Under the "cartel" of Standard Oil, the price of oil fell by more than half. You were saying?
In any event, monopolies don't last long by themselves, and especially not with things like patents, protectionism, barriers to entry, and other corporate welfare that they're opposed to.
There is no one "Tea Party platform". You'll find that Tea Party supporters prefer their organization to be like the form of government they campaign for: Decentralized.
Economics makes no such claim that people act under "rational self interest" or that people are well informed. It's not even covered in an econ class one way or the other, you'll just never hear it. The laws of economics apply regardless.
What is covered is that they're making the best decision for themselves (decisions are subjective, so that goes by definition), and that there's no coercion. The side effects of coercion (including taxes) is a whole field of study.
Not open source? The source is available for download here.
You can't compile it yourself. You have no idea what is in the source.
You certainly can compile it yourself; I built it on my old Linux iBook G4 (PowerPC), since there were no binaries available for that platform. As has been discussed above, it does have a weird license, but it is absolutely open source.
Grandparent probably refers to Open Source Software, which is a formally defined term. It's not enough that you can merely read the source, you have to be able to redistribute it and any changes, too.
What's being developed is an encryption API. The W3C does a whole lot more than just deal with "browser display", they define databases, query languages, multimedia formats, encryption containers, and scripting APIs. EME happens to fall into the latter two categories. And no where does it actually discuss DRM, or require that a Web browser lock down content from developers or users.
The exact opposite is the case. If the W3C didn't make a home for implementers who want to agree on a standard, the implementers would find somewhere else.
And what's the issue, anyways? They're not publishing DRM, and they can't tell Web browsers to protect content. Read the EME spec that's so controversial, there's no reason why you couldn't write your own EME implementation.
The WORST thing you can do to someone is silence dissent.
Also, the W3C is not publishing DRM. They are allowing a Working Group to consider a specification for encrypted media - it does not involve "content protection" in any way, shape, or form. It's no different than Encrypted XML for encrypting credit card numbers.
No one said they aren't supposed to use veto and voting. As I mention, that's a great tool that they can vote down such bills.
But what the Senate wants to do is vote down the spending, then accuse the House of not funding the Federal government. It just completely defies all logic.
In US terminology, it's the "left wing" that's voting down the proposed budgets to continue funding the Federal government. But even then, that's really a misnomer.
The Constitution only allows the House to originate bills for spending and taxing - and under the control of the Republican party, they're only originating bills that don't fund Obamacare. The Democrat-controlled Senate and White House are voting down and threatening to veto these budgets, and thus the partial government "shutdown".
I don't like the omnibus budgets, just 30 years ago Congress used to fund the government by "legislation by appropriation", many individual bills voted on individually, instead of all or nothing. But besides this, I rather enjoy the fact that all the arms of government must agree, before money can be taxed and spent, or before someone can be thrown in prison, etc.
Economists regard price deflation as bad: That's when costs for businesses and debtors go up, without a corresponding increase in revenue. Businesses fail left and right under this situation.
Bitcoins, not now, but in the future, will have the property of monetary deflation, which is good: Prices go down uniformly and predictably.
The key thing to keep in mind is that, if the future effects are predictable, that'll be reflected in the price now, minus interest for the price of time.
(Monetary inflation may be predictable in many cases, but it's still damaging because it's not uniform: It benefits banks and the politically well connected with new money, letting them bid up prices, effectively stealing wealth from savings and those on fixed incomes.)
1) Child labor was already going down by itself. They just banned what was already gone. Not only did they ban it, but they did so often unconstitutionally (since labor is typically INTRAstate, not INTERstate), and often to the detriment of family businesses and the like. With the result that yes, children can work, but if they accept anything for it, it's jail time for you.
2) Slavery and segregation in the US was CREATED by the government. No, really, one of the first slaves was a white guy who was put into slavery when the court ruled that he could be owned for life as a result of his indentured servants contract. It all went downhill from there as African trade was established and "Jim Crow laws" forced business owners to segregate, mostly against their will.
3) Modern technology has made us become cleaner. The middle ages was so dirty LAKES would CATCH ON FIRE. We have by far the cleanest air and water we've ever had because we're burning cleaner fuels and we have the wealth to be able to prioritize cleanliness. It has nothing to do with the EPA.
And what 'conservatives' are up in arms against is how these government agencies do their jobs. The EPA just conducted a water quality inspection with a SWAT raid. Like, what the hell? Are you proud of your EPA now?
They're not approving DRM, there's no mandate to lock down Web browsers anywhere. It's not DRM. TBL is against DRM.
It's just an API for dealing with encrypted streams, the same as we already have Encrypted XML for encrypting portions of XML documents (like credit card numbers). Encryption APIs are within their charter.
This API might also be used for ensuring confidentiality between selected members of an otherwise public teleconference. There's nothing sinister about it.
It's just an API for dealing with encryption. It's the same thing as the numerous other APIs that deal with encrypting documents, including Encrypted XML. It doesn't mandate that Web browsers get locked down, it doesn't mandate that the source or anything is made inaccessible to users.
Well, no: It is politicians that created institutions they called "too big to fail".
There was never any danger in large companies going bankrupt. It's not as if when a company fails, their capital resources suddenly vanish into thin air.
It was finally a way to get an HTTPS secured website without needing to go to a CA. And they removed it.
I just thought they were being incompetent as they usually were, but now I can't help but wonder if the NSA got on their backs about not being able to sign their own replacement certificate...
The defining characteristic of a contract is the promise "If I do X, you do Y". If I uphold my end and the other party can walk away without any repercussion, there is no contract.
That's not how contract law works in the US, anyways. The minor still has to return everything they received.
Erm, it kind of is. Yeah, we know that CO2 is opaque at certain wavelengths, we get that. But trying to model the effects on the climate? Science implies reproducibility. You can't repeat the climate. Can you find me just one model that's been reasonably correct more than a few years out?
And even where the science does have it right, that doesn't mean a particular public policy makes economic sense. There's nothing like the thrill of finding out you, the taxpayers, just spent $500B on delaying global flooding by only seven years - more than enough money to re-engineer the world's food infrastructure multiple times over. Yes, that's the actual numbers we're looking at, and that's just taking the current publications at face value.
Slashdot Mirror
Under the "cartel" of Standard Oil, the price of oil fell by more than half. You were saying?
In any event, monopolies don't last long by themselves, and especially not with things like patents, protectionism, barriers to entry, and other corporate welfare that they're opposed to.
There is no one "Tea Party platform". You'll find that Tea Party supporters prefer their organization to be like the form of government they campaign for: Decentralized.
Um, "general welfare" isn't a power of congress. You should go read the Tenth Amendment.
Economics makes no such claim that people act under "rational self interest" or that people are well informed. It's not even covered in an econ class one way or the other, you'll just never hear it. The laws of economics apply regardless.
What is covered is that they're making the best decision for themselves (decisions are subjective, so that goes by definition), and that there's no coercion. The side effects of coercion (including taxes) is a whole field of study.
Not open source? The source is available for download here.
You can't compile it yourself. You have no idea what is in the source.
You certainly can compile it yourself; I built it on my old Linux iBook G4 (PowerPC), since there were no binaries available for that platform. As has been discussed above, it does have a weird license, but it is absolutely open source.
Grandparent probably refers to Open Source Software, which is a formally defined term. It's not enough that you can merely read the source, you have to be able to redistribute it and any changes, too.
It's because she refused to stop handling food properly. Those are the same rules that are asked of EVERYONE.
If you want to make a point, stop posting as AC, flaming me, then proceeding to mod yourself up ("Flamebait" is -1, not +1, dumbass).
Says who?
You don't "gain" rights, rights pre-exist our humanity.
If you're harming someone else, that's infringing on their rights.
This isn't about vaccinations being good or bad. What they think the vaccination will do is irrelevant.
This is about your right to decide what goes into your own body, to keep the government away from it.
What's being developed is an encryption API. The W3C does a whole lot more than just deal with "browser display", they define databases, query languages, multimedia formats, encryption containers, and scripting APIs. EME happens to fall into the latter two categories. And no where does it actually discuss DRM, or require that a Web browser lock down content from developers or users.
The exact opposite is the case. If the W3C didn't make a home for implementers who want to agree on a standard, the implementers would find somewhere else.
And what's the issue, anyways? They're not publishing DRM, and they can't tell Web browsers to protect content. Read the EME spec that's so controversial, there's no reason why you couldn't write your own EME implementation.
Says who?
The WORST thing you can do to someone is silence dissent.
Also, the W3C is not publishing DRM. They are allowing a Working Group to consider a specification for encrypted media - it does not involve "content protection" in any way, shape, or form. It's no different than Encrypted XML for encrypting credit card numbers.
No one said they aren't supposed to use veto and voting. As I mention, that's a great tool that they can vote down such bills.
But what the Senate wants to do is vote down the spending, then accuse the House of not funding the Federal government. It just completely defies all logic.
In US terminology, it's the "left wing" that's voting down the proposed budgets to continue funding the Federal government. But even then, that's really a misnomer.
The Constitution only allows the House to originate bills for spending and taxing - and under the control of the Republican party, they're only originating bills that don't fund Obamacare. The Democrat-controlled Senate and White House are voting down and threatening to veto these budgets, and thus the partial government "shutdown".
I don't like the omnibus budgets, just 30 years ago Congress used to fund the government by "legislation by appropriation", many individual bills voted on individually, instead of all or nothing. But besides this, I rather enjoy the fact that all the arms of government must agree, before money can be taxed and spent, or before someone can be thrown in prison, etc.
Economists regard price deflation as bad: That's when costs for businesses and debtors go up, without a corresponding increase in revenue. Businesses fail left and right under this situation.
Bitcoins, not now, but in the future, will have the property of monetary deflation, which is good: Prices go down uniformly and predictably.
The key thing to keep in mind is that, if the future effects are predictable, that'll be reflected in the price now, minus interest for the price of time.
(Monetary inflation may be predictable in many cases, but it's still damaging because it's not uniform: It benefits banks and the politically well connected with new money, letting them bid up prices, effectively stealing wealth from savings and those on fixed incomes.)
1) Child labor was already going down by itself. They just banned what was already gone. Not only did they ban it, but they did so often unconstitutionally (since labor is typically INTRAstate, not INTERstate), and often to the detriment of family businesses and the like. With the result that yes, children can work, but if they accept anything for it, it's jail time for you.
2) Slavery and segregation in the US was CREATED by the government. No, really, one of the first slaves was a white guy who was put into slavery when the court ruled that he could be owned for life as a result of his indentured servants contract. It all went downhill from there as African trade was established and "Jim Crow laws" forced business owners to segregate, mostly against their will.
3) Modern technology has made us become cleaner. The middle ages was so dirty LAKES would CATCH ON FIRE. We have by far the cleanest air and water we've ever had because we're burning cleaner fuels and we have the wealth to be able to prioritize cleanliness. It has nothing to do with the EPA.
And what 'conservatives' are up in arms against is how these government agencies do their jobs. The EPA just conducted a water quality inspection with a SWAT raid. Like, what the hell? Are you proud of your EPA now?
They're not approving DRM, there's no mandate to lock down Web browsers anywhere. It's not DRM. TBL is against DRM.
It's just an API for dealing with encrypted streams, the same as we already have Encrypted XML for encrypting portions of XML documents (like credit card numbers). Encryption APIs are within their charter.
This API might also be used for ensuring confidentiality between selected members of an otherwise public teleconference. There's nothing sinister about it.
It's just an API for dealing with encryption. It's the same thing as the numerous other APIs that deal with encrypting documents, including Encrypted XML. It doesn't mandate that Web browsers get locked down, it doesn't mandate that the source or anything is made inaccessible to users.
Nothing to see here, move along.
Is it possible to stop repeating something blatantly incorrect? I'd suggest not blaming capitalism for what isn't its fault.
And no, you don't need politicians, you just need a justice system (i.e. a method of enforcing contracts). Go take a look at Hong Kong.
Well, no: It is politicians that created institutions they called "too big to fail".
There was never any danger in large companies going bankrupt. It's not as if when a company fails, their capital resources suddenly vanish into thin air.
A few months ago, Google removed the ability in Chrome to staple a TLS/SSL certificate to your DNSSEC-signed DNS records: https://www.imperialviolet.org/2011/06/16/dnssecchrome.html
It was finally a way to get an HTTPS secured website without needing to go to a CA. And they removed it.
I just thought they were being incompetent as they usually were, but now I can't help but wonder if the NSA got on their backs about not being able to sign their own replacement certificate...
The defining characteristic of a contract is the promise "If I do X, you do Y". If I uphold my end and the other party can walk away without any repercussion, there is no contract.
That's not how contract law works in the US, anyways. The minor still has to return everything they received.
No, once the data is on Facebook's servers, it's Facebook's data. Revoking a contract wouldn't affect Facebook the least.
That'd be like me forcing you to delete all Emails and burn all letters I've ever sent you. I can't do that, or if I forced you, that'd be theft.
"Find scam doctors" is not one of those delegated powers, which are listed in article 1, section 8.
** Or an amendment that explicitly grants Congress such a power.
Perhaps pedantic, but important to point out.
Erm, it kind of is. Yeah, we know that CO2 is opaque at certain wavelengths, we get that. But trying to model the effects on the climate? Science implies reproducibility. You can't repeat the climate. Can you find me just one model that's been reasonably correct more than a few years out?
And even where the science does have it right, that doesn't mean a particular public policy makes economic sense. There's nothing like the thrill of finding out you, the taxpayers, just spent $500B on delaying global flooding by only seven years - more than enough money to re-engineer the world's food infrastructure multiple times over. Yes, that's the actual numbers we're looking at, and that's just taking the current publications at face value.