No civilized society, he adds, can endure 'purely voluntary payment for art'
And where did he get that lovely axiom? From his ass probably. So art should be funded by mandatory payment? This is unbelievable, these thugs are really starting to consider collecting money from people who DO NOT infringe copyright!
From TFA:
He told the story of a Parisian composer in the 1840s who went to dinner at a Champs Elysee restaurant, heard the orchestra there playing his tune, and left without paying for his supper. When hauled before a magistrate, the composer wondered why he should pay for dinner when the restaurant had paid him nothing for his own work. Out of the incident, the world's first collection society was born.
Another crock of shit. If not we might have gotten a composer name, at the least. The restaurant didn't have to pay him anything. The musicians all purchased the sheet music for his composition and he gets royalties from that already. What's next? Charging people walking in the street for overhearing the music played?
And all that "distribute money to artists fairly" crap... I won't even comment on that.
Well, in fact we might be reaching the point of inconciliable differences. I see governmental subsidies as black and white, because I consider taxation as theft.
You've pointed out very correctly that regulation is one of the few ways in which the government can take care of environmental issues. But it is far from the most effective one. I'm of the opinion that this should be looked as a property rights issue.
The coal plant does not own the air miles and miles around the plant. And it SHOULD be lawfully in an agreement with the local residents to provide some compensation for the harm of their pollution. See how that is different than a tax levied by a government which will then decide how better to spend it. That system is an incentive for clean energy development and even minimizing pollution from current 'dirty' techs.
The problem with governmental subsidies is that they create a bureaucracy that is concerned with its 'acquired right'. Perhaps wind power is now competitive because of subsidies. So do you agree they should be ended? Unfortunately in the real world that does not happen, and once beneficial subsidies will now stifle innovation and competition in that industry.
I think we should look at this as a property rights issue. When someone sends you information in a Doc format, and you don't own Office, then Microsoft should be concerned as denying your right to the information encoded on that document.
They can code all proprietary apps they like, but when my data is concerned, the means to access it should be open and public. Otherwise it's holding property for ransom, plain and simple.
Ah, OK, so what you're pushing for is really government subsidies.:-)
By the same token I could say that nuclear is made unprofitable because of governmental regulations, so using "free market" there isn't accurate, the energy market is not free at all - Department of Energy, anyone? And coal plants are STILL manyfold more efficient than internal combustion engines.
I think wind turbines are a very poor green power tech. You said it yourself, they are not competitive, only thru picking the German people's pockets. They'd do less harm just getting out of the energy market and at most promoting free market incentives such as tax credits on green tech adoption.
True. But I'll say that the constitutionally limited government in the US worked pretty well for about 150 years. And look where that got them? Compare with 80 years of the U.S.S.R.. Got the picture? NOTHING is perfect, but some things are more perfect than others.
Actually I'm not FOR capitalism, I'm for freedom. The thing is that in a free society, capitalism is the natural outcome. And a free society beats a collectivist one any day.
I'm sure in the next iteration of bloody revolution we'll get it better fine tuning. Maybe a constitution that says "Thou shalt not tax. Ever. And just in case you're trying to interpret it any other way, let me rephrase. Nobody, no person, animal, citizen. No taxes.".
I also liked that thing that came up on a Heinlein book about two legislative bodies. One to pass laws at 2/3 of the votes and one to repeal laws by 1/3. Call that the political version of Garbage collection. Who knows?:-)
In the developing world? The US and China alone are responsible for 2/5ths of the world's CO2 emissions. it's around 22% for the US alone! So, don't neglect the importance of the green economy growth in the US which is where it'll do the most good.
Moreover, America is a big influence on the rest of the world. People will want electric cars, people will want solar panels and cheaper electric bills. More important in this issue is that markets be made freer so competition from the new technologies is allowed to work, making sure those who can't adapt are tossed to the curb. That's a real problem where I live, mixed economy, protectionism, so I can't get a decent notebook for less than 1300 USD. Sucks, what you're gonna do?
And I, for one, welcome our new Tesla Roadster producing overlords.:-)
I don't know where you get your simple extrapolations and optimistic figures. Can you give me one? To say the the earth's climate will change faster than the market can adapt to this new awareness is ludicrous, like claiming the grand canyon was formed by a massive flood.
For each electric car in the street it's one less CO2 emitting one. So the growth of the 'green' market is directly and inversely proportional to the CO2 emissions worldwide.
Now, to make a prediction out of my own ass and head, I think we will see a major increasing trend in electric vehicles from 2010 on, and that alone, even if they are _all_ powered from coal burning plants, will be a huge benefit CO2 wise, since those plants are much more efficient than internal combustion engines and easier to minimize pollution since it's all generated in one place, not spread across a billion cars.
What if the genius of chemistry that would discover transparent aluminum doesn't have the money to rent an industrial space and goes to work as a janitor instead?
The far left (ie: socialists) are actually about increasing freedom and democracy—although the only way to achieve that is to reduce the freedoms of the capitalists (who use their wealth and "ownership" of the means of production to control society in their narrow, short-sighted and selfish interests).
Don't you get that reducing freedoms to the capitalists reduces your freedom as well? And who is to decide what interests arent narrow, short-sighted and selfish? The far-left?
Most of the rich in the US were poor once, they might've gotten bare handed on the continent. But the great thing about America was that people STOPPED being poor, exactly because they were free do do whatever they liked and the government didn't restrain them in any way.
What you propose - and I can't really blame you, it's the general direction the mainstream media in the US is shoveling everybody - is a return to poverty, tyranny and a central power.
Remember the line: "L'Etat, c'est moi" by Louis XIV
Oh yeah. All socialism that fails isn't REALLY socialism. Socialism is PERFECT.:-)
Capitalists don't perform labor? They take on all the risk of a venture - I've never heard of employees complaining that they do not get a part of the LOSSES the employer might sustain -, they do the planning, they provide the capital that is responsible for increasing production and ultimately making products cheaper and available to more and more people.
Marx was a MORON which thought that all the riches in the world amounts to a fixed sized pie. And that if the capitalists make more money, that means somebody else makes less, without ANY half-decent knowledge of how economics works and how riches come into being. Seriously. Calling that scientific is like calling intelligent design science.
Frankly, this goes to show one thing: That democracy as-we-do-it is a dead end and will lead is straight into self-destruction. Evil dictatorship, on the other hand (China hasn't been a pure communist country for years) can get things done.
Face it: The west is in a dead-lock. We want to save the world, but we can't, because our focus on self-interest and "the market will solve it" very efficiently prevents any common-interest solutions. It's the tragedy of the commons all over again, just on a global scale.
This is the most fallacious comment I've seen in awhile and is totally wrong.
China's economy is half the GDP of the USA and pollutes almost as much. What are you talking about a central power 'getting things done'? A government-built 'green city'? How is THAT going to change the world?
Now, SolarCity is already profitable. And TM is already expanding scale to start producing electric cars for a wider market in about 2 years. Oh, and they're making profits too.
Evil money grubbers! Selling solar panels and electric cars! Self-interest != common-interest! Seriously, educate yourself.
Government taking risk? Do you have any knowledge of economics?
What is the government risking exactly? Its hard earned capital? This is about as ridiculous as talking that "Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac took great risks to provide cheap housing for everyone". It's the Chinese people's money the PRC is burning on this puff piece.
... but I don't see other governments dare to experiment and make a show like that.
Thank God for that. If government would only get out of the way of individual entrepreneurs, we'd see much faster progress in this direction.
You silly. They said the city will house 5,000 people. They will all be high ranking government employees. China's elite. They probably don't even get a paycheck. The masses pay for them.
The air is cleaner at the top. Long live Chairman Mao.:-)
Slashdot Mirror
1. Stage a false flag attack against NY to obtain wider emergency powers
2. ???
3. profit!
Funny you talk about BTU's but not temperature.
Jet fuel has a maximum burning temperature. And WTC's structural steel was designed to withstand MUCH higher temps.
Keep the BTU crap for air conditioners, please.
The thing tries like two reserve chutes after the first flops and neither works too.
Really NASA, I think COTS is the way to go. Keep that up. :-)
In short, you've got a fantastic idea, but state-driven and regulated economics that prevents new competition into the market dictates otherwise.
There, fixed that for you. :-)
No civilized society, he adds, can endure 'purely voluntary payment for art'
And where did he get that lovely axiom? From his ass probably. So art should be funded by mandatory payment? This is unbelievable, these thugs are really starting to consider collecting money from people who DO NOT infringe copyright!
From TFA:
He told the story of a Parisian composer in the 1840s who went to dinner at a Champs Elysee restaurant, heard the orchestra there playing his tune, and left without paying for his supper. When hauled before a magistrate, the composer wondered why he should pay for dinner when the restaurant had paid him nothing for his own work. Out of the incident, the world's first collection society was born.
Another crock of shit. If not we might have gotten a composer name, at the least. The restaurant didn't have to pay him anything. The musicians all purchased the sheet music for his composition and he gets royalties from that already. What's next? Charging people walking in the street for overhearing the music played?
And all that "distribute money to artists fairly" crap... I won't even comment on that.
Oh yes, all human progress is triggered by governmental spending.
If only we could have another war soon. God dammit. Stupid civilians, all they do is eat, fuck and sleep.
Well, in fact we might be reaching the point of inconciliable differences. I see governmental subsidies as black and white, because I consider taxation as theft.
You've pointed out very correctly that regulation is one of the few ways in which the government can take care of environmental issues. But it is far from the most effective one. I'm of the opinion that this should be looked as a property rights issue.
The coal plant does not own the air miles and miles around the plant. And it SHOULD be lawfully in an agreement with the local residents to provide some compensation for the harm of their pollution. See how that is different than a tax levied by a government which will then decide how better to spend it. That system is an incentive for clean energy development and even minimizing pollution from current 'dirty' techs.
The problem with governmental subsidies is that they create a bureaucracy that is concerned with its 'acquired right'. Perhaps wind power is now competitive because of subsidies. So do you agree they should be ended? Unfortunately in the real world that does not happen, and once beneficial subsidies will now stifle innovation and competition in that industry.
I think we should look at this as a property rights issue. When someone sends you information in a Doc format, and you don't own Office, then Microsoft should be concerned as denying your right to the information encoded on that document.
They can code all proprietary apps they like, but when my data is concerned, the means to access it should be open and public. Otherwise it's holding property for ransom, plain and simple.
Ah, OK, so what you're pushing for is really government subsidies. :-)
By the same token I could say that nuclear is made unprofitable because of governmental regulations, so using "free market" there isn't accurate, the energy market is not free at all - Department of Energy, anyone? And coal plants are STILL manyfold more efficient than internal combustion engines.
I think wind turbines are a very poor green power tech. You said it yourself, they are not competitive, only thru picking the German people's pockets. They'd do less harm just getting out of the energy market and at most promoting free market incentives such as tax credits on green tech adoption.
SpaceX will be serving the ISS in 2010. 2011 at the latest. They're making serious progress.
Also, the flight test webcasts are geekily fun to watch.
So it's google's linux. interesting.
True. But I'll say that the constitutionally limited government in the US worked pretty well for about 150 years. And look where that got them? Compare with 80 years of the U.S.S.R.. Got the picture? NOTHING is perfect, but some things are more perfect than others.
Actually I'm not FOR capitalism, I'm for freedom. The thing is that in a free society, capitalism is the natural outcome. And a free society beats a collectivist one any day.
I'm sure in the next iteration of bloody revolution we'll get it better fine tuning. Maybe a constitution that says "Thou shalt not tax. Ever. And just in case you're trying to interpret it any other way, let me rephrase. Nobody, no person, animal, citizen. No taxes.".
I also liked that thing that came up on a Heinlein book about two legislative bodies. One to pass laws at 2/3 of the votes and one to repeal laws by 1/3. Call that the political version of Garbage collection. Who knows? :-)
In the developing world? The US and China alone are responsible for 2/5ths of the world's CO2 emissions. it's around 22% for the US alone! So, don't neglect the importance of the green economy growth in the US which is where it'll do the most good.
Moreover, America is a big influence on the rest of the world. People will want electric cars, people will want solar panels and cheaper electric bills. More important in this issue is that markets be made freer so competition from the new technologies is allowed to work, making sure those who can't adapt are tossed to the curb. That's a real problem where I live, mixed economy, protectionism, so I can't get a decent notebook for less than 1300 USD. Sucks, what you're gonna do?
And I, for one, welcome our new Tesla Roadster producing overlords. :-)
I don't know where you get your simple extrapolations and optimistic figures. Can you give me one? To say the the earth's climate will change faster than the market can adapt to this new awareness is ludicrous, like claiming the grand canyon was formed by a massive flood.
For each electric car in the street it's one less CO2 emitting one. So the growth of the 'green' market is directly and inversely proportional to the CO2 emissions worldwide.
Now, to make a prediction out of my own ass and head, I think we will see a major increasing trend in electric vehicles from 2010 on, and that alone, even if they are _all_ powered from coal burning plants, will be a huge benefit CO2 wise, since those plants are much more efficient than internal combustion engines and easier to minimize pollution since it's all generated in one place, not spread across a billion cars.
What if the genius of chemistry that would discover transparent aluminum doesn't have the money to rent an industrial space and goes to work as a janitor instead?
The far left (ie: socialists) are actually about increasing freedom and democracy—although the only way to achieve that is to reduce the freedoms of the capitalists (who use their wealth and "ownership" of the means of production to control society in their narrow, short-sighted and selfish interests).
Don't you get that reducing freedoms to the capitalists reduces your freedom as well? And who is to decide what interests arent narrow, short-sighted and selfish? The far-left?
Most of the rich in the US were poor once, they might've gotten bare handed on the continent. But the great thing about America was that people STOPPED being poor, exactly because they were free do do whatever they liked and the government didn't restrain them in any way.
What you propose - and I can't really blame you, it's the general direction the mainstream media in the US is shoveling everybody - is a return to poverty, tyranny and a central power.
Remember the line: "L'Etat, c'est moi" by Louis XIV
Oh yeah. All socialism that fails isn't REALLY socialism. Socialism is PERFECT. :-)
Capitalists don't perform labor? They take on all the risk of a venture - I've never heard of employees complaining that they do not get a part of the LOSSES the employer might sustain -, they do the planning, they provide the capital that is responsible for increasing production and ultimately making products cheaper and available to more and more people.
Marx was a MORON which thought that all the riches in the world amounts to a fixed sized pie. And that if the capitalists make more money, that means somebody else makes less, without ANY half-decent knowledge of how economics works and how riches come into being. Seriously. Calling that scientific is like calling intelligent design science.
Oh, so you know WHEN it will be too late to reverse climate change? Share it with us please.
And trillions to be made destroying the environment? Who would make that profit, exactly? The Seasteading Institute? You lost me there. :-)
Frankly, this goes to show one thing: That democracy as-we-do-it is a dead end and will lead is straight into self-destruction. Evil dictatorship, on the other hand (China hasn't been a pure communist country for years) can get things done.
Face it: The west is in a dead-lock. We want to save the world, but we can't, because our focus on self-interest and "the market will solve it" very efficiently prevents any common-interest solutions. It's the tragedy of the commons all over again, just on a global scale.
This is the most fallacious comment I've seen in awhile and is totally wrong.
China's economy is half the GDP of the USA and pollutes almost as much. What are you talking about a central power 'getting things done'? A government-built 'green city'? How is THAT going to change the world?
Now, SolarCity is already profitable. And TM is already expanding scale to start producing electric cars for a wider market in about 2 years. Oh, and they're making profits too.
Evil money grubbers! Selling solar panels and electric cars! Self-interest != common-interest! Seriously, educate yourself.
Government taking risk? Do you have any knowledge of economics?
What is the government risking exactly? Its hard earned capital? This is about as ridiculous as talking that "Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac took great risks to provide cheap housing for everyone". It's the Chinese people's money the PRC is burning on this puff piece.
... but I don't see other governments dare to experiment and make a show like that.
Thank God for that. If government would only get out of the way of individual entrepreneurs, we'd see much faster progress in this direction.
You silly. They said the city will house 5,000 people. They will all be high ranking government employees. China's elite. They probably don't even get a paycheck. The masses pay for them.
The air is cleaner at the top. Long live Chairman Mao. :-)
Sorry, 13% then.
Microsoft releases a bullshit new DX that only runs in Vista, so all games are 20% slower in it and everyone is happy.
OpenGL dares not to completely rebuild itself, and people get furious, threaten to go to the proprietary, Vista-only load of horse shit.
Ya, that's rational.
Willie was fucking hot.
"Mister Obi-wan! Mister Obi-wan! Huwwy!"