If I go into a restaurant and order a medium rare steak, lightly seasoned and I get back a blackened, garlic-encrusted hockey puck, you bet your ass I'm not eating it, and as such, not willing to pay for it.
The situations are not equivalent. Returning the movie after you watched it is like returning the steak after you ate it.
The only reasonable solution is to refuse eating a stake if you see it's not what you want, and to refuse buying the movie if you don't like the previews/reviews.
No, you just don't. If you did you'd understand how many people are required for this, and how much all this would cost.
Here's some hints for you:
1) How many piracy areas need protection. 2) How many ships have to be protected at the same time. 3) How long does each journey last 4) How many "spare" marines do we currently have 5) How many per ship are needed 6) How much do you have to pay for those marines to spend X days a year at sea; who pays for it all
Government works on a zero profit premise/ corporations work on a make more money then last year premise.
Well yeah, no shit. That's because the Government also works on a "pay us whatever taxes we say, or we jail you" premise.
About 90 people out of 100 do not need or wish to pay for "cheap" 10 mbps broadband. Those who do should go out and buy it at the market rate, instead of forcing 100 out 100 people to pay the costs of this broadband through taxes.
Really, I am quite amazed that so many people here see nothing wrong with taxing everybody to pay for what only they will use.
So if you want the service so much, why don't you try to start your own company, and issue stock/bonds/etc. to cover the estimated costs of the project.
The liberal-asshole way of doing the same is to use the power of the government to tax everybody for something only you want.
You really would "agree wholeheartedly" with threatening to put me in jail (or worse) if I don't pay for something you want for yourself?
You present an unlikely scenario under which the unmanned aircraft fails, namely that 1) we use UAVs against a country that can jam GPS, AND 2) we still care about not killing the civilians.
Of course the truth is that condition (1) pretty much means NOT (2).
If we are at war with China and/or Russia, we very much want to kill everyone, civilian or not, and really don't care about the public opinion. Consider the thousands of nuclear warheads targeted on their population centers.
How exactly is YouTube going to make money when everyone and their dog uses their servers and bandwidth for free?
Well, the users are already paying to their ISPs for their bandwidth. Couldn't Youtube demand a cut of that, or at least get "free" bandwidth for better quality service to the provider's customers?
If the ISPs don't cooperate, Youtube could always downgrade the videos or display adds like "Your XX ISP doesn't want to play ball which might mean more costs to you. May we recommend this YY provider in your area?"
Recycling nuclear fuel will not magically solve the 'hot' waste problem. You could re-use some of the material, but a lot of it has to be trashed.
Sure, in theory it is possible to convert almost all of the waste into stable isotopes. That will never happen though, as it would be so expensive that it'd be cheaper to get all our energy from solar and wind, or fusion power, or dyson spheres (you get my point).
One of the safest solutions I have read about involves a deep underground storage followed up with a nuclear explosion, creating a buttload of slightly radioactive rock deep down.
Terrorists can only target people or landmarks, by definition. Going after the infrastructure is counterproductive use of their resources, since they cannot damage a lot; the only way to have any impact is to try to terrorize the populace.
The truth is, one should not be worried about the terrorists at all because the probability and the extent of any actual damages in terms of lives or goods is minimal.
On the other hand, real militaries (e.g. those of China, Russia, USA) would go after the pipelines and the infrastructure since they can take out enough of it to matter.
MS paid over $5 billion (with a B) in corporate taxes in 2007. Their employees probably paid just as much in personal income taxes. You really want to screw a $10,000,000,000/year cash cow out of a $10,000,000 public works project? Of which they pay half? Great thinking there genius.
To come to my second point, my butt is too big to fail. I have to have a taxpayer-funded bailout. Though I'd settle for a cookie.
That's because these angry people you speak of are idiots. They don't understand the issue here: The bonuses were both legal and deserved, the Bailout was neither.
Again, the bonuses were exactly within the letter (and even the spirit) of the employment contracts. But please find me an article in the Constitution that says the Govt can rob me of MY money and give it to the failed gamblers?
Too important to fail? F**k that, that's what we have bankruptcy courts for. Talk to the judge, assholes.
Well, I for one do understand the reaction to the article, and I blame the shift to sensationalism as a strategy to get more research funds.
Sadly, that's becoming a routine procedure these days: sequencing a T-cell receptor gives you "Cure for AIDS," a low-temp polymer curing process results in "Free Solar Cells," or some minute femtoscale laser advance leads to immediate "cheap benchtop fusion!!!1!"
I am mixed in my feeling towards this sort of populism. On the one hand, it's important to give some feedback to the folk who pay for it all, but on the other hand, it leads to the culture of anti-intellectualism and even science fatigue (people get tired of being bullshited).
It would have far less support if more knew what was *really* going on.
Are you sure? Most people I know would prefer these "smart" foreigners working here, paying taxes, creating jobs, helping us compete. Brain drain has served us well. Hell, if anything, we should be demanding mandatory green cards instead of H1b Visas... make it easier to get in but harder to get out somehow.
Sadly, the only people speaking out on this issue are the misguided folks. Pretty much the same folks speaking out on Ron Paul, organic coffee, global warming, the H2O car fuel thingie, etc.
You have to be realistic about things now. We are NEVER going to have it as good ever again. America got incredibly lucky during the 20th century; this is not likely to happen again. And no overgrown sense of entitlement will fix that. Oh, and just because you have a family and want the best for them, will not fix things by itself.
If you look at how the rest of the "civilized" world lives (France, Britain, Germany), that's what's in store for us in the future (at best). What I mean is a tiny appartment, a midget car you drive once a week, saving up for 2 years to buy a big-screen TV or a laptop. You really should buy a ticket and have a look for yourself while you still can.
Actually, I believe we will be worse off than the other first world countries because we have: 1) underdeveloped infrastructure (aging roads, shit railroads, huge travel distances, maxed out e.grid, etc.) 2) bad geopolitical location, too far from most of oil and markets 3) undereducated populace (compared to all other developed and many developing countries) 4) huge military spending we plain cannot afford. 5) huge public and external debt: 50 trillion by 2025 if we cut spending now, more if we don't.
It wasn't the protectionism, it was Mr. Hitler and Mr. Free Market that made us more prosperous. Our economy grew exceedingly well after the rest of the World was destroyed in the Second World War. Why? Because at the end of the war we were the only country with a functioning economy, meaning our efficiency at producing anything was way above all the other countries.
This in turn had generated a lot of demand for our goods, and a lot of profit which trickled down to all Americans. Later on, the Chinese become more efficient, and NOT by protectionism, but by forcing their subjects to work at slave wages, with no healthcare or retirement benefits, which now generates a lot of demand for their goods.
Protectionism is almost never the answer. It almost killed us in the 1930s, if not for the 2nd WW.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, so was Reagan to be honest. Or Lenin, or JFK...
But all the facts are beside the point due to our penchant for idolatry.
If I go into a restaurant and order a medium rare steak, lightly seasoned and I get back a blackened, garlic-encrusted hockey puck, you bet your ass I'm not eating it, and as such, not willing to pay for it.
The situations are not equivalent. Returning the movie after you watched it is like returning the steak after you ate it.
The only reasonable solution is to refuse eating a stake if you see it's not what you want, and to refuse buying the movie if you don't like the previews/reviews.
labor supply would grow uncontrollably, outstripping demand and collapsing individual quality of life.
American population has trippled since 1900. By your logic, our standard of living should be 1/3 of what it was in 1900.
Your assumtions are flawed. It's not a zero sum game. More people means BOTH more workers AND more customers.
I am just going to whoosh myself...
Don't be silly, why would someone tax a successful business to support an unprofitable one? That wouldn't make sense.
You do realize that's exactly how all taxes work?
No, you just don't. If you did you'd understand how many people are required for this, and how much all this would cost.
Here's some hints for you:
1) How many piracy areas need protection.
2) How many ships have to be protected at the same time.
3) How long does each journey last
4) How many "spare" marines do we currently have
5) How many per ship are needed
6) How much do you have to pay for those marines to spend X days a year at sea; who pays for it all
Government works on a zero profit premise/ corporations work on a make more money then last year premise.
Well yeah, no shit. That's because the Government also works on a "pay us whatever taxes we say, or we jail you" premise.
About 90 people out of 100 do not need or wish to pay for "cheap" 10 mbps broadband. Those who do should go out and buy it at the market rate, instead of forcing 100 out 100 people to pay the costs of this broadband through taxes.
Really, I am quite amazed that so many people here see nothing wrong with taxing everybody to pay for what only they will use.
You know, cops also are paid no matter where they are stationed, so why not put a trained cop in every car on the road?
Do you see any problem with your idea now?
So if you want the service so much, why don't you try to start your own company, and issue stock/bonds/etc. to cover the estimated costs of the project.
The liberal-asshole way of doing the same is to use the power of the government to tax everybody for something only you want.
You really would "agree wholeheartedly" with threatening to put me in jail (or worse) if I don't pay for something you want for yourself?
You present an unlikely scenario under which the unmanned aircraft fails, namely that 1) we use UAVs against a country that can jam GPS, AND 2) we still care about not killing the civilians.
Of course the truth is that condition (1) pretty much means NOT (2).
If we are at war with China and/or Russia, we very much want to kill everyone, civilian or not, and really don't care about the public opinion. Consider the thousands of nuclear warheads targeted on their population centers.
How exactly is YouTube going to make money when everyone and their dog uses their servers and bandwidth for free?
Well, the users are already paying to their ISPs for their bandwidth. Couldn't Youtube demand a cut of that, or at least get "free" bandwidth for better quality service to the provider's customers?
If the ISPs don't cooperate, Youtube could always downgrade the videos or display adds like "Your XX ISP doesn't want to play ball which might mean more costs to you. May we recommend this YY provider in your area?"
I was mugged; I reported the crime. (No fun at all, but at least they didn't shoot me.)
Who "they," the muggers or the cops?
Recycling nuclear fuel will not magically solve the 'hot' waste problem. You could re-use some of the material, but a lot of it has to be trashed.
Sure, in theory it is possible to convert almost all of the waste into stable isotopes. That will never happen though, as it would be so expensive that it'd be cheaper to get all our energy from solar and wind, or fusion power, or dyson spheres (you get my point).
One of the safest solutions I have read about involves a deep underground storage followed up with a nuclear explosion, creating a buttload of slightly radioactive rock deep down.
Terrorists can only target people or landmarks, by definition. Going after the infrastructure is counterproductive use of their resources, since they cannot damage a lot; the only way to have any impact is to try to terrorize the populace.
The truth is, one should not be worried about the terrorists at all because the probability and the extent of any actual damages in terms of lives or goods is minimal.
On the other hand, real militaries (e.g. those of China, Russia, USA) would go after the pipelines and the infrastructure since they can take out enough of it to matter.
Link? I am kind of curious what it looks like.
(By 'it' I mean both Counter-Strike matches and your servers melting down.)
If MS needs/wants it, let them build it.
MS paid over $5 billion (with a B) in corporate taxes in 2007. Their employees probably paid just as much in personal income taxes. You really want to screw a $10,000,000,000/year cash cow out of a $10,000,000 public works project? Of which they pay half? Great thinking there genius.
To come to my second point, my butt is too big to fail. I have to have a taxpayer-funded bailout. Though I'd settle for a cookie.
Inside the testes are smaller cats with smaller testes... In fact, it's the ever-shrinking copies of cats with testes all the way down.
That's the problem with "distributed, evolving" anything: it's a bitch to turn off.
That's because these angry people you speak of are idiots. They don't understand the issue here: The bonuses were both legal and deserved, the Bailout was neither.
Again, the bonuses were exactly within the letter (and even the spirit) of the employment contracts. But please find me an article in the Constitution that says the Govt can rob me of MY money and give it to the failed gamblers?
Too important to fail? F**k that, that's what we have bankruptcy courts for. Talk to the judge, assholes.
Read your post again after you've been married over a year.
Well, I for one do understand the reaction to the article, and I blame the shift to sensationalism as a strategy to get more research funds.
Sadly, that's becoming a routine procedure these days: sequencing a T-cell receptor gives you "Cure for AIDS," a low-temp polymer curing process results in "Free Solar Cells," or some minute femtoscale laser advance leads to immediate "cheap benchtop fusion!!!1!"
I am mixed in my feeling towards this sort of populism. On the one hand, it's important to give some feedback to the folk who pay for it all, but on the other hand, it leads to the culture of anti-intellectualism and even science fatigue (people get tired of being bullshited).
It would have far less support if more knew what was *really* going on.
Are you sure? Most people I know would prefer these "smart" foreigners working here, paying taxes, creating jobs, helping us compete. Brain drain has served us well. Hell, if anything, we should be demanding mandatory green cards instead of H1b Visas... make it easier to get in but harder to get out somehow.
Sadly, the only people speaking out on this issue are the misguided folks. Pretty much the same folks speaking out on Ron Paul, organic coffee, global warming, the H2O car fuel thingie, etc.
Is there something factually or logically wrong with my argument (apart from the flavor)?
You have to be realistic about things now. We are NEVER going to have it as good ever again. America got incredibly lucky during the 20th century; this is not likely to happen again. And no overgrown sense of entitlement will fix that. Oh, and just because you have a family and want the best for them, will not fix things by itself.
If you look at how the rest of the "civilized" world lives (France, Britain, Germany), that's what's in store for us in the future (at best). What I mean is a tiny appartment, a midget car you drive once a week, saving up for 2 years to buy a big-screen TV or a laptop. You really should buy a ticket and have a look for yourself while you still can.
Actually, I believe we will be worse off than the other first world countries because we have:
1) underdeveloped infrastructure (aging roads, shit railroads, huge travel distances, maxed out e.grid, etc.)
2) bad geopolitical location, too far from most of oil and markets
3) undereducated populace (compared to all other developed and many developing countries)
4) huge military spending we plain cannot afford.
5) huge public and external debt: 50 trillion by 2025 if we cut spending now, more if we don't.
It wasn't the protectionism, it was Mr. Hitler and Mr. Free Market that made us more prosperous. Our economy grew exceedingly well after the rest of the World was destroyed in the Second World War. Why? Because at the end of the war we were the only country with a functioning economy, meaning our efficiency at producing anything was way above all the other countries.
This in turn had generated a lot of demand for our goods, and a lot of profit which trickled down to all Americans. Later on, the Chinese become more efficient, and NOT by protectionism, but by forcing their subjects to work at slave wages, with no healthcare or retirement benefits, which now generates a lot of demand for their goods.
Protectionism is almost never the answer. It almost killed us in the 1930s, if not for the 2nd WW.