There is no rationale behind it whatsoever and having a pedigree to show that say, (for the most common example) a white supremacist and Martin Luther King Jr. share common ancestors 60 or so generations back would not change their attitudes.
Sure, but the ones with integrity (within their framework) would kill themselves and the rest would have less persuasive ability and be exposed as "mudpeople" and therefore be much less of a problem.
100% certain? Hardly. Take off your tinfoil hat and quit accepting blogs as bible truth.
The alternative idea which is actually in line with reality, unlike yours, is that the website of the thinktank composing the majority of the administration back in 2000 isn't "a blog".
Of course, you wouldn't want to actually have any actual facts intrude into your deluded worldview, now would you?
Much easier and safer to dismiss simple, basic, easily checked facts as "tinfoil hat". It's cowardice like yours, more than any other single thing that is destroying the American dream.
Some weird stuff has happened in this country over the last 10 years, the strangest of them all is that the Republican Party now is entirely controlled by a gang of socialist thugs. I don't know how that happened, but the Republican party is now the party that stands for big government spending:
How on earth did the Repulican party become a socialist institution?
Well, in the first place, it's not socialism, it's fascism. It's been longer than 10 years. It really started going into overdrive with Reagan, but the roots go back to WW2. Most people forget that the wealthy elite, industrialists and the like (i.e. the Republican base) were tremendous supporters of the european fascists. It was only the American left (when we had one) that supported going to war against them. Most Americans were isolationist and didn't want to get involved either way. Heck, our current president's grandfather actively supported Germany against his own country. He narrowly avoided treason prosecution. It's nice to have friends in high places.
After WW2, an unholy alliance was created between Christians and Republicans for the first time in history due to the threat of the "godless communists". The rural Christians have continually voted against theior own stated "moral values" since this time. That's why you see them frothing at the mouth about sex on TV and gays being presented in a positive light even though those are inevitable consequences of hyper capitalism which is what they keep voting for. Tie that in with the fact that rural America has never dealt with the negative effects of capitalism until recently as they have lived under a form of socialism for a hundred years where the people in the cities are forced to subsidise their way of life.
Since Reagan with all the crimes of his administration including arming terrorists, creating torture schools and aiding the international cocaine trade, it's gone into high gear.
Someone needs to write a book about this transformation.
Not a book, but a couple of long, well researched articles are right here:
And it's exactly Kofi Annan's willingness to treat despots and terrorists with the same deference that he reserves for the elected governments of democracies that strips him of any moral authority. It's his completely luke-warm, moreally rudderless handling of stunning UN-facilitated corruption in things like the Iraq oil-for-food program that indicate what a moral relativist he is. It's not "moral authority," it's classic, ineffectual political correctness writ larger than any warm-and-fuzzy campus activist could ever hope.
Wow, are you talking about Bush or Kofi Annan? Well, fortunately, I'm not burdened by your dogmatic black and white view of the world, so I can recognize the simple fact that you've described *both* of them quite accurately.
Under the circumstances, 9/11 was certainly a godsend for them. But plotting it would be risky indeed.
This is certainly true. We certainly can't say for certain that they either planned the attacks or even allowed them. We can say with 100% certainty though that the administration planned to invade Iraq since before they were elected. We can say with 100% certainty that they knew that it would take an attack of that magnitude to convince the American people to go along with it. We can say with 100% certainty that once the attack occured that they used it in order to go ahead with their long standing plans to invade Iraq.
All of this is 100% certain since they wrote it up in policy papers, signed their names to them and still have them up on their website.
Now, this does nothing at all to demonstrate any involvement active or passive in the 9/11 attacks, but it absolutely demonstrates both motive and a clear understanding on their part that they had a serious motive. Given these simple basic facts, anybody who *doesn't* think that there is probably much more to it than the official story is living in a fantasy world maintained by a militant death grip on their own ignorance.
As far as this comment: The thing about the MIHOP people is that they start with the strong belief that Bush is evil. "Bush is evil" isn't a starting point for anything. It is a clear concise accurate conclusion that can be drawn based solely upon absolutely proven facts. The fact that Bush is evil (or more accurately a sociopath since "evil" is kind of a nebulous term) doesn't imply that he had anything to do with 9/11, but pretending it isn't entirely in line with his character and that of those he has surrounded himself with is hopelessly naive. Bad people exist, and they do quite often rise to the top.
There are an infinite number of points between zero and one, but there are provably more on the real number spectrum outside of one and zero.
No, there are provably the same (uncountably infinite) amount. There are provably a lesser (countably infinite) amount of Integer, Natural and Rational numbers though.
Countably infinite (also called "Denumerable" means that the cardinality (~size) of the set is the smallest possible infinity. It's the one you'd "get to" if you counted 1 2 3... forever.
There are easily a countably infinite number of distinct infinities. There may be an uncountable number, but I don't know. It starts getting weird somewhere around there;-)
I wish all humans could behave in a logical manner that is truly beneficial to all in every way, but unfortunately there is always a need for someone or something higher up to bestow guilt and keep people in line and thus religion will not disappear during this epoc. (Sadly, there are some people who feel no guilt at all).
Even more sad, to me, is the fact that the ones who feel no guilt at all (sociopaths) are the ones who will inevitably rise to the top in our current climate. They're the ones who run the religions and the major corporations and are actively colluding against the rest.
Finally, you may call the Bible "HIGHLY UNRELIABLE" if you like, but in so far as it is verifiable, it stands up remarkably well to critical examination.
Seriously, dude. I'm sorry to have to break this to you, but regardless of what you want to believe about your oh so special way of coming to believe what you do it ain't true. The OP was right.
If you want to prove me wrong, all you have to do is come up with one single verifiable scrap of evidence (the Bible doesn't count) that there ever was a Jesus. Should be easy, right? You will fail. Had you actually done the research you're claiming that you did, then you would already know that.
"We" must have invented the concept of the Roman Empire, the French Revolution, and the Crusades as well. I have nothing proving that those ever were except written records and maybe a few artifacts buried in the ground-- just like the events in the Bible.
Hardly even similar though. We have hard evidence of the rest. There is no real evidence that there ever even was a real Jesus. Hell, the Roman coliseum is still there. Given how prolific of record keepers the Romans were, it would be utterly astounding if there were such a disruptive figure yet *no* record.
In the end, every fact you haven't personally experienced is based on faith.
Well, sure, if you want to get all loony philosophy, sure, but then you're claiming: "All right... all right... but apart from better sanitation and medicine and education and irrigation and public health and roads and a freshwater system and baths and public order... what have the Romans done for us". Or more accurately, you're claiming none of that existed at the time and place even though some of it's still here.
What I hate most about some people, is when they talk about women as if they all had IQ of a stereotypical "dumb blond", and that is just plane sexist, and racist, too.
Congratulations. You've demonstrated a rock-solid string of causality from the Reagan administration to the 90s crack epidemic (which definitely had abslutely nothing to do with Escobar's massive importation of a cheaper, more potent product since those fucking republicans were in office). Bravo, my good sir. We need more people in this world making such stellar arguments such as yourself.
And you demonstrated that you didn't pay one god damned bit of attention to the whole Iran Contra thing. The CIA was actively involved in the crack epidemic in order to illegally funnel arms to terrorists.
An economic major I am not, but I always considered a natural monopoly to be one that wasn't supported by the government. For example, the original Standard Oil, the steel industry, and the coal industries of early last century.Contrasting that to the telcos, the cable companies, electric/water companies and what one would consider "utilities" that usually are supported by government.
The government is involved so deeply with utilities *because* (well supposedly, anyhow) they are natural monopolies. It's due to the nature of the thing, or the requirements for the thing (like water pipes going through everybody's property) that it inherently has to be a monopoly. It's reasonable to think based on the normal usage of the words that a monopoly that occured without government involvement i.e. "naturally" would be a "natural monopoly", but it's not. It's just because "natural monopoly" is a specifically defined term. Just like when somebody says "socket", I wonder what port it's on whereas a non-geek might think of what to plug in to it. It's good to know the jargon, because various pundits and such really like to take advantage of such things to confuse or mislead people.
Even a market with entrenched players doesn't need regulation because the market is still free. I do believe that predatorial and anti-competitve practices SHOULD be stamped out. This isn't really the same thing as regulation, it is simply having the government punish those that infringe on other's rights to a free market.
It's exactly the same thing. Without some sort of regulation, there is no basis for stamping out predatorial or anti-competitive practices. The government makes regulations to *regulate* such behavior (well, in an ideal world). Often they'll add in a bunch of crap which does put unnecessary friction in the market, usually to help out their donors. What you're talking about is exactly the sort of regulation that I feel is necessary. Something like..say... making a law that all scoops of ice cream sold in an ice cream store must be exactly 4 ounces and cost $2.00 would be a retarded regulation. It does nothing useful and creates a bunch of hassle for anybody trying to run an ice cream shop. So you have good regulations and bad regulations (although which is which is a subject of much debate), but any time the government has the ability to get involved for good or ill is regulation.
Now, in your example you used, a firm would send its henchmen to kill/mame etc a startup and his wife/family. That is covered under existing laws and has NOTHING to do with the market. That is criminal action against someone else and is illegal already without the FTC or PUC stepping in.
Well, it is a contrived example, but you can still look at it as a regulation of the market even though that intent was never there. It does put limits on what methods a business can use to conduct their business. So, in that sense, it does have something to do with the market, but like I said, it isn't a great example. It's just extreme enough to be something just about everybody can agree is a good idea to regulate.
Just in case you really think that what sets "America apart from England and all other countries is the separation of Church and State"?
Perhaps you should have read what I said rather than what you wanted to think I said. New Zealand gained independence from England on September 26, 1907. The US constitution went into effect on March 4, 1789. Hence the US implemented separation of church and state about 118 years before New Zealand even existed as a nation. I'm not a rabid jingoistic idiot, and I know full well that there are plenty of other countries that actually enjoy freedom from religious oppression. My point was just that *at the time it was instituted* the most fundamental and radical idea which was implemented was the idea that the church has no place in the government of a free society. Now, if you'd like to go over your list and come up with a country that had it *before* America did, then you'll have demonstrated a counter to my point, but not until then.
In a free market with little or no regulation/legislation, the barriers to entry are low and practically anyone can start their own firm.
True to a point, but it ignores the fact that in a market with entrenched players, the entrenched players will actively work to create and increase artificial barriers to entry. That is one extremely powerful force acting against a free market, and it happens almost every single time it can. That is anti-competition, where a business acts to prevent a competitor from competing. It is always harmful to the market, it always works to harm customers, and it's an area where I feel that some type of legislation is necessary.
Think of all of the monopolies you can today. Most of them are government-supported. MS is an exception, however the barrier to entry into the OS and software market is relatively low. Most college CS students write their own very limited and basic OS. Think Linux. Think OSx.
I agree that most, if not all are government supported. I'll throw cartels in here as well as they act similarly (think MPAA, RIAA, OPEC etc.). MS isn't even really an exception since copyright is the way in which the government supports it. I'm not saying copyright is evil and should be abolished, but I did specify intelligently designed legislation. They also have government support in the form of "jack booted thugs" kicking in doors and confiscating equipment and the like at MS's command (think BSA). Add in the completely idiotic concept of software patents and you see the artificial barriers to entry created to suppress competition against an entrenched player.
As far as OSX, well Apple isn't exactly 2 people in a garage. It was, more or less, granted, but not in any way related to OSX.
As far as Linux, just look at the SCO case that Microsoft is funding to artificially hold back adoption of Linux because they are terrified of having to actually compete for once.
The barrier to actually write an OS or software product is only as high as your abilities (or the inverse of that more accurately). The ability to have the market see it for what it is and accurately judge it on its merits is practically non existent due to the manipulations of the entrenched players. It does still happen even now, and moreso in the software industry then any other segment of the market, but the barriers are there and they are artificially put there by the entrenched players.
Now, I'll preemptively grant you (as I'm pretty sure you'll accurately point out) that one very common method they choose to use to limit competition is by bribing legislators to regulate the market in their favor. That isn't the type of legislation that I'm claiming is necessary. A simple example of the need for some sort of legislation as opposed to none at all: Say you come up with the greatest new widget thingy. Now there is a player in that market already who will stand to lose their entire business since they're fat, old, and slow and your invention really is all that. In the absence of any regulatory legislation, they will merely pay some thugs to go to your house, murder you and your family, steal all your shit and then start making a cheap half ass version of your invention. It might seem like an extreme example, but my point isn't that the government should regulate all aspects of every market because they do it so well. My point is merely that *some* regulation is necessary.
Consolidation is a part of the market, but so is competition and startups.
That's true, but too much consolidation works to prevent the possibility of either competition or startups.
Natural monopolies are usually short lived because of competition. Long-living monopolies are usually government granted.
Now here, I have to say that you're totally incorrect. Natural monopolies are called that because they are inevitably going to be a monopoly because the particular segemnt in which they exist doesn't really support any sort of competiti
I would've put autoplay Goatse on them, personally.
That way you don't even have to have it mail out personal information to catch whoever falls for the scam. You'll have at least a week you can just wander the halls and look for that expression.
No doubt if you bought a pentium 1 on the day it was released all those years ago for $600 you're feeling like a real rube now that you can get them essentially for free?
I recently got 2 brand new (in the box) P3 Xeons for free from a friend who had a bunch lying around. I went on eBay to try and find a dual proc mother board for them and found one for $20. The funny part? It included 2 P3 Xeons;-)
Or probably a combination of both. My only point was that being able to afford it or not doesn't even enter into the equation for a lot of people. I have a TV and I watch TV and movies (via MythTV), and I've never once cared about any quality differences. When I see HDTV I'm totally like "meh".
Nope. I didn't say I *approve* of what the idiot has done, but I would still vote for him if I had to choose between Bush or Kerry. For me, it's the choice of two evils.
I would have gone down at least two seperate mental pathways before even getting close to where you are on this. One is that, assuming that I hadn't done any research whatsoever before the 2000 elections so didn't already see this all coming, we'd seen Bush for 4 years and it was a complete disaster. What exactly did he do right during that time. Hell, what did he not do almost *exactly* wrong? You fail it that bad, you lose. Kerry was an unknown (overly, completely, and idiotically unknown, but I digress) but would not have owed his election to an extremist hate group as Bush does. Just look at the treasonous attempts to amend our constitution for the first time in history to specifically discriminate against the one group it's still "ok" to hate. This from the "compassionate, moral" Orwellian asshats. The second is that Kerry would have been a first termer with a hostile Congress and Bush would have had only one term. Limited damage.
Either one of these would prove Kerry to be less of an evil if you really feel the need to vote that way. No, I didn't vote for either. Not Bush because I actually do my research and I have no interest in being directly (or indirectly for that matter, but emigration ain't easy) responsible for torture and murder camps and the dismantling of the constitution and I'm a decent, moral human being, so I will provide no support whatsoever for terroristic hate groups like the Christian right. Not Kerry, because while he would have been less of an evil, I refuse to piss my vote away in that manner.
No, I think freedom is something we need to get back, from both of these idiotic parties. I don't believe that the government is fascist, though we are starting to head that way, which is a concern. And we're not at a theocracy, though again, we get pretty close sometimes.
We're more or less in agreement on this, but I think you are just beginning to wake up. Fascism and theocracy are the goals of current Republican party. Pretty much every single thing they have done since the 80s were directed straight toward these goals. It's been on the march since the end of World War 2. I mean have you ever actually read Ike's speech? Fascism was large and on the move and the President of the United States pointed it out as a grave danger in 1961. Nothing had been done to address it, and it has grown to the point that it is the system we're living under today. Reagan's presidency was when it went into the mainstream and into overdrive. That's when the religious extremists started making their major play and they have continued since then. That's when Neil Bush (of those Bushes) and the rest of his cabal took the country for billions that we're still paying. That's when the whole war on drugs thing got going at the same exact time that the CIA was helping funnel crack to our streets. That's even on their freaking website now, so don't pretend that isn't true. That's when the Vatican first got diplomatic recognition. That's when the poor were demonized and the rich glorified at the same time that they were looting the country. That's when we set up our first torture/murder schools. And for the love of anything holy, look at the Republican congress since that time. Far and away the most corrupt congress we have ever had. It's not like the current Bush popped out of nowhere and magically started acting differently. It's been a steady progression.
How can you possibly say that now, 60 years in, that it's "starting" and a "concern". Do you not understand what fascism is, or do you just not really care as long as you get yours?
Fortunately for us, these sort of changes happen over a lot longer period than just a couple years. But I guess that doesn't matter since you think Republicans have been doing this ever
Slashdot Mirror
I have always expected that there would be a movement where a man and woman get married and pick a new family name.
;-) and his wife took that name too.
My step-brother did that.
When he got married he changed his last name to my dad's (and mine
There is no rationale behind it whatsoever and having a pedigree to show that say, (for the most common example) a white supremacist and Martin Luther King Jr. share common ancestors 60 or so generations back would not change their attitudes.
Sure, but the ones with integrity (within their framework) would kill themselves and the rest would have less persuasive ability and be exposed as "mudpeople" and therefore be much less of a problem.
100% certain? Hardly. Take off your tinfoil hat and quit accepting blogs as bible truth.
The alternative idea which is actually in line with reality, unlike yours, is that the website of the thinktank composing the majority of the administration back in 2000 isn't "a blog".
Of course, you wouldn't want to actually have any actual facts intrude into your deluded worldview, now would you?
Much easier and safer to dismiss simple, basic, easily checked facts as "tinfoil hat".
It's cowardice like yours, more than any other single thing that is destroying the American dream.
Some weird stuff has happened in this country over the last 10 years, the strangest of them all is that the Republican Party now is entirely controlled by a gang of socialist thugs. I don't know how that happened, but the Republican party is now the party that stands for big government spending:
How on earth did the Repulican party become a socialist institution?
Well, in the first place, it's not socialism, it's fascism.
It's been longer than 10 years. It really started going into overdrive with Reagan, but the roots go back to WW2. Most people forget that the wealthy elite, industrialists and the like (i.e. the Republican base) were tremendous supporters of the european fascists. It was only the American left (when we had one) that supported going to war against them. Most Americans were isolationist and didn't want to get involved either way. Heck, our current president's grandfather actively supported Germany against his own country. He narrowly avoided treason prosecution. It's nice to have friends in high places.
After WW2, an unholy alliance was created between Christians and Republicans for the first time in history due to the threat of the "godless communists". The rural Christians have continually voted against theior own stated "moral values" since this time. That's why you see them frothing at the mouth about sex on TV and gays being presented in a positive light even though those are inevitable consequences of hyper capitalism which is what they keep voting for. Tie that in with the fact that rural America has never dealt with the negative effects of capitalism until recently as they have lived under a form of socialism for a hundred years where the people in the cities are forced to subsidise their way of life.
Since Reagan with all the crimes of his administration including arming terrorists, creating torture schools and aiding the international cocaine trade, it's gone into high gear.
Someone needs to write a book about this transformation.
Not a book, but a couple of long, well researched articles are right here:
First a primer on what fascism is and how it came about in Europe
Then an analysis of the rise of fascism in America.
There are a lot of other very well reearched articles on that site as well ranging over a variety of topics.
And it's exactly Kofi Annan's willingness to treat despots and terrorists with the same deference that he reserves for the elected governments of democracies that strips him of any moral authority. It's his completely luke-warm, moreally rudderless handling of stunning UN-facilitated corruption in things like the Iraq oil-for-food program that indicate what a moral relativist he is. It's not "moral authority," it's classic, ineffectual political correctness writ larger than any warm-and-fuzzy campus activist could ever hope.
Wow, are you talking about Bush or Kofi Annan?
Well, fortunately, I'm not burdened by your dogmatic black and white view of the world, so I can recognize the simple fact that you've described *both* of them quite accurately.
Under the circumstances, 9/11 was certainly a godsend for them. But plotting it would be risky indeed.
This is certainly true. We certainly can't say for certain that they either planned the attacks or even allowed them.
We can say with 100% certainty though that the administration planned to invade Iraq since before they were elected. We can say with 100% certainty that they knew that it would take an attack of that magnitude to convince the American people to go along with it. We can say with 100% certainty that once the attack occured that they used it in order to go ahead with their long standing plans to invade Iraq.
All of this is 100% certain since they wrote it up in policy papers, signed their names to them and still have them up on their website.
Now, this does nothing at all to demonstrate any involvement active or passive in the 9/11 attacks, but it absolutely demonstrates both motive and a clear understanding on their part that they had a serious motive.
Given these simple basic facts, anybody who *doesn't* think that there is probably much more to it than the official story is living in a fantasy world maintained by a militant death grip on their own ignorance.
As far as this comment:
The thing about the MIHOP people is that they start with the strong belief that Bush is evil.
"Bush is evil" isn't a starting point for anything. It is a clear concise accurate conclusion that can be drawn based solely upon absolutely proven facts.
The fact that Bush is evil (or more accurately a sociopath since "evil" is kind of a nebulous term) doesn't imply that he had anything to do with 9/11, but pretending it isn't entirely in line with his character and that of those he has surrounded himself with is hopelessly naive.
Bad people exist, and they do quite often rise to the top.
Looks like it's busted:
$ wine RemoveWGA.exe
gives me an alert saying,
"Unable to find your Winlogon.exe process. Please check that no other security programs is(sic) preventing RemoveWGA from accessing your processes"
To our readers on the West Coast:
Please replace every instance of "Wicked" with "Hella" to improve readability.
That's only the Bay area.
Even the rest of California really wants them to quit using that stupid sounding term.
There are an infinite number of points between zero and one, but there are provably more on the real number spectrum outside of one and zero.
;-)
No, there are provably the same (uncountably infinite) amount. There are provably a lesser (countably infinite) amount of Integer, Natural and Rational numbers though.
Countably infinite (also called "Denumerable" means that the cardinality (~size) of the set is the smallest possible infinity. It's the one you'd "get to" if you counted 1 2 3... forever.
There are easily a countably infinite number of distinct infinities. There may be an uncountable number, but I don't know. It starts getting weird somewhere around there
I wish all humans could behave in a logical manner that is truly beneficial to all in every way, but unfortunately there is always a need for someone or something higher up to bestow guilt and keep people in line and thus religion will not disappear during this epoc. (Sadly, there are some people who feel no guilt at all).
Even more sad, to me, is the fact that the ones who feel no guilt at all (sociopaths) are the ones who will inevitably rise to the top in our current climate. They're the ones who run the religions and the major corporations and are actively colluding against the rest.
Finally, you may call the Bible "HIGHLY UNRELIABLE" if you like, but in so far as it is verifiable, it stands up remarkably well to critical examination.
Seriously, dude. I'm sorry to have to break this to you, but regardless of what you want to believe about your oh so special way of coming to believe what you do it ain't true. The OP was right.
If you want to prove me wrong, all you have to do is come up with one single verifiable scrap of evidence (the Bible doesn't count) that there ever was a Jesus. Should be easy, right?
You will fail.
Had you actually done the research you're claiming that you did, then you would already know that.
Nice try though.
"We" must have invented the concept of the Roman Empire, the French Revolution, and the Crusades as well. I have nothing proving that those ever were except written records and maybe a few artifacts buried in the ground-- just like the events in the Bible.
Hardly even similar though.
We have hard evidence of the rest.
There is no real evidence that there ever even was a real Jesus. Hell, the Roman coliseum is still there. Given how prolific of record keepers the Romans were, it would be utterly astounding if there were such a disruptive figure yet *no* record.
In the end, every fact you haven't personally experienced is based on faith.
Well, sure, if you want to get all loony philosophy, sure, but then you're claiming: "All right... all right... but apart from better sanitation and medicine and education and irrigation and public health and roads and a freshwater system and baths and public order... what have the Romans done for us".
Or more accurately, you're claiming none of that existed at the time and place even though some of it's still here.
What I hate most about some people, is when they talk about women as if they all had IQ of a stereotypical "dumb blond", and that is just plane sexist, and racist, too.
;-)
Even spellcheck wouldn't have helped you here
Ah but the original poster stated that science was about demonstrating negatives.
And the AC demonstrated the simple basic fact that most people (except you) seem to get: that religion ain't science.
Congratulations. You've demonstrated a rock-solid string of causality from the Reagan administration to the 90s crack epidemic (which definitely had abslutely nothing to do with Escobar's massive importation of a cheaper, more potent product since those fucking republicans were in office). Bravo, my good sir. We need more people in this world making such stellar arguments such as yourself.
And you demonstrated that you didn't pay one god damned bit of attention to the whole Iran Contra thing.
The CIA was actively involved in the crack epidemic in order to illegally funnel arms to terrorists.
An economic major I am not, but I always considered a natural monopoly to be one that wasn't supported by the government. For example, the original Standard Oil, the steel industry, and the coal industries of early last century.Contrasting that to the telcos, the cable companies, electric/water companies and what one would consider "utilities" that usually are supported by government.
The government is involved so deeply with utilities *because* (well supposedly, anyhow) they are natural monopolies. It's due to the nature of the thing, or the requirements for the thing (like water pipes going through everybody's property) that it inherently has to be a monopoly. It's reasonable to think based on the normal usage of the words that a monopoly that occured without government involvement i.e. "naturally" would be a "natural monopoly", but it's not. It's just because "natural monopoly" is a specifically defined term. Just like when somebody says "socket", I wonder what port it's on whereas a non-geek might think of what to plug in to it. It's good to know the jargon, because various pundits and such really like to take advantage of such things to confuse or mislead people.
Even a market with entrenched players doesn't need regulation because the market is still free. I do believe that predatorial and anti-competitve practices SHOULD be stamped out. This isn't really the same thing as regulation, it is simply having the government punish those that infringe on other's rights to a free market.
It's exactly the same thing. Without some sort of regulation, there is no basis for stamping out predatorial or anti-competitive practices. The government makes regulations to *regulate* such behavior (well, in an ideal world). Often they'll add in a bunch of crap which does put unnecessary friction in the market, usually to help out their donors.
What you're talking about is exactly the sort of regulation that I feel is necessary. Something like..say... making a law that all scoops of ice cream sold in an ice cream store must be exactly 4 ounces and cost $2.00 would be a retarded regulation. It does nothing useful and creates a bunch of hassle for anybody trying to run an ice cream shop.
So you have good regulations and bad regulations (although which is which is a subject of much debate), but any time the government has the ability to get involved for good or ill is regulation.
Now, in your example you used, a firm would send its henchmen to kill/mame etc a startup and his wife/family. That is covered under existing laws and has NOTHING to do with the market. That is criminal action against someone else and is illegal already without the FTC or PUC stepping in.
Well, it is a contrived example, but you can still look at it as a regulation of the market even though that intent was never there. It does put limits on what methods a business can use to conduct their business. So, in that sense, it does have something to do with the market, but like I said, it isn't a great example. It's just extreme enough to be something just about everybody can agree is a good idea to regulate.
. That's why it says "In God we Trust" on your money
This was forced in fairly recently by religious extremists who despise the freedom this country ostensibly stands for.
your president/senators/congresspeople swear on a bible before taking office.
Yeah, this has always been there and it is contradictory, but I never claimed that we perfectly implemented the ideal.
Just in case you really think that what sets "America apart from England and all other countries is the separation of Church and State"?
Perhaps you should have read what I said rather than what you wanted to think I said.
New Zealand gained independence from England on September 26, 1907. The US constitution went into effect on March 4, 1789.
Hence the US implemented separation of church and state about 118 years before New Zealand even existed as a nation.
I'm not a rabid jingoistic idiot, and I know full well that there are plenty of other countries that actually enjoy freedom from religious oppression. My point was just that *at the time it was instituted* the most fundamental and radical idea which was implemented was the idea that the church has no place in the government of a free society.
Now, if you'd like to go over your list and come up with a country that had it *before* America did, then you'll have demonstrated a counter to my point, but not until then.
In a free market with little or no regulation/legislation, the barriers to entry are low and practically anyone can start their own firm.
True to a point, but it ignores the fact that in a market with entrenched players, the entrenched players will actively work to create and increase artificial barriers to entry. That is one extremely powerful force acting against a free market, and it happens almost every single time it can. That is anti-competition, where a business acts to prevent a competitor from competing. It is always harmful to the market, it always works to harm customers, and it's an area where I feel that some type of legislation is necessary.
Think of all of the monopolies you can today. Most of them are government-supported. MS is an exception, however the barrier to entry into the OS and software market is relatively low. Most college CS students write their own very limited and basic OS. Think Linux. Think OSx.
I agree that most, if not all are government supported. I'll throw cartels in here as well as they act similarly (think MPAA, RIAA, OPEC etc.). MS isn't even really an exception since copyright is the way in which the government supports it. I'm not saying copyright is evil and should be abolished, but I did specify intelligently designed legislation. They also have government support in the form of "jack booted thugs" kicking in doors and confiscating equipment and the like at MS's command (think BSA).
Add in the completely idiotic concept of software patents and you see the artificial barriers to entry created to suppress competition against an entrenched player.
As far as OSX, well Apple isn't exactly 2 people in a garage. It was, more or less, granted, but not in any way related to OSX.
As far as Linux, just look at the SCO case that Microsoft is funding to artificially hold back adoption of Linux because they are terrified of having to actually compete for once.
The barrier to actually write an OS or software product is only as high as your abilities (or the inverse of that more accurately). The ability to have the market see it for what it is and accurately judge it on its merits is practically non existent due to the manipulations of the entrenched players.
It does still happen even now, and moreso in the software industry then any other segment of the market, but the barriers are there and they are artificially put there by the entrenched players.
Now, I'll preemptively grant you (as I'm pretty sure you'll accurately point out) that one very common method they choose to use to limit competition is by bribing legislators to regulate the market in their favor. That isn't the type of legislation that I'm claiming is necessary.
A simple example of the need for some sort of legislation as opposed to none at all:
Say you come up with the greatest new widget thingy. Now there is a player in that market already who will stand to lose their entire business since they're fat, old, and slow and your invention really is all that. In the absence of any regulatory legislation, they will merely pay some thugs to go to your house, murder you and your family, steal all your shit and then start making a cheap half ass version of your invention.
It might seem like an extreme example, but my point isn't that the government should regulate all aspects of every market because they do it so well. My point is merely that *some* regulation is necessary.
Consolidation is a part of the market, but so is competition and startups.
That's true, but too much consolidation works to prevent the possibility of either competition or startups.
Natural monopolies are usually short lived because of competition. Long-living monopolies are usually government granted.
Now here, I have to say that you're totally incorrect.
Natural monopolies are called that because they are inevitably going to be a monopoly because the particular segemnt in which they exist doesn't really support any sort of competiti
The Internet is now over as you knew it. It is a police state, and they are tracking your every move.
;-)
The Catbeller has now been belled as well
I would've put autoplay Goatse on them, personally.
That way you don't even have to have it mail out personal information to catch whoever falls for the scam.
You'll have at least a week you can just wander the halls and look for that expression.
No doubt if you bought a pentium 1 on the day it was released all those years ago for $600 you're feeling like a real rube now that you can get them essentially for free?
;-)
I recently got 2 brand new (in the box) P3 Xeons for free from a friend who had a bunch lying around. I went on eBay to try and find a dual proc mother board for them and found one for $20. The funny part? It included 2 P3 Xeons
Or probably a combination of both.
My only point was that being able to afford it or not doesn't even enter into the equation for a lot of people. I have a TV and I watch TV and movies (via MythTV), and I've never once cared about any quality differences. When I see HDTV I'm totally like "meh".
Like I said: I live in Japan. We're the earthquake capital of the world, and yet somehow we manage to have buildings stay standing.
Yeah, but one giant lizard and Boom!.
Nope. I didn't say I *approve* of what the idiot has done, but I would still vote for him if I had to choose between Bush or Kerry. For me, it's the choice of two evils.
I would have gone down at least two seperate mental pathways before even getting close to where you are on this. One is that, assuming that I hadn't done any research whatsoever before the 2000 elections so didn't already see this all coming, we'd seen Bush for 4 years and it was a complete disaster. What exactly did he do right during that time. Hell, what did he not do almost *exactly* wrong? You fail it that bad, you lose. Kerry was an unknown (overly, completely, and idiotically unknown, but I digress) but would not have owed his election to an extremist hate group as Bush does. Just look at the treasonous attempts to amend our constitution for the first time in history to specifically discriminate against the one group it's still "ok" to hate. This from the "compassionate, moral" Orwellian asshats.
The second is that Kerry would have been a first termer with a hostile Congress and Bush would have had only one term. Limited damage.
Either one of these would prove Kerry to be less of an evil if you really feel the need to vote that way. No, I didn't vote for either. Not Bush because I actually do my research and I have no interest in being directly (or indirectly for that matter, but emigration ain't easy) responsible for torture and murder camps and the dismantling of the constitution and I'm a decent, moral human being, so I will provide no support whatsoever for terroristic hate groups like the Christian right. Not Kerry, because while he would have been less of an evil, I refuse to piss my vote away in that manner.
No, I think freedom is something we need to get back, from both of these idiotic parties. I don't believe that the government is fascist, though we are starting to head that way, which is a concern. And we're not at a theocracy, though again, we get pretty close sometimes.
We're more or less in agreement on this, but I think you are just beginning to wake up. Fascism and theocracy are the goals of current Republican party. Pretty much every single thing they have done since the 80s were directed straight toward these goals.
It's been on the march since the end of World War 2. I mean have you ever actually read Ike's speech? Fascism was large and on the move and the President of the United States pointed it out as a grave danger in 1961. Nothing had been done to address it, and it has grown to the point that it is the system we're living under today.
Reagan's presidency was when it went into the mainstream and into overdrive. That's when the religious extremists started making their major play and they have continued since then. That's when Neil Bush (of those Bushes) and the rest of his cabal took the country for billions that we're still paying. That's when the whole war on drugs thing got going at the same exact time that the CIA was helping funnel crack to our streets. That's even on their freaking website now, so don't pretend that isn't true. That's when the Vatican first got diplomatic recognition. That's when the poor were demonized and the rich glorified at the same time that they were looting the country. That's when we set up our first torture/murder schools. And for the love of anything holy, look at the Republican congress since that time. Far and away the most corrupt congress we have ever had. It's not like the current Bush popped out of nowhere and magically started acting differently. It's been a steady progression.
How can you possibly say that now, 60 years in, that it's "starting" and a "concern".
Do you not understand what fascism is, or do you just not really care as long as you get yours?
Fortunately for us, these sort of changes happen over a lot longer period than just a couple years. But I guess that doesn't matter since you think Republicans have been doing this ever