I support a carbon credit scheme, where every year an agency places up for bid a number of transferable licenses to produce a certain amount of carbon, carbon not used in the end of the year could be redeemable for some amount of money per ton. The idea is that carbon use in our economy would route its way to those who would generate the highest marginal profit from it(allowing society to benefit the most from the least amount of carbon). If we decrease the amount of carbon credits we sell every year, it will give companies a large incentive to cut down on carbon use, because any carbon they do not use can be sold.
Europe figured out a efficient means of enforcement I'm not familiar with, but it seems like it has not been a problem.
First, why the government sucks at buisness:
Democratic governments make decisions based on consensus of the country, decison by consensus is very inefficient. My real problem with government industry and regulations is that they bring esoteric items into the public debate that the public is not qualified to handle. Imagine a campaign where candidates debate the pros and cons of IPV6 roll out, or where they debate over which type of beta blocker is most efficient for the taxpayer.
On topic: I think net neutrality is a red herring, the real problem is that the telecom industry is a oligopoly. I propose that we separate the internet backbone into a separate and highly regulated company, and deregulate everything else involved after some aggressive trust busting.
Why the obsession with competition?:
The technical reason is because of something called Pareto efficiency. In a perfect market(Cooperation is impossible, no transport costs or taxes, no regulation, contract enforcement, government regulated externalities, no firm controls prices, no monopolies, etc.), competition leads to something called Pareto optimality. This means that no one person can be made better without another person made worse, essentially, there are no more free lunches. This has been mathematically proven.
If cooperation exists, then Pareto Optimality is no longer guaranteed. The US economy is not a perfect market, but the closer we are to one, the higher our Pareto efficiency will be.
No, they just divide ourselves into a lot of categories. Most of the libertarians I talk to support government intervention in externalities, and most would support some sort of carbon tax/credit scheme.
Wikipedia is the 12th most popular site on the web. We are talking about hundreds of millions of dollars per year. Wikipedia's budget has never exceeded 2 million.
Evil does not come out of voluntary exchange. If a city wants to waste their money on tax breaks for Walmart, and they are not voted out of office, I do not see a problem. If workers are willing to take a job that popular wisdom has already dictated will be shit for low pay, that is up to them. As for the cleaning staff issue, I'm not sure if that is a standard practice, but if it is, the cleaning staff are free to quit.
Walmart crosses the line into evil only if they infringe on someones rights to life and liberty, when they enslave or beat workers(I refer to real enslavement, not wage slave bullshit), When they threaten to kill workers families, or when they assassinate government officials to distort policy.
Corporations have done truly evil things, the British East India Company subjugated a entire subcontinent in the name of British profit, Yahoo outed a Chinese dissident leading to his torture and arrest. When you call Walmart evil, you cheapen the potency of the label. Profit and greed are the basic components of our economy, driving every person at every level to greater effcientcy.
That was not my point, I meant that it needs to be easy so that teachers can utilize the computer to teach their subject. For example, A art class using a GIMP port.
Well, do people who buy CD's care about DRM? As long as Linux leaders care about it, we're fine. If Linux had 50% market share, then when Linux leaders go to congress and say "Current Patent law is seriously harming our bottom line, and the viability of the market", congress will listen.
Not political clout, economic clout. Do you think Microsoft cajoles their user base to political action for DRM? No, this is an issue that the public ranks very low, in these issues, any company/organization with a significant user base is given tremendous clout.
That is a good point. But I think that would only be valid if they hot linked the content to be viewable from the website. In this case, the defendent posting a link on a website saying "Hey check this link out to just see the motocross video", and that seems to be equivalent to telling a friend "if you just type in/vid, then you can skip all the ads" at a nerdy party.
X does imply Y, if "Content creators should have total control over how users are introduced to their material" is true, and then Users should not be able to talk about content at parties in an uncontrolled manner, which contradicts Y.
It does not condemn the judgment; all it does is suggesting X is not true. Notice that X is a very strongly worded statement.
I was just clarifying the logical foundation for arguments such as these, as you expressed that you did not understand them. But judging by your username (If you don't mind my asking, what is so special about that number?), you probably know this far better than me; I'm just a 15 year old math major at a shitty Florida college.
Hmm, almost, but the opposite of "all men are liars" is "not all men are liars", which is not the same as "all men tell the truth",
So, suppose King Lear's statement X="All men are liars" is true, as you pointed out, then because King Lear is a man, X is false. So X is false and true at the same time. Therefore, our assumption is incorrect, and X is false, so, "Not all men are liars"
The statement that breaks the system is "I am lying", there is no way to determine the validity of that statement. But it was proven in the 20's that there are always a couple propositions that cannot be accessed as true or false in any consistent logical system.
The idea is related to mathematical proof by contradiction, Suppose proposition X was true, then proposition X implies proposition W is true, but, it also implies proposition Y is true, But Y is incorrect by previous knowledge. so we deduce that Y is both correct and incorrect at the same time, and P and not P is axiomatically false. Therefore, our assumption (that X was true) is incorrect.
Lets plug stuff in, X="Content providers Should have complete control over how their customers are introduced to their material"
W="this Judges ruling was correct"
Y="People should not be allowed to talk freely about websites at parties"
X implies W and Y, but Y is false, so (W and Y) is false, so X cannot be true, and true implies false is false.
No, copyright exists to help content owners get money, usually through sales or licensing fee's, the goverment defending ad revenue.... that would be a entirely new step.
Slashdot Mirror
Every industry that produces significant CO2 is concentrated. there are no Mom an' Pop coal plants or automobile produces.
I cannot think of any major CO2 producing small businesses...
I support a carbon credit scheme, where every year an agency places up for bid a number of transferable licenses to produce a certain amount of carbon, carbon not used in the end of the year could be redeemable for some amount of money per ton. The idea is that carbon use in our economy would route its way to those who would generate the highest marginal profit from it(allowing society to benefit the most from the least amount of carbon). If we decrease the amount of carbon credits we sell every year, it will give companies a large incentive to cut down on carbon use, because any carbon they do not use can be sold. Europe figured out a efficient means of enforcement I'm not familiar with, but it seems like it has not been a problem.
On topic: I think net neutrality is a red herring, the real problem is that the telecom industry is a oligopoly. I propose that we separate the internet backbone into a separate and highly regulated company, and deregulate everything else involved after some aggressive trust busting.
Why the obsession with competition?: The technical reason is because of something called Pareto efficiency. In a perfect market(Cooperation is impossible, no transport costs or taxes, no regulation, contract enforcement, government regulated externalities, no firm controls prices, no monopolies, etc.), competition leads to something called Pareto optimality. This means that no one person can be made better without another person made worse, essentially, there are no more free lunches. This has been mathematically proven.
If cooperation exists, then Pareto Optimality is no longer guaranteed. The US economy is not a perfect market, but the closer we are to one, the higher our Pareto efficiency will be.
No, they just divide ourselves into a lot of categories. Most of the libertarians I talk to support government intervention in externalities, and most would support some sort of carbon tax/credit scheme.
Take a economics course before you shovel anarchic crap down our throats.
Nope, your alone.
Corruption is literally impossible with Google ads.
Wikipedia is the 12th most popular site on the web. We are talking about hundreds of millions of dollars per year. Wikipedia's budget has never exceeded 2 million.
Fine, but in this particular case, I fail to see how ad sense could compromise anything.
Walmart crosses the line into evil only if they infringe on someones rights to life and liberty, when they enslave or beat workers(I refer to real enslavement, not wage slave bullshit), When they threaten to kill workers families, or when they assassinate government officials to distort policy.
Corporations have done truly evil things, the British East India Company subjugated a entire subcontinent in the name of British profit, Yahoo outed a Chinese dissident leading to his torture and arrest. When you call Walmart evil, you cheapen the potency of the label. Profit and greed are the basic components of our economy, driving every person at every level to greater effcientcy.
That was not my point, I meant that it needs to be easy so that teachers can utilize the computer to teach their subject. For example, A art class using a GIMP port.
Teachers cant prepare lesson plans unless they know how to use a machine.
No, if you click the title bar it turns into a URL bar, they just want to save screen space.
Well, do people who buy CD's care about DRM? As long as Linux leaders care about it, we're fine. If Linux had 50% market share, then when Linux leaders go to congress and say "Current Patent law is seriously harming our bottom line, and the viability of the market", congress will listen.
Not political clout, economic clout. Do you think Microsoft cajoles their user base to political action for DRM? No, this is an issue that the public ranks very low, in these issues, any company/organization with a significant user base is given tremendous clout.
Sarcasm?
I'm sorry, I don't know why I read otherwise.
Hezbollah is Shia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hezbollah#Shi.27a_Isl amism.
That is a good point. But I think that would only be valid if they hot linked the content to be viewable from the website. In this case, the defendent posting a link on a website saying "Hey check this link out to just see the motocross video", and that seems to be equivalent to telling a friend "if you just type in /vid, then you can skip all the ads" at a nerdy party.
It does not condemn the judgment; all it does is suggesting X is not true. Notice that X is a very strongly worded statement.
I was just clarifying the logical foundation for arguments such as these, as you expressed that you did not understand them. But judging by your username (If you don't mind my asking, what is so special about that number?), you probably know this far better than me; I'm just a 15 year old math major at a shitty Florida college.
So, suppose King Lear's statement X="All men are liars" is true, as you pointed out, then because King Lear is a man, X is false. So X is false and true at the same time. Therefore, our assumption is incorrect, and X is false, so, "Not all men are liars"
The statement that breaks the system is "I am lying", there is no way to determine the validity of that statement. But it was proven in the 20's that there are always a couple propositions that cannot be accessed as true or false in any consistent logical system.
The idea is related to mathematical proof by contradiction, Suppose proposition X was true, then proposition X implies proposition W is true, but, it also implies proposition Y is true, But Y is incorrect by previous knowledge. so we deduce that Y is both correct and incorrect at the same time, and P and not P is axiomatically false. Therefore, our assumption (that X was true) is incorrect. Lets plug stuff in, X="Content providers Should have complete control over how their customers are introduced to their material" W="this Judges ruling was correct" Y="People should not be allowed to talk freely about websites at parties" X implies W and Y, but Y is false, so (W and Y) is false, so X cannot be true, and true implies false is false.
No, copyright exists to help content owners get money, usually through sales or licensing fee's, the goverment defending ad revenue.... that would be a entirely new step.
Wish I had points for this