Indeed, I believe in many cases the NSA outright paid off companies to do their bidding (RSA at the very least). But hopefully now, seeing the flee of business away from the US, they should know to care about customer data more.
Also note that shifting the supply curve by $0.04 doesn't imply prices will go up by that much. While the cost virtually always means higher prices, if it's less than or more than four cents is entirely dependent on the dynamics of the particular market.
I should point out that rationalle makes absolutely no sense: It doesn't matter if the data is mine or Twitter's or Verizon's, you still need a warrant to serve to whoever owns the harddrives. Verizon doesn't deserve any less protection than me, a sole proprietor.
Yes, yes it does. Free speech means you cannot be subject to force or coercion for what you merely say.
Again, not my problem, and not Mediawiki's problem. If they want to support openly developed, IETF standards, great. But that doesn't preclude publishing other media formats.
File formats aren't copyrightable, and therefore the "FLOSS" label does not apply. Only specific software is copyrightable, and last I checked, there's a plethora of Free Software encoders and decoders, including ffmpeg, x264, etc.
What the maintainer of the codec wishes to do isn't my problem, and it's not Wikimedia's problem.
If I dumped a bunch of lead in your back yard, wouldn't that be a crime?
If I dumped a bunch of lead in your air, wouldn't that be pretty much the same thing?
The IOC gets all sorts of favorable tax breaks, tax revenue, laws written just for them, corporate welfare, and more. Where do you suppose all that tax money come from, if not under the threat of violence from the IRS, etc?
No one is against equality, they're against the FCC dictating that. The government doesn't have the power to force private parties to do anything. How do you expect the FCC to enforce their regulations? The FBI.
I don't think "by definition" means what you think it means.
The Constitution says it doesn't.
A court can issue a ruling, but that doesn't make them right.
Intrinsic value means there's value placed on it other than it's secondary/exchange value. For instance, people buy gold because it's useful for electronics or jewelry. The dollar has no such uses, so it is said to have no intrinsic value.
The preamble does not grant powers to Congress, those are exclusively found in Article 1 section 8, and any amendments that also say "Congress shall..."
The article I link to points out efficiency has many different usages even within economics. If you mean market-clearing or liquidity, I'd say that instead.
I'm not sure how you provide "liquidity without a profit motive", or how it is relevant to the discussion, but the idea is absurd. A person selling a product does so because it necessarily benefits them in some way. Markets are discrete, not continuous, even if our math is.
I appreciate Black's contributions to our understanding of modern pricing, but here I have no clue what he's talking about. The basis of all modern economics since Carl Menger is the law of marginal utility, which implies the subjective theory of value. I can't tell what is meant by "value" here but it's certainly not in the meaning of virtually all economics for the past century.
That's not the definition of efficiency, since efficiency too is subjective... Black is describing one possible method of evaluating efficiency, which like any, is completely arbitrary.