While not the OP I have no doubt that people smarter than me have studied this, and there are certainly things I don't understand about it. However, the paper you linked to is a lab on a chip devise, and TFA is a macro scale PCR machine.
While it may be possible to utilize microfluidics to get a lab on the chip that is not what the linked device does. Criticisms that the fast cycling macro devices are never going to give us 5 minute DNA analysis are completely valid.
Further, there are very few people in this world that have more than a superficial understanding of any one of the following: PCR, microfluidics, and MEMS. I bet I can count the number of people who are experts in all three on both hand. Faulting the OP for not being one of those is a little absurd. Additionally, just because we don't understand the nuances of the procedure doesn't mean we can't discuss it.
Any useful information you may have contributed has been completely negated by your flamy style.
I haven't done PCR work for a while, and I'm not sure what "Moder Capillary" is (typo?), but even if you can get the PCR step to 30-45 min it is still a rate limited reaction and will never happen in 5 minutes.
I don't know much about melting curve analysis - I've never done it, but I think its only good for match/no match comparisons. I suspect it's not physically possible to compare one sample against a database using melting curve. I think you're going to need some kind of electrophoretic method.
I'm not saying that the company hasn't done something neat - I can't tell, but 5-minute genotyping is never going to happen if you have to use PCR and electrophoresis.
Ignoring the fact that this is all impossible becasue DNA analysis consists of more than PCR and that PCR is never going to take 5 minutes - its just the kinetics of the reaction.
The only real way to get rapid DNA testing is a test that forgoes the amplification step and can identify single strands of DNA. Of course you then have the what if they get someone elses DNA because I just kissed my mom^H^H^H girlfriend goodby.
If all of those were accomplished I see no problem implementing such a solution, because as we all know airports are the hallmarks of efficiency.
Not only that but current thermal cyclers used for PCR are pretty darn quick at changing the temperature. Maybe they can make them smaller and cheaper, but it's not like they invented the peltier chip...
Eh I think it's more useful and morally responsible to show how things are actually done, than how they are supposed to be done.
As a bit of a Law and Order junkie I would say they typically acknowledge when they skirting the constitutionality line - actually that's usually the main plot point.
If every criminal in real life pleads the fifth as soon as they were arrested there would be basis for an interrogation scene. The fact is that most people don't assert their rights when arrested, and interrogations continue to be a useful evidence gathering exercise.
Further, I often wonder how many more criminals assert their rights now than before Law and Order and NYPD blue. It seems to me that these shows do an excellent job detailing how the police can trick you into revealing compromising information.
Not that I know anything about law enforcement beyond what I've seen on TV, but I'd prefer if my "gritty dramas" didn't sugar coat things.
Which points to a basic flaw in the labels business plans. If people aren't willing to pay for something, and there is an unlimited supply by nature it is ludicrous to try to sell it. Selling information is like selling bottled water. Sure it is possible, but you have to add value to the product, not sell something that is freely available.
Information is fundamentally different from other salable items. If I have a traditional commodity and I sell it you I no longer have that item. Even if I sell my expertise I have less time from studying your problem, and I am selling you something that isn't readily available. If I sell you information we then both posses the same information - the act of transferring the information increased the total supply of information. This might be ok for new information, but more the information is spread around the less valuable (monetarily) it is. Software is a rant unto itself, but short form - make your stuff good and cheap enough so that the genuine thing is more attractive than warez.
Copyrights make sense when they prevent another business from ripping off your work in order to turn a profit. They don't make sense when preventing copying hurts the publics access to this information. Books, journals, and magazines are likely to survive because there is value in having a hard copy. Making physical copies of a book cannot happen on the same scale as copying music, and it's not free. Publishers are also very careful about what they put on the net. Sure someone can go and do an OCR and put the full text of a book on the internet, but if nothing else eBooks have shown us that people don't like reading in front of their computer. Music labels will fail because the labels don't add anything useful anymore.
First and foremost the record labels are production companies. A record label provides three value adding services: Production, Promotion, and Distribution. Two of the three have since been rendered obsolete and devalued. Their business model is a relic, but one can hardly blame them for holding on with all their might. One can however blame the courts for propping up this corpse of business and sanctioning their draconian actions to stay alive.
The labels most viable option (in my opinion) is to restructure themselves away from the production/distribution side, and focus on what they are good at, advertising. I bet the labels can make a good bit of money even if they charge $5 per CD and allow unlimited copying. If they make a 10% of everything deal with the artist they stand to gain from putting on good shows, and getting the artists name out there. The radio companies seem all to eager to carry on their relationship with the labels, as does MTV. Sure they'll take a hit in gross profit, but that much seems inevitable anyway. Better to shrink offerings and overhead now while some kind of transition can be made, than floundering along with the status quo.
So what are the consequences? A few people will no longer be able to make a living providing no service, and music will have to stand on its merits, rather than becoming a sure hit if the record company throws enough money into it and gets the star a series on MTV. Personally, I'm ok with that.
BTW bands will still be ok, because their prime income generator - the concert - does add something consumers are willing to pay for.
How exactly do you pronounce USians? Not that I'm offended by the term, but a name that works only in text form is kind of useless. (The nationality formerly known as...)
We call ourselves Americans because that is the commonly accepted form. If you want to talk about people from the continent is North (or South) Americans really that hard? Besides keep in mind we didn't actually choose the name, it would be more accurate to say the name was applied to us - the american colonies. For some reason when we stoped being colonials we didn't breifly become confederates then statesmen. America has been the only constant in the name of this country, that is why we call ourselves Americans.
Honesly whenever someone complains about us assuming the name of the continent it just seems to me that they are complaining about it just so they have something to complain about, after all they don't really want to be called Americans, they're fine with Canadian, Mexican, Peruvian, etc.
How about financial backing, promotion, and distribution?
I'm not saying that the media empires aren't evil, just pointing out that the actual production isn't all that publishers bring to the table. This may be less true for web comics, but it is a similar situation to what is going on with the record labels, and TV/movie production companies.
I am aware of the current patent costs, but ~$3k - the figure I've seen thrown around is manageable. I don't live in Europe and don't work on software, two things that admittedly increase the cost significantly. Further, if the current costs are two high than raising them is an even worse idea.
It doesn't matter, the days aren't irregular in a gaussian distribution, they are continuously getting longer. So either you start the average at some arebetrary date, or you use a running average of an arbetrary length.
Either way everyday will be longer than the average, and you will still have to insert leap seconds.
Sure the current system is weighed down in beuacracy, but the fact that there are problems in the current system don't mitigate the problems in your proposal.
I ask again, if you buy a portion of a companies debt does your share in the company disapear once that particular debt is paid off? Do future loans decrease the value of the portion of the company debt that I own?
At least in the current system I know that when I buy a share I own a portion of the company, and that shares value grows with the company. If I buy a portion of the debt the company can just pay off the debt and I own nothing.
The very real danger with that proposal is that private inventors are supposed to be be able to apply for patents. If you make it too expensive up front only companies will be able to afford patents.
Ok I did slightly change my position in the last post, but change has no practical implications. Previously I asserted that God cannot be detected by science, in my last post I argued that God is indistinguishable from natural events in the physical universe. If science can't distinguish God from notGod, or if there is no notGod, or if God exists outside of the physical universe science is still powerless to describe him.
some will forever maintain that God still exists because I cannot prove it does not.
Good we're in agreement then. I'm not trying to prove to you there is a God; I know that is impossible. I'm trying to demonstrate that you are equally unable to prove there is no God.
Human beings do not naturally reach this state. It must be indoctrinated into them, usually from a very young age. It becomes so ingrained that eventually, the religiously inclined are completely unable to imagine or accept that their views may in fact be fantasy, which they are indistinguishable from.
This is a strong assertion, backed by no evidence. If every society has spiritual elements, it looks to me like the natural state of man is as a spiritual being. I challenge you to bring me a society that has no spiritual beliefs or practices.
Man is born with questions; some of those questions have no scientific answers. That is why we are spiritual/religious.
They were not divinely inspired. No Gods or Godesses have ever spoken or communicated in any way, with anyone, by any means. We are all adults. We know this.
We don't know this, and what's more we can't know this. Science can't prove what someone experienced in the present, let alone the past. Billions of intelligent adults will be happy to disagree with you here.
How pray tell are personal beliefs an anathema to democracy. If I grow up in the south I'm indoctrinated in republican mythos. If I grow up on the coasts I'm indoctrinated in democratic mythos. The US - capitalism/democracy. China/USSR - communism. Scandinavia - socialism. The middle ages - monarch's divine right. Personal beliefs and differences are much more important to society than you seem to realize. Guess what, we can break from ideas implanted by others, make our own decisions, and challenge our training.
We are social animals, we have the ability to think for ourselves, but we are undeniably influenced by those around us. We do not grow up isolated from each other we CANNOT make uninfluenced decisions. Objectivity is a myth, with or without religion.
You can believe all you want that religion will be stamped out, but seeing how it has existed for all of recorded history, I'm skeptical.
Religion isn't the problem you think it is, and neither is indoctrination. Even if indoctrination were a problem it is a facet of our human condition, and as such immitigable. Let me repeat that intolerance is the problem. Can that be eliminated? I don't know, but it is a better target than religion.
The education board of Kansas knows this, and so is seeking to handicap the ability of the secondary education system to free people's minds, in any way it can.
I think you are giving the board too much credit. Their problem is that they are unable to think critically about both science and religion, and they are making an uneducated decision. By asserting a god of the gaps they are weakening religion's position just as badly as science's.
Ha I had a paragraph in my previous post about the gold standard, the fed, and printing money, but I couldn't put together a coherent position then so it got the axe. Try as I might I still can't say anything intelligent about it so I'm moving on to what is still bothering me about your proposed investment plan.
I still can't get over the difference between owning stock in a company and buying the right to a part of its debt.
Right now if a company wants to go public it has an IPO and assigns as many public shares as it wants, essentially selling whatever portion of the company it wants to. Presumably a company that needs a loan under your system could negotiate with the bank whether its debt is to be made public or not. If it is made public who decides what percentage of the company that is and how?
So if we can figure that one out we now have a company that has a portion of its debt in the public sector. The company makes a good return on its investment, and pays off the loan. What happens to the people who bought a portion of the debt once its paid off? Are they still entitled to a portion of future earnings? What portion - there is no longer any risk involved, the debt is paid off.
So if we can figure that out too we now have a company that is doing pretty well. It's paid off its first debt, turned a profit and reinvested in itself. It wants to expand so it needs another loan, and because it worked out so well last time it wants this debt to be public as well. Now you have the same issues as the first time through with the additional quandary of assimilating the people who own a portion of the new debt with the people that owned a portion of the old debt. Do the people who owned the old debt now have rights to a smaller percentage of the companies future profits?
Working through these problems in my head, I suppose its possible that rather than ask a bank for a public loan in the amout of $* they go to the bank saying we will sell you *% of our company, what will you give us for it. Hopefully the bank doens't set the price, but the ultimate investors do. In which case it looks very much like all you are doing is changing the name of the stock exchange. How is that better? Am I missing something?
Isn't it simpler to just be able to buy a percentage of a company in an IPO, and that percentage is constant, with the exceptions of splits, buy-backs, or supplemental offerings? To me it seems that tying shares to debts becomes really messy really quickly.
I've never been particularly good with this type of logic, but her it goes.
1. Consider M to be a subset of E. (God is immanent)
2. Every element of M is also an element of E. Elements of E in M are indistinguishable from elements of M to observers in M. (God is omniscient)
3. Consider the subtraction of E minus M to be E'. E' is wholly uninfluenced by, and undetectable to members of M. (God is eternal)
4. Consider the border case: E elements adjacent to M can influence elements of E within the set M - which are also elements of M themselves. (God is omnipotent)
5. Any effect caused by E on M is indistinguishable from a self-driven event in M.
God isn't separate; he is ubiquitous. Fortunately things tend to follow rules so science can exist - it doesn't have to be that way. I reject your assumption that God is cannot exist in M.
Oh-Ok, I think I understand. My confusion was between the words investors and creditors. I'm no biz whiz, but as I understand it creditors expect to be paid back with interest - what you proposed, with their relationship terminating at the end of the loan. Investors give the company money and in return own a portion of the company.
To me your proposal eliminates the possiblibity of owning stock in a company, and replaces it with the possibility of purchasing a portion of the compainies debt. The significant differance being that the value of outstanding shares is usually higher than the companies debt (I think). A successful company is more valuable than the sum of its debts.
Basicially as I read it you propose replacing brokers with (unregulated) banks correct? If you remove exchanges and brokers and replace them with banks wouldn't it also remove some of the fluidity of money? Banks aren't very interested in sending your money in their trust elsewhere, and this proposal would only strengthen the banks stranglehold on my money. The only way I see around this is to strengthen the banking cartels, allowing for more communication, flowing money, and potential monopoly control.
Another question, if savings accounts are zero risk who pays for the "free market insurance?" I know you'd oppose taxes to pay for an FDIC equivalent, (we've met before) so I'd assume the cost becomes deducted from my account. Do you think its possible to still have a positive interest rate if you are paying insurance? If not why don't I just keep my money under my mattress; essentially removing money from the economy.
I think you misunderstood my question (for I certainly couldn't be misuderstanding yours;)
I'm not talking about the liability a company holds for a product, I'm talking about the liability an investor has for the company. In an LLC an investor isn't liable for the company - if the company goes down in flames its creditors can't forclose on your house.
Today, the elite are protected by the law, the average are hurt by it. The contract-with-arbitration-and-insurance gives a more level playing field.
I generally agree with your sentiment expressed above, but feel that limited liability laws are an exception. Say I believed, that Worldcom, and Enron were a reputable companies with growth potential. So I buy a stock in it. Scandel ensues, and my stock is now worthless. However, due to limited liability laws those compaines creditors can't sieze propertie from investors until all debts are paid - all I lost was the money I invested.
Now clearly if there was no limited liability I'd be much more hesitant about investing. Which means that companies would have to be much more careful of their dealings; certainly a good thing. On the downside there would be much less capital available because the risk involved in investing would be significant. The economy would slow, and growing a buisness would become harder and harder.
My opinion: going after share holders would have a chilling effect on the economy.
One nit, Sony is almost certainly structured as a limited liability corp. specifically so that you can't go after the shareholders. Do you think that LLCs are wrong?
In my opinion LLCs are very valuable because they allow ordinary people to invest in corporations without becoming personally, legally and financially responsible for that companies actions. While this certainly can have the effect of diffusing fault, I feel that this is out weight by the positive economic impact of facilitating investments. Do you disagree?
You said that you feel that corporate protections are wrong, do you consider limited laiblity to be a personal or corporate protection? I tend to think that it is a personal protection.
I am well aware that it is impossible to prove that God is not a human construct. By the same token it is impossible to disprove the existence of God. God outside the bounds of science.
Most churches do not teach that their beliefs supercede scientifically verifiable fact. They learned that lesson thanks to Galileo. Most churches understand that there is no overlap between scientific fact and theological truth.
The fact that you are unable to appreciate the value in religion does not devalue it. You should be allowed to say that anything you want is nonsense. Good luck proving it.
Is it wrong to expose the logical fallacy inherent in almost every religion?
I'm going to assume you ment every religion, but correct me if I'm wrong. Are there religions that aren't fallacious? How are they different?
Please, please expose the logical fallacy inherent in religion. Science is insanely useful, but can't explain something that can't be directly observed. The fallacy is that you think that science can explain everything, even those things which science can't BY DEFINITION explain. All the testing in the world is never going to tell us if we have souls. All the study in the world can't tell us why we're here.
It's not doublethink as much as you want it to be. Explaining that there is science and there is spirituality is akin to explaining that there are is sight and smell. Two things that exist simultaneously, but seemingly don't effect each other.
Please show me how religion is illogical. Just because it isn't science doesn't make it invalid. I challenge you try to explain how something not described by science can't exist.
There are flaws in any system, any organization, and institution. Because one instance of a system is bad doesn't mean the whole system is.
Slashdot Mirror
While not the OP I have no doubt that people smarter than me have studied this, and there are certainly things I don't understand about it. However, the paper you linked to is a lab on a chip devise, and TFA is a macro scale PCR machine.
While it may be possible to utilize microfluidics to get a lab on the chip that is not what the linked device does. Criticisms that the fast cycling macro devices are never going to give us 5 minute DNA analysis are completely valid.
Further, there are very few people in this world that have more than a superficial understanding of any one of the following: PCR, microfluidics, and MEMS. I bet I can count the number of people who are experts in all three on both hand. Faulting the OP for not being one of those is a little absurd. Additionally, just because we don't understand the nuances of the procedure doesn't mean we can't discuss it.
Any useful information you may have contributed has been completely negated by your flamy style.
I haven't done PCR work for a while, and I'm not sure what "Moder Capillary" is (typo?), but even if you can get the PCR step to 30-45 min it is still a rate limited reaction and will never happen in 5 minutes.
I don't know much about melting curve analysis - I've never done it, but I think its only good for match/no match comparisons. I suspect it's not physically possible to compare one sample against a database using melting curve. I think you're going to need some kind of electrophoretic method.
I'm not saying that the company hasn't done something neat - I can't tell, but 5-minute genotyping is never going to happen if you have to use PCR and electrophoresis.
But I think we're on the same page anyway...
Ignoring the fact that this is all impossible becasue DNA analysis consists of more than PCR and that PCR is never going to take 5 minutes - its just the kinetics of the reaction.
The only real way to get rapid DNA testing is a test that forgoes the amplification step and can identify single strands of DNA. Of course you then have the what if they get someone elses DNA because I just kissed my mom^H^H^H girlfriend goodby.
If all of those were accomplished I see no problem implementing such a solution, because as we all know airports are the hallmarks of efficiency.
Not only that but current thermal cyclers used for PCR are pretty darn quick at changing the temperature. Maybe they can make them smaller and cheaper, but it's not like they invented the peltier chip...
Only it's very likely not his decision. Sony made it for him (and us)
Eh I think it's more useful and morally responsible to show how things are actually done, than how they are supposed to be done.
As a bit of a Law and Order junkie I would say they typically acknowledge when they skirting the constitutionality line - actually that's usually the main plot point.
If every criminal in real life pleads the fifth as soon as they were arrested there would be basis for an interrogation scene. The fact is that most people don't assert their rights when arrested, and interrogations continue to be a useful evidence gathering exercise.
Further, I often wonder how many more criminals assert their rights now than before Law and Order and NYPD blue. It seems to me that these shows do an excellent job detailing how the police can trick you into revealing compromising information.
Not that I know anything about law enforcement beyond what I've seen on TV, but I'd prefer if my "gritty dramas" didn't sugar coat things.
Which points to a basic flaw in the labels business plans. If people aren't willing to pay for something, and there is an unlimited supply by nature it is ludicrous to try to sell it. Selling information is like selling bottled water. Sure it is possible, but you have to add value to the product, not sell something that is freely available.
Information is fundamentally different from other salable items. If I have a traditional commodity and I sell it you I no longer have that item. Even if I sell my expertise I have less time from studying your problem, and I am selling you something that isn't readily available. If I sell you information we then both posses the same information - the act of transferring the information increased the total supply of information. This might be ok for new information, but more the information is spread around the less valuable (monetarily) it is. Software is a rant unto itself, but short form - make your stuff good and cheap enough so that the genuine thing is more attractive than warez.
Copyrights make sense when they prevent another business from ripping off your work in order to turn a profit. They don't make sense when preventing copying hurts the publics access to this information. Books, journals, and magazines are likely to survive because there is value in having a hard copy. Making physical copies of a book cannot happen on the same scale as copying music, and it's not free. Publishers are also very careful about what they put on the net. Sure someone can go and do an OCR and put the full text of a book on the internet, but if nothing else eBooks have shown us that people don't like reading in front of their computer. Music labels will fail because the labels don't add anything useful anymore.
First and foremost the record labels are production companies. A record label provides three value adding services: Production, Promotion, and Distribution. Two of the three have since been rendered obsolete and devalued. Their business model is a relic, but one can hardly blame them for holding on with all their might. One can however blame the courts for propping up this corpse of business and sanctioning their draconian actions to stay alive.
The labels most viable option (in my opinion) is to restructure themselves away from the production/distribution side, and focus on what they are good at, advertising. I bet the labels can make a good bit of money even if they charge $5 per CD and allow unlimited copying. If they make a 10% of everything deal with the artist they stand to gain from putting on good shows, and getting the artists name out there. The radio companies seem all to eager to carry on their relationship with the labels, as does MTV. Sure they'll take a hit in gross profit, but that much seems inevitable anyway. Better to shrink offerings and overhead now while some kind of transition can be made, than floundering along with the status quo.
So what are the consequences? A few people will no longer be able to make a living providing no service, and music will have to stand on its merits, rather than becoming a sure hit if the record company throws enough money into it and gets the star a series on MTV. Personally, I'm ok with that.
BTW bands will still be ok, because their prime income generator - the concert - does add something consumers are willing to pay for.
How exactly do you pronounce USians? Not that I'm offended by the term, but a name that works only in text form is kind of useless. (The nationality formerly known as...)
We call ourselves Americans because that is the commonly accepted form. If you want to talk about people from the continent is North (or South) Americans really that hard? Besides keep in mind we didn't actually choose the name, it would be more accurate to say the name was applied to us - the american colonies. For some reason when we stoped being colonials we didn't breifly become confederates then statesmen. America has been the only constant in the name of this country, that is why we call ourselves Americans.
Honesly whenever someone complains about us assuming the name of the continent it just seems to me that they are complaining about it just so they have something to complain about, after all they don't really want to be called Americans, they're fine with Canadian, Mexican, Peruvian, etc.
wow unitedstatians? thats even worse bastardization than USian
I was taught that Amerigo Vespucci drew the first map and essentially attached his name to the landmass, but wikipedia seems to prefer the ????
How about financial backing, promotion, and distribution?
I'm not saying that the media empires aren't evil, just pointing out that the actual production isn't all that publishers bring to the table. This may be less true for web comics, but it is a similar situation to what is going on with the record labels, and TV/movie production companies.
Bah nothing in economics or politics is ever binary. That's why it's called the Political Spectrum...
I am aware of the current patent costs, but ~$3k - the figure I've seen thrown around is manageable. I don't live in Europe and don't work on software, two things that admittedly increase the cost significantly. Further, if the current costs are two high than raising them is an even worse idea.
I think the sony root kit is causing problems with something called $sys$magic_lantern
It doesn't matter, the days aren't irregular in a gaussian distribution, they are continuously getting longer. So either you start the average at some arebetrary date, or you use a running average of an arbetrary length.
Either way everyday will be longer than the average, and you will still have to insert leap seconds.
Sure the current system is weighed down in beuacracy, but the fact that there are problems in the current system don't mitigate the problems in your proposal.
I ask again, if you buy a portion of a companies debt does your share in the company disapear once that particular debt is paid off? Do future loans decrease the value of the portion of the company debt that I own?
At least in the current system I know that when I buy a share I own a portion of the company, and that shares value grows with the company. If I buy a portion of the debt the company can just pay off the debt and I own nothing.
Your version doesen't even have to be better, it just has to be better marketed.
The very real danger with that proposal is that private inventors are supposed to be be able to apply for patents. If you make it too expensive up front only companies will be able to afford patents.
The ultimate solution is an anti-times-infinity-spyware research clause.
Good we're in agreement then. I'm not trying to prove to you there is a God; I know that is impossible. I'm trying to demonstrate that you are equally unable to prove there is no God.
This is a strong assertion, backed by no evidence. If every society has spiritual elements, it looks to me like the natural state of man is as a spiritual being. I challenge you to bring me a society that has no spiritual beliefs or practices.
Man is born with questions; some of those questions have no scientific answers. That is why we are spiritual/religious.
We don't know this, and what's more we can't know this. Science can't prove what someone experienced in the present, let alone the past. Billions of intelligent adults will be happy to disagree with you here.
How pray tell are personal beliefs an anathema to democracy. If I grow up in the south I'm indoctrinated in republican mythos. If I grow up on the coasts I'm indoctrinated in democratic mythos. The US - capitalism/democracy. China/USSR - communism. Scandinavia - socialism. The middle ages - monarch's divine right. Personal beliefs and differences are much more important to society than you seem to realize. Guess what, we can break from ideas implanted by others, make our own decisions, and challenge our training.
We are social animals, we have the ability to think for ourselves, but we are undeniably influenced by those around us. We do not grow up isolated from each other we CANNOT make uninfluenced decisions. Objectivity is a myth, with or without religion.
You can believe all you want that religion will be stamped out, but seeing how it has existed for all of recorded history, I'm skeptical.
Religion isn't the problem you think it is, and neither is indoctrination. Even if indoctrination were a problem it is a facet of our human condition, and as such immitigable. Let me repeat that intolerance is the problem. Can that be eliminated? I don't know, but it is a better target than religion.
I think you are giving the board too much credit. Their problem is that they are unable to think critically about both science and religion, and they are making an uneducated decision. By asserting a god of the gaps they are weakening religion's position just as badly as science's.
Ha I had a paragraph in my previous post about the gold standard, the fed, and printing money, but I couldn't put together a coherent position then so it got the axe. Try as I might I still can't say anything intelligent about it so I'm moving on to what is still bothering me about your proposed investment plan.
I still can't get over the difference between owning stock in a company and buying the right to a part of its debt.
Right now if a company wants to go public it has an IPO and assigns as many public shares as it wants, essentially selling whatever portion of the company it wants to. Presumably a company that needs a loan under your system could negotiate with the bank whether its debt is to be made public or not. If it is made public who decides what percentage of the company that is and how?
So if we can figure that one out we now have a company that has a portion of its debt in the public sector. The company makes a good return on its investment, and pays off the loan. What happens to the people who bought a portion of the debt once its paid off? Are they still entitled to a portion of future earnings? What portion - there is no longer any risk involved, the debt is paid off.
So if we can figure that out too we now have a company that is doing pretty well. It's paid off its first debt, turned a profit and reinvested in itself. It wants to expand so it needs another loan, and because it worked out so well last time it wants this debt to be public as well. Now you have the same issues as the first time through with the additional quandary of assimilating the people who own a portion of the new debt with the people that owned a portion of the old debt. Do the people who owned the old debt now have rights to a smaller percentage of the companies future profits?
Working through these problems in my head, I suppose its possible that rather than ask a bank for a public loan in the amout of $* they go to the bank saying we will sell you *% of our company, what will you give us for it. Hopefully the bank doens't set the price, but the ultimate investors do. In which case it looks very much like all you are doing is changing the name of the stock exchange. How is that better? Am I missing something?
Isn't it simpler to just be able to buy a percentage of a company in an IPO, and that percentage is constant, with the exceptions of splits, buy-backs, or supplemental offerings? To me it seems that tying shares to debts becomes really messy really quickly.
I've never been particularly good with this type of logic, but her it goes.
1. Consider M to be a subset of E. (God is immanent)
2. Every element of M is also an element of E. Elements of E in M are indistinguishable from elements of M to observers in M. (God is omniscient)
3. Consider the subtraction of E minus M to be E'. E' is wholly uninfluenced by, and undetectable to members of M. (God is eternal)
4. Consider the border case: E elements adjacent to M can influence elements of E within the set M - which are also elements of M themselves. (God is omnipotent)
5. Any effect caused by E on M is indistinguishable from a self-driven event in M.
God isn't separate; he is ubiquitous. Fortunately things tend to follow rules so science can exist - it doesn't have to be that way. I reject your assumption that God is cannot exist in M.
Oh-Ok, I think I understand. My confusion was between the words investors and creditors. I'm no biz whiz, but as I understand it creditors expect to be paid back with interest - what you proposed, with their relationship terminating at the end of the loan. Investors give the company money and in return own a portion of the company.
To me your proposal eliminates the possiblibity of owning stock in a company, and replaces it with the possibility of purchasing a portion of the compainies debt. The significant differance being that the value of outstanding shares is usually higher than the companies debt (I think). A successful company is more valuable than the sum of its debts.
Basicially as I read it you propose replacing brokers with (unregulated) banks correct? If you remove exchanges and brokers and replace them with banks wouldn't it also remove some of the fluidity of money? Banks aren't very interested in sending your money in their trust elsewhere, and this proposal would only strengthen the banks stranglehold on my money. The only way I see around this is to strengthen the banking cartels, allowing for more communication, flowing money, and potential monopoly control.
Another question, if savings accounts are zero risk who pays for the "free market insurance?" I know you'd oppose taxes to pay for an FDIC equivalent, (we've met before) so I'd assume the cost becomes deducted from my account. Do you think its possible to still have a positive interest rate if you are paying insurance? If not why don't I just keep my money under my mattress; essentially removing money from the economy.
I'm not talking about the liability a company holds for a product, I'm talking about the liability an investor has for the company. In an LLC an investor isn't liable for the company - if the company goes down in flames its creditors can't forclose on your house.
I generally agree with your sentiment expressed above, but feel that limited liability laws are an exception. Say I believed, that Worldcom, and Enron were a reputable companies with growth potential. So I buy a stock in it. Scandel ensues, and my stock is now worthless. However, due to limited liability laws those compaines creditors can't sieze propertie from investors until all debts are paid - all I lost was the money I invested.
Now clearly if there was no limited liability I'd be much more hesitant about investing. Which means that companies would have to be much more careful of their dealings; certainly a good thing. On the downside there would be much less capital available because the risk involved in investing would be significant. The economy would slow, and growing a buisness would become harder and harder.
My opinion: going after share holders would have a chilling effect on the economy.
Interesting post.
One nit, Sony is almost certainly structured as a limited liability corp. specifically so that you can't go after the shareholders. Do you think that LLCs are wrong?
In my opinion LLCs are very valuable because they allow ordinary people to invest in corporations without becoming personally, legally and financially responsible for that companies actions. While this certainly can have the effect of diffusing fault, I feel that this is out weight by the positive economic impact of facilitating investments. Do you disagree?
You said that you feel that corporate protections are wrong, do you consider limited laiblity to be a personal or corporate protection? I tend to think that it is a personal protection.
Most churches do not teach that their beliefs supercede scientifically verifiable fact. They learned that lesson thanks to Galileo. Most churches understand that there is no overlap between scientific fact and theological truth.
The fact that you are unable to appreciate the value in religion does not devalue it. You should be allowed to say that anything you want is nonsense. Good luck proving it.
I'm going to assume you ment every religion, but correct me if I'm wrong. Are there religions that aren't fallacious? How are they different?
Please, please expose the logical fallacy inherent in religion. Science is insanely useful, but can't explain something that can't be directly observed. The fallacy is that you think that science can explain everything, even those things which science can't BY DEFINITION explain. All the testing in the world is never going to tell us if we have souls. All the study in the world can't tell us why we're here.
It's not doublethink as much as you want it to be. Explaining that there is science and there is spirituality is akin to explaining that there are is sight and smell. Two things that exist simultaneously, but seemingly don't effect each other.
Please show me how religion is illogical. Just because it isn't science doesn't make it invalid. I challenge you try to explain how something not described by science can't exist.
There are flaws in any system, any organization, and institution. Because one instance of a system is bad doesn't mean the whole system is.