and the GSM network service) then in general, you can sell them as a bundle as long as you also allow people to buy the products seperately. Some parts of the EU have stronger laws in this then others, but the basic idea stays the same. This is the same kind of issue that Microsoft ran into with regards to tying things into Windows that are technically seperate products. Sure, they can do that as long as they also allow you to buy the unbundeled products.
Honest, I'm surprised you missed the news:
. nuclear.test/index.html
p hp
:)
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/asiapcf/10/08/korea
And I'm not surprised you missed the point...
You grossly misunderestimate (hehe) our enemies. The Theocracy in charge of Iran is first a religious organization, and second a government. Perhaps you have been lucky enough to never meet anyone religious enough to actually want the apocolypse to happen. I have, and don't put the same trust in their ability to think rationally anymore. Moreover, Iran would be unlikely to attack us so long as their hatred is focused on Israel. Iran's president has said that he will wipe Israel from the map and that all it would take is one nuclear weapon.
http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/10/26/news/iran.
It is well known that that quote is a mistranslation, either deliberate or not.
Iran's president has said he wants to remove the Israeli administration, not whipe out the country. Doing the later would actually directly conflict with the scripture he so strongly believes in.
I suggest you go read the various transcripts of his speech and pay close attention to how different that specific piece gets translated depending on the source of the transcript, and those around me who happen to actually understand the language he speaks say without exception that the 'we want to wipe Israel from the planet' translation is wrong.
Says who? You? Get real. Those may seem like great reasons to you. However you ignore a fourth reason: Iran denies Israel's right to exist. Let me repeat, the Iranian government would love to see every Jew in the middle east dead. Perhaps you missed this development:
http://www.iranholocaustdenial.com/
Parhaps you read too much propaganda and are absolutely completely clueless as to how the real world looks
Parhaps you should start realizing that whenever someone even suggests wanting to research the truth of some small detail of the holocaust story, they are instantly painted as anti semetic, and maybe this president of Iran made use of that for the serious amount of publicity it would get him? Maybe you also don't realize that Israel (which definitely has a right to exist btw) is partial cause of some major problems in the middle east, and it is easy to make use of that to increase your popularity in the region?
I'm not sure if you consider yourself intelligent, but I suppose you do. I do consider it a sign of intelligence however when you can actually realize that your opinion on something has little value if it is based on a one sided version of the story.
You arrogance belies your ignorance. From my memory:
- Iran supported Hezbollah with money and weapons and people during the Israeli-Lebanon conflict less than a year ago.
- More recently, Iran crossed into international waters and attacked British troops, taking some hostage. That was in March.
- US forces have arrested a number of Iranian military units operating illegally within Iraq. Is sending troops into a country and invasion?
USA supported various groups in southern America that did things like throw over elected governments, torture and dissapear people who didn't agree with them, kill and loot randomly and what not.
Therefore, the USA and everyone in it are a bunch of bandits who invaded the southern Americas.
The USA has sent its army into various states there as well over the years btw.
I suppose you disagree with what I just said, and might think its absured. Well, I definitely agree.
I do however apply that same standard to others, and find your reasoning about Iran as absurd.
Ok, so my example has absolutely nothing to do with it, but nonetheless can be translated into an example that in some sense could have something to do with it:
Your example of Portuguese and Brasilian portuguse did. Your argument that there is a lot of distance between Portugal and Brazil, while there isn't between the Netherlands and Germany however has nothing to do with if what is spoken in all those places are mere variations of the same language, or different languages.
I had to consult Wikipedia about this one: it says "Official languages [of The Netherlands Antilles (Dutch: Nederlandse Antillen), previously known as the Netherlands West Indies or Dutch Antilles/West Indies are:] Dutch, English, Papiamento.
And the first of those is a variation on the Dutch language, one that is distinctively different from what is spoken in the Netherlands, but not so different that people speaking those two variations will have trouble understanding eachother beyond the scope of very simple things, without having to learn eachothers 'language' first.
And that is unlike for example a Dutch and a German speaking person trying to have any kind of conversation that isn't limited to very basic things.
Just look the density of languages that we mention: starting with Dutch, English and German, then extending it to Portugese, Brasilian-Portugese, Vlamish, and eventually Dutch Antiles-Dutch and Papiamento (about which Wikipedia says: "Papiamento is a language that has been evolving through the centuries and absorbed many words from other languages like Spanish, Dutch, English, African dialects, and Portuguese.")... If we were to continue this for a year or so into the future we would have encountered the Wikipedia's:
I happen to understand Papiamento somewhat because.. I understand Dutch and English very well, and can make educated guesses at quite a few Spanish and Portuguese words. Yet, that is enough to understand what is being talked about, but by far not enough to understand many of the details, and it in no way means I can speak it.
To bring yet another language into the discussion, it occured to me you might be confusing Dutch and what is called Pennsylvania Dutch.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pennsylvania_Dutch
That language is closely related to German, not to Dutch. That it is called Dutch has a lot to do with how we came to this discussion to begin with, my comment on the improper use of the word know.
If you'd want to have a 'modern' version of that word, it would be Pennsylvanian Deutsch.
Deutch is the German word for German
Dutch is the English word for the people of the Netherlands, and the family of languages spoken in the Netherlands and a number of its current and former colonies.
Most of the time, spelling mistakes are utterly irrelevant for the meaning of what is being written, but sometimes they are not.
I very much doubt that one could ask the same, because, well, Brasil is across the seven seas from Portugal.
Which has absolutely nothing to do with if the languages spoken there are two variations of the same language or two different languages.
You could ask the same question with regards to Dutch as spoken in the Netherlands and on the Dutch Antiles.
Those, just like Portuguese and Brasilian-Portuguese are variations of languages.
This is not true for Dutch and German, neither is it true for Dutch and English or German and English.
At any rate, you have confirmed a few times too often that you are either extremely dense, or you want to act as if you are.
I'll leave the rest of your rant for what it is. Please go grow some brain or something.
Which reminds me of my initial question: when one speaks English, German and Dutch, how many languages one speaks? Is this the same number as when one speaks English, Dutch and Portuguese?
Three in both cases.
Then, what is the difference between understanding the language and using it correctly in the example of the Brazilian-Portuguese and Portuguese?
You could ask the same about say Dutch and Vlamish (which is by all definitions a member of the family of Dutch languages, and very similar tho not identical). Its not the same as asking the same question about say Dutch and German, or French and Italian.
Try again what?
Next time when in Amsterdam, try not being stoned all the time like the typical visitor, and you might notice that since most Dutchies understand English pretty well and will at least understand some German, they will also understand your 'Dutch' as a result.
Questions pile ohne Ende...
Which of course doesn't contain a single word of Dutch, but will be understood by many Dutch people regardless.
Most of us here get more then a few years of foreign language education, starting in primary school, and actually get to practise what they learn. That is why you are understood here regardless of speaking German, English or Dutch, or whatever silly mix of those you might come up with.
I don't quite get what similarity to what I'm talking about you're talking about: French and Italian and...? Which other language?
If you need a 3rd language to understand the point, take portuguese for example.
The point is that eventho some languages are similar, they are not the same language, and speaking one doesn't mean you automatically speak or understand the other one (or ones), let alone use it correctly.
It's like this: when I brush up on my German I'm gonna take a trip to Amsterdam and then... WHAM! Friends with the knowledge of both English and German but no knowledge of Dutch tell me it's a very trippy experience to talk Dutch!
Amsterdam eh? tell them to stop smoking and try again.
How many languages is that? I mean, Dutch being a mixture of English and German as some say...
Historically, Dutch, German and English do have some common roots, that is true of course.
Your argument however is similar to saying that someone who speaks French and Italian speaks only one language since they are similar and come from the same roman origins.
Without actually learning German, a native Dutch speaker has a decent chance on understanding slowly spoken, simple German, but no chance whatsoever to understand more then a fraction of a normal conversation, and the same is true the other way around (again, this is without actually learning the language).
NPT violation.
In case of Iran, suspected NPT violation. In case of North Korea, I believe they left the NPT, in which case its no loner a violation.
They made a promise and went back on it, or look very close to doing so.
In other words, we don't know, but we THINK Iran might be violating the NPT.
It would be similar to argue that while we don't know, we think you are planning some terrorist attack since well, you had this sudden interest in Islam and also started to learn Arab.. we don't have any proof, but just in case we'll lock you up.
Thinking something is nice, but by far not good enough for taking action in most cases.
(Yes, the US also are violating the NPT as well, but that's a separate conversation).
As a matter of fact, no, it is not a seperate discussion.
Nuclear ambitions of Iran are directly related to:
1. Israel's nuclear capabilities
2. Never ending interference in the ME by the USA.
Since 1. is a consequence of the USA and others having violated the NPT, you can't say that it is a seperate discussion.
Also, not keeping to a treaty yourself and then screaming about violations from others makes you laughable at best, and not someone whoms opinion is regarded highly. This has more then a little bit to do with how succesfull the USA is in trying to get others to keep to the NPT.
Being at fault yourself doesn't invalidate your message, but it does invalidate you as a speaker.