Please proof read and properly capitolize your posts they are getting hard to read.
there is either free market in ENTIRE aspects of a country's economic life, or there is not. there cant be a 'free market' in food catering, but not be a free market in telecommunication.
Um, no, that is simply a false claim. Cox cable has a complete monopoly on cable servce where I live, but the produce industry certainly hasn't become a monopoly. If I don't like the wide selection at the various stores, I can always go down to the farmer's market.
a broadcasting corporation may choose not to accommodate the advertisements of a food company that is competing with one of its chums, subsidiaries, group members. or charge unbelievable amounts to prevent them from giving an advertisement.
And they will be taken to court and punished if they do that. It's called Free Market regulation. With properly implemented anti-trust laws to prevent such collusion, the practical empirical result is that such actions are prevented. The claim that such anti-competitive behavior will necessarily happen as you theorize is at odds with the empirical fact that (at least in the USA) it happens only rarely, and when it does happen, it gets punished.
there happens no corporation that sends shudders through any market by exceptional prices and quality, outcompeting others and upsetting the balance in any sectors
Which is completely irrelavent to whether a market is a Monopoly or a Free Market. It is the nature of a Free Market to reach an equilibrium of maximal efficiency covering a multitude of niches. That is a good thing.
there is no reason not to be able to see these. if you cant, then you may be not wanting to see, rather than not being able to.
I will not dignify such personal insults to a reply. If you are after truth, I am willing to debate it with you.
You never answered my question. Where are you getting your ideas? Am I to suppose you are a lone radical or are these common ideas in your neck of the woods? Did you come up with them yourself or are you getting them out of some book or web page? If I'm arguing with unseen forces, I'd like to know what they are.
Anyway your examples do not prove your point. First, AT&T, Comcast, Vivendi, and Warner were never in a Free Market to start with as they are all either Telecoms (i.e. natural monopolies) or media companies who derive their profit from copyright (i.e. a government granted monopoly).
Second, the only example you have left, P&G, doesn't have a monopoly in its markets. I easily and regularly do buy other brands of soap, toothpaste, etc. P&G does not own all these brands. And don't forget all the off-brand/generic soaps, toothpastes, etc. out there.
Third, I do not know why you think those particular companies "clearly show" anything (you didn't actually say). I can only guess it is because they are big. But large companies do not a monopoly make nor regulation disprove.
(*) Curiously AT&T and Comcast are more regulated than they would otherwise be because they are telecoms so they are a bad example for you to use.
It looks like 3 baht is about 8-9 US cents by the currency exchanges. But then again by the Big Mac Index which (humerously) measures purchasing power rather than exchange rate, 3 baht is 17-18 US cents. Then again, we really need to factor in local wages which means the Premier cost each person the equivalent of 96 cents(*).
(*) Start with 3 baht. Convert to Thai Big Macs at rate of 1BM per 62 baht to get 0.0484MB. Convert that to hours of labor at rate of 67min per 1 Thai BM to get 3.24min. Now convert back using US values. In the USA it takes about 12 minutes of labor to buy a Big Mac so we are now at 0.270 BM and at the price of $3.57 per USA BM this gives us $0.964. All rates taken from and .
For entertainment purposes only. All figures should be assumed wrong until proven otherwise.
I am curious where you get your ideas. Are they common where you are from? I really do wish to understand the vehemence with which you seem to hold these ideas.
Note that I never said choice comes from an Unregulated Market. I said a properly regulated Free Market(*) offers more individual choice than a government run Monopoly both in quality (who you buy from) and quantity (how much you buy). Now maybe you think that every Free Market will inevitably devolve into a Monopoly Market, but I suspect our difference of opinion on that question has more to do the data set that each of us are drawing from. So I ask again, from where are you getting your ideas? They sound PRC or Eastern European, but I don't want to presume.
(*) A true Free Market is very heavily regulated. In many ways it is the opposite of an Unregulated Market. Read any (western) Economics textbook to find out why.
This is exactly the way the biggest consulting companies in the world handle this issue. At the end of the day, there is no technical reason preventing stolen data, but there is a rather voluminous paper trail. Also the company has rather extensive employee training programs and policies regarding documents marked "confidential" that can always be pointed to as due diligence to stave off liability.
I look forward to reading that article and want to tank you for the civilized discussion on this topic. You have given me food for thought, but I guess the only way to really settle the question is wait about a decade for Steamboat Willie to go into public domain and see what happens.
Try not buying your food from the only person selling it
If there is only one person selling food where you live, then you have my pity. It is no fun living under a monopoly. Over here, we get to choose (1) who we will buy from and (2) how much we will buy. Government never gives you that individual choice. At best it gives a collective choice (i.e. you have to buy if everyone else wants it even if you don't).
Doesn't the post office use sniffers for things like Anthrax? Someone will always find a way to justify the searches.
The introduction of a federal government monopoly is not a good thing and in the long run could cripple our Internet infrastructure due to the disappearance what little competition and innovation there currently is.
But what if the government gives money to the states to do the building? That way Obama gets his lime light and since it is the states doing the work, it passes constitutional muster.
(By "give" I mean the typical trick of placing string on funding that the federal government uses to force states to do what they want.)
(I don't like the idea of a federal internet (I'm wary of promises of a chicken in every pot/bread and circuses). I'm just posing a theoretically possible way to do it.)
Should not be +5 Interesting. The above post is filled with so much unsupported assumptions and conflicts of interest, that it lacks any sort of credibility. The poster may have a point, but the facts used to back it up are so flimsy that it doesn't support his argument. The only thing I can conclude is that there is some sort of anti-academic vibe taking over slashdot which is strange considering that (I assume) most slashdot readers are more educated than the rest of the populous.
First, this publication was not accepted to a Journal. It was accepted to a conference. That is a big difference both in the acceptance process and the quality expected.
Second, read the Journal of Functional Programming or the proceedings of the International Conference on Functional Programming. I dare anyone who knows what they are talking about to call that 99% crap. (I choose these because I'm familiar with them; specialist in other CS areas may choose other publications.)
Look at his Wiki page for his positions on those topics. I didn't want to explicitly list them out because (1) it gets monotonous and (2) I didn't want to get into rhetorical bias. But like I said before, on all of those issues he takes a position that is fairly standard for an American-style liberal.
Both the 9th circuit and the 2nd circuit have ruled that fictitious characters may receive copyright protection (through reasoning that I don't understand how it is derived from the statutes). This is to say that any brand new drawing containing the character of Mickey Mouse is a derivative work of the Steamboat Willie animation and thus as long as Steamboat Willie is under copyright, if you use Mickey Mouse then Disney can go after you for both copyright infringement and trademark infringement.
Disney wants copyright protection because it is much stronger than trademark protection. In particular trademark only has effect when the infringing use could lead to brand confusion. Copyright always has effect (except for Fair Use).
You bring up a good point. At $5000 a bullet, criminals will spend less time target practicing. They won't learn how to aim. We will have just replaced random bullet fatalities with poorly aimed bullet fatalities. Oh the humanity.
Sure he's not European-style liberal, but despite how he portrayed himself in the election, his record is old fashioned strait-up American-style liberal. Keep in mind that liberal vs. conservative in the USA is a completely different axis than in Europe not only in degree but in what issues are addressed.
You asked for specific positions so here they are:
Abortion
Environment
LGBT issues
Sex Education
Gun Control
Embrionic Stem Cells
On all of these he takes the standard American-liberal position. About the only thing not liberal about him is that he voted for the PATRIOT act (but then again so did 99% of the senators) and he waffles a little on the Death Penalty.
Objectively speaking there is no question that Barrack Obama is a liberal (by American measures).
If God existed, He would be forgiving and understand my feeble humanity and forgive me.... This is all assuming the New Testament, Loving God.
Even assuming the New Testament, Loving God forgiveness does not happen without repentance which is kind of hard without belief (see Jesus on the Unforgivable Sin).
Whenever you pray for something, you make God your servant
Evidently Jesus didn't think so. Matthew 5:44 "But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you"
Example; I'm agnostic to there being pink elephants in the core of the earth. I don't believe they are there, but I don't think we really have any way to find out.
I think I know what you are trying to say, but you should find a better example. Checking whether there are pink elephants in the core of the earth could conceivably be fairly easy if we really cared about checking. Maybe try an example about a historical event. E.g. who shot JFK.
You most makes no sense because money is a debt owed to the holder of that money. Money is a good that is traded not for it's direct utility or value but for the expectation of future utility or value when it is used to buy something. Yet, a promise of future value is the very definition of a debt. This is independent of whether there is a Federal Reserve system or not, a gold standard or not. With that in mind, your comments really sound like gibberish to me.
Slashdot Mirror
Please proof read and properly capitolize your posts they are getting hard to read.
there is either free market in ENTIRE aspects of a country's economic life, or there is not. there cant be a 'free market' in food catering, but not be a free market in telecommunication.
Um, no, that is simply a false claim. Cox cable has a complete monopoly on cable servce where I live, but the produce industry certainly hasn't become a monopoly. If I don't like the wide selection at the various stores, I can always go down to the farmer's market.
a broadcasting corporation may choose not to accommodate the advertisements of a food company that is competing with one of its chums, subsidiaries, group members. or charge unbelievable amounts to prevent them from giving an advertisement.
And they will be taken to court and punished if they do that. It's called Free Market regulation. With properly implemented anti-trust laws to prevent such collusion, the practical empirical result is that such actions are prevented. The claim that such anti-competitive behavior will necessarily happen as you theorize is at odds with the empirical fact that (at least in the USA) it happens only rarely, and when it does happen, it gets punished.
there happens no corporation that sends shudders through any market by exceptional prices and quality, outcompeting others and upsetting the balance in any sectors
Which is completely irrelavent to whether a market is a Monopoly or a Free Market. It is the nature of a Free Market to reach an equilibrium of maximal efficiency covering a multitude of niches. That is a good thing.
there is no reason not to be able to see these. if you cant, then you may be not wanting to see, rather than not being able to.
I will not dignify such personal insults to a reply. If you are after truth, I am willing to debate it with you.
You never answered my question. Where are you getting your ideas? Am I to suppose you are a lone radical or are these common ideas in your neck of the woods? Did you come up with them yourself or are you getting them out of some book or web page? If I'm arguing with unseen forces, I'd like to know what they are.
Anyway your examples do not prove your point. First, AT&T, Comcast, Vivendi, and Warner were never in a Free Market to start with as they are all either Telecoms (i.e. natural monopolies) or media companies who derive their profit from copyright (i.e. a government granted monopoly).
Second, the only example you have left, P&G, doesn't have a monopoly in its markets. I easily and regularly do buy other brands of soap, toothpaste, etc. P&G does not own all these brands. And don't forget all the off-brand/generic soaps, toothpastes, etc. out there.
Third, I do not know why you think those particular companies "clearly show" anything (you didn't actually say). I can only guess it is because they are big. But large companies do not a monopoly make nor regulation disprove.
(*) Curiously AT&T and Comcast are more regulated than they would otherwise be because they are telecoms so they are a bad example for you to use.
Ghah, got "continue editing" and "submit" buttons mixed up. Anyway, all rates are taken from http://www.ubs.com/1/ShowMedia/ubs_ch/wealth_mgmt_ch?contentId=103982&name=eng.pdf and http://www.economist.com/finance/displaystory.cfm?story_id=11793125
It looks like 3 baht is about 8-9 US cents by the currency exchanges. But then again by the Big Mac Index which (humerously) measures purchasing power rather than exchange rate, 3 baht is 17-18 US cents. Then again, we really need to factor in local wages which means the Premier cost each person the equivalent of 96 cents(*).
(*) Start with 3 baht. Convert to Thai Big Macs at rate of 1BM per 62 baht to get 0.0484MB. Convert that to hours of labor at rate of 67min per 1 Thai BM to get 3.24min. Now convert back using US values. In the USA it takes about 12 minutes of labor to buy a Big Mac so we are now at 0.270 BM and at the price of $3.57 per USA BM this gives us $0.964. All rates taken from and .
For entertainment purposes only. All figures should be assumed wrong until proven otherwise.
I am curious where you get your ideas. Are they common where you are from? I really do wish to understand the vehemence with which you seem to hold these ideas.
Note that I never said choice comes from an Unregulated Market. I said a properly regulated Free Market(*) offers more individual choice than a government run Monopoly both in quality (who you buy from) and quantity (how much you buy). Now maybe you think that every Free Market will inevitably devolve into a Monopoly Market, but I suspect our difference of opinion on that question has more to do the data set that each of us are drawing from. So I ask again, from where are you getting your ideas? They sound PRC or Eastern European, but I don't want to presume.
(*) A true Free Market is very heavily regulated. In many ways it is the opposite of an Unregulated Market. Read any (western) Economics textbook to find out why.
This is exactly the way the biggest consulting companies in the world handle this issue. At the end of the day, there is no technical reason preventing stolen data, but there is a rather voluminous paper trail. Also the company has rather extensive employee training programs and policies regarding documents marked "confidential" that can always be pointed to as due diligence to stave off liability.
I look forward to reading that article and want to tank you for the civilized discussion on this topic. You have given me food for thought, but I guess the only way to really settle the question is wait about a decade for Steamboat Willie to go into public domain and see what happens.
Try not buying your food from the only person selling it
If there is only one person selling food where you live, then you have my pity. It is no fun living under a monopoly. Over here, we get to choose (1) who we will buy from and (2) how much we will buy. Government never gives you that individual choice. At best it gives a collective choice (i.e. you have to buy if everyone else wants it even if you don't).
Didn't the US already try that with the Telecoms and modernizing their infrastructure? IIRC, the Telecoms took the money and ran.
The difference is I can choose not to buy a particular corporation's product. I can't choose not to pay my taxes.
Doesn't the post office use sniffers for things like Anthrax? Someone will always find a way to justify the searches.
The introduction of a federal government monopoly is not a good thing and in the long run could cripple our Internet infrastructure due to the disappearance what little competition and innovation there currently is.
But what if the government gives money to the states to do the building? That way Obama gets his lime light and since it is the states doing the work, it passes constitutional muster.
(By "give" I mean the typical trick of placing string on funding that the federal government uses to force states to do what they want.)
(I don't like the idea of a federal internet (I'm wary of promises of a chicken in every pot/bread and circuses). I'm just posing a theoretically possible way to do it.)
Should not be +5 Interesting. The above post is filled with so much unsupported assumptions and conflicts of interest, that it lacks any sort of credibility. The poster may have a point, but the facts used to back it up are so flimsy that it doesn't support his argument. The only thing I can conclude is that there is some sort of anti-academic vibe taking over slashdot which is strange considering that (I assume) most slashdot readers are more educated than the rest of the populous.
First, this publication was not accepted to a Journal. It was accepted to a conference. That is a big difference both in the acceptance process and the quality expected.
Second, read the Journal of Functional Programming or the proceedings of the International Conference on Functional Programming. I dare anyone who knows what they are talking about to call that 99% crap. (I choose these because I'm familiar with them; specialist in other CS areas may choose other publications.)
Look at his Wiki page for his positions on those topics. I didn't want to explicitly list them out because (1) it gets monotonous and (2) I didn't want to get into rhetorical bias. But like I said before, on all of those issues he takes a position that is fairly standard for an American-style liberal.
Yes, and Disney wants to keep both protections.
Both the 9th circuit and the 2nd circuit have ruled that fictitious characters may receive copyright protection (through reasoning that I don't understand how it is derived from the statutes). This is to say that any brand new drawing containing the character of Mickey Mouse is a derivative work of the Steamboat Willie animation and thus as long as Steamboat Willie is under copyright, if you use Mickey Mouse then Disney can go after you for both copyright infringement and trademark infringement.
Disney wants copyright protection because it is much stronger than trademark protection. In particular trademark only has effect when the infringing use could lead to brand confusion. Copyright always has effect (except for Fair Use).
Under current interpretations of copyright law, Mickey Mouse is protected by both copyright and trademark.
You bring up a good point. At $5000 a bullet, criminals will spend less time target practicing. They won't learn how to aim. We will have just replaced random bullet fatalities with poorly aimed bullet fatalities. Oh the humanity.
If that's the case, then where's this decade's extension?
I don't know. When is Mickey Mouse scheduled to go into the public domain?
extreme liberal positions
Which ones are they?
Sure he's not European-style liberal, but despite how he portrayed himself in the election, his record is old fashioned strait-up American-style liberal. Keep in mind that liberal vs. conservative in the USA is a completely different axis than in Europe not only in degree but in what issues are addressed.
You asked for specific positions so here they are:
On all of these he takes the standard American-liberal position. About the only thing not liberal about him is that he voted for the PATRIOT act (but then again so did 99% of the senators) and he waffles a little on the Death Penalty.
Objectively speaking there is no question that Barrack Obama is a liberal (by American measures).
If God existed, He would be forgiving and understand my feeble humanity and forgive me....
This is all assuming the New Testament, Loving God.
Even assuming the New Testament, Loving God forgiveness does not happen without repentance which is kind of hard without belief (see Jesus on the Unforgivable Sin).
Whenever you pray for something, you make God your servant
Evidently Jesus didn't think so. Matthew 5:44 "But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you"
And none of these should be confused with gnostics.
Example; I'm agnostic to there being pink elephants in the core of the earth. I don't believe they are there, but I don't think we really have any way to find out.
I think I know what you are trying to say, but you should find a better example. Checking whether there are pink elephants in the core of the earth could conceivably be fairly easy if we really cared about checking. Maybe try an example about a historical event. E.g. who shot JFK.
I hope that was a joke. You could also choose to ignore the existence of gravity, but you would still have to live with the consequences.
You most makes no sense because money is a debt owed to the holder of that money. Money is a good that is traded not for it's direct utility or value but for the expectation of future utility or value when it is used to buy something. Yet, a promise of future value is the very definition of a debt. This is independent of whether there is a Federal Reserve system or not, a gold standard or not. With that in mind, your comments really sound like gibberish to me.