Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:It would be cheaper for everyone.... (Score 1) 144

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) 144

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: An outrage! (Score 1, Flamebait) 159

by mi (#47570255) Attached to: The Problems With Drug Testing

drugs are increasingly being tested on homeless, destitute and mentally ill people

This is an outrage and a waste. We must switch to testing on the successful and the smart, who have nothing else to contribute anyway!

Second, it turns out many human trials are being run by doctors who have had their licenses revoked for drug addiction, malpractice and worse

Sure, malpractice, drug addiction and, especially, the unspecified "worse" are known to cause people to quickly forget all the training they've ever received in the medical school, and all the practice they got before losing their license.

Comment: Re:economy bullshit argument (Score 0, Flamebait) 231

by Zordak (#47570091) Attached to: Is the App Store Broken?

Apple users are not the kind of people who drive to a different supermarket because the tomatoes are 5 cents cheaper there.

Exactly. They're the type of people who always shop at the same supermarket, where the tomatoes cost twice as much as anywhere else and have a glossy wax coating, are all the same, approved size, and are utterly free of any flavor. In fact, they don't even know how to cook, and don't know why they're buying tomatoes in the first place, except that the reanimated corpse of Steve Jobs told them to. They buy their precious, shiny iTomatoes and dutifully display them in the crispers of their iRefrigerators. Then a week later, they toss them out and go back to the iGroceryStore and buy the new, upgraded iTomato 5S, with even more shiny and even less flavor.

Comment: Re:sure, works for France (Score 1) 293

Expanding fiat currency leads to economic reduction, stagnation and often collapse, history is on my side, you don't have anything on yours. 1971 - the year of default on the US dollar was the beginning of the end of USA economy, since then the productivity has been shrinking, deficits and debts growing, government growing and individual freedoms shrinking at an increasing rate.

That's one example, obviously there are thousands, including USSR, Weimar Republic and at least 30 examples of countries destroying their currency that way in only the last 100 years.

As to whether any amount of inflation of fiat currency is bad, yes, theft and thus misallocation of resources from those who produce to those who do not produce in the free market (not enough to be compensated for it by more than what the stolen or inflated currency allowed) is not good by any stretch of imagination, unless you have your head stuck all the way up into your ass.

Comment: Re:Homosexuals and marriage: ability vs. right (Score 1) 835

by mi (#47569085) Attached to: Gaza's Only Power Plant Knocked Offline

Arbitrarily redefining the terms to suit your argument doesn't make you right, and ins't a valid form.

I am in full agreement with you here. Unfortunately, that — redefining the terms — is exactly, what proponents of "gay marriage" want the rest of us to do. They want the society to change the meaning of the word "marriage" to include homosexual unions (which no civilization in the history of the world has ever equated with regular marriage). You found "paraplegic karate" to be ridiculous — well, "gay marriage" is equally non-sensical...

Gays want to be "married". We all KNOW what they mean by that.

Yeah, they want the recognition — both societal and legal — that has hitherto been given only to the heterosexual couples, to be given to homosexual unions as well. Whether such recognition is a good idea or not, I don't believe it to be a human right — and that is how this subtopic started, when somebody up above equated Iran's handling of their gays with America's treatment of ours.

I was not suggesting that the law prevented gays from entering into straight marriages.

"Straight marriage" is just as much a tautology, as "gay marriage" is a self-contradiction (think "meatless steak")...

Comment: The "equal opportunity" employees (Score 1, Insightful) 485

by mi (#47568509) Attached to: Jesse Jackson: Tech Diversity Is Next Civil Rights Step

Having an "equal opportunity" President is proving to be so popular, I can't wait for Mr. Jackson to be treated by an "equal opportunity" heart surgeon...

fessed up to having a tech workforce that's only 1% Black, apparently par for the course in Silicon Valley.

Not only is Silicon Valley young and Illiberal, they are also working on developing their businesses and would not sabotage their start-ups' success by turning away real talent.

Whatever the problem is, Silicon Valley's "racism" ain't it...

Comment: Re:Homosexuals and marriage: ability vs. right (Score 1) 835

by mi (#47568313) Attached to: Gaza's Only Power Plant Knocked Offline

Entire organizations exist for that sole purpose.

There are, indeed, organizations trying to keep the semantics of the term "marriage" from being redefined to include same-sex partners.

Nobody is out there trying to prevent homosexuals from marrying somebody of the opposite sex. It is not the law, that prevents them from entering into marriage, it is their own biology (or preference, or whatever).

No amount of policy change is going to help a paralyzed person do karate.

Not true. If we redefine, what "karate" means — creating, for example, a "paralyzed karate" (the way some wish to create a "homosexual marriage") and equating this new creation with the real karate (the way some wish to equate homosexual unions with real marriage) — we will have, magically, allowed a paralyzed person to practice the sport. Wouldn't that be terrific?

Comment: Re:Such practices REDUCE profit and kill companies (Score 1) 231

by mi (#47568051) Attached to: Comcast Confessions

While you were sleeping, Rip Van Winkle, exclusive local franchise agreements (the crux of that paper) were made illegal by the Telecommunications Act of 1996.

Too little, too late, youngster. The existing monopolies have had too much of a head-start — an action like that taken against AT&T once would now be required. And that's unlikely, when the CEO is playing golf with the President.

Nobody's gonna believe that computers are intelligent until they start coming in late and lying about it.