Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:It would be cheaper for everyone.... (Score 1) 84

Not as simple as saying that 'everyone' is all people. What is 'all people'? All Chinese residents? All people on this planet? All people that are paying taxes and who will actually be force to pay for this, or is it maybe all consumers of the goods that will have higher prices on them (and likely fewer choices of products) due to these 'heavy restrictions'?

Does 'everyone' include those, who are still in poverty in China (plenty more people are still very poor) and who want to move up in class but who will be prevented if prices for everything go up due to all the new regulations, licensing, taxes and generally growth of government that 'heavy restrictions' assumes?

It's not as simple as saying 'continue reducing pollution in the air'. In the USA when Lyndon Johnson came out with the 'Great Society' crap the level of poverty was very low and falling, then the government stepped in and reversed that trend categorically. The free market was working towards reducing poverty, there was no need for anything called 'Great Society' (and as always, there is no truth in advertising that comes from government, less truth in government advertising than in any other).

Free market capitalism works towards improving the standard of living of the market participants, but a poor economy cannot fix pollution, only a wealthy economy can and you do not make an economy into a wealthy one with 'heavy restrictions'.

Poor economies do not let people even to get their heads up, never mind thinking about such rich problems as not burning coal but instead going nuclear. Interestingly enough, while China is burning plenty of coal (so does USA) but China is building up nuclear power plant capacity and USA is not.

China will fix its pollution by following free market capitalist principles of searching for cheaper sources of energy and nuclear will be the cheapest source.

"Less then the medical cost, and loss of habitat costs." - how living a life of poverty, does not count as a cost to a society? I say it does. A life of poverty doesn't help you with medical costs and habitat costs either.

Why should polluter be allowed to force their pollution on others for free?

- nothing is free, people are paying for the energy, food, water and all other products that they consume and the prices that they pay reflect the economy they are in. By adding 'heavy restrictions' to the economy you are not helping to fix anything, you are ensuring that the economy will be poorer than it could otherwise and thus preventing the fixes, not promoting them.

Ironically, China is moving to greener solutions faster the the US is.

- it is not ironic at all, USA is destroying its economy with all the government and destruction of individual freedoms and China allows individual freedoms and mostly free market capitalism to work its way towards prosperity, which is crucial to having pollution free environment.

Comment: Re:It would be cheaper for everyone.... (Score 1) 84

It would be cheaper for everyone to just fix the pollution problem by putting heavy restrictions on emissions.

- take a look at what you wrote. This sentence is self-contradictory and at best you just didn't understand it.

It would be 'cheaper for everyone' to 'fix pollution' by putting 'heavy restrictions'.

Ok, who is 'everyone', what does it mean to 'fix pollution' and how much do 'heavy restrictions' cost to everyone?

This guy put together a 'low cost solution for everyone' who wants to 'fix pollution' and he didn't force any 'heavy restrictions' on anybody either. So anybody who is actually worried about the pollution can now pay for it to be fixed for themselves.

Now, of-course this doesn't fix overall pollution, but it is a distributed method of fixing pollution locally on a voluntary basis that is provided by free market capitalism (private property ownership and operation without government interference).

As a society progresses from pre-industrial (China before 1970s) to industrial (the last 40 years) its residents become wealthier and more affluent and as they become wealthier and more affluent they can now afford to start thinking about their environment and the best way to fix environment is to allow free market enterprise to market the fixes straight to the public, which then will decide whether it wants to pay anything at all (or more or less) for any such fixes, be it fixes on large scale or small distributed local fixes like this one.

To put 'heavy restrictions on emissions' means to restrict wealth generation in the country that was able to move 350,000,000 people out of poverty over the last 40 years (while the rest of the globe has been moving hundreds of millions into poverty by destroying individual freedom and thus destroying capitalism, destroying the free market).

China will be fine, it will fix its environmental problems and it will do so without advice from the economic failures that scold it here.

Comment: Re:Have you actually been to China? (Score 1) 95

by drinkypoo (#47575337) Attached to: Chinese Government Probes Microsoft For Breaches of Monopoly Law

You do realise the US does exactly this as well, and the prisons are corporations, and America even has more prisoners.

And? I didn't say the US didn't have any of these elements. I said that China did.

Posting ac as I spent all my mod points before reading this complete rubbish.

I note you didn't actually disagree with me. Obviously it isn't complete rubbish.

Comment: Re:Bricks and Mortar? (Score 1) 256

by the phantom (#47575099) Attached to: Amazon's eBook Math
Powell's Books is quite searchable, they have quite a lot of books, and they have lots of old and rare volumes that are likely to be hard to find elsewhere. They also have a rather nice store that one can visit and simply browse, on the off chance that they don't actually know precisely what they want going in, and want the opportunity to see what is available on the shelves or to communicate with the knowledgable staff. Of course, the original point was that people still go to physical bookstores for whatever reason, not that you should go to a particular physical bookstore.

Comment: Re:So China is going to do (Score 1) 95

by drinkypoo (#47574349) Attached to: Chinese Government Probes Microsoft For Breaches of Monopoly Law

So, non-free dependencies? Not on my watch!

The specifications for the required ammunition are well-known. The stuff is harder to make than the firearm, however. For that to differ you'll have to use something substantially higher- or lower-tech, e.g. caseless or black powder. And caseless ammo is only easier to produce if you disregard the difficulty of producing a practical propellant.

Comment: Re:Have you actually been to China? (Score 1) 95

by drinkypoo (#47573739) Attached to: Chinese Government Probes Microsoft For Breaches of Monopoly Law

Slave labor? 'Fraid not.

The Chinese government itself literally operates labor camps where criminals are forced to produce consumer goods.

Your argument would be more credible

You clearly do not decide who is credible when you say that slave labor is not slave labor.

Comment: Re:So China is going to do (Score 1) 95

by drinkypoo (#47573723) Attached to: Chinese Government Probes Microsoft For Breaches of Monopoly Law

RMS doesn't do guns because only one or two are open-source, and he's seen the code and knows they're shitty.

The 1911 is Open Source today, you can literally download blueprints for every part of the weapon. It's one of the best-loved and best-performing firearms of all time. It does require the use of appropriate ammunition, but the openness of the design has permitted developers to adapt it to several different types.

HOST SYSTEM RESPONDING, PROBABLY UP...

Working...