Wouldnt it be much more efficient and simpler to introduce a "pay per vote" system. Represenitives could auction of votes on e-bay, and, the house seat themselves could be auctioned by the higest bidder. (This is a varation on tax farming which served to Ottoman empire well for 600 years).
There's an actual serious reason not to, stemming from political choice theory. When you make "political rents" (i.e. ability to extract easy personal cash as a result of political power) too obvious and direct, that increases the amount people will "bid" to get political power. Go too far, and people will just resort to coups and assassinations to get into office. In fact, this is a reason for those in power to limit their own rent extraction: it will draw competitors.
Intellectual "property" on the other hand is a legal machine that is intended to enforce capture of positive externalities: good things that happen to other people because of your work. [ssrn.com]
Patents, trademarks and copyright are sufficiently unlike property that any attempt to reason about them using property metaphors is doomed to failure from the outset.
I have to disagree. Debates about intellectual property, in my experience, typically regress to the very same questions and arguments about property in general: Why/to what extent should property be respected, how can something become someone's property, what incentive structures do property regimes create, can property exist without the state's support, etc.
There are copyright laws, there are patent laws, there are trademark laws. There is no such thing as an Intellectual Property law.
Well, true, in a sense, but I think the reason people use that term is... WHOA, dude, what the hell are you sitting on? Does that thing actually go into your...*gasp* Doesn't that hurt?
I'm not so sure. By driving through an "actual city", you open up the test to biases about what that particular voyage had to deal with (more/less traffic, stops, having to go different speeds), etc. The reason for the test method is not so much that it simulates real driving, but to have an apples-to-apples comparison between the various cars. Even if it doesn't match the gas mileage you actually get, it's still useful for knowing how it compares. So don't think "I will get 25 mpg with this car"; instead think, "I will get 25% better gas mileage than this other car rated at 20 mpg".
I think we need a rule: "No Wine for Ubuntu users." That might make them less likely to think up names like "Breezy Badger" and "Dapper Drake". Although perhaps extend the rule to Beer, Liquor, and perhaps Shrooms as well?
Technically? Because it's not an argument, it's an unsubstantiated claim. He says...
Yes, I know. My point was, *assuming* his basic facts are right, why does that count as an argument? Even if they were reknowned scientists, why does it matter? Even if they weren't trying to make a quick buck, why does it matter? Both that argument *and* the one against drug companies all share the same tenuous premise: that sympathy with litigants should serve as a primary basis for laws or law enforcement. It shouldn't -- that's a recipe for corruption, inequity, and mob rule.
Of course, if this thread is typical of Slashdot, no one will address that point until I conclusively prove that the scientists really were reknowned...
Intellectual Ventures, a patent firm [and alleged patent troll] started by former Microsoft chief scientist Nathan Myhrvold, was staffed with fairly renowned scientists who didn't fit the profile of people trying to make a quick buck in court.
Why isn't that a persuasive argument? Isn't that kind of argument used all the time around here? Don't believe me? Have you ever heard:
"Drug companies don't deserve patents/as-lengthy-patents because they spend more on advertising than research."
They're both rank appeals to one's sympathy (or lack thereof) with the patent holder.
All too often I get this: I'm driving down the intersate, which is very sparse. Then I come to a cluster of semis, three deep across all three lanes. Past them? Sparse again. I've seen it so many times that I can only explain it by a malicious desire to impede other drivers. They don't have the traffic density or inexperience excuse.
Since you're about to ask: Waco, TX, midpoint of the Dallas-Austin voyage.
Wow, this is the first time I've agreed with you. (Actually, first time I've read one of your posts without ramming my head into my keyboard.) If the problem is externalities of (bad) energy use, the most efficient solution is a tax on it, at the earliest point you know it will be used. That's a lot better than having some regulatory agency decide for everyone, for all current and future technologies, what uses are wasteful and what uses aren't. Don't tell me what I do and don't like using -- tell me what it costs and let me decide if it's still worth it.
Yeah! Or... people could live densely enough (like in NYC, London, Berlin, Singapore, Tokyo, Hong Kong, etc.) that they don't need to drive a car and public transportation doesn't by necessity suck.
The others explained the reasons for the *change* in rates based on time of use, but I've really got to comment on the absolute level of the price. 29-35 cents per kwh? For reference, does anyone remember in the Enron/California Energy scandal about how some guy was caught on tape bragging about how he was gonna (paraphrasing) shove overpriced electricity down grandma's throat at $250 per MWh? That's 25 cents per kwh. And the dude obviously considered that an extremely high price.
Incidentally, I checked the plans my provider (TXU) offers. None has variable rate pricing, where I'd pay less after six and more during the day. If it did, I'd take it, since only my refrigerator and a few clocks are running during the daytime.
I hope that this is kept clear, because when you become so attached to a machine, it could cloud your judgment
Heh. To borrow from Red Steel:
"Got close to the robot MR32X, didn't you? A mistake. But you'll see him soon... because you're about to blow up, just like he did.... wait, let me try that one again"
Men used to name their ships and grow attached them as well.
Yes, and for that we have to suffer with the indignity of using the pronoun "she" to refer to ships (and countries). It's not that I'd prefer "he"; it's that it's dumb to add exceptions to an otherwise exceptionless English grammar rule, just to be cute.
You can correct the relative population growth rate by increasing reproduction rates of the non-religious, OR by increasing the death rate of the religious.
So I guess it's not such a bad thing that red-staters are the first to volunteer for wars...
Slashdot Mirror
Wouldnt it be much more efficient and simpler to introduce a "pay per vote" system. Represenitives could auction of votes on e-bay, and, the house seat themselves could be auctioned by the higest bidder. (This is a varation on tax farming which served to Ottoman empire well for 600 years).
There's an actual serious reason not to, stemming from political choice theory. When you make "political rents" (i.e. ability to extract easy personal cash as a result of political power) too obvious and direct, that increases the amount people will "bid" to get political power. Go too far, and people will just resort to coups and assassinations to get into office. In fact, this is a reason for those in power to limit their own rent extraction: it will draw competitors.
Intellectual "property" on the other hand is a legal machine that is intended to enforce capture of positive externalities: good things that happen to other people because of your work. [ssrn.com]
Patents, trademarks and copyright are sufficiently unlike property that any attempt to reason about them using property metaphors is doomed to failure from the outset.
I have to disagree. Debates about intellectual property, in my experience, typically regress to the very same questions and arguments about property in general: Why/to what extent should property be respected, how can something become someone's property, what incentive structures do property regimes create, can property exist without the state's support, etc.
There are copyright laws, there are patent laws, there are trademark laws. There is no such thing as an Intellectual Property law.
... WHOA, dude, what the hell are you sitting on? Does that thing actually go into your ...*gasp* Doesn't that hurt?
Well, true, in a sense, but I think the reason people use that term is
Because if the $100,000 maximum fine per infringement isn't a strong enough deterrent, maybe $200,000 will do the trick, right?
In other news, the State of Texas will now kill you *twice* if the crime is *really* serious.
I'm not so sure. By driving through an "actual city", you open up the test to biases about what that particular voyage had to deal with (more/less traffic, stops, having to go different speeds), etc. The reason for the test method is not so much that it simulates real driving, but to have an apples-to-apples comparison between the various cars. Even if it doesn't match the gas mileage you actually get, it's still useful for knowing how it compares. So don't think "I will get 25 mpg with this car"; instead think, "I will get 25% better gas mileage than this other car rated at 20 mpg".
In other news, the miles per gallon rating of the bicycle was also drastically reduced today by the US government.
Yeah, I heard on the Discovery Channel that a bicycle gets infinite mpg, but now the EPA says it's only *countably* infinite mpg.
I think we need a rule: "No Wine for Ubuntu users." That might make them less likely to think up names like "Breezy Badger" and "Dapper Drake". Although perhaps extend the rule to Beer, Liquor, and perhaps Shrooms as well?
Technically? Because it's not an argument, it's an unsubstantiated claim. He says ...
Yes, I know. My point was, *assuming* his basic facts are right, why does that count as an argument? Even if they were reknowned scientists, why does it matter? Even if they weren't trying to make a quick buck, why does it matter? Both that argument *and* the one against drug companies all share the same tenuous premise: that sympathy with litigants should serve as a primary basis for laws or law enforcement. It shouldn't -- that's a recipe for corruption, inequity, and mob rule.
Of course, if this thread is typical of Slashdot, no one will address that point until I conclusively prove that the scientists really were reknowned...
Intellectual Ventures, a patent firm [and alleged patent troll] started by former Microsoft chief scientist Nathan Myhrvold, was staffed with fairly renowned scientists who didn't fit the profile of people trying to make a quick buck in court.
Why isn't that a persuasive argument? Isn't that kind of argument used all the time around here? Don't believe me? Have you ever heard:
"Drug companies don't deserve patents/as-lengthy-patents because they spend more on advertising than research."
They're both rank appeals to one's sympathy (or lack thereof) with the patent holder.
It seems to me that Griffiths has a lot of nerve blaming developers for following Microsoft's recommendations.
Heh. And Ubuntu users have a lot of nerve blaming me for following the install CD's HIGH RECOMMENDATION to install grub on the MBR.
Here in France we have had photos of Chirac selling a communist newspaper while he was young ... It didn't matter much.
Er, yeah, but that's mainly because the French aren't exactly repulsed by communism.
Oh, that's the law here too -- it's just that every cop has a trucker in the family, so good luck getting that one enforced :-/
*thinks*
*cancels meeting with attorney about Last Will and Testament*
More experienced, sure. More cooperative? Hm...
All too often I get this: I'm driving down the intersate, which is very sparse. Then I come to a cluster of semis, three deep across all three lanes. Past them? Sparse again. I've seen it so many times that I can only explain it by a malicious desire to impede other drivers. They don't have the traffic density or inexperience excuse.
Since you're about to ask: Waco, TX, midpoint of the Dallas-Austin voyage.
Wow, this is the first time I've agreed with you. (Actually, first time I've read one of your posts without ramming my head into my keyboard.) If the problem is externalities of (bad) energy use, the most efficient solution is a tax on it, at the earliest point you know it will be used. That's a lot better than having some regulatory agency decide for everyone, for all current and future technologies, what uses are wasteful and what uses aren't. Don't tell me what I do and don't like using -- tell me what it costs and let me decide if it's still worth it.
Semis never form a wall across the entire interstate for more than 60 seconds
Hahaha! I wish! I'll be sure to send you a car-cam video next time I drive home.
They have room to pass me, and I give them all the room they want. I guess what it all boils down to is I'm comfortable with the size of my penis.
Agreed. The problem isn't so much the speed, but when people:
-Adamantly refuse to pass, even when the passing lane's wide open.
-Camp in the passing lane so that they form walls.
I don't mind fast or slow drivers. I do mind fast or slow drivers that do one of the above.
Yeah! Or ... people could live densely enough (like in NYC, London, Berlin, Singapore, Tokyo, Hong Kong, etc.) that they don't need to drive a car and public transportation doesn't by necessity suck.
Cue someone claiming that "real" environmentalists do/don't support hybrids/intelligent cars in 3 ... 2 ... 1 ...
The others explained the reasons for the *change* in rates based on time of use, but I've really got to comment on the absolute level of the price. 29-35 cents per kwh? For reference, does anyone remember in the Enron/California Energy scandal about how some guy was caught on tape bragging about how he was gonna (paraphrasing) shove overpriced electricity down grandma's throat at $250 per MWh? That's 25 cents per kwh. And the dude obviously considered that an extremely high price.
Incidentally, I checked the plans my provider (TXU) offers. None has variable rate pricing, where I'd pay less after six and more during the day. If it did, I'd take it, since only my refrigerator and a few clocks are running during the daytime.
May the fittest survive!
I hope that this is kept clear, because when you become so attached to a machine, it could cloud your judgment
... because you're about to blow up, just like he did. ... wait, let me try that one again"
Heh. To borrow from Red Steel:
"Got close to the robot MR32X, didn't you? A mistake. But you'll see him soon
Men used to name their ships and grow attached them as well.
Yes, and for that we have to suffer with the indignity of using the pronoun "she" to refer to ships (and countries). It's not that I'd prefer "he"; it's that it's dumb to add exceptions to an otherwise exceptionless English grammar rule, just to be cute.
You can correct the relative population growth rate by increasing reproduction rates of the non-religious, OR by increasing the death rate of the religious.
...
So I guess it's not such a bad thing that red-staters are the first to volunteer for wars
Hm, when I clicked on the link, it collapsed into the eigenstate of marketing hype.