Why do people think the answer to such big problems is "learning"? What can we "learn" that will prevent AGW, for example, without actually having to do any further work?

What incentive is there to "get it right"? Earth is an easy place to live. Space is not. Space has the incentives to get things right that you feel we need.

Same with the Liberator and it's not going to have the same penetration power.

Those bullets go somewhere. Some, more than what a Liberator would fire, would go at police officers and some will go towards bystanders.

Australia is the country we are speaking of. It is likely that their crazies won't try to get firearms from a country where it is even more difficult to acquire a firearm.

And how do you lose anonymity with that? Even if you can be identified by that transaction, so what? You can't be associated with previous transactions. Buying a car with bitcoins doesn't prove that you were the same guy who sold marijuana for bitcoins a few transactions back.

I don't know why you got modded insightful. It's not that hard to look at the behavior of actual markets and get that they aren't unicorns and pixie dust. What makes domain names not a free market is WIPO.

Basically, there's a bunch of cybersquatters snarfing any domain names that they can get for cheap and then selling them for many orders of magnitude more than they got them for. Maybe it'd still go on. Scalping goes on in sporting events for much the same reasons. But at least scalpers don't enjoy a government-granted monopoly for pennies on the dollar.

If they were smart, they'd make a lot of noise about these things, but not actually make them illegal. As a police officer, what would you rather be facing? A handgun that is competently made or a fad which barely fires? Or for that matter, a semiautomatic rifle that has been modified to shoot automatic?

You'd want the "Liberator" in the hands of any crazies you happened to face. It's still dangerous, but the odds are better.

That's interesting and answers my question. I was about whine "why aren't they selling that store?" You have done a great mercy for mankind.

You need to keep in mind that the rules and the punishments for breaking those rules were designed most likely with the goal of the school district and its administrators evading as much responsibility as possible. A rule which has a punishment appropriate to the infraction requires considerable judgment from the enforcer of the rules. Zero tolerance policies, such as the one that this student ran afoul of, don't.

What's not obvious about transportation helping you survive in the modern world? Generally people need to provide work or similar activities of value in order to be able to obtain the things they need to survive like food, shelter, etc. And the work almost never is where you can live.

And I find it rather frivolous for you to ignore that things can have value beyond their use for mere survival.

Not if those respective interests conflict. Capitalism is a fair and effective way to resolve such conflicts of interest with respect to things of value. Should a bit of land be better used for a library or an orphanage? Rather than some wasteful if friendly societal debate which might take years or even decades to resolve, people simply buy land for the respective uses.

In your "theory". In my theory, that isn't sufficient. In practice, there are conflicts even in the frequent cases where greed isn't a contributing factor.

Nope. The desire has to be "inordinate". That was in the definition of "greed" which you quoted and promptly ignored. Merely owning something in turn doesn't even indicate desire is present. If I want to build an orphanage, I need land on which to build it. An orphanage is far in excess of my needs for survival, but you are effectively claiming that I have greed for orphanages as a result.

This was the source of my complaint about your semantic abuse of terms (greed, capitalism, and private property).

Actually, you ignore there that capitalism does have a morality. For example, I can't merely make someone else's property my own. Theft is against the moral code of capitalism. If it weren't, then there wouldn't be a concrete sense of ownership.

So saying that capitalism is amoral is not "undeniable fact" but merely wrong. But my observation remains correct. It's well known that people normally treat their property better than they treat property not owned by them, especially property that isn't owned by anyone at all (eg, public property and goods). But you can get people to treat other peoples' property better, if you give them incentives, say a paying job.
,
So a janitor might treat a business's bathrooms better than their own, but primarily because the incentives are there for them to do so. Sure, it probably is "greed" in your ridiculously stretched definition of the word, but the janitor probably needs more the wages of that job than a cleaner bathroom at home.

Even net financial beneficiaries aren't, if you choose the right time frame in which to take the measurement (for example, in the periods between when they receive the benefits). You said you benefited greatly even if you don't at the present time. And of course, we need to consider that you'll probably transition in the future to net benefit (or is that net drain) when your medical bills and retirement comes around. It's foolish to take you at your word here when you play such games.

I think this is what we call "psychological projection". You're spending other peoples' money for your interests, here disguised as being the UK's interests. And if other taxpayers complain, your "fuck you" is a whine about their greed.

As to being "hated", fools hate. How hard should I try to placate fools? I think not at all.

It's worth noting here that neither point need actually move (or they could be moving towards each other a significant portion of the speed of light). It's the space in between which is growing longer.

Where? Doesn't the observation have to support your claim first?

And it's worth noting the current quantum models already have a couple of senses in which photons can be partial. First, you can take energy away from a photon. Second, you can entangle a photon state with a non-photon state (such as the two slit experiment where a photon can entangle with itself while passing through two narrow slits, but not if you try to observe which slot it passed through).

I see that you get what you pay for. So your past benefits such as education have no financial value? Then how did you get that nice job? And you've already demonstrated that you're willing to spend money for the society thing which means you've given that some sort of financial value as well.

Why should I care? Ultimately, my desires are highly disengaged from public opinion in the rest of the world. Sure, the US government might find that being disliked is somewhat inconvenient, but I don't have much of an interest in furthering their wishes.

What did you expect a leftist politician to look like?

Or at least, look to the uneducated observer like they might. And I see the order of magnitude drop in scientific productivity when you go from the private world to the public, unaccountable one.