Get rid of seatbelts. Get rid of airbags. Put broken glass into the dashboard.
That should act to straighten out a lot of car drivers!
I'm a fan of replacing airbags with a giant well-sharpened spike in the middle of the steering wheel. It would reduce average road speed significantly, both from voluntary compliance from responsible drivers, as well as a rapid reduction in the number of irresponsible drivers on the road.
Long story short, the Federal and State governments often can both regulate things. This is not considered double jeopardy either, as you have broken both laws - you are being tried for the offense against each.
Unless it's something specifically listed in the constitution as being reserved to the Federal government, the States have the right to regulate it. While the feds have overstepped their bounds with the commerce clause, they (constitutionally speaking) can't preempt the states. That's why they (for example) use highway funds as a tool of control. Basically, it's "we can't regulate it, but we can make it worth your while to do so."
Does this mean that if third-party users access my web site, they will be "stopped" with the typical warning that the site is secured with an unknown certificate - and make them go through the ususal steps to add it, etc?
In all seriousness, if you install the certificate chain properly (just follow their instructions), you're fine. They verify you, then don't charge to verify the certs that are tied to you. Makes more sense to me.
What carrier are you going to put that on that doesn't require an ID or SSN?
T-Mobile.
Call them. Lie about name and SSN.
When you fail the credit check, they put you on prepay rather than postpay. The SIM comes in the mail. If you have some blank T-Mobile SIM cards already, they can activate them for you.
The plans aren't bad, and you don't end up paying the prepaid penalty either.
The obvious way to fix this that I've heard some propose, is to allow exemptions for the poor, etc. But now you're getting back where we are now, where individuals have to keep track of their finances and report to uncle sam for their rebates. Except now individuals have to keep track of every single purchase, rather than just their annual income from their employer.
You are aware that the "FairTax" proposal would replace other taxes with a sales tax, but apparently did not bother reading the proposal in full before attacking it.
The proposal calls for a "prebate" - basically paying _every_ taxpayer an amount equal to (Poverty Level * Sales Tax). So, those living at or below that level would pay no (or negative) taxes.
It doesn't have any exemptions whatsoever, and that is kind of the point. The poor pay just as much as everyone, but the effective rate is extremely low due to the subsidies. Individuals don't have to keep track of finances, or report things for rebates. Are you a citizen? You get a check. The check does nothing for Bill Gates (percentage wise), and makes all the difference in the world for someone living off $20,000 a year.
Let's look at tax rates. 2 scenarios: 1) Someone who spends all their money on food and rent. Rather poor, no disposable income.
Under the FairTax, the rent would be pre-tax money (as it effectively already is with someone who pays no income tax). No change there. If their grocery budget is $50/week (generous for a single person) - they would pay ~$215 a month in food costs. They would pay $50/mo in taxes, which would be more than offset by the $2500/year ($208/mo) prebate.
2) Family of four. Per census bureau, the "real" adjusted for income median household income was $50,233.00. Poverty level is 22,050. After prebate, even if they spent 100% of their income on things that were directly taxed (say they own their home), they would effectively only be taxed on the $28,183 difference, and it would be paid at 23%. So, on a $50,000 income, a family of four would pay ~$6500 in taxes.
Looking at the data, the "version" appears to be a unix timestamp (1271781219). This would correspond to a date of Tue, 20 Apr 2010 16:33:39 GMT. This is more-or-less consistent with the.zip file, which has a last modified date on the steam executable from last month.
I suspect I'm just missing a file or two, and should have the client up and running in a little bit.
kathrin@KathysLinuxLaptop:/tmp/steam$./steam.sh [ 0%] !!! Fatal Error: Failed to determine download location for universe 0 [----] Verifying installation... [ 0%] Downloading Update... [ 0%] !!! Fatal Error: Failed to determine download location for universe 0 unlinked 1 orphaned pipes removing stale semaphore last operated on by process 9209 with name 0emSteamEngineInstance removing stale semaphore last operated on by process 9209 with name 0eSteamEngineLock CellID: Fetching server list from CSDS. . . CellID: CSDS returned 169 servers. CellID: Connecting to 193.34.51.2:27031. . .
Unable to open displayCAsyncIOManager: 0 threads terminating. 0 reads, 0 writes, 0 deferrals. CAsyncIOManager: 3750 single object sleeps, 0 multi object sleeps CAsyncIOManager: 0 single object alertable sleeps, 11 multi object alertable sleeps pure virtual method called terminate called without an active exception Aborted
1) Play PS3 games, including games with online functionality. 2) Use linux, and other OSes.
It is a Playstation 3. As such, one has a realistic expectation that "Playstation 3 compatible" software will run on it. Unlike the PC, Sony controls the hardware and licenses the software specifically to ensure such compatibility.
It had Other OS support. It was marketed as supporting it. People (in some cases) bought it specifically as a result of such support.
Here's the crux of the problem: They have made it impossible to actually use the device as it was marketed.
I have games that boast they have online support. Sony says they are PS3-compatible, and support networking (subject to the terms of the Playstation Network). They then use the PSN to force an upgrade which would disable the very functionality they sold me.
So, "Buy this PS3, get games, online functionality, and linux" "Lose linux, or lose online functionality"
With forced firmware updates, it can get even worse. Newer PS3 games can require certain firmware versions to run. "Buy this PS3 to get games, online functionality, and linux" "Lose linux, or lose games, and online functionality"
Even if you accept the Playstation Network TOS changes, and feel that "it's their network, they can set whatever terms they want" - the PS3 was marketed as a dual-purpose device, and forced firmware changes would literally force you to choose between the two. That would be fine if it was sold that way, but it was not.
The Insurance industry in America is the closest thing we have to a legalized mob...other than Congress, of course. Hopefully, parts of this bill will change that.
No, that would be the police. Large, organized, armed, and involved in quite a few "protection" rackets.
Really, what's the point of having windows not Maximized.
Often, there is a limit to how much useful information a given window can convey.
Consider web pages - they tend to have one of two approaches: fixed width, in which you end up with large amounts of blank space, or variable width, in which case a large screen makes most paragraphs 1-3 lines.
I have Steam running. It has two windows running. One is a game list, with columns. Game name, status, update, score, developer. No matter how big the window is, it will not convey any more information. Bigger is not better. The other window is the "update news" page. It's a fixed width web page. I can make it as big as I want, but I just get a bigger border.
I'm running Skype, IRC, and Firefox. In fact, I deliberately shrunk the FF window because I hate it when/. comments are all one line tall.
The "ideal size" for a window very much depends on what is in it. If I am not playing a game, or doing high-resolution graphics manipulation, I do not want my windows maximized. In fact, I find Windows 7's habit of automatically trying to Fullscreen any window I put near the top of the screen highly annoying. Unless you disable it, it makes efficient use of screen real estate hard.
who's up for a Church of Common Sense? Anyone? Can I get a Hell Yeah!?!
I'm working on it - it's harder than you think. Anyone can start a religion, but getting one that has enough momentum (and evangelism) to sustain and grow isn't easy. It's even harder when one refuses to use deception, doesn't preach eternal damnation for those who don't believe, and encourages people to think and challenge the teachings themselves.
Yes, I am very intelligent. I am very successful in my career. I have a lot of people telling me how they would love to swap positions. I can tell you that for every person that I meet who is dumb and unsuccessful, yet happy in their lives, I would swap places in an instant.
Last year, and almost all my life before that, I was in the same position.
On paper, my life was great - phenomenal test scores, CTO and one of the founders of a successful software company, good income, attending Harvard, etc. Tall, attractive, etc.
And yet, my life was hell. Many emotions (love, empathy, grief, joy) were literally missing. I had family, pets, etc. die - I felt nothing, so I watched others and emulated them, lest people think I was callous. I didn't want them to see that I was empty inside - filled with only anger, hate, jealousy, etc.
I was rather sociopathic - it made me a great salesperson, and a very lousy human being. I didn't date, I had only 1 long-term friend. In many ways, he was more screwed up than I.
The irony is that ultimately it was my suicide plans that saved me.
I had decided to end my life, and to ensure I would not be screwing over my family (who I was supporting), I decided to get insurance, and stage an accident. Yes, I am aware this is fraud - I was not right in the head. The fact I'm typing this is a pretty good indication I didn't go through witih it.
As part of the insurance process, they did blood analysis. This caught that my cholesterol levels were extremely low.
Further investigation showed that my body does not properly produce cholesterol, and that it messed up my hormonal levels - horribly.
I now chug heavy whipping cream at night, and take hormonal replacement. The depression is gone, and I am a generally happy human being.
When I do what I feel is right, I enjoy it - when I hurt others, or do what I feel is wrong, I feel bad. It's a very profound feeling for someone who has never felt that before. I went on my first date - I never imagined that being with someone in a social situation could feel so good.
We are chemical beings, running on chemical processes. As we get a better understanding of the brain, how things work - more and more people are finding things that can help. I hope, I sincerely do, that you are able to find your answers, and soon.
And my hardware-enabled H.264 decoding video card does better and I don't have to buy any extra codecs. And the hardware decoding works on Linux with ffmpeg/mplayer as well through the VPDAU framework.
Sure. Terrorism is scary. It's false bravado to claim you aren't worried about it to some degree. YOur stat of 0.001% of the US population dying in a single day is quite a bit. I'm frightened of street crime. It's a rational fear.
No, it's not. I have absolutely zero fear of terrorism, on any level. I have accepted that I _will_ die, and it's possible it may be a car accident, terrorism, a heart attack - any of a number of things. The nifty thing about dying is that when it's over, you're dead - there's not a lot to worry about at that point.
So, suck it up - it's a simple fact of life that nearly every person you will ever will come across could kill you if he or she desired - be it with a knife, a gun, a bomb. It's part of being in a society.
I do not find any evidence for an afterlife, nor have any reasonable reason to believe that there is one. Fearing a judgement would be counterproductive. I do, however, fear life - the concept of living paralyzed, or in intense pain, etc. - those are scary. Death is easy.
Verify the number on the warrant, then call it. I've heard that cops will wait for you to do this if it's not one of those "get down on the floor" type of warrants. That is not always the case.
I was served with search warrant - they did not even let me read it first. They, quite literally, told me - here is the warrant, let us in now, or we break in the door. You can read it while we search.
The response to TPB here on Slashdot seems overwhelmingly positive, so maybe I've been missing something. I'm honestly curious. As a commercial software developer who works very hard and doesn't want to see my work made available for free, why would I approve of what TPB are doing? I mean, if people don't pay for the apps I make, then my kids don't eat (well, or I have to go find something else to do that I'd probably enjoy less).
I am a software developer by profession - my livelihood comes from copyright at the moment.
Copyright exists to "promote the progress of science and the useful arts" - I would make the case that it no longer does so. A much shorter copyright term would still provide incentive to create, while allowing things to fall in the public domain - where they are free to be modified, improved, built on by others.
My personal reason for completely opposing copyright is that it is fundamentally out of touch with reality. I believe in regulating markets (well, almost anything) only when it's necessary to protect people from each other. Value comes from demand and scarcity - something that is plentiful is not really worth much.
Software has value, yes, but it is the act of creation that is scarce - not the act of copying. Anyone can copy, and many will.
Barring government intervention to the contrary, the "cost" of acquiring a copy naturally tends towards zero - increased competition drives it down towards the cost to make one.
Everything we do is done on the backs of those before us. When I observe someone fix a car, efficiently clean a room, prepare a meal, paint, sing - I am looking to see how I can improve what I do - by copying them. They retain their knowledge, but I benefit from duplicating. From a utilitarian standpoint, the cost to an individual of reduced scarcity is far outweighed by the benefits to society of free exchange of knowledge, or skill, of culture.
Alternatively, from the libertarian standpoint, it is unethical to interfere in the affairs of others - they are depriving you of nothing in the first place. Your "right" to earn money from your software is a government-enforced artificial monopoly - it is out of touch with fundamental realities. When they copy your software, they are not depriving you of anything, other than a government-granted right to control the making and distribution of copies. The government is (supposedly) an agent of the people, and is limited by the Constitution to actions specifically authorized.
Right now, software is often produced at a loss, then copyright is used to allow them split the cost up among the users. Put simply, it's a loss leader, with the revenue model protected by law. Why should software get special protection when other loss leaders (CueCat, iOpener, etc.) do not? Their designers are free to take the risk, and free to earn their rewards, if any, on their own merits.
Would abolishment of copyright do away with the creation of software? Of course not, but it would certainly change things. The need for software still exists.
DRM would have it's place, and would be much more popular than it currently is. Personally I hate it, but it is an ethical approach - the author is free to write and protect his software as he sees fit, and I am free to modify and use it as I can manage. DRM raises the cost of making and acquiring copies - it can preserve value in scarcity without the need for government intervention.
As a company, we commission software all the time. Often, we will go in with other companies to have something created. For things that are not our core business, we have no problem with giving it away - we have nothing to gain from keeping (for example) a CRM scarce, and nothing to lose by giving it away to the world. Software would still exist, it would just feature a different compensation model that reflects real scarcity rather than artificial government-granted monopolies.
Slashdot Mirror
See Concurrent Jurisdiction.
Long story short, the Federal and State governments often can both regulate things. This is not considered double jeopardy either, as you have broken both laws - you are being tried for the offense against each.
Unless it's something specifically listed in the constitution as being reserved to the Federal government, the States have the right to regulate it. While the feds have overstepped their bounds with the commerce clause, they (constitutionally speaking) can't preempt the states. That's why they (for example) use highway funds as a tool of control. Basically, it's "we can't regulate it, but we can make it worth your while to do so."
You tell me.
In all seriousness, if you install the certificate chain properly (just follow their instructions), you're fine. They verify you, then don't charge to verify the certs that are tied to you. Makes more sense to me.
How do you handle your backhaul? Have fiber put in?
What carrier are you going to put that on that doesn't require an ID or SSN?
T-Mobile.
Call them. Lie about name and SSN.
When you fail the credit check, they put you on prepay rather than postpay. The SIM comes in the mail. If you have some blank T-Mobile SIM cards already, they can activate them for you.
The plans aren't bad, and you don't end up paying the prepaid penalty either.
You are aware that the "FairTax" proposal would replace other taxes with a sales tax, but apparently did not bother reading the proposal in full before attacking it.
The proposal calls for a "prebate" - basically paying _every_ taxpayer an amount equal to (Poverty Level * Sales Tax). So, those living at or below that level would pay no (or negative) taxes.
It doesn't have any exemptions whatsoever, and that is kind of the point. The poor pay just as much as everyone, but the effective rate is extremely low due to the subsidies. Individuals don't have to keep track of finances, or report things for rebates. Are you a citizen? You get a check. The check does nothing for Bill Gates (percentage wise), and makes all the difference in the world for someone living off $20,000 a year.
Let's look at tax rates. 2 scenarios:
1) Someone who spends all their money on food and rent. Rather poor, no disposable income.
Under the FairTax, the rent would be pre-tax money (as it effectively already is with someone who pays no income tax). No change there. If their grocery budget is $50/week (generous for a single person) - they would pay ~$215 a month in food costs. They would pay $50/mo in taxes, which would be more than offset by the $2500/year ($208/mo) prebate.
2) Family of four. Per census bureau, the "real" adjusted for income median household income was $50,233.00. Poverty level is 22,050. After prebate, even if they spent 100% of their income on things that were directly taxed (say they own their home), they would effectively only be taxed on the $28,183 difference, and it would be paid at 23%. So, on a $50,000 income, a family of four would pay ~$6500 in taxes.
As your income rises, it would approach 23%.
Looking at the data, the "version" appears to be a unix timestamp (1271781219). This would correspond to a date of Tue, 20 Apr 2010 16:33:39 GMT. This is more-or-less consistent with the .zip file, which has a last modified date on the steam executable from last month.
I suspect I'm just missing a file or two, and should have the client up and running in a little bit.
Some references from the client UI:
Quick follow-up:
It's more than simply "abandoned legacy cruft"
Checking the linux client version.
This references the following files:
public_all.zip, and
skins_all.zip.
and, of course:
Linux binaries, and
Linux client.
Looking at the linux client:
They marketed the PS2 as a system that could:
1) Play PS3 games, including games with online functionality.
2) Use linux, and other OSes.
It is a Playstation 3. As such, one has a realistic expectation that "Playstation 3 compatible" software will run on it. Unlike the PC, Sony controls the hardware and licenses the software specifically to ensure such compatibility.
It had Other OS support. It was marketed as supporting it. People (in some cases) bought it specifically as a result of such support.
Here's the crux of the problem: They have made it impossible to actually use the device as it was marketed.
I have games that boast they have online support. Sony says they are PS3-compatible, and support networking (subject to the terms of the Playstation Network). They then use the PSN to force an upgrade which would disable the very functionality they sold me.
So,
"Buy this PS3, get games, online functionality, and linux"
"Lose linux, or lose online functionality"
With forced firmware updates, it can get even worse. Newer PS3 games can require certain firmware versions to run.
"Buy this PS3 to get games, online functionality, and linux"
"Lose linux, or lose games, and online functionality"
Even if you accept the Playstation Network TOS changes, and feel that "it's their network, they can set whatever terms they want" - the PS3 was marketed as a dual-purpose device, and forced firmware changes would literally force you to choose between the two. That would be fine if it was sold that way, but it was not.
They have the right to update their terms and conditions.
I have a right to reject said changes, and have.
Barring any changes to the contrary, they have no right to modify my hardware.
Depends on the state. In some states, they ticket the car, not the driver.
You're going to demand that the ER save your life, then demand they swallow the tens of thousands of dollars it cost
Please don't paint with such a broad brush. Many people value their ethics over their lives. I am one of them.
The Insurance industry in America is the closest thing we have to a legalized mob...other than Congress, of course. Hopefully, parts of this bill will change that.
No, that would be the police. Large, organized, armed, and involved in quite a few "protection" rackets.
For example, NJ forbids radar detectors.
Almost everything is illegal in New Jersey, but the radar detector ban only applies to commercial vehicles of a certain weight.
DNS is easy enough to throttle if necessary, and it's quite possible to place limitations on request length, and reply length.
It's not really that hard, actually.
Really, what's the point of having windows not Maximized.
Often, there is a limit to how much useful information a given window can convey.
Consider web pages - they tend to have one of two approaches: fixed width, in which you end up with large amounts of blank space, or variable width, in which case a large screen makes most paragraphs 1-3 lines.
I have Steam running. It has two windows running. One is a game list, with columns. Game name, status, update, score, developer. No matter how big the window is, it will not convey any more information. Bigger is not better. The other window is the "update news" page. It's a fixed width web page. I can make it as big as I want, but I just get a bigger border.
I'm running Skype, IRC, and Firefox. In fact, I deliberately shrunk the FF window because I hate it when /. comments are all one line tall.
The "ideal size" for a window very much depends on what is in it. If I am not playing a game, or doing high-resolution graphics manipulation, I do not want my windows maximized. In fact, I find Windows 7's habit of automatically trying to Fullscreen any window I put near the top of the screen highly annoying. Unless you disable it, it makes efficient use of screen real estate hard.
who's up for a Church of Common Sense? Anyone? Can I get a Hell Yeah!?!
I'm working on it - it's harder than you think. Anyone can start a religion, but getting one that has enough momentum (and evangelism) to sustain and grow isn't easy. It's even harder when one refuses to use deception, doesn't preach eternal damnation for those who don't believe, and encourages people to think and challenge the teachings themselves.
And no, I'm not kidding.
Last year, and almost all my life before that, I was in the same position.
On paper, my life was great - phenomenal test scores, CTO and one of the founders of a successful software company, good income, attending Harvard, etc. Tall, attractive, etc.
And yet, my life was hell. Many emotions (love, empathy, grief, joy) were literally missing. I had family, pets, etc. die - I felt nothing, so I watched others and emulated them, lest people think I was callous. I didn't want them to see that I was empty inside - filled with only anger, hate, jealousy, etc.
I was rather sociopathic - it made me a great salesperson, and a very lousy human being. I didn't date, I had only 1 long-term friend. In many ways, he was more screwed up than I.
The irony is that ultimately it was my suicide plans that saved me.
I had decided to end my life, and to ensure I would not be screwing over my family (who I was supporting), I decided to get insurance, and stage an accident. Yes, I am aware this is fraud - I was not right in the head. The fact I'm typing this is a pretty good indication I didn't go through witih it.
As part of the insurance process, they did blood analysis. This caught that my cholesterol levels were extremely low.
Further investigation showed that my body does not properly produce cholesterol, and that it messed up my hormonal levels - horribly.
I now chug heavy whipping cream at night, and take hormonal replacement. The depression is gone, and I am a generally happy human being.
When I do what I feel is right, I enjoy it - when I hurt others, or do what I feel is wrong, I feel bad. It's a very profound feeling for someone who has never felt that before. I went on my first date - I never imagined that being with someone in a social situation could feel so good.
We are chemical beings, running on chemical processes. As we get a better understanding of the brain, how things work - more and more people are finding things that can help. I hope, I sincerely do, that you are able to find your answers, and soon.
placebos should be preferred as they dont have side effects.
Not Necessarily
And my hardware-enabled H.264 decoding video card does better and I don't have to buy any extra codecs. And the hardware decoding works on Linux with ffmpeg/mplayer as well through the VPDAU framework.
You're lucky then. Often times, CoreAVC is faster than hardware acceleration.
No, it's not. I have absolutely zero fear of terrorism, on any level. I have accepted that I _will_ die, and it's possible it may be a car accident, terrorism, a heart attack - any of a number of things. The nifty thing about dying is that when it's over, you're dead - there's not a lot to worry about at that point.
So, suck it up - it's a simple fact of life that nearly every person you will ever will come across could kill you if he or she desired - be it with a knife, a gun, a bomb. It's part of being in a society.
I do not find any evidence for an afterlife, nor have any reasonable reason to believe that there is one. Fearing a judgement would be counterproductive. I do, however, fear life - the concept of living paralyzed, or in intense pain, etc. - those are scary. Death is easy.
Verify the number on the warrant, then call it. I've heard that cops will wait for you to do this if it's not one of those "get down on the floor" type of warrants.
That is not always the case.
I was served with search warrant - they did not even let me read it first. They, quite literally, told me - here is the warrant, let us in now, or we break in the door. You can read it while we search.
The response to TPB here on Slashdot seems overwhelmingly positive, so maybe I've been missing something. I'm honestly curious. As a commercial software developer who works very hard and doesn't want to see my work made available for free, why would I approve of what TPB are doing? I mean, if people don't pay for the apps I make, then my kids don't eat (well, or I have to go find something else to do that I'd probably enjoy less).
I am a software developer by profession - my livelihood comes from copyright at the moment.
Copyright exists to "promote the progress of science and the useful arts" - I would make the case that it no longer does so. A much shorter copyright term would still provide incentive to create, while allowing things to fall in the public domain - where they are free to be modified, improved, built on by others.
My personal reason for completely opposing copyright is that it is fundamentally out of touch with reality. I believe in regulating markets (well, almost anything) only when it's necessary to protect people from each other. Value comes from demand and scarcity - something that is plentiful is not really worth much.
Software has value, yes, but it is the act of creation that is scarce - not the act of copying. Anyone can copy, and many will.
Barring government intervention to the contrary, the "cost" of acquiring a copy naturally tends towards zero - increased competition drives it down towards the cost to make one.
Everything we do is done on the backs of those before us. When I observe someone fix a car, efficiently clean a room, prepare a meal, paint, sing - I am looking to see how I can improve what I do - by copying them. They retain their knowledge, but I benefit from duplicating. From a utilitarian standpoint, the cost to an individual of reduced scarcity is far outweighed by the benefits to society of free exchange of knowledge, or skill, of culture.
Alternatively, from the libertarian standpoint, it is unethical to interfere in the affairs of others - they are depriving you of nothing in the first place. Your "right" to earn money from your software is a government-enforced artificial monopoly - it is out of touch with fundamental realities. When they copy your software, they are not depriving you of anything, other than a government-granted right to control the making and distribution of copies. The government is (supposedly) an agent of the people, and is limited by the Constitution to actions specifically authorized.
Right now, software is often produced at a loss, then copyright is used to allow them split the cost up among the users. Put simply, it's a loss leader, with the revenue model protected by law. Why should software get special protection when other loss leaders (CueCat, iOpener, etc.) do not? Their designers are free to take the risk, and free to earn their rewards, if any, on their own merits.
Would abolishment of copyright do away with the creation of software? Of course not, but it would certainly change things. The need for software still exists.
DRM would have it's place, and would be much more popular than it currently is. Personally I hate it, but it is an ethical approach - the author is free to write and protect his software as he sees fit, and I am free to modify and use it as I can manage. DRM raises the cost of making and acquiring copies - it can preserve value in scarcity without the need for government intervention.
As a company, we commission software all the time. Often, we will go in with other companies to have something created. For things that are not our core business, we have no problem with giving it away - we have nothing to gain from keeping (for example) a CRM scarce, and nothing to lose by giving it away to the world. Software would still exist, it would just feature a different compensation model that reflects real scarcity rather than artificial government-granted monopolies.
Missed a word. Hormones, and by extension, genetics, play a big role...