Feel no pain. Raw material is cheap, your space and your time are not. I live in Manhattan and I am supposed to sort my garbage. It takes me an extra trash bin to do that, the space cost is gigantic, and it takes time.
The reason behind this is that trash sorting is ideologically, not economically motivated. Governments play on guilt and obedience to keep people in line. If recycling were necessary because of some expected shortage, that would be reflected by market prices because speculators would hold resources waiting for penury. Thus, recycling makes economical sense only if it actually makes a profit, *including all costs* that is your time, space, energy etc. Trash sorting should be negotiated between trash collecting companies and their customers, if it's profitable to sort their trash, people will do it, otherwise they won't. Coercing people into sorting their trash is both morally objectable and economically unsound.
It doesn't solely rely on gun, the government couldn't possibly fight against even 20% of the population. There's a tipping point for revolutions which is fairly low. It relies on democracy, and the ability for the government to create the proper incentives so that people stay in line and keep voting.
1. Create economic distress 2. Argue for a welfare state 3. Tax 4. ??? 5. Profit
Higher uranium prices means more uranium is being mined, more is invested in mining uranium so it increases the supply and stabilizes the price, although there is a lag effect. The spot uranium price doesn't matter, one should look at futures.
... what if... what if we don't do anything an people die from Malaria. You are trading off a sure gain over very hypothetical risks. Why is that? Why this bias for the status quo? What if the current mosquitoes are currently evolving to be better carriers of the West Nile and this will stop them... what if birds feeding on those mosquitoes don't get the bird flue? I doesn't make less or more sense than your scares. The point is, there is NOT necessary less risk in "not doing something" than in "doing something". Of course we can study those mosquitoes for years while people are dying of malaria, sure.
Oh, this kind of "scare", "precautionary principle" actually led to DDT being banned in the world, while it had almost crushed malaria in Africa.
Their model do not account for innovation, they use fixed parameters, a very neat toy model. The real world doesn't behave like that, it is much more complicated.
Do they foresee Google raising WiMax masts? Do they foresee P2P based webservices?
The article says:
"More important, the researchers found that the incentive for broadband service providers to expand and upgrade their service actually declines if net neutrality ends. Improving the infrastructure reduces the need for online content providers to pay for preferential treatment, Bandyopadhyay said."
Of course it does, but then your competitor has an incentive to expand and upgrade their service so that they can charge lower prices. How can the model not take *that* into account?
If this kind of simulation had any validity, planned economy and sovietism would work. We know it doesn't.
Both companies are all about greed and neither give a shit about fucking over their userbase.
Of course, and your baker makes bread because he thinks you're a nice guy and wants to help you out. Right.q
But that law is stupid and immoral. If you don't want to pay for Windows don't buy a HP that's all! You don't have a sacred right to buy a PC from HP OS free. Just go to the local PC shop and get one without an OS. That's what I always did.
- Using peer to peer communication (audio, video) without actually having to try and get around the NAT with clever tricks - Running a server - Faster and easier file transfers between you and your friends - Easier to play games - You can run a shell or a VNC and access it easily from outside - IPsec included in the protocol, easy secure communications over any medium (wifi... )
1) very unlikely with a good hash or combined hashes
2) no they wouldn't, they'd try to hash every phishing site with every salt to see if it matches your hash... sure they could see if you watch specific sites, but it certainly mitigates the amount of information they can get about you, they can't know exactly all the sites you look at.
If their entry are user submitted, the user submission can be done in clear text, no problem.
Well if it does avoid some pollution then you are freed from the financial risk of being sued for polluting someone's air and thus it is woth it on a pure financial basis. Indeed, the polluting power company is not free from the legal risk of being sued and thus has to charge higher price for its power...
Well, that'd be IF we only could sue polluters, that should be natural.
In the Amish society if there is anti-social behavior in the first place it means there is coercion. Thus even though it is dealt without coercion it does not mean there is no coercion. It boils down to this: a society doesn't deny or allow coercion... individuals engage in coercion or don't.
There's nothing wrong with my argument. 1) You seem to agree with X's idea, 2) upon reflecting on his idea, X updated them 3) therefore you might go through the same process.
If you want a more detailed argument: If possession, supported via labor grants property - for example if I make clothes for myself, once I am done, further possession of the product of my work will be property, enforced with legitimate coercion. If you don't recognize this property then possession is useless since it disappears as soon as your work is done and there is no real possession. Every property starts with possession, this is true for land which belongs to whomever combines its work with it. Now would you say someone who once worked on a land may not rent it or sell it since it would become property and not possession? No, this would be as absurd as saying you don't own you clothes anymore at the moment you're done making them! Thus individual property is as natural and legitimate as possession../ may not be the best place to discuss that but I have no objection to continuing this discussion elsewhere
Either you can tell the difference or you can't.
If you can't and it doesn't matter
If you can and indeed prefer a genuine local report you stop watching the fake one and let it know to the news channel.
By the way, the website you linked to says its a memorial to Proudhon... well that's good since Proudhon eventually came to realise that property was freedom and only its power could act as a counterweight to the State. I wish you come to the same conclusions as his... only faster.
Sure. If many people want local news, many people will watch ads during local news segments or pay for local news channels, thus there'll be local news because there's a profit to be made. If most people want to see global news and few people want to see local news they will have to pay extra since they use resources that could be used to fulfill the need of more people. It's simple, it's moral. What there is on TV reflect what people want, you may very well dislike other people's taste and I sure do but that's the way it is.
This is indeed an anarcap point of view. Yes the market is not free, yes government interfere with business, yes powerful business interestes - with the aid of government - erect massives barriers-to-entry.... That's why precisely why we need LESS regulations and not more. Although a specific regulation might have a temporary positive effect, it is only legitimating further regulations that will be highjacked by companies with the aid of governments. This is also Tim Berners Lee's stance on net neutrality for example. No I don't want D, and I do agree with you on A,B,C and this is precisely why I think this regulation would be dangerous.
As for anarchism since it is - by definition - not an institution there is no way to describe a society as anarchic or not. It solely defines a set of rule which are believe to be legitimate and leaves people free to enforce those rules. In the end the most efficient society survives and I believe this society respects the right to property.
Anyway the only thing this report could have done is legitimate the use of force by the government against TV stations. Even if the regulation could have some positive impact, this would lead to a regulation trap the government could use to control the media even more. As much as I disaprove of the destroying of the report, it is clearly irresponsible, but I do appreciate that coercive laws won't be passed. If people WANT to watch local news there WILL be local news, tehre is no need for a law.
Slashdot Mirror
Feel no pain. Raw material is cheap, your space and your time are not. I live in Manhattan and I am supposed to sort my garbage. It takes me an extra trash bin to do that, the space cost is gigantic, and it takes time.
The reason behind this is that trash sorting is ideologically, not economically motivated. Governments play on guilt and obedience to keep people in line. If recycling were necessary because of some expected shortage, that would be reflected by market prices because speculators would hold resources waiting for penury. Thus, recycling makes economical sense only if it actually makes a profit, *including all costs* that is your time, space, energy etc. Trash sorting should be negotiated between trash collecting companies and their customers, if it's profitable to sort their trash, people will do it, otherwise they won't. Coercing people into sorting their trash is both morally objectable and economically unsound.
It doesn't solely rely on gun, the government couldn't possibly fight against even 20% of the population. There's a tipping point for revolutions which is fairly low. It relies on democracy, and the ability for the government to create the proper incentives so that people stay in line and keep voting.
1. Create economic distress
2. Argue for a welfare state
3. Tax
4. ???
5. Profit
very few guns needed
Higher uranium prices means more uranium is being mined, more is invested in mining uranium so it increases the supply and stabilizes the price, although there is a lag effect. The spot uranium price doesn't matter, one should look at futures.
... what if... what if we don't do anything an people die from Malaria. You are trading off a sure gain over very hypothetical risks. Why is that? Why this bias for the status quo? What if the current mosquitoes are currently evolving to be better carriers of the West Nile and this will stop them... what if birds feeding on those mosquitoes don't get the bird flue? I doesn't make less or more sense than your scares. The point is, there is NOT necessary less risk in "not doing something" than in "doing something". Of course we can study those mosquitoes for years while people are dying of malaria, sure.
Oh, this kind of "scare", "precautionary principle" actually led to DDT being banned in the world, while it had almost crushed malaria in Africa.
Hum. There really are right wing people in France? Whao. Come on, France has progressive socialists, and conservative socialists.
As for myself I can testified than many (of the very very few) French libertarians use a lot of OSS.
Their model do not account for innovation, they use fixed parameters, a very neat toy model. The real world doesn't behave like that, it is much more complicated.
Do they foresee Google raising WiMax masts? Do they foresee P2P based webservices?
The article says:
"More important, the researchers found that the incentive for broadband service providers to expand and upgrade their service actually declines if net neutrality ends. Improving the infrastructure reduces the need for online content providers to pay for preferential treatment, Bandyopadhyay said."
Of course it does, but then your competitor has an incentive to expand and upgrade their service so that they can charge lower prices. How can the model not take *that* into account?
If this kind of simulation had any validity, planned economy and sovietism would work. We know it doesn't.
And honestly they rule... where can I register ju.jit.su ?!
The TLD for bearded Russian sysadmins.
You can ignore what they say while you cannot ignore physical violence. They should crack hard on actual bullying before tackling this one.
Both companies are all about greed and neither give a shit about fucking over their userbase.
Of course, and your baker makes bread because he thinks you're a nice guy and wants to help you out. Right.q
But that law is stupid and immoral. If you don't want to pay for Windows don't buy a HP that's all! You don't have a sacred right to buy a PC from HP OS free. Just go to the local PC shop and get one without an OS. That's what I always did.
- Using peer to peer communication (audio, video) without actually having to try and get around the NAT with clever tricks
- Running a server
- Faster and easier file transfers between you and your friends
- Easier to play games
- You can run a shell or a VNC and access it easily from outside
- IPsec included in the protocol, easy secure communications over any medium (wifi... )
create a finger print of each spotted commercial (first few frames) and share it across the Internet... beats everything
My dell came with windows XP and a free upgrade to linux !
1) very unlikely with a good hash or combined hashes 2) no they wouldn't, they'd try to hash every phishing site with every salt to see if it matches your hash... sure they could see if you watch specific sites, but it certainly mitigates the amount of information they can get about you, they can't know exactly all the sites you look at. If their entry are user submitted, the user submission can be done in clear text, no problem.
Tell me what they send to their server is actually a hash of the URL with a huge salt.
Will they take e-gold?
(eheh don't temper with freedom)
Well if it does avoid some pollution then you are freed from the financial risk of being sued for polluting someone's air and thus it is woth it on a pure financial basis. Indeed, the polluting power company is not free from the legal risk of being sued and thus has to charge higher price for its power...
Well, that'd be IF we only could sue polluters, that should be natural.
In the Amish society if there is anti-social behavior in the first place it means there is coercion. Thus even though it is dealt without coercion it does not mean there is no coercion. It boils down to this: a society doesn't deny or allow coercion... individuals engage in coercion or don't.
There's nothing wrong with my argument. 1) You seem to agree with X's idea, 2) upon reflecting on his idea, X updated them 3) therefore you might go through the same process.
./ may not be the best place to discuss that but I have no objection to continuing this discussion elsewhere
If you want a more detailed argument:
If possession, supported via labor grants property - for example if I make clothes for myself, once I am done, further possession of the product of my work will be property, enforced with legitimate coercion. If you don't recognize this property then possession is useless since it disappears as soon as your work is done and there is no real possession. Every property starts with possession, this is true for land which belongs to whomever combines its work with it. Now would you say someone who once worked on a land may not rent it or sell it since it would become property and not possession? No, this would be as absurd as saying you don't own you clothes anymore at the moment you're done making them! Thus individual property is as natural and legitimate as possession.
Either you can tell the difference or you can't. If you can't and it doesn't matter If you can and indeed prefer a genuine local report you stop watching the fake one and let it know to the news channel.
By the way, the website you linked to says its a memorial to Proudhon... well that's good since Proudhon eventually came to realise that property was freedom and only its power could act as a counterweight to the State.
I wish you come to the same conclusions as his... only faster.
Sure. If many people want local news, many people will watch ads during local news segments or pay for local news channels, thus there'll be local news because there's a profit to be made. If most people want to see global news and few people want to see local news they will have to pay extra since they use resources that could be used to fulfill the need of more people. It's simple, it's moral.
What there is on TV reflect what people want, you may very well dislike other people's taste and I sure do but that's the way it is.
This is indeed an anarcap point of view. Yes the market is not free, yes government interfere with business, yes powerful business interestes - with the aid of government - erect massives barriers-to-entry.... That's why precisely why we need LESS regulations and not more. Although a specific regulation might have a temporary positive effect, it is only legitimating further regulations that will be highjacked by companies with the aid of governments. This is also Tim Berners Lee's stance on net neutrality for example.
No I don't want D, and I do agree with you on A,B,C and this is precisely why I think this regulation would be dangerous.
As for anarchism since it is - by definition - not an institution there is no way to describe a society as anarchic or not. It solely defines a set of rule which are believe to be legitimate and leaves people free to enforce those rules. In the end the most efficient society survives and I believe this society respects the right to property.
Now all of this is becoming waaay out of topic
Anyway the only thing this report could have done is legitimate the use of force by the government against TV stations. Even if the regulation could have some positive impact, this would lead to a regulation trap the government could use to control the media even more. As much as I disaprove of the destroying of the report, it is clearly irresponsible, but I do appreciate that coercive laws won't be passed.
If people WANT to watch local news there WILL be local news, tehre is no need for a law.