All of the supposed benefits of patents and copyrights are provided in a free market by being the first to market. People do place a premium on innovation. Look at fashion. I couldn't tell the difference between a $20 pocketbook and a $500 one. But there are people who care about these differences that manage to keep the companies that make the $500 ones in business.
Also notice there is very little variability in patent lengths depending on how innovative a patent is. The free market allows such things. If you create something that is way ahead of the competition they will take longer to catch up. If you create a small improvement your advantage won't last long.
As for drugs the whole system needs to be eliminated. Get rid of the patents and get rid of the FDA's power to approve drugs. Let companies sell whatever drugs/chemicals they want and let people put whatever drugs/chemicals into their body they want. As long as the drugs/chemicals are what is indicated on the label the manufacturer would have no liability for harm. Very similar to how herbs and natural drug market works today. The FDA in some form should still exist as an advisory body to test drugs/chemicals and give their opinion on the efficacy and safety.
To optimize you need to find a cyclist with the best power to overall aircraft weight ratio. Then test that cyclist to find the crank length and rpm in which they can produce the most power. Finally pick a gear ratio to match that with your desired rotor rpm.
The economy is just people freely Deciding how to spend their resources. Mainly time (work/leisure) and money (value of previous labor). The only thing governments can do to the natural pace is slow it down through taxes and regulations or speed it up temporarily via creating new money.
So it is logically correct to blame them for hurting the economy and at the same time not give th credit for helping it. They can only help it by removing previous restrictions.
So believe that central planning can work? I don't share that faith.
Inflation isn't always a bad thing. It can happen in a hard money system during large discoveries of the metals used in coinage. But at least the people that benefit from the inflation are those that discover and recover it not someone flipping some bits at the Fed.
First the money supply isn't simply inflated. Everyone that holds a dollar isn't given an extra dime. It's the politicians and their friends like the Banks, Wall St, and Military Contractors that get it.
You have to go all the way back to how money was created. It was just another good traded. It became money because it became something almost anyone would trade for. That's it. Cigarettes in prison qualify as money because with them you can get what you want, they are valuable for their size, they are pretty much interchangeable with each other, they store well. Money was always something that people valued for it's own worth.
Paper money started as a claim check against real money. You didn't want to keep your silver or gold on you all the time so you gave it to someone that owned a strong vault and they wrote you a claim check. If people grew to trust that person they would accept that paper money like real money. But those bankers sometimes got greedy. They realized that most of the time only a small percentage of the money would be taken out at one time and most of it stayed in the vault. They then realized they could just write themselves a paper claim check and buy goods with it. This is fraud and it is what we have today. It's even worse because the only thing that backs the dollar is the government ability to force you to give up your things to pay them off.
You are jumping into the problem half way through. The real question to ask is why did the Bubble form in the first place? The Austrian school says it is because the government set the interest rates lower than the natural interest rate. In a free market economy borrowing can only come from savings. This is logical because assume your economy is based on acorns. You can't borrow someones acorns unless they saved them. But in the fractional reserve fiat money system we can create money and lend it out without creating the wealth. Fiat money separates the money from the actual thing of value.
So when the Federal Reserve creates below market rates it is telling the economy there is plenty of savings to borrow. This causes businesses to shift from producing consumer goods to capital goods. This means more people are put to work building productive capacity. But eventually the market adjusts to all of this new money. Prices rise and the true value of the money is revealed. Now there isn't enough money to buy the consumer goods because there aren't enough consumer goods because production was shifted to capital goods. Now many people working building capital goods have to be reallocated back to consumer goods.
Think of the problem this was. Assume acorns are food and money for a tribe. They then come up with a paper acorn that can be traded for acorns at the tribal acorn reserve. Then the bank starts cranking out more paper acorns than exist in the bank. For a while people think that times are great since we all must be working hard saving acorns. They can then think of the future like building an automated acorn harvester. So they stop harvesting acorns and get to work building the harvester. Half way through people notice that it's taking more paper acorns to buy other things. Now the reserves they thought they had is smaller. Eventually the tribal acorn reserves will vanish and people will have to abandon all projects and get back to harvesting acorns.
It is not an act of force. Force has legal meaning. It means using violence or the threat of violence to do something. It makes the distinction between entry and forcible entry.
There is no use of force in blackmailing someone. There may have been force use in acquiring the information and that should be punishable.
I agree it is morally wrong. But initiating the use of force is far worse.
In reality Blackmail is much less serious than Extortion. Extortion involves asking for money with the threat of force to harm your person or property. Blackmail is asking for money to prevent the release of information even if true.
Extortion should be illegal since it is threatening force.
Blackmail should not be illegal since it doesn't involve force. If it is legal to release information it should be just as legal to ask someone to pay you not to release it.
What I am saying is that if others were in on the plot you have to prove it in court and you can't just bomb thousands of innocent people just because they live near the suspects.
You are making my point. I am critical of those wanting to roll back regulations to the good ole days. But like you wrote in the good ole days people were not able to bring lawsuits forward and the government made it easy for large corporations to pollute with no consequences.
I think a better system would be to allow better access to courts where actual damages would have to be proven and a jury would decide.
The problem I have with people that just say we have to cut regulations is they don't fully explain the alternative. This is how I see it. Regulation is prior restraint. Take illegal drugs for instance. The argument you always hear from the drug warriors is that drugs are bad because people could do bad things on drugs. You don't want your bus driver on drugs do you? To me drugs can be legal and yet you can still sue a bus driver or company that causes an accident because the driver was high.
It's the same with all regulations. The EPA doesn't protect the environment, it protects the companies from lawsuits. The EPA sets rules for how much companies are allowed to pollute legally. What a company opens near my home and starts polluting within the EPA regulations but it causes damage to me or my family? Too bad for me I can't sue. And when a company does pollute too much they pay a fine to the government not to those they harmed. The EPA exists to help companies avoid the expense of lawsuits if they follow those rules even if it injures people.
What I would like to see is the government make it easier and cheaper to bring lawsuits forward. This would require a drastic reduction in the executive branch but an increase in the judicial branch. More courts and more judges. This way when damages are alleged to occur people can have their day in court and juries can decide damages not politicians.
But who gets to say the person you intend to kill is guilty and deserves to die? If you kill any innocents you should be charged with murder or manslaughter the same as if I went on a shooting rampage to avenge a family member and killed innocents.
Again I am talking about morality not legality. Like in all cases they are usually at odds.
If another country is invaded it would be the same as if a neighbors was attacked. You would be justified helping them defend against the attack. But you wouldn't be justified attacking the neighbors of the attackers.
The same with countries. If France is invaded by the Germans and they ask for your help. You can go there to help them defend themselves. But you wouldn't be justified in killing any civilian Germans. That mentality is just another form of collectivism. Just like after 9/11. Bush said he was going to get the people that attacked us. Well the people that attacked us died in the attacks. What he meant is that we are going to attack and kill innocent people that look and sound a lot like those that attacked us and that will quench our thirst for vengence.
You have law and reality. In reality there are people whose job skills are not worth the artificial minimum wage. They are unable to produce enough wealth to be paid minimum plus mandated benefits. They will be permanently unemployed or at least until inflation decreases the real minimum wage to a point that matches their skills.
If you remove the artificial minimum wage a natural one will be created based on job skills just like it exists for most skilled workers today.
Also the minimum wage is a trap because you can't get job skills without a job. An employer might take a chance on someone with no skills for the right price.
It's taken me a long time to come to the realization that the only war that can be justified is if you are fighting on your own land directly against invaders to repel them. The reason is the same as in your personal life. You can use force to defend yourself. But you have to be careful in that you only use force against those attacking you. If someone attacks you and the runs into a crowd you aren't justified in firing into the crowd hoping to hit that person. But that is what war is once you go into another country. You are punishing and killing innocent people in the hopes you might hit a few of the guilty. There is no moral argument for this.
Using numbers on the Internet the empty weight if the first stage is about 40,000 lbm with a mass fraction of maybe 25:1. One Merlin engine is about 125,000 lbf of thrust and can throttle to about 50%. So using one engine to slow down and land isn't too crazy. It could be a bit scary if you run too low on fuel that your weight gets to the point where you can't throttle your engine enough to decend. But all of that should be possible to predict and control.
Since the rich run all countries as long as trade exists there is plenty of profit to be made through trade. It's when trading stops or the "wrong" people are given contracts that the trouble begins. Once trade stops war becomes profitable as a resource grab.
Ok time for a mechanical engineer to step in here. There is some confusion between stiffness and strength. These are two different properties of the material.
Stiffness is the ability of the material to resist deflection. Think of identically shaped tube held fixed in one end made from different materials. Now put a force on the other end and assume it is small enough so you don't bend the tube permanently. All aluminum tubes will deflect about 3 times that of all steel tubes. It doesn't matter what kind of aluminum or steel. This is due to a property called Modulus of elasticity.
Now when we talk strength of metals we have two types. The first is yield strength. In the above example this would tell you what load the tube could take before it bends to the point when you remove the load it doesn't return to its original shape. The next is ultimate strength. This is the load when the tune actually breaks.
These strengths vary widely for metals with some aluminums stronger than steels and the other way around.
The next thing is density. Aluminum is 1/3 the density of steel. But you need more if it to make a stiff structure.
So what does this mean for impacts in cars? You want a material that is stiff for its weight so that it can absorb the energy as it deflects but also strong so that it doesn't break as it deflects. Ideally you would want your car to crush like modern cars do to absorb the impact then return to their original shape so there is no damage.
I think it would help more to go to a criminal justice system where there is only a crime if there is a victim. Then instead of punishment for its own sake the guilty party has to restore the victim. If they are incapable they would become the property ie slave, of the victim. This is allowed by the 13th amendment.
Slashdot Mirror
All of the supposed benefits of patents and copyrights are provided in a free market by being the first to market. People do place a premium on innovation. Look at fashion. I couldn't tell the difference between a $20 pocketbook and a $500 one. But there are people who care about these differences that manage to keep the companies that make the $500 ones in business.
Also notice there is very little variability in patent lengths depending on how innovative a patent is. The free market allows such things. If you create something that is way ahead of the competition they will take longer to catch up. If you create a small improvement your advantage won't last long.
As for drugs the whole system needs to be eliminated. Get rid of the patents and get rid of the FDA's power to approve drugs. Let companies sell whatever drugs/chemicals they want and let people put whatever drugs/chemicals into their body they want. As long as the drugs/chemicals are what is indicated on the label the manufacturer would have no liability for harm. Very similar to how herbs and natural drug market works today. The FDA in some form should still exist as an advisory body to test drugs/chemicals and give their opinion on the efficacy and safety.
To optimize you need to find a cyclist with the best power to overall aircraft weight ratio. Then test that cyclist to find the crank length and rpm in which they can produce the most power. Finally pick a gear ratio to match that with your desired rotor rpm.
The economy is just people freely
Deciding how to spend their resources. Mainly time (work/leisure) and money (value of previous labor). The only thing governments can do to the natural pace is slow it down through taxes and regulations or speed it up temporarily via creating new money.
So it is logically correct to blame them for hurting the economy and at the same time not give th credit for helping it. They can only help it by removing previous restrictions.
So believe that central planning can work? I don't share that faith.
Inflation isn't always a bad thing. It can happen in a hard money system during large discoveries of the metals used in coinage. But at least the people that benefit from the inflation are those that discover and recover it not someone flipping some bits at the Fed.
A few points.
First the money supply isn't simply inflated. Everyone that holds a dollar isn't given an extra dime. It's the politicians and their friends like the Banks, Wall St, and Military Contractors that get it.
You have to go all the way back to how money was created. It was just another good traded. It became money because it became something almost anyone would trade for. That's it. Cigarettes in prison qualify as money because with them you can get what you want, they are valuable for their size, they are pretty much interchangeable with each other, they store well. Money was always something that people valued for it's own worth.
Paper money started as a claim check against real money. You didn't want to keep your silver or gold on you all the time so you gave it to someone that owned a strong vault and they wrote you a claim check. If people grew to trust that person they would accept that paper money like real money. But those bankers sometimes got greedy. They realized that most of the time only a small percentage of the money would be taken out at one time and most of it stayed in the vault. They then realized they could just write themselves a paper claim check and buy goods with it. This is fraud and it is what we have today. It's even worse because the only thing that backs the dollar is the government ability to force you to give up your things to pay them off.
You are jumping into the problem half way through. The real question to ask is why did the Bubble form in the first place? The Austrian school says it is because the government set the interest rates lower than the natural interest rate. In a free market economy borrowing can only come from savings. This is logical because assume your economy is based on acorns. You can't borrow someones acorns unless they saved them. But in the fractional reserve fiat money system we can create money and lend it out without creating the wealth. Fiat money separates the money from the actual thing of value.
So when the Federal Reserve creates below market rates it is telling the economy there is plenty of savings to borrow. This causes businesses to shift from producing consumer goods to capital goods. This means more people are put to work building productive capacity. But eventually the market adjusts to all of this new money. Prices rise and the true value of the money is revealed. Now there isn't enough money to buy the consumer goods because there aren't enough consumer goods because production was shifted to capital goods. Now many people working building capital goods have to be reallocated back to consumer goods.
Think of the problem this was. Assume acorns are food and money for a tribe. They then come up with a paper acorn that can be traded for acorns at the tribal acorn reserve. Then the bank starts cranking out more paper acorns than exist in the bank. For a while people think that times are great since we all must be working hard saving acorns. They can then think of the future like building an automated acorn harvester. So they stop harvesting acorns and get to work building the harvester. Half way through people notice that it's taking more paper acorns to buy other things. Now the reserves they thought they had is smaller. Eventually the tribal acorn reserves will vanish and people will have to abandon all projects and get back to harvesting acorns.
The US has courts. We can capture them and bring them to trial.
It is not an act of force. Force has legal meaning. It means using violence or the threat of violence to do something. It makes the distinction between entry and forcible entry.
There is no use of force in blackmailing someone. There may have been force use in acquiring the information and that should be punishable.
I agree it is morally wrong. But initiating the use of force is far worse.
Reputations aren't your possessions. They are what other people think of you. You can't own other peoples thoughts.
Same thing with anything of value. You can own the item but not the value of it since the value is only what someone else is willing to pay for it.
In reality Blackmail is much less serious than Extortion. Extortion involves asking for money with the threat of force to harm your person or property. Blackmail is asking for money to prevent the release of information even if true.
Extortion should be illegal since it is threatening force.
Blackmail should not be illegal since it doesn't involve force. If it is legal to release information it should be just as legal to ask someone to pay you not to release it.
What I am saying is that if others were in on the plot you have to prove it in court and you can't just bomb thousands of innocent people just because they live near the suspects.
You are making my point. I am critical of those wanting to roll back regulations to the good ole days. But like you wrote in the good ole days people were not able to bring lawsuits forward and the government made it easy for large corporations to pollute with no consequences.
I think a better system would be to allow better access to courts where actual damages would have to be proven and a jury would decide.
We are working on it.
https://www.facebook.com/NASA.ISRU
Are you claiming no innocent people are killed in war?
The problem I have with people that just say we have to cut regulations is they don't fully explain the alternative. This is how I see it. Regulation is prior restraint. Take illegal drugs for instance. The argument you always hear from the drug warriors is that drugs are bad because people could do bad things on drugs. You don't want your bus driver on drugs do you? To me drugs can be legal and yet you can still sue a bus driver or company that causes an accident because the driver was high.
It's the same with all regulations. The EPA doesn't protect the environment, it protects the companies from lawsuits. The EPA sets rules for how much companies are allowed to pollute legally. What a company opens near my home and starts polluting within the EPA regulations but it causes damage to me or my family? Too bad for me I can't sue. And when a company does pollute too much they pay a fine to the government not to those they harmed. The EPA exists to help companies avoid the expense of lawsuits if they follow those rules even if it injures people.
What I would like to see is the government make it easier and cheaper to bring lawsuits forward. This would require a drastic reduction in the executive branch but an increase in the judicial branch. More courts and more judges. This way when damages are alleged to occur people can have their day in court and juries can decide damages not politicians.
But who gets to say the person you intend to kill is guilty and deserves to die? If you kill any innocents you should be charged with murder or manslaughter the same as if I went on a shooting rampage to avenge a family member and killed innocents.
Again I am talking about morality not legality. Like in all cases they are usually at odds.
If another country is invaded it would be the same as if a neighbors was attacked. You would be justified helping them defend against the attack. But you wouldn't be justified attacking the neighbors of the attackers.
The same with countries. If France is invaded by the Germans and they ask for your help. You can go there to help them defend themselves. But you wouldn't be justified in killing any civilian Germans. That mentality is just another form of collectivism. Just like after 9/11. Bush said he was going to get the people that attacked us. Well the people that attacked us died in the attacks. What he meant is that we are going to attack and kill innocent people that look and sound a lot like those that attacked us and that will quench our thirst for vengence.
You have law and reality. In reality there are people whose job skills are not worth the artificial minimum wage. They are unable to produce enough wealth to be paid minimum plus mandated benefits. They will be permanently unemployed or at least until inflation decreases the real minimum wage to a point that matches their skills.
If you remove the artificial minimum wage a natural one will be created based on job skills just like it exists for most skilled workers today.
Also the minimum wage is a trap because you can't get job skills without a job. An employer might take a chance on someone with no skills for the right price.
It's taken me a long time to come to the realization that the only war that can be justified is if you are fighting on your own land directly against invaders to repel them. The reason is the same as in your personal life. You can use force to defend yourself. But you have to be careful in that you only use force against those attacking you. If someone attacks you and the runs into a crowd you aren't justified in firing into the crowd hoping to hit that person. But that is what war is once you go into another country. You are punishing and killing innocent people in the hopes you might hit a few of the guilty. There is no moral argument for this.
Using numbers on the Internet the empty weight if the first stage is about 40,000 lbm with a mass fraction of maybe 25:1. One Merlin engine is about 125,000 lbf of thrust and can throttle to about 50%. So using one engine to slow down and land isn't too crazy. It could be a bit scary if you run too low on fuel that your weight gets to the point where you can't throttle your engine enough to decend. But all of that should be possible to predict and control.
Since the rich run all countries as long as trade exists there is plenty of profit to be made through trade. It's when trading stops or the "wrong" people are given contracts that the trouble begins. Once trade stops war becomes profitable as a resource grab.
It was behind a pay wall so I didn't see the data. I'm pretty sure steel is both stronger and stiffer than this crustacean.
Ok time for a mechanical engineer to step in here. There is some confusion between stiffness and strength. These are two different properties of the material.
Stiffness is the ability of the material to resist deflection. Think of identically shaped tube held fixed in one end made from different materials. Now put a force on the other end and assume it is small enough so you don't bend the tube permanently. All aluminum tubes will deflect about 3 times that of all steel tubes. It doesn't matter what kind of aluminum or steel. This is due to a property called Modulus of elasticity.
Now when we talk strength of metals we have two types. The first is yield strength. In the above example this would tell you what load the tube could take before it bends to the point when you remove the load it doesn't return to its original shape. The next is ultimate strength. This is the load when the tune actually breaks.
These strengths vary widely for metals with some aluminums stronger than steels and the other way around.
The next thing is density. Aluminum is 1/3 the density of steel. But you need more if it to make a stiff structure.
So what does this mean for impacts in cars? You want a material that is stiff for its weight so that it can absorb the energy as it deflects but also strong so that it doesn't break as it deflects. Ideally you would want your car to crush like modern cars do to absorb the impact then return to their original shape so there is no damage.
I think it would help more to go to a criminal justice system where there is only a crime if there is a victim. Then instead of punishment for its own sake the guilty party has to restore the victim. If they are incapable they would become the property ie slave, of the victim. This is allowed by the 13th amendment.
Mine is a Mayline Desk-O-Matic II®