It almost seems like you think that any adaptation by the market is a distortion by the agent the precipitated the adaptation of the market. But, I assume you don't actually think that way because if you did then you'd also believe that ANY event distorts the market - even by a given individual, not just the government. That is, if I decided I wanted a tree cut down all of a sudden I've somehow distorted the tree removal market by getting involved. Or if I want my ass scratched for me that I've distorted everything because an ass scratcher didn't even exist until I said I wanted to buy one. But so far as I can tell, you're only blaming the government in your distortion discussion so you're obviously not going to subscribe to the idea that ANY event distorts the market... after all... if that were the case there'd be no actual free market because it'd be getting distorted by everyone anytime anyone made any decision.

Did viagra distort the market for get 'er uppers when they came on the scene? Of course not. The drug was only invented because there was a market (known or unknown - talked about or all hush hush - doesn't matter). The market was there even though no one thought about it consciously or talked about it at all. Surely they didn't distort anything by simply giving people a product they wanted. So why are all these other example you mentioned any different? I know why, and I'll say so at the end, but humor me.

This could just as easily have happened if the people of the community got together and decided to create a local security force... like a volunteer police force. Nothing was created by the government in this example that would not be created by a private venture to do the same thing. And guess what, if the government didn't want to do it, and the people wanted protection, I can promise you that someone would step in and do the job. The government didn't create that market... it was there with or without them.

Two issues here. First, the city doesn't belong to the government (possession).

Second, again, no one distorted a market. A market was essentially created... or it could be argued that the market came to visibility. Much like the police item already discussed, the decision to create a fire department whether public or private would cause the market to change. It wasn't the government that created the market... it was the need for service that created the market. There was nothing preventing the cities from having their own fire department or just not having one at all. This happens all the time in rural areas.

This is getting old, but citizens can build roads too. And if they're needed bad enough the citizens of an area will do it. Maybe in the case that the road was between two far away places (interstate) you have an arguable point, but that's the best you get, is arguable. I'd say (1) that the government doesn't have to be involved, but since they are (2) the market was obviously there. Unless the government is in the business of building roads to nowhere and for no reason then there was a value in having the road. The market value of the land was already X without a road and Y with a road. That is, there was already the market, there just wasn't a road. The building of the road didn't do anything - no matter who built it.

I'd like to think that you can continue this exercise on your own not, but this one is a little more interesting simply because of its size. After all, we don't ever think of little towns going to war for themselves. But then again, they could (montegue and capulet could certainly happen on larger scale). What about this? I could get into a fight with my neighbor... would that distort the market for bandaids in the local convenience store? If an earthquake occurred would distort the market for batteries and generators and food? If locusts came and ate all the leaves off of all the fruit trees would that distort the market of fruit? I'd say no, the market would adjust - it would not be "distorted". All of these things are events that happen and the market adjusts. The events themselves don't have a will, they don't distort. They are simply PART OF the variables involved in the market.

So here's where your words ring almost true. The governement CAN distort the market. If the government bails out companies (and people) who make bad decisions, then THAT distorts the market. Fairly participating in the market doesn't distort it, but picking winners and losers does distort it. If the government raises taxes on cigarettes to the point that they can no longer be afforded then they've obviously distorted the market. They aren't involved in the market, they're just shaping it. There are infinite example of ways to distort the market and probably every government everywhere has done so at one point or another. But, none of the items you mentioned are distortions... they are simple participations.

The free market isn't anyone's boss. That's the beauty of it. It's a system in which people operate, but it's not the boss... so you can't exactly make that jump. But since your brought up those who understand what it is and create / manage things that people need / want will make excellent bosses. They'll make the kind of bosses that can do useful things like, for example, make payroll because they actually produce something that someone else in the market finds valuable. Not only that, but the people who actually understand the free market are those that have all those attributes you mentioned above... because all those attributes play in to how people interact with each other in that market.

An also, since you asked, I'll say this. I can think of a worse boss than the free market that will, atleast, in theory reward those who provide value and ignore / punish those who do not. The free market will stay the hell out of the way and let me get my work done and be judged on my results. But maybe you'd prefer a boss who only has empathy for those who can help them get (re)elected, only has compassion when it suits them politically, has lots of intelligence (but an agenda to go along with it and that agenda only includes you as long as you're "useful" [not profitble... just "useful"]), has foresight in staggering amounts and actually plans problems so that they can manipulate others into reacting rather than actually prevent problems, and who also has no shame.

The fact is that the free market only works if we can get your kind of boss to quit getting involved in the market. If someone is artificially tipping the scales then it's not a free market. That's what user moeinvt was saying, but you completely ignored that point when you responded.

Read my response to the other guy if you actually care. I can't tell what you're saying. If you think I said anything about maiming you're wrong. If you we're simply responding to the other guys comment (he was wrong) then that's up to you. But you should have responded to him if that was the case... Not to me.

Nothing I said is any different than what you said. I simply set out to make clear that its not the goal of conflict that people die. The goal is to resolve the issue without dying yourself.

Read what I said again and tell me where I said not to kill the home invader if you have a chance. You can't show me because I said the exact opposite. I even explained why you don't have a choice. Read carefully - you'll see we said the same thing, but the words actually matter.

I didn't say shoot to maim ANYWHERE! Again, you cant show me where i did say it because it didn't happen. Slow down and read the words instead of jumping to conclusions - everything you need is right there in black and white. You don't maim in war (or so they say) and you for damn sure don't do it it the dark alley. I've had training and am a proud carry permit holder. Odds are real good that if someone attacks me or my family anywhere at all that they will be met with deadly force meant to neutralize the threat (a nice way of saying attempt to kill them). I'm not WANTING to kill them, even though we're are in conflict, but once they open that door there ain't no closing it... I will be TRYING to kill them. But again that doesn't mean I want to. Again, words matter and all I was doing was addressing the OPs "want" comment.

Take it a bit further. attacker whacks me on the head and runs away. If they manage to flee (disengage) then I'm certainly not putting a bullet in them when they are no longer a threat. I'm not going to be upset that I didn't kill them because all I wanted was resolution (safety). But again, nowhere did I say before or have I said here that maiming with deadly force is proper.

I agree with what I think you meant to say. But the words you chose were just too wrong (all by themselves) to leave there...

No... you want to get your way. You don't WANT some lives to be lost.

Even for a home invasion situation you don't WANT a life to be lost. You WANT that creep OUT and you will do whatever it takes INCLUDING ending a life, but killing is not what you WANT to do. In an ideal situation you could just spot the invader and say "go away" and they'd turn and leave. But since that's highly unlikely and since there's a good chance there will be a struggle then the safest bet for you is to end the conflict as immediately as possible and in such a way that minimizes your own chances of being harmed. Therefore, you shoot 'em with an intent to kill (so they don't shoot back).

For general political WARS, your statement still goes too far. In a combat situation the goal is almost never "to end lives". The goal is to end a dispute (in neutralize the opponent) and to get your way. Lives being taken is more of a by product of the process than the goal itself. Total annihilation / beating them to nothing is often the simplest route to achieving the end of the war, but make no mistake. It's not that you WANT lives to be lost or resources to be destroyed... you just want break your opponent and get your way.

Then there's the extremist viewpoint. It's the viewpoint that anyone who disagrees must be the devil and should be killed. That attitude certainly breeds a type of combat, but it's not combat in general. And really, the defender (the "not extreme party") still only wants to stay alive through the combat... they're not necessarily interested in killing.

Well, on the Glocks I've used it's that little thingy that points out on the front of your trigger. Without pressing that little item you can't squeeze the trigger. Basically it takes away almost all likelihood of an accidental trigger pull. Glocks are known and designed for safety (they have atleast "invisible safeties" built right in - the trigger safety and the drop safety) and reliability - so to insinuate that they don't have built in safety mechanisms (even if you don't consciously think about it) is a disservice to the engineers who actually come up with that stuff. Not to mention that doing so is also perpetuating the idea that guns in general are unsafe when they are actually quite safe as long as the user themselves isn't acting stupid.

What about a private investigator doing the same thing? They don't need a warrant or suspicion. They just need payment from someone else who pays them to do it.

You've taken an overly broad view of what we're talking about. The question is one of privacy expectations - and in public you get to have them.

Please understand that this is coming from someone who wants it to be like you seem to think it ought to be. But I also understand words... and they mean what they mean, not what you want them to mean (most of the time).

I'm not sure if it was intentional or not, but I was absolutely amused by your "Only children think in terms of absolutes". Think about it. You use the word ONLY (which is by definition an ABSOLUTE word due to the limits it imposes) to belittle what you believed to be someone else's use of absolute thinking. Classic slashdot.

And by the way, you were both right. You were just being too much of an ass to respect / take into account the fact that they were technically right (ignoring philosophical issues). You were approaching it from a completely different direction choosing to ignore the technical part (the facts / the truth) because you have issues with the philosophical issues.

The fact remains that it's in public and therefore it has a chance of being public. You don't have any right to privacy there. You only have a desire to not be remembered and so far in your life that been the case. But having privacy and being unremembered are different things - I would think that anyone who wants to call people children (or insinuate that they think like a child) would be able to understand the difference.

Well, they stop buying some stuff and stop selling some stuff and start buying some stuff and start selling some stuff.

I dunno. Lots of people quit buying airplane tickets right after 9/11. If I recall spending cut down to a point that the government was urging people to go shopping and spend their money to keep the economy from getting stalled. Whether you agree with the advice or not doesn't really matter for this discussion. You asked if people quit buy because something goes boom and the answer is yes... some things. Other things get a LOT of buys when something goes boom. Preppers (right word?) might by firearms, or gas, or bread. Or duct tape or plastic sheeting. People who think nothing bad will ever happen might see this as an inconvenient rise in cost and will STOP buying duct tape for normal usage. Heck, they might even wait until no more is out there and then sell the little they have for a big profit. Yes, big booms affect the economy when people react to it.

Now, in the end it turns that this is often a wasted bit of action. But it is a legitimate reaction and it can be "gamed" for profit. By automations and by humans.

I read your comment about why one should care about HFT, and it all sounds sinsister and scary, and yet, as the buyer you still get the stock at exactly the price you said you were willing to pay. Sure you might have gotten it for less (maybe) without these other automated traders, but if you wanted it for less then you could have simply bid less and gotten it at that lower price. The HFT would have still satisfied your bid as long as there was a profit to take, right? And if it was a perfectly even trade then it wouldn't get involved. And if it was a bad offer (lower than asking price) then your bid will just sit there anyway.

Take the boogie man out of the picture and you got exactly what you wanted right? If anything you got it faster so your money is tied up in actual shares instead of bids for shares.

Am I missing something or are you just bothered that someone else got in on the action by hopping in the middle?

> Companies with more diversity tend to do better. Source please. Also, please expand on "do better".

Hmmm... I'm not so sure about this "like minded" business. Slashdot has just as much variety of opinion on topics as anywhere else. Perhaps user of /. are more informed, but definitely not "like minded". You could argue with me, but then you'd just make my point about the not like minded deal. Of course, if you agree with me instead then you concede my point.

Seriously though, you're basically right, and anyone who doesn't get that this story is "stuff that matters" is missing an understanding of what "stuff that matters" means.

Wow. I think you missed my point - or probably more accurately - i did a bad job of showing sarcasm in the first paragraph and true appreciation in the second. It rare on slashdot that anyone actually has a mindset such as ours (shared at least on this particular topic) and actually speaks up in the discussion, and I was taken aback that you were so brazenly doing so. I was merely mentally preparing you for the lashing coming you way (by those that think everyone gets a trophy and that those trophies should be paid for with other people's money) by giving you a little ribbing first. You completely misunderstood... classically almost.

Trust me. I meant the "bravo" and that I really did feel better getting to hear someone else tell it like it is.

PS. If there were any doubts at all about what I was saying you could have looked at my profile and my comments. I'm pretty sure if you did so you'd see we're coming from the same place. In any case, thanks again for your original comment.

That's crazy talk! Capitalist bastard! You and your business should be able to survive off good feelings about what you value you think you bring and just "knowing" you're doing something worth while... even if no one else is willing to actually affirm your choices by, you know, giving you money for doing so.

Thank goodness someone gets it. I've recently begun worrying about the state of things, but your post will help me sleep better this weekend knowing that someone gets this. Bravo.

You are saying that YOUR morality (what you think) should be the law of the land instead of, ya know, actual laws. I'm not trying to change your views - rather to point out that your views aren't all that matters.

And we're all basically either "apologists" or "advocates". It just depends on whose side you're on what you call someone. But you don't care about that - I don't agree with you so I must be immoral and unethical and probably just not as smart as you. Maybe you think I'm all of those things.

For the record, I think you're none of those things. You're notions are just misguided and your efforts ill focused. I'll leave you the last word now. Maybe we'll pick up another topic another day. Regards.