Yeah, this argument is retarded, as everyone else in the sector enjoys the same protections on their software. Basically, it says, "If I could compete with Microsoft by selling their OS, Microsoft Windows, then they wouldn't be a monopoly." Basically saying that, if you could just clone their software and compete with them by selling the same thing, yet you without all the R&D costs that Microsoft put into it, then there'd be "competition".
This also completely ignores the fact that Microsoft forced a bunch of OEMs to pay them royalties on all computers, even those without Windows, in blatant violation of all anti-trust laws and anti-competition laws. Face it, Microsoft became a monopoly of their own doing, not by being propped up by "government."
I never said there wasn't a drop. Just that it was tiny per gallon of gasoline, and the energy density of a gallon of gas mixed with the 10% ethanol was not dropped by 66%.
It can easily be the other way around, too. If you ask your outsourcing partners for something stupid, if you're paying for it, they're going to give it to you.
Were gas prices reduced 3% in the first place to compensate for ethanol having only ~66% of the energy density of gasoline in the first place?
Except at the levels that most blends were at (5-10%), the energy drop in a gallon of gas is close to negligible, and the gallon as a whole does not experience anywhere near the "66%" you claim.
Wait... I paid to lower Ethanol's price to the point where I could afford to buy it?
Collective Bargaining and Economies of Scale at work. Lets take an Arduino chip and dev board, for example. If you were the only one who wanted one, then you would have to bear the brunt of the fabrication costs and manufacture yourself. This would make said chip and board very expensive. However, if you got a lot of people involved, then suddenly your cost per unit goes down, as you can buy supplies in bulk, and the costs for setup get spread out over everyone who's getting one, making the individual burden much less.
A negotiated plan where increases in the Department of Defense were offset by cuts elsewhere in government, and a failure of congress to deliver on those cuts.
Yet, Reagan still tried to increase the size of government, just in the area where they make things go BOOM, which is OK with Republicans.
But God help them if anyone else tries to increase the size of government that, you know, actually tries to help people, or keep business in check.
You're questioning why undue cruelty done to a being under your care is a crime? We, as humans, do have a duty to those beings in our care, whether they are being raised for companionship or for meat, to not do undue harm to them.
That's because most people get upset when they see someone abusing the station they have above another being, and abusing that lower being without reason, other than cruelty. It's a GOOD thing that society normally feels this way, as people that do this kind of shit should be abhorred and ostracized from society.
Yeah, no. That's just a "free-market aplogists" way of looking at it. The fact of the matter is, the speculative value of gold right now is in no way, shape or form connected to its abilities as a conductor, and is only being driven up by fear mongers and speculators, waiting for the bubble to burst.
If the company were to say the way they process the cattle is a trade secret, couldn’t they file a suit against the person or organization that created the recordings?
Not if their "trade secret" was actually breaking the law.
Or you could stop being an idiot for a while. We're not barbarians, and we're not animals. Just because they may treat their prey in an inhumane manner doesn't mean that we should follow suit.
a while ago, i heard that mccain and 30 other republican senators opposed a bill which would prevent companies from putting clauses into their contracts that would prevent female employees from suing the company if they were raped in company's employ overseas by company employees. that included john mccain, the presidential candidate. the justification was 'we think it is wrong to tell businesses how to do business'. so, its ok if a company legislates rape in its overseas operations by putting a clause in its contracts ?
It wasn't even a regulation. It was just a restriction placed on government agencies saying that they couldn't spend money on contractors who did this. It wasn't stopping the contractors from actually doing it if they really wanted to, it was just the government "voting with its wallet" that they didn't want to support companies that did.
Gold does have an intrinsic value: That of its abilities as a conductor. This, however, is in no way, shape, or form tied to the speculative value it has now.
Since when is any commodity hugely backed by speculators, currency or not, been a worthwhile place to keep wealth in? Once the bubble hits, and there will be one, those that invested in BTC and gold will be hit hard. And there will be much wailing and gnashing of teeth.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, this argument is retarded, as everyone else in the sector enjoys the same protections on their software. Basically, it says, "If I could compete with Microsoft by selling their OS, Microsoft Windows, then they wouldn't be a monopoly." Basically saying that, if you could just clone their software and compete with them by selling the same thing, yet you without all the R&D costs that Microsoft put into it, then there'd be "competition".
This also completely ignores the fact that Microsoft forced a bunch of OEMs to pay them royalties on all computers, even those without Windows, in blatant violation of all anti-trust laws and anti-competition laws. Face it, Microsoft became a monopoly of their own doing, not by being propped up by "government."
So some other overpaid freeloading bastards (The VCs) fired some other overpaid, freeloading bastards (The Execs)?
I never said there wasn't a drop. Just that it was tiny per gallon of gasoline, and the energy density of a gallon of gas mixed with the 10% ethanol was not dropped by 66%.
Yeah, that's completely and utterly WRONG. Check the US Tax Code, or simply Google for "US Oil Subsidies". They get many, many special tax breaks.
It can easily be the other way around, too. If you ask your outsourcing partners for something stupid, if you're paying for it, they're going to give it to you.
I'm pretty sure the "customer" is willing to actually pay stuff, and doesn't expect everything to be done for free, right away.
If ethanol is as great as its proponents say it is, then it ought to be able to turn a profit without subsidy
You say that, yet forget that oil enjoys similar subsidies.
Were gas prices reduced 3% in the first place to compensate for ethanol having only ~66% of the energy density of gasoline in the first place?
Except at the levels that most blends were at (5-10%), the energy drop in a gallon of gas is close to negligible, and the gallon as a whole does not experience anywhere near the "66%" you claim.
Here's the question: Did they vote to do the same for oil subsidies?
Wait... I paid to lower Ethanol's price to the point where I could afford to buy it?
Collective Bargaining and Economies of Scale at work. Lets take an Arduino chip and dev board, for example. If you were the only one who wanted one, then you would have to bear the brunt of the fabrication costs and manufacture yourself. This would make said chip and board very expensive. However, if you got a lot of people involved, then suddenly your cost per unit goes down, as you can buy supplies in bulk, and the costs for setup get spread out over everyone who's getting one, making the individual burden much less.
A negotiated plan where increases in the Department of Defense were offset by cuts elsewhere in government, and a failure of congress to deliver on those cuts.
Yet, Reagan still tried to increase the size of government, just in the area where they make things go BOOM, which is OK with Republicans.
But God help them if anyone else tries to increase the size of government that, you know, actually tries to help people, or keep business in check.
That "Conservative Republicans" are extreme hypocrites.
War is also something to be avoided. But men can fight back, if necessary. Cows can't.
You're questioning why undue cruelty done to a being under your care is a crime? We, as humans, do have a duty to those beings in our care, whether they are being raised for companionship or for meat, to not do undue harm to them.
That's because most people get upset when they see someone abusing the station they have above another being, and abusing that lower being without reason, other than cruelty. It's a GOOD thing that society normally feels this way, as people that do this kind of shit should be abhorred and ostracized from society.
Yeah, no. That's just a "free-market aplogists" way of looking at it. The fact of the matter is, the speculative value of gold right now is in no way, shape or form connected to its abilities as a conductor, and is only being driven up by fear mongers and speculators, waiting for the bubble to burst.
If the company were to say the way they process the cattle is a trade secret, couldn’t they file a suit against the person or organization that created the recordings?
Not if their "trade secret" was actually breaking the law.
Or you could stop being an idiot for a while. We're not barbarians, and we're not animals. Just because they may treat their prey in an inhumane manner doesn't mean that we should follow suit.
a while ago, i heard that mccain and 30 other republican senators opposed a bill which would prevent companies from putting clauses into their contracts that would prevent female employees from suing the company if they were raped in company's employ overseas by company employees. that included john mccain, the presidential candidate. the justification was 'we think it is wrong to tell businesses how to do business'. so, its ok if a company legislates rape in its overseas operations by putting a clause in its contracts ?
It wasn't even a regulation. It was just a restriction placed on government agencies saying that they couldn't spend money on contractors who did this. It wasn't stopping the contractors from actually doing it if they really wanted to, it was just the government "voting with its wallet" that they didn't want to support companies that did.
But, but that's SOCIALIST!
Because God forbid their customers actually know what conditions the animals were kept in prior to slaughter.
Very few services, and even fewer ones that are on the level.
Gold does have an intrinsic value: That of its abilities as a conductor. This, however, is in no way, shape, or form tied to the speculative value it has now.
Investing heavily in anything always looks stupid to anyone who doesn't think its worth it.
Or to anyone with a lick of common sense. First rule of investing is to not keep all your eggs in one basket.
Since when is any commodity hugely backed by speculators, currency or not, been a worthwhile place to keep wealth in? Once the bubble hits, and there will be one, those that invested in BTC and gold will be hit hard. And there will be much wailing and gnashing of teeth.