It's not a university -- just a "college" (and I've never been really clear on the distinction) -- but there is at least one institution of higher education in the U.S. that quite consciously and deliberately refuses all forms of government aid, either directly or through its students, in order to maintain its independence from government controls: Grove City College in western Pennsylvania.
Whoops, my mistake. I assumed that the situation that obtains in some states ("University of X" = private [though often with some state support], "X State University" = public) also obtained in Kansas. I should know better; there are numerous other counter-examples.
Should have done my homework and learned what I was talking about before spouting off. Thanks for calling it to my attention.:-)
All this idiot (i.e., myself) needed to drive a car in the UK about ten years ago was my Pennsylvania driver's license. And trust me, I would have done better with some "minimal training" in the rules of the road in Britain. The friend with whom I was traveling had to keep reminding me every time we turned onto a new road, "Left! Stay on the left!"
Nah, let's get even less specific and just call it "crime." Or wait! How about maybe just "bad"? While we're at it, let's stop all this silly talk of Fords and Saturns and SUVs and just call 'em all "cars". And we can definitely do without all of the ridiculous kitchen words like "fry" and "roast" and "microwave" and "steam" and "simmer" and just call it what it is: Cooking.
"All the silly cyber-words" are useful means of distinguishing nuances of meaning -- identifying specific methods of fraud, for instance. "Phishing" refers to a specific method of fraud, and as such adds precision and power to the language. The coining of the new term -- "spear phishing" -- makes it clear that this is a special type of the more general method of phishing, and even provides a pretty clear image to identify the particular type. Identifying this particular subtype also is the first step toward arming people against it -- which may require slightly different methods of self-defense than arming people against more general phishing, or mail fraud, or flimflam scams at the bank, or car-in-distress fraud, or white collar crime, or "blind" panhandlers who can see perfectly well, or any of the other myriad varieties of fraud that exist out there. Lumping them all together with a single word is sometimes useful, but "just dropping" all the language that draws useful distinctions between them is what is "silly".
I lost any apprehension I had left about nuclear power after a job I had for a while indexing nuclear power plant design basis specs. At least in the U.S., those babies are double- and triple-engineered for safety six ways from Sunday.
Finally, you're probably lying. People who think like you are generally in favor of tort reform, which would eliminate your idea of regulation by the courts.
That's the way to debate the issues! Accuse your opponent of lying about the viewpoints he has expressed, on the basis of viewpoints he has not expressed, but you assume without any evidence that he holds anyway! Then make a huge leap of logic (tort reform = elimination of regulation by the courts ?!?) without making any attempt to connect the points at either end of the leap.
Boy, your rhetorical prowess is just breathtaking. Or maybe just dizzying. Or maybe just dizzy.
"Competing with content" my ass -- it's cheap calls that we like, not expensive weather service when one can just turn on the radio on your cell or surf the national weather service's web site...
Speak for yourself. Don't make the common mistake of assuming that your preferences belong to everyone.
I make very few calls on my cellphone -- few enough that the price per call matters very little to me. But the radio stations' weather forecasts suck, I'm often someplace where an Internet connection is inconvenient or altogether unavailable, and the time-and-weather phone number is down or out of service or busy half the time when I try to call it.
Put me down as one who would prefer paying the same rate for fewer calls and more content.
But corporations are an artifact of government regulation. Without the laws and regulations that enable individuals to shield themselves from responsibility and litigation behind an artificial entity called a corporation, corporations wouldn't exist. You wouldn't need protection from them. And when an individual business owner stepped out of line, you could go directly after him; he himself, not multitudes of stockholders, would be held responsible for any damage done by his company. Most of the regulation you're pushing for would be unnecessary. Yes, there would still be individuals with deep pockets who would abuse their economic power. But would they have such deep pockets without the artificial shelter that their corporate status gives them?
So the thing to do, it would seem, would be to remove the power of the government to authorize and perpetuate corporations. But instead, by building huge bodies of regulation around entire industries to hedge in the corporations, you make it impossible for any individual to compete -- because it costs a great deal of money to research and comply with those regulations. So a responsible individual has two choices: get out of the industry altogether, or incorporate -- and thereby perpetuate the very evils you rightly decry.
"More government" is virtually never the answer to government-created problems like corporate misbehavior.
Claiming it is not that way would require keep eyes shut, ears closed and not to communicate with rest the world.
Er... still... no.
I could argue that claiming that it is "that way" would require a gross misunderstanding of what capitalism is and how the free market functions. Or at the very least, would require drawing conclusions about the causes of common human woes that are at best nothing but guesses -- and making capitalism the scapegoat of problems that are pretty much universal to every economic system and every human society.
Try http://www.fte.org/capitalism/introduction/ for a good, well-reasoned defense of capitalism and free markets. Even if you find yourself disagreeing with its conclusions, I think it serves to provide an example of how "common sense" does not automatically grant that capitalism is "only fine on paper".
My objection stands. Claiming that "we all know" something, and excusing that wishful-thinking overgeneralization of your point of view, does not make your point any stronger. Please refrain from claiming the universality of your point of view when there are many reasonable, educated, sensible people who disagree strongly with it.
I don't mean to deny, incidentally, that there are also many reasonable, educated, sensible people who agree strongly with your point of view. Nor do I mean to engage a debate about which point of view is correct. All I mean is to object to your characterization of your point of view as one that is universally held (or, in your revised version, held by anyone with "common sense").
The aggresion to nature is a consequence of population growth
While it's mostly true that larger populations do more damage, it's a difference of degree, not of kind.
Throughout our history, regardless of population density, humankind has never treated nature well, no matter the population size. Mass extinctions have followed the arrival of humans in every continent. Whole civilizations have collapsed due to shortsighted agricultural and hunting practices. Even small hunter-gatherer societies, the darlings of environmentalists who have never met a real hunter-gatherer, practice reckless indifference to the environmental consequences of their behaviors.
We all know that capitalism and free market is only fine on paper.
Er... no. "We all" do not "know" any such thing. You believe it. You have a lot of people who agree with you. This does not mean "we all know".
Even if you could claim to "know" such a thing, I am one who disagrees with you. So please leave me out of the "we all" when you try to make your point stronger by pretending that no one disagrees with you.
From TFA: The report, conducted by Jones Day and Strategy and Policy Consultants Network Ltd., showed that investment in telecommunications, which leads to better services for end users, is lower in countries where there is little competition.
There's an underlying assumption that is not addressed here in the article; it isn't clear from the article whether it's addressed in the report. That assumption is that spending more money correlates to better services for end users. But does it?
Do the authors of the report demonstrate the ways in which investment in telecommunications "leads to better services for end users"? Do they document the services that are better in the countries that they rank as more effectively regulated? "Better" itself is a very subjective term. Better in what way? Using what standard? How is "investment in telecommunications" defined? What kind of corporate expenditures qualify as "investment in telecommunications" and what kind of expenditures do not? Do they consider government subsidies as part of the overall "investment in telecommunications"?
Anecdotal evidence aside, I'd have to see those questions addressed by the authors of the report before I could draw any conclusions one way or the other about whether it demonstrates that a well-regulated industry produces better services. The article is too vague to give any clear indication whether the report itself answers these questions. The fact that it goes into a fair amount of detail in defining what is meant by "effective regulation" makes me think that if other definitions had been addressed, they would have been included.
Maybe regulation is the answer, and maybe this study supports that. Or maybe the free market is the answer, and this study is designed to obscure that by using unsupported assumptions. Maybe neither one is the answer. But without knowing more about the answers to these questions, there's not much point in using the article to stump for your particular pet economic/political point of view.
Slashdot Mirror
It's not a university -- just a "college" (and I've never been really clear on the distinction) -- but there is at least one institution of higher education in the U.S. that quite consciously and deliberately refuses all forms of government aid, either directly or through its students, in order to maintain its independence from government controls: Grove City College in western Pennsylvania.
Whoops, my mistake. I assumed that the situation that obtains in some states ("University of X" = private [though often with some state support], "X State University" = public) also obtained in Kansas. I should know better; there are numerous other counter-examples.
:-)
Should have done my homework and learned what I was talking about before spouting off. Thanks for calling it to my attention.
All this idiot (i.e., myself) needed to drive a car in the UK about ten years ago was my Pennsylvania driver's license. And trust me, I would have done better with some "minimal training" in the rules of the road in Britain. The friend with whom I was traveling had to keep reminding me every time we turned onto a new road, "Left! Stay on the left!"
that very generality of purpose is a double-edged sword which cuts both ways.
:-)
As opposed to a double-edged sword that cuts only one way?
Nah, let's get even less specific and just call it "crime." Or wait! How about maybe just "bad"? While we're at it, let's stop all this silly talk of Fords and Saturns and SUVs and just call 'em all "cars". And we can definitely do without all of the ridiculous kitchen words like "fry" and "roast" and "microwave" and "steam" and "simmer" and just call it what it is: Cooking.
"All the silly cyber-words" are useful means of distinguishing nuances of meaning -- identifying specific methods of fraud, for instance. "Phishing" refers to a specific method of fraud, and as such adds precision and power to the language. The coining of the new term -- "spear phishing" -- makes it clear that this is a special type of the more general method of phishing, and even provides a pretty clear image to identify the particular type. Identifying this particular subtype also is the first step toward arming people against it -- which may require slightly different methods of self-defense than arming people against more general phishing, or mail fraud, or flimflam scams at the bank, or car-in-distress fraud, or white collar crime, or "blind" panhandlers who can see perfectly well, or any of the other myriad varieties of fraud that exist out there. Lumping them all together with a single word is sometimes useful, but "just dropping" all the language that draws useful distinctions between them is what is "silly".
Not just a university -- a private university. Perhaps the GP was confusing The University of Kansas with Kansas State University.
you can recharge an electric car in 20 minutes
:-)
"Sorry I'm late, boss. I even left early, but then I realized I had to make a 20-minute stop to charge the car."
I lost any apprehension I had left about nuclear power after a job I had for a while indexing nuclear power plant design basis specs. At least in the U.S., those babies are double- and triple-engineered for safety six ways from Sunday.
So sign me up for that same minority, please.
People who make puns this bad require psyclonetherapy.
Onto, into, under, between, through ... whomping the bejeebies out of ... pick any preposition you prefer.
Well said. Also, actually, corrected for inflation, the payphone call doesn't cost nearly as much more as the stated prices make it sound, either.
Finally, you're probably lying. People who think like you are generally in favor of tort reform, which would eliminate your idea of regulation by the courts.
That's the way to debate the issues! Accuse your opponent of lying about the viewpoints he has expressed, on the basis of viewpoints he has not expressed, but you assume without any evidence that he holds anyway! Then make a huge leap of logic (tort reform = elimination of regulation by the courts ?!?) without making any attempt to connect the points at either end of the leap.
Boy, your rhetorical prowess is just breathtaking. Or maybe just dizzying. Or maybe just dizzy.
Wish I had mod points. I'd mod you up & "Insightful".
"Competing with content" my ass -- it's cheap calls that we like, not expensive weather service when one can just turn on the radio on your cell or surf the national weather service's web site...
Speak for yourself. Don't make the common mistake of assuming that your preferences belong to everyone.
I make very few calls on my cellphone -- few enough that the price per call matters very little to me. But the radio stations' weather forecasts suck, I'm often someplace where an Internet connection is inconvenient or altogether unavailable, and the time-and-weather phone number is down or out of service or busy half the time when I try to call it.
Put me down as one who would prefer paying the same rate for fewer calls and more content.
But corporations are an artifact of government regulation. Without the laws and regulations that enable individuals to shield themselves from responsibility and litigation behind an artificial entity called a corporation, corporations wouldn't exist. You wouldn't need protection from them. And when an individual business owner stepped out of line, you could go directly after him; he himself, not multitudes of stockholders, would be held responsible for any damage done by his company. Most of the regulation you're pushing for would be unnecessary. Yes, there would still be individuals with deep pockets who would abuse their economic power. But would they have such deep pockets without the artificial shelter that their corporate status gives them?
So the thing to do, it would seem, would be to remove the power of the government to authorize and perpetuate corporations. But instead, by building huge bodies of regulation around entire industries to hedge in the corporations, you make it impossible for any individual to compete -- because it costs a great deal of money to research and comply with those regulations. So a responsible individual has two choices: get out of the industry altogether, or incorporate -- and thereby perpetuate the very evils you rightly decry.
"More government" is virtually never the answer to government-created problems like corporate misbehavior.
Way to go.
The alarming thing, though, I guess, is that this is considered "strong language" in diplomatic circles. It strikes me as direct, but quite tactful.
Claiming it is not that way would require keep eyes shut, ears closed and not to communicate with rest the world.
... still ... no.
Er
I could argue that claiming that it is "that way" would require a gross misunderstanding of what capitalism is and how the free market functions. Or at the very least, would require drawing conclusions about the causes of common human woes that are at best nothing but guesses -- and making capitalism the scapegoat of problems that are pretty much universal to every economic system and every human society.
Try http://www.fte.org/capitalism/introduction/ for a good, well-reasoned defense of capitalism and free markets. Even if you find yourself disagreeing with its conclusions, I think it serves to provide an example of how "common sense" does not automatically grant that capitalism is "only fine on paper".
My objection stands. Claiming that "we all know" something, and excusing that wishful-thinking overgeneralization of your point of view, does not make your point any stronger. Please refrain from claiming the universality of your point of view when there are many reasonable, educated, sensible people who disagree strongly with it.
I don't mean to deny, incidentally, that there are also many reasonable, educated, sensible people who agree strongly with your point of view. Nor do I mean to engage a debate about which point of view is correct. All I mean is to object to your characterization of your point of view as one that is universally held (or, in your revised version, held by anyone with "common sense").
So ... you're saying that Ashton Kutcher causes global warming?
The aggresion to nature is a consequence of population growth
While it's mostly true that larger populations do more damage, it's a difference of degree, not of kind.
Throughout our history, regardless of population density, humankind has never treated nature well, no matter the population size. Mass extinctions have followed the arrival of humans in every continent. Whole civilizations have collapsed due to shortsighted agricultural and hunting practices. Even small hunter-gatherer societies, the darlings of environmentalists who have never met a real hunter-gatherer, practice reckless indifference to the environmental consequences of their behaviors.
I can beat that. I've been a 90kg man in stiletto heels.
No, he means they like to thumb their china, which tends to be dangerous in an earthquake. It's a case of inappropriate capitalization.
You mean they're wearing only partial pirate regalia?
"Insightful"?!?
... no. "We all" do not "know" any such thing. You believe it. You have a lot of people who agree with you. This does not mean "we all know".
We all know that capitalism and free market is only fine on paper.
Er
Even if you could claim to "know" such a thing, I am one who disagrees with you. So please leave me out of the "we all" when you try to make your point stronger by pretending that no one disagrees with you.
From TFA: The report, conducted by Jones Day and Strategy and Policy Consultants Network Ltd., showed that investment in telecommunications, which leads to better services for end users, is lower in countries where there is little competition.
There's an underlying assumption that is not addressed here in the article; it isn't clear from the article whether it's addressed in the report. That assumption is that spending more money correlates to better services for end users. But does it?
Do the authors of the report demonstrate the ways in which investment in telecommunications "leads to better services for end users"? Do they document the services that are better in the countries that they rank as more effectively regulated? "Better" itself is a very subjective term. Better in what way? Using what standard? How is "investment in telecommunications" defined? What kind of corporate expenditures qualify as "investment in telecommunications" and what kind of expenditures do not? Do they consider government subsidies as part of the overall "investment in telecommunications"?
Anecdotal evidence aside, I'd have to see those questions addressed by the authors of the report before I could draw any conclusions one way or the other about whether it demonstrates that a well-regulated industry produces better services. The article is too vague to give any clear indication whether the report itself answers these questions. The fact that it goes into a fair amount of detail in defining what is meant by "effective regulation" makes me think that if other definitions had been addressed, they would have been included.
Maybe regulation is the answer, and maybe this study supports that. Or maybe the free market is the answer, and this study is designed to obscure that by using unsupported assumptions. Maybe neither one is the answer. But without knowing more about the answers to these questions, there's not much point in using the article to stump for your particular pet economic/political point of view.
But is it free as in beer?