Doctors don't create life. They try to maintain it.
Engineer, technicians, and trades that design and build the cars are responsible for how that new car works. If there is a design or fabrication problem it is their fault.
A doctor is like the garage mechanic. After it starts getting run down they try to patch it up but eventually they can say they did all they could and it's time to junk it. The bad design isn't their fault. The only time they really get in trouble is when they start tinkering around and break something that was working fine before they started. Even then they can just claim it was like that when they opened it up.
Doctors make the money they do for one reason. The have been granted a monopoly to be the gatekeepers for effective "prescription" drugs. I have to pay some dumbass $60 to tell me what I already know just to get a $4 antibiotic.
This shows he has been talking to CEOs. Management HATES that they have to pay engineers what we make. The problem is the work is hard. Almost any other career you can BS your way through. Engineers, technicians, and other trades have this thg called reality that constantly judges you. I can't claim a machine I designed works when it is obvious to any laypersons that it doesn't. A doctor, lawyer, economist, politician, ect can all give BS answers why their little plans like keeping unemployment below 8% didn't pan out. Reality is a constant bitch for engineers and there is no faking it.
You willmnotice this same complaint with other professions that make decent money like nursing. Notice there is always a nursing shortage but never a doctor shortage? This is because hospital management whom tends to be doctors hate having to pay nurses what they make.
There are theories that are being argues that say a weaker solar wind will allow more cosmic rays hit earth. When they do they cause higher level clouds which cool the earth. This could be a good test.
Inflation stimulates malinvestment. I don't have space in this post but if you are interested read http://mises.org/resources/694/Americas-Great-Depression. It goes into what i think is a convincing examination of booms and busts.
What drives sustainable investment is savings. This should seem pretty basic. Look at a village of a dozen farmers. Say they produce just enough to feed everyone. Now say they want to produce a plow to make it easier for them. You can either decide to work harder to save enough food to feed everyone while that person is building the plow or have everyone go with less that year. Either way (earning more/consuming less) you are saving. Once the plow is built than production increases so you can produce more food with less people.
Inflation would be the example of someone saying that there will be plenty of food and you should start building the plow now. You start building the plow but eventually you realize that there wont be enough food. You have been eating the same as before so you either can try to continue building the plow but you have to REALLY cut back on your consumption or abandon the plow and start hunting or gathering for the rest of the year to survive.
This is exactly what inflation causes at a larger scale in the real world. You have to save before you invest. If you inflate you just cause producers to shift from consumer goods to capital goods with the assumption that the increased demand is real when it isn't.
flag@white house.gov was for reporting misinformation about the healthcare law. With a password like Karl arc I'm pretty sure this was someone making fun of the president. In fact who has ever used their real email to sign into a porn site. I almost feel bad for the spam email dude@yahoo.com gets on account of me.
It is the goal of producers to maximize profit. It is the goal of consumers to get what they want at the lowest price. Free market Capitalism is the system where producers and consumers are free to set that price.
The real reason the cost of living doesn't go down is because of the federal reserve. They are constantly inflating the money supply to slowly steal the wealth of the country for the politicians and wall street bankers. If there was sound money all prices including wages would be constantly falling as people saved and became more productive. The goal for the last 100 years has been to inflate enough to keep prices stable so that people don't notice the theft.
You are missing the economic picture. Money from drugs make them powerful. Without drug funds they may try kidnapping or human trafficking but they will have a lot less money to work with. In the US after prohibition ended the power of the gangs dropped dramatically. They moved on to prostitution and gambling and eventually drugs but they lost alot of power.
I would get rid of all vice crimes. Gambling, prostitution, drugs, ect. The fact is markets exist in hese things between connecting adults. By making them legal the cops can focus on real crime.
I always thought a good idea would be to put a yellow line in the road before a traffic light to indicate that if you are travelling the speed limit and are beyond this line and the light turns yellow you can safely make it through the light. If you have not passed the line than you should stop for the light.
What about government? I am an engineer that works for the Feds. I use CAD software daily and had a 5 year old workstation that ran perfectly. But because of some BS contract change with the IT department they "upgraded" me to a new machine. Only it runs the software worse with more errors and crashes. Imalso have this nice feature where the first time I load a.PDF file it crashes but when I open it a second time it works. It's kind of like star trek where only the even numbered films are good. Anyway since I am not and cannot get to be admin on the machine and the contract they hired is clueless I am stuck with this POS machine.
These are all still just technical challenges. I'll throw some game changing technologies out there.
Plentiful nuclear power. When we finally get good and making reactors and have lplenty of energy available we can solve most of these problems.
With nanotube filters you can filter any type of water to make pure water much more efficiently than RO filters today. With enough power you could filter sea water and pipe it as far as you need it. We already do it on a smaller scale with oil products.
With enough power you can grow plants indoors or underground. LED lights can be fine tuned to the wavelengths that plants crave. Also indoors you can control the weather and temperature so you can get multiple crops. You may be able to automate the entire process. This removes pressure for land to be used for agriculture.
If you have a small enough high power source and light enough building materials you can get flying cars. This will eliminate roads returning those to nature.
So advances in technology can cure almost any problem.
I assume you are trying to say they are hypocritical because they Copyrighted a book against IP. Just because you argue for a different set of laws doesn't mean you can ignore the ones that exist. Copyright exists the moment you create it. See http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-general.html [copyright.gov]
If you go to mises.org all of their books are free to download. They registered the copyright for the sole purpose of preventing someone else from copyrighting the works and trying to prevent the free dissemination. This is similar to the creative commons license. It sounds crazy but if you want to make something freely available so people can copy it you have to do this with a copyright. They are just working within the system.
Very good post. I see trademarks as the least offensive IP category when it is used for the sole purpose of registering a logo (mark) that represents a company. The sole purpose being to inform the consumer who made the product. A violation of that would be fraud where you claim to be someone you are not. The "victim" of the fraud however is the consumer and the criminal is the seller. The company that owns the trademark or registered business name is not a party to this and deserves no compensation.
That is exactly why I mentioned the iPad. Where did I say that Apple didn't support IP rights? I was saying what I think the laws should be.
Back to your example. Suppose you are really motivated but very stupid. You spend 10 years and $50 million on the one click buy button. Something that would take a smart person 20 minutes and $5 to do. As long as you can convince someone at the patent office to give you a patent you can sit there preventing other people from doing something obvious or charge them licensing fees.
I assume you are trying to say they are hypocritical because they Copyrighted a book against IP. Just because you argue for a different set of laws doesn't mean you can ignore the ones that exist. Copyright exists the moment you create it. See http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-general.html
If you go to mises.org all of their books are free to download. They registered the copyright for the sole purpose of preventing someone else from copyrighting the works and trying to prevent the free dissemination. This is similar to the creative commons license. It sounds crazy but if you want to make something freely available so people can copy it you have to do this with a copyright. They are just working within the system.
We can always have a debate. Besides if you couldn't tell by the world we live in you are winning easily.
You are a bit confused about the difference between recordings, the ideas behind the songs (music/lyrics), and the creator. The recordings did enjoy a natural monopoly. Recordings were first very capital intensive and it took a while to get to this point where the cost of reproduction is next to nil. The ideas behind the song IMHO do not deserve any protection at all. When you argue there is no natural monopoly you missed it. We have always had singers and song writers for all of human history. It was the invention of recording that allowed them to reach huge audiences and made them insanely wealthy. That natural monopoly is over so they can no longer become super wealthy on recordings alone unless they use the force of government to restrict peoples freedom. The question is how does the creator get compensated? By working like everyone else. Perform concerts and create value for your customers. It is always harder to make a buck once your monopoly is over because you have to compete.
That is already a crime and would be punishable under normal law. A court could put a restraint order to prevent the public release of those plans with a penalty of prison time. But one those plans were made public other people could use them freely.
If you just found a use for existing material you are right.
Lets say I somehow designed an iPad with all of the hardware associated with in the 1980's. I built all of the infrastructure to create all of the chips and displays ect. I could release that on the market and it would take 5 or 10 years for copies to be available. But today those chips and displays are readily available. Apple just designed a nicer interface and package than anyone else. Once they did it is was easily copied. And yet they still have a large market share even though cheaper alternatives are available because they provide some service others can't in the market.
Slashdot Mirror
Doctors don't create life. They try to maintain it.
Engineer, technicians, and trades that design and build the cars are responsible for how that new car works. If there is a design or fabrication problem it is their fault.
A doctor is like the garage mechanic. After it starts getting run down they try to patch it up but eventually they can say they did all they could and it's time to junk it. The bad design isn't their fault. The only time they really get in trouble is when they start tinkering around and break something that was working fine before they started. Even then they can just claim it was like that when they opened it up.
Here is what happens when engineers have bad days.
http://listverse.com/2007/12/04/top-10-worst-engineering-disasters/
Doctors make the money they do for one reason. The have been granted a monopoly to be the gatekeepers for effective "prescription" drugs. I have to pay some dumbass $60 to tell me what I already know just to get a $4 antibiotic.
This shows he has been talking to CEOs. Management HATES that they have to pay engineers what we make. The problem is the work is hard. Almost any other career you can BS your way through. Engineers, technicians, and other trades have this thg called reality that constantly judges you. I can't claim a machine I designed works when it is obvious to any laypersons that it doesn't. A doctor, lawyer, economist, politician, ect can all give BS answers why their little plans like keeping unemployment below 8% didn't pan out. Reality is a constant bitch for engineers and there is no faking it.
You willmnotice this same complaint with other professions that make decent money like nursing. Notice there is always a nursing shortage but never a doctor shortage? This is because hospital management whom tends to be doctors hate having to pay nurses what they make.
There are theories that are being argues that say a weaker solar wind will allow more cosmic rays hit earth. When they do they cause higher level clouds which cool the earth. This could be a good test.
Sorry. I meant to write there was nothing but the list of emails and passwords. No scripts.
That's cool. When I saved a copy it saved it as a text file. When I opened it with Notepad there was nothing in there.
Inflation stimulates malinvestment. I don't have space in this post but if you are interested read http://mises.org/resources/694/Americas-Great-Depression. It goes into what i think is a convincing examination of booms and busts.
What drives sustainable investment is savings. This should seem pretty basic. Look at a village of a dozen farmers. Say they produce just enough to feed everyone. Now say they want to produce a plow to make it easier for them. You can either decide to work harder to save enough food to feed everyone while that person is building the plow or have everyone go with less that year. Either way (earning more/consuming less) you are saving. Once the plow is built than production increases so you can produce more food with less people.
Inflation would be the example of someone saying that there will be plenty of food and you should start building the plow now. You start building the plow but eventually you realize that there wont be enough food. You have been eating the same as before so you either can try to continue building the plow but you have to REALLY cut back on your consumption or abandon the plow and start hunting or gathering for the rest of the year to survive.
This is exactly what inflation causes at a larger scale in the real world. You have to save before you invest. If you inflate you just cause producers to shift from consumer goods to capital goods with the assumption that the increased demand is real when it isn't.
I wonder if these accounts had to have password verification? If not I would assume many of these are from people that didn't like them.
flag@white house.gov was for reporting misinformation about the healthcare law. With a password like Karl arc I'm pretty sure this was someone making fun of the president. In fact who has ever used their real email to sign into a porn site. I almost feel bad for the spam email dude@yahoo.com gets on account of me.
It is the goal of producers to maximize profit. It is the goal of consumers to get what they want at the lowest price. Free market Capitalism is the system where producers and consumers are free to set that price.
The real reason the cost of living doesn't go down is because of the federal reserve. They are constantly inflating the money supply to slowly steal the wealth of the country for the politicians and wall street bankers. If there was sound money all prices including wages would be constantly falling as people saved and became more productive. The goal for the last 100 years has been to inflate enough to keep prices stable so that people don't notice the theft.
You are missing the economic picture. Money from drugs make them powerful. Without drug funds they may try kidnapping or human trafficking but they will have a lot less money to work with. In the US after prohibition ended the power of the gangs dropped dramatically. They moved on to prostitution and gambling and eventually drugs but they lost alot of power.
I would get rid of all vice crimes. Gambling, prostitution, drugs, ect. The fact is markets exist in hese things between connecting adults. By making them legal the cops can focus on real crime.
What is funny that I got three reasonable answers for free on this forum while all I got was blank stares from our contracted IT department.
I always thought a good idea would be to put a yellow line in the road before a traffic light to indicate that if you are travelling the speed limit and are beyond this line and the light turns yellow you can safely make it through the light. If you have not passed the line than you should stop for the light.
What about government? I am an engineer that works for the Feds. I use CAD software daily and had a 5 year old workstation that ran perfectly. But because of some BS contract change with the IT department they "upgraded" me to a new machine. Only it runs the software worse with more errors and crashes. Imalso have this nice feature where the first time I load a .PDF file it crashes but when I open it a second time it works. It's kind of like star trek where only the even numbered films are good. Anyway since I am not and cannot get to be admin on the machine and the contract they hired is clueless I am stuck with this POS machine.
How do you know what plants crave?
These are all still just technical challenges. I'll throw some game changing technologies out there.
Plentiful nuclear power. When we finally get good and making reactors and have lplenty of energy available we can solve most of these problems.
With nanotube filters you can filter any type of water to make pure water much more efficiently than RO filters today. With enough power you could filter sea water and pipe it as far as you need it. We already do it on a smaller scale with oil products.
With enough power you can grow plants indoors or underground. LED lights can be fine tuned to the wavelengths that plants crave. Also indoors you can control the weather and temperature so you can get multiple crops. You may be able to automate the entire process. This removes pressure for land to be used for agriculture.
If you have a small enough high power source and light enough building materials you can get flying cars. This will eliminate roads returning those to nature.
So advances in technology can cure almost any problem.
I wrote this above but I'll copy it for you.
I assume you are trying to say they are hypocritical because they Copyrighted a book against IP. Just because you argue for a different set of laws doesn't mean you can ignore the ones that exist. Copyright exists the moment you create it. See http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-general.html [copyright.gov]
If you go to mises.org all of their books are free to download. They registered the copyright for the sole purpose of preventing someone else from copyrighting the works and trying to prevent the free dissemination. This is similar to the creative commons license. It sounds crazy but if you want to make something freely available so people can copy it you have to do this with a copyright. They are just working within the system.
Very good post. I see trademarks as the least offensive IP category when it is used for the sole purpose of registering a logo (mark) that represents a company. The sole purpose being to inform the consumer who made the product. A violation of that would be fraud where you claim to be someone you are not. The "victim" of the fraud however is the consumer and the criminal is the seller. The company that owns the trademark or registered business name is not a party to this and deserves no compensation.
That is exactly why I mentioned the iPad. Where did I say that Apple didn't support IP rights? I was saying what I think the laws should be.
Back to your example. Suppose you are really motivated but very stupid. You spend 10 years and $50 million on the one click buy button. Something that would take a smart person 20 minutes and $5 to do. As long as you can convince someone at the patent office to give you a patent you can sit there preventing other people from doing something obvious or charge them licensing fees.
I assume you are trying to say they are hypocritical because they Copyrighted a book against IP. Just because you argue for a different set of laws doesn't mean you can ignore the ones that exist. Copyright exists the moment you create it. See http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-general.html
If you go to mises.org all of their books are free to download. They registered the copyright for the sole purpose of preventing someone else from copyrighting the works and trying to prevent the free dissemination. This is similar to the creative commons license. It sounds crazy but if you want to make something freely available so people can copy it you have to do this with a copyright. They are just working within the system.
We can always have a debate. Besides if you couldn't tell by the world we live in you are winning easily.
You are a bit confused about the difference between recordings, the ideas behind the songs (music/lyrics), and the creator. The recordings did enjoy a natural monopoly. Recordings were first very capital intensive and it took a while to get to this point where the cost of reproduction is next to nil. The ideas behind the song IMHO do not deserve any protection at all. When you argue there is no natural monopoly you missed it. We have always had singers and song writers for all of human history. It was the invention of recording that allowed them to reach huge audiences and made them insanely wealthy. That natural monopoly is over so they can no longer become super wealthy on recordings alone unless they use the force of government to restrict peoples freedom. The question is how does the creator get compensated? By working like everyone else. Perform concerts and create value for your customers. It is always harder to make a buck once your monopoly is over because you have to compete.
That is already a crime and would be punishable under normal law. A court could put a restraint order to prevent the public release of those plans with a penalty of prison time. But one those plans were made public other people could use them freely.
If you just found a use for existing material you are right.
Lets say I somehow designed an iPad with all of the hardware associated with in the 1980's. I built all of the infrastructure to create all of the chips and displays ect. I could release that on the market and it would take 5 or 10 years for copies to be available. But today those chips and displays are readily available. Apple just designed a nicer interface and package than anyone else. Once they did it is was easily copied. And yet they still have a large market share even though cheaper alternatives are available because they provide some service others can't in the market.
Very true. I was just letting you know where I was coming from.