Since I never said that Columbus discovered that the earth was,spherical (Not round as your indicated article states, a round earth would not rule out a flat earth. For instance, the quintessential wheel is both flat AND round.), for your statement to be true, the circumference of the earth would not only have to have been calculated by the Greeks, but then confirmed by them too by the circumnavigation of the world.
Or are you saying that the reaction of the mass of European people had been prognosticated some 1700 years before Columbus was born?
Manned space _is_ waste and fraud. It will get nowhere except putting some astronaut somewhere and back.
Not only does what you say prove my point, it is also untrue.
Why should taxpayers fund a handful of expensive tourists?
Because, oh ye of little insight, there are NUMEROUS benifits of spaceflight.
In actual fact the term “spinoff” was specifically invented to describe specific technologies developed by NASA for its missions that are transferred for commercial use or some other beneficial application.
Just off the top of my head, some of those technologies include:
Do you like computers, cell-phones, or palm-tops? Computers were a direct result of needing near instantaneous calculations using data that would be unknown until the moment it was going to be used. The invention of both the transistor, and the computer chip can be traced back to the need to make components as compact and light as possible. As was their subsequent miniaturization.
How about the convenience of microwave ovens, or freeze dried food? Both direct results of the need to heat food without the possibility of a fire, and the need to preserve food and reduce total weight.
Do you have a digital cameras? Use the Internet at all? Watch / listen / use Satellite Television / Radio / International Phone Calls? All originally invented for use in the space program.
But let's see what a little research turns up...
NASA technologies that help society at large.
The suits of the lunar astronauts were liquid cooled and lead directly to the invention of technology (at NASA’s Johnson Space Center) used for treatment medical ailments such as burning limb syndrome, multiple sclerosis, spinal injuries and sports injuries.
Another Johnson Space Center project resulted in a lightweight breathing system for firefighters. Now widely used in breathing apparatuses of all types.
NASA research has resulted in safer, studier school busses.
Both GPS and IGDG (Internet based Glogal Differential GPS, a system designed to control real-time streaming GPS data).
NASA's Langly Research Center developed a low cost ballistic parachute system that lowers an entire aircraft to the ground in the event of an emergency. It has saved over 200 lives so far.
Using technology developed to clean up rocket-fuel spills, two NASA scientists, along with the University of Central Florida, created EZVI, a chemical effective in the environmental clean up of underground pollutiants.
The development of a medical device used in the early detection of cateracts and other eye diseases, diabetes and current research is being held to see if it could be an early warning system for Alzheimer's.
A device that has been used to restore 19th century paintings.
A food safety system that, 25 years after NASA developed it, was adopted by the FDA and Agriculture Department, and managed within a single year to halve the previously growing cases of Salmonella in the US.
Technology designed to see the surface of Mars has been used to image otherwise invisable writing on badly burned and stained Roman manuscripts.
Both the EKG and EEG, used in hospitals and emergancy rooms around the world, were developed to monitor astronauts.
Ultra-small electronic circuits that enable countless medical advances, such as bone-density measurement technology and miniaturized heart pumps.
Plastic-like metals used in jewelry and sporting goods
Aviation safety systems.
Intelligent ovens that allow you to begin dinner before you even get home.
Airbags
Insulin pumps
Olympics-caliber swimsuits, the LZR line, launched in February 2008, quickly became de rigueur for competitive swimmers: more than nine out of 10 gold-medal winners at the Beijing Olympics six months later wore them.
Memory metals that flex and recover their shape in response to heat are used in shower
There is no dark side of the moon, of a matter of fact, it's all dark.
Wha...huh?
Not the side facing the Sun.
Or the side facing the Earth, for that matter.
Just because the sky is black does not mean there is no light. In fact, on the side facing the sun it's glaringly bright. Except for the shadows, which are freezingly cold.
That would first require something on the moon with enough energy to be used as propellant.
Actually, in low enough gravity (like in orbit), even dust or rocks could be used as propellant by ejecting them in the opposite direction you wish to travel in.
Just like getting in a rowboat and walking from the front to the rear will propel the boat forwards. If you then jump out, the energy (I'm tempted to call it momentum, but that's probably wrong) of your leap will propel the boat even further, even faster. In space, where there is no air or water friction to slow you down, such tactics will be even more successful.
Additionally, rail-gun technology has long been considered an option for raising objects and vessels into moon orbit, or even propelling them to earth.
Best yet, the "real" fuel in both cases is just electricity. In one case moving mass out of the ship, in the other moving the ship it'self via electromagnetism.
and you avoid risk of a colossal failure at single point in time
You do understand that this is in a total vacuum, subject to cosmic rays, soar mass ejections, x-rays, micro-meteorites, and regular sized meteorites?
And that there will be large stores of pure (and highly explosive) oxygen in near proximity to hydrogen or some other rocket fuel AND living quarters?
Your definition of "colossal failure" apparently differs greatly from mine. That such a structure would exist at all is an invitation to "colossal failure".
The definition of "dark side = the side that does not receive signals directly from earth" sounds to me as simply tailored to give a plausible explanation to the incorrect usage of the term... Of course the wikipedia article is useless...
How about NASA? Is that an official and scientific enough source for you?
1) Here's the definition of "Darkside Of The Moon" provided by the High Energy Astrophysics Science Archive Research Center arm of NASA.
I suspect the (incorrect) usage of the term "dark side" might be older than radio signals.
I think it odd that while you claim someone else is redefining the term, you also acknowledge the historical meaning IS exactly what they claimed it to be.
And since (as we both agree it is) the traditional meaning of the "dark side of the moon" is "the side of the moon we never see", that makes "the nightside" the actual redefinition of "the dark side of the moon".
BTW, that Fox News said something does not make it false. Just highly unlikely! ^_^
Not true. The "Dark side of the Moon" traditionally refers to the far side of the moon, which is "dark" only in the sense that you can not see it, and so neither send or receive information from it.
For something to be X miles above the DARK side of the moon, it would have to be orbiting the moon.
Not true again. An object orbiting the earth, but further away than the moon, could easily be fixed X miles over the dark / far side of the moon.
Similarly, objects locked in the correct Lagrange-Point would also be stationary as far as the moon is concerned. (The earth too, for that matter.)
But, no, you should not be editing something like slashdot causing the readers to pull their hair.
Hmmm. Something about pots and kettles springs to mind.
Productive capacity (man-hours) is being used up... [and] could have built something else like improved roads, solar power stations, oil wells, etc.
1) So since we're not building rockets, where are those resultant improved roads / infrastructure? They've been needed since long before the 2007 Minneapolis Bridge Collapse.
By building the rockets (and then blowing them up) you've wasted that productive capacity.
2) Only if there is no payoff / ROI from building and using those rockets.
Why this obsession with Columbus? he wasn't the first European in recent historical times to sail to America...
Not to take away from their accomplishment, but a few lucky Norse sailing the North Atlantic by island-hopping their way to Canada, in boats not designed for sailing out-of-sight of the coastline, who managed to make the trip a handful of times while avoiding being sunk or capsized mid-ocean, means that the Norse had the 'Theoretical' capacity to sail to the Americas (meaning that most trips would probably fail). But lacked the means to actually settle and trade with this "New World".
Columbus, on the other hand, proved that Europe (or at least Spain) had achieved the technology necessary to create AND trade with colonies in "The New World".
Leif Ericson and Eric the Red's children get an A+ for effort and bravery (foolhardiness?), but an F for staying power. Columbus get's a B+ for bravery, and an A+ for staying power.
The impacts of each on humanity of both are both plain and obvious. The Norse discovery and attempted colonization of the Americas had no impact, beyond the the deaths of a few Norse. An interesting historical side-note. The 'Colombian' discovery had a huge impact on Europe, the then dominant human culture (in terms of population, and land, and trade, and wealth), and on history following this (re)discovery. A pivotal point in history with many historical repercussions, many of which are still playing themselves out today.
The technology we have today would have looked like magic to Columbus... Columbus' actions were probably as significant as a moon base would be for us today.
No, just no. The axe and flint and saw had been around for hundreds if not thousands of years prior and all the tech was well known, working with earth and lumber well known, forest animals well known, etc. Not similar at all.
Large sailing vessels capable of crossing the Atlantic was a relatively new technology (in the West, and a lost technology in the East). The construction of clocks that kept reliable time while shipboard, necessary for accurate navigation beyond sight of the shoreline, was also a new technology. During most of human maritime history, ships were only sailed within sight of land for fear of getting lost (and falling off the world's edge), and because they were not up to weathering the mildest of storms at sea.
Plus confirmation that the world was round made a pretty big splash. (Though that was lessened somewhat by the fact that Columbus did not, in fact, find China (the East) by going west.)
And the little bit of research we have done is hardly a large enough sample to make definitive conclusions about what resources are on the moon.
That's exactly why we crashed that probe into that crater, to see if the hypothesis that there was ice in it's shadows held any water*. (Ahem) Because they / we DON'T know.
See what I mean? (not talking to themathemagician)
Basic research is seen, by the majority of people, as a waste of resources, rather than an investment in our future. (Like digging a deeper well in anticipation of drought or population growth.)
If we waited to fix all our problems before we concerned ourselves with furthering knowledge, we'd still be living in caves.
I like most of the technologies we have, so I don't want to live in a cave. (Not one without WiFi anyway!)
Besides, that there are other issues that could be addressed with the funds and manpower that goes into something, is not an argument against that thing.
So engage in basic research. Why do it indirectly?
Because:
1) Most Americans don't WANT to pay for basic research. Why? Because "basic research" has no goals other than the nebulous concept of "expanding human knowledge". The very definition of Waste in the phrase "Waste and Fraud" to most people. And if certain outcomes were promised, likely the definition of the word Fraud too.
2) You never really know what angle of "basic research" is going to pay off. So much of basic research is discovering what is unfruitful. ( Again, the very definition of Waste to the public, and so to polititions also. )
3) Since you don't know what angle of "basic research" is going to pay off, a goal helps to focus effort and avoid going down, intellectually interesting but still nonetheless, "blind alleys".
4) Even when research is directed by a goal, many discoveries are discoveries of accident, when something other than what you expected, happened. Making directed research the most fruitful type of research, as it results in both 'expected' discoveries and 'unexpected' discoveries. While undirected, or basic, research can only result in 'unexpected' discoveries.*
Basically, you're saying you think censorship is valid in some circumstances? Such as what? Anti-muslim hate videos? Electoral accusations? Videos that disagree with the state's point of view?
There is the concept, at least in the US, of Criminal Recklessness.
"Google today announced... [that] As of October 1, users will no longer have the ability to download documents, spreadsheets, and presentations in old Microsoft Office formats (.doc,.xls,.ppt)."
I don't think he was saying they had special infra-red bulbs installed.
He was saying that the normal incandescent bulbs were generating so much infra-red light (heat), wile generating so little visible light, that they had to turn up the air-conditioning, and install a second set of lights to allow people to see.
- While I'm only a tourist, I will still be working freelance for a company back home. - are censored by the Great Firewall of China
What does Slashdot think?
That you are 1) Breaking immigration laws by working while on a tourist visa. 2) Breaking laws by trying to get around the web censors and doing something not allowed.
Mmm. I don't think that immigration laws forbid (or even CAN forbid) getting a job from some company outside the country then coming in-country to do your job, only getting a job while in-country (that a citizen might be able to fill). Though their intelligence agencies may consider it spying or corporate espionage.
More importantly I'd be afraid of bringing police / prosecutorial attention to myself by circumventing the firewall. Extra-territorial detention ANYWHERE is not pleasant, and don't expect they'll go easier on you because you're American. You can bet that they will be sure to be offended that you believed you had the right to come to their country and flaunt their laws.
It seems the telecommunication companies have rewritten the regulatory rules in their favor.
The inevitable result of a free and unfettered market is monopolies that pay for laws to be written that regulate all their competitors out of business.
Slashdot Mirror
2000 years of history would disagree with you: http://www.livescience.com/16468-christopher-columbus-myths-flat-earth-discovered-americas.html
Since I never said that Columbus discovered that the earth was ,spherical (Not round as your indicated article states, a round earth would not rule out a flat earth. For instance, the quintessential wheel is both flat AND round.), for your statement to be true, the circumference of the earth would not only have to have been calculated by the Greeks, but then confirmed by them too by the circumnavigation of the world.
Or are you saying that the reaction of the mass of European people had been prognosticated some 1700 years before Columbus was born?
Manned space _is_ waste and fraud. It will get nowhere except putting some astronaut somewhere and back.
Not only does what you say prove my point, it is also untrue.
Why should taxpayers fund a handful of expensive tourists?
Because, oh ye of little insight, there are NUMEROUS benifits of spaceflight.
In actual fact the term “spinoff” was specifically invented to describe specific technologies developed by NASA for its missions that are transferred for commercial use or some other beneficial application.
Just off the top of my head, some of those technologies include:
Do you like computers, cell-phones, or palm-tops? Computers were a direct result of needing near instantaneous calculations using data that would be unknown until the moment it was going to be used. The invention of both the transistor, and the computer chip can be traced back to the need to make components as compact and light as possible. As was their subsequent miniaturization.
How about the convenience of microwave ovens, or freeze dried food? Both direct results of the need to heat food without the possibility of a fire, and the need to preserve food and reduce total weight.
Do you have a digital cameras? Use the Internet at all? Watch / listen / use Satellite Television / Radio / International Phone Calls?
All originally invented for use in the space program.
But let's see what a little research turns up...
NASA technologies that help society at large.
The suits of the lunar astronauts were liquid cooled and lead directly to the invention of technology (at NASA’s Johnson Space Center) used for treatment medical ailments such as burning limb syndrome, multiple sclerosis, spinal injuries and sports injuries.
Another Johnson Space Center project resulted in a lightweight breathing system for firefighters. Now widely used in breathing apparatuses of all types.
NASA research has resulted in safer, studier school busses.
Both GPS and IGDG (Internet based Glogal Differential GPS, a system designed to control real-time streaming GPS data).
NASA's Langly Research Center developed a low cost ballistic parachute system that lowers an entire aircraft to the ground in the event of an emergency. It has saved over 200 lives so far.
Using technology developed to clean up rocket-fuel spills, two NASA scientists, along with the University of Central Florida, created EZVI, a chemical effective in the environmental clean up of underground pollutiants.
The development of a medical device used in the early detection of cateracts and other eye diseases, diabetes and current research is being held to see if it could be an early warning system for Alzheimer's.
A device that has been used to restore 19th century paintings.
A food safety system that, 25 years after NASA developed it, was adopted by the FDA and Agriculture Department, and managed within a single year to halve the previously growing cases of Salmonella in the US.
Technology designed to see the surface of Mars has been used to image otherwise invisable writing on badly burned and stained Roman manuscripts.
Both the EKG and EEG, used in hospitals and emergancy rooms around the world, were developed to monitor astronauts.
Ultra-small electronic circuits that enable countless medical advances, such as bone-density measurement technology and miniaturized heart pumps.
Plastic-like metals used in jewelry and sporting goods
Aviation safety systems.
Intelligent ovens that allow you to begin dinner before you even get home.
Airbags
Insulin pumps
Olympics-caliber swimsuits, the LZR line, launched in February 2008, quickly became de rigueur for competitive swimmers: more than nine out of 10 gold-medal winners at the Beijing Olympics six months later wore them.
Memory metals that flex and recover their shape in response to heat are used in shower
Judges and police tend to not dwell heavily on philosophical questions, with the possible exception of the USSC.
They both (including the USSC) tend to pay more attention to practical applications and implications than to philosophical ones.
There is no dark side of the moon, of a matter of fact, it's all dark.
Wha...huh?
Not the side facing the Sun.
Or the side facing the Earth, for that matter.
Just because the sky is black does not mean there is no light. In fact, on the side facing the sun it's glaringly bright. Except for the shadows, which are freezingly cold.
That would first require something on the moon with enough energy to be used as propellant.
Actually, in low enough gravity (like in orbit), even dust or rocks could be used as propellant by ejecting them in the opposite direction you wish to travel in.
Just like getting in a rowboat and walking from the front to the rear will propel the boat forwards. If you then jump out, the energy (I'm tempted to call it momentum, but that's probably wrong) of your leap will propel the boat even further, even faster. In space, where there is no air or water friction to slow you down, such tactics will be even more successful.
Additionally, rail-gun technology has long been considered an option for raising objects and vessels into moon orbit, or even propelling them to earth.
Best yet, the "real" fuel in both cases is just electricity. In one case moving mass out of the ship, in the other moving the ship it'self via electromagnetism.
and you avoid risk of a colossal failure at single point in time
You do understand that this is in a total vacuum, subject to cosmic rays, soar mass ejections, x-rays, micro-meteorites, and regular sized meteorites?
And that there will be large stores of pure (and highly explosive) oxygen in near proximity to hydrogen or some other rocket fuel AND living quarters?
Your definition of "colossal failure" apparently differs greatly from mine. That such a structure would exist at all is an invitation to "colossal failure".
The definition of "dark side = the side that does not receive signals directly from earth" sounds to me as simply tailored to give a plausible explanation to the incorrect usage of the term... Of course the wikipedia article is useless...
How about NASA? Is that an official and scientific enough source for you?
1) Here's the definition of "Darkside Of The Moon" provided by the High Energy Astrophysics Science Archive Research Center arm of NASA.
2) Fourth paragraph, 2nd sentence to the end (better yet, search for it.), in this educational material for young children provided by NASA.
3) From a 2010 open "Ask an Expert" chat session: "There's really no dark side of the moon, it's just the side we never see." Even when 'debunking' the term they define it as "the side we never see".
I suspect the (incorrect) usage of the term "dark side" might be older than radio signals.
I think it odd that while you claim someone else is redefining the term, you also acknowledge the historical meaning IS exactly what they claimed it to be.
And since (as we both agree it is) the traditional meaning of the "dark side of the moon" is "the side of the moon we never see", that makes "the nightside" the actual redefinition of "the dark side of the moon".
BTW, that Fox News said something does not make it false. Just highly unlikely! ^_^
Let's get another AC here to tell us what it is after all...
That's (apparently) your function here.
You want to say FAR side of the moon
Not true. The "Dark side of the Moon" traditionally refers to the far side of the moon, which is "dark" only in the sense that you can not see it, and so neither send or receive information from it.
For something to be X miles above the DARK side of the moon, it would have to be orbiting the moon.
Not true again. An object orbiting the earth, but further away than the moon, could easily be fixed X miles over the dark / far side of the moon.
Similarly, objects locked in the correct Lagrange-Point would also be stationary as far as the moon is concerned. (The earth too, for that matter.)
But, no, you should not be editing something like slashdot causing the readers to pull their hair.
Hmmm. Something about pots and kettles springs to mind.
Productive capacity (man-hours) is being used up... [and] could have built something else like improved roads, solar power stations, oil wells, etc.
1) So since we're not building rockets, where are those resultant improved roads / infrastructure? They've been needed since long before the 2007 Minneapolis Bridge Collapse.
By building the rockets (and then blowing them up) you've wasted that productive capacity.
2) Only if there is no payoff / ROI from building and using those rockets.
Why this obsession with Columbus? he wasn't the first European in recent historical times to sail to America...
Not to take away from their accomplishment, but a few lucky Norse sailing the North Atlantic by island-hopping their way to Canada, in boats not designed for sailing out-of-sight of the coastline, who managed to make the trip a handful of times while avoiding being sunk or capsized mid-ocean, means that the Norse had the 'Theoretical' capacity to sail to the Americas (meaning that most trips would probably fail). But lacked the means to actually settle and trade with this "New World".
Columbus, on the other hand, proved that Europe (or at least Spain) had achieved the technology necessary to create AND trade with colonies in "The New World".
Leif Ericson and Eric the Red's children get an A+ for effort and bravery (foolhardiness?), but an F for staying power.
Columbus get's a B+ for bravery, and an A+ for staying power.
The impacts of each on humanity of both are both plain and obvious. The Norse discovery and attempted colonization of the Americas had no impact, beyond the the deaths of a few Norse. An interesting historical side-note. The 'Colombian' discovery had a huge impact on Europe, the then dominant human culture (in terms of population, and land, and trade, and wealth), and on history following this (re)discovery. A pivotal point in history with many historical repercussions, many of which are still playing themselves out today.
That's why the 'obsession' with Columbus.
The technology we have today would have looked like magic to Columbus... Columbus' actions were probably as significant as a moon base would be for us today.
No, just no. The axe and flint and saw had been around for hundreds if not thousands of years prior and all the tech was well known, working with earth and lumber well known, forest animals well known, etc. Not similar at all.
Large sailing vessels capable of crossing the Atlantic was a relatively new technology (in the West, and a lost technology in the East). The construction of clocks that kept reliable time while shipboard, necessary for accurate navigation beyond sight of the shoreline, was also a new technology. During most of human maritime history, ships were only sailed within sight of land for fear of getting lost (and falling off the world's edge), and because they were not up to weathering the mildest of storms at sea.
Plus confirmation that the world was round made a pretty big splash. (Though that was lessened somewhat by the fact that Columbus did not, in fact, find China (the East) by going west.)
Crashing is not drilling.
And the little bit of research we have done is hardly a large enough sample to make definitive conclusions about what resources are on the moon.
That's exactly why we crashed that probe into that crater, to see if the hypothesis that there was ice in it's shadows held any water*. (Ahem) Because they / we DON'T know.
*Sorry** for the bad pun.
**Not really
See what I mean? (not talking to themathemagician)
Basic research is seen, by the majority of people, as a waste of resources, rather than an investment in our future. (Like digging a deeper well in anticipation of drought or population growth.)
If we waited to fix all our problems before we concerned ourselves with furthering knowledge, we'd still be living in caves.
I like most of the technologies we have, so I don't want to live in a cave. (Not one without WiFi anyway!)
Besides, that there are other issues that could be addressed with the funds and manpower that goes into something, is not an argument against that thing.
So engage in basic research. Why do it indirectly?
Because:
1) Most Americans don't WANT to pay for basic research. Why? Because "basic research" has no goals other than the nebulous concept of "expanding human knowledge". The very definition of Waste in the phrase "Waste and Fraud" to most people. And if certain outcomes were promised, likely the definition of the word Fraud too.
2) You never really know what angle of "basic research" is going to pay off. So much of basic research is discovering what is unfruitful. ( Again, the very definition of Waste to the public, and so to polititions also. )
3) Since you don't know what angle of "basic research" is going to pay off, a goal helps to focus effort and avoid going down, intellectually interesting but still nonetheless, "blind alleys".
4) Even when research is directed by a goal, many discoveries are discoveries of accident, when something other than what you expected, happened. Making directed research the most fruitful type of research, as it results in both 'expected' discoveries and 'unexpected' discoveries. While undirected, or basic, research can only result in 'unexpected' discoveries.*
*Ok, that concept may be a bit weak.
... frame the Penguins by the Evil Dr. Blowhole!
+4 Insightful?
Obviously today's moderators can't tell humor when they see it.
Basically, you're saying you think censorship is valid in some circumstances? Such as what? Anti-muslim hate videos? Electoral accusations? Videos that disagree with the state's point of view?
There is the concept, at least in the US, of Criminal Recklessness.
Meh.
And I suppose that Mormons that use Linux should be offended and mad at themselves.
You gotta admit, though, that it wasn't much of a joke, and in poor taste to boot.
"Google today announced... [that] As of October 1, users will no longer have the ability to download documents, spreadsheets, and presentations in old Microsoft Office formats (.doc, .xls, .ppt)."
Boo! Hisss!
I don't think he was saying they had special infra-red bulbs installed.
He was saying that the normal incandescent bulbs were generating so much infra-red light (heat), wile generating so little visible light, that they had to turn up the air-conditioning, and install a second set of lights to allow people to see.
'Cause us intellectuals are never fervent in defense of our pet ideas
I suppose that pointing out the frequency and numbers of deaths favor(?) religion is irrelevant / flamebait?
And any idea that aims to supplant religion, itself requires the same sort of faith that religion does, and is therefore is a religion.
Actually, that sounds like a good idea if actually done properly. How efficient are these infrared bulbs, compared to, say, baseboard heaters?
I direct your attention to the Easy Bake Oven
- While I'm only a tourist, I will still be working freelance for a company back home.
- are censored by the Great Firewall of China
What does Slashdot think?
That you are
1) Breaking immigration laws by working while on a tourist visa.
2) Breaking laws by trying to get around the web censors and doing something not allowed.
Mmm. I don't think that immigration laws forbid (or even CAN forbid) getting a job from some company outside the country then coming in-country to do your job, only getting a job while in-country (that a citizen might be able to fill). Though their intelligence agencies may consider it spying or corporate espionage.
More importantly I'd be afraid of bringing police / prosecutorial attention to myself by circumventing the firewall. Extra-territorial detention ANYWHERE is not pleasant, and don't expect they'll go easier on you because you're American. You can bet that they will be sure to be offended that you believed you had the right to come to their country and flaunt their laws.
It seems the telecommunication companies have rewritten the regulatory rules in their favor.
The inevitable result of a free and unfettered market is monopolies that pay for laws to be written that regulate all their competitors out of business.