Gas cars where like this once. The market tends to regular itself, even if it takes some time. Unless the government fucks it up, specially the USPO. Lets just hope that is not the case.

I'm not sure if you are reporting the fact, or complaining about it. If you are just reporting it to provide accurate information, kudos for you. Not only are you are well informed, you have more common sense than most people I know (or know of), and please stop reading here :).

I'm forced, however, to remember anyone who complains about "subsidy battles" that the USA is huge on subsides, and wages this battle against many countries, several times winning it. Orange/orange juice and corn are quick examples.

Unfortunately, subsidies are a necessary evil, specially since they are, many times, not a tool to fight an external competitor, but to regulate the internal market. In this, no country is blameless.

Oh well, at least they didn't pull an Apple and label it "The New Xbox(tm)".

Volkswagen is even worse about that. First they had the old air-cooled Beetle (except it was actually called the "Type 1"), then they had the "New Beetle" (from 1998 to 2011), and now they have the "Beetle" (from 2012 on). So now, to avoid confusion, I have to refer to my 1998 model as my "old New Beetle" and my friend with a 2013 model has to refer to it as a "2012 Beetle" because if he calls it simply "new" people will think it's the 1998-2011 version!

(And no matter what we call it, we'll still get asked "is the engine in the back?")

I'm talking about a hypothetical situation where somebody bought Portal but regrets their hypocrisy (re: DRM) now. In other words, a "you're usually not OK with it, but sometimes can't help yourself" thing.

If you're OK getting something like Portal, than you've... well, your anti-DRM ideas have their price in some sense. (I'm not trying to criticize here -- mine definitely have their own price -- but just be realistic.) And at that point it's the old joke about how now it's just a matter of haggling over price, as you've established that your attitude is "DRM decreases the value of something" instead of "I won't buy DRM at all." And at that point, who's to say that the console price isn't below the limit?

Or you bought a DRM'd thing during an irrational lapse of judgement.

The consumers (aka, the mindless bleating masses) may repurchase all of their games, but the customers, the ones who are able to make intelligent decisions instead of just blindly accepting everything their corporate overlords throw at them, would just hang on to their 360 consoles in order to play their 360 games, and only purchase new titles for this new system, if they decide they want it.

"Customers" would never have bought a 360 in the first place.

So what you're saying is that PC + DRM and other assorted lock-in = Xbox? I think you should direct your "fuck, you are stupid" comment towards those who actually decide to buy it...

H. G. Wells-style (and Futurama-style) time-traveling avoids this issue, since the time machine passes through all the interim moments between the start and end of the trip, albeit really, really fast. Since it exists in all those moments, it maintains the same frame of reference as the ground it's sitting on.

Four [Doctors], shalt thou not count?

Republic = Res Publica = Public Thing, Public Affair. It means the state belongs to the people
Democratic = Demos Kratia= Rule by the people (literally: the power belonging to the people of the community)

Both are correct to describe the USA. Technically speaking, the USA is a Representative Democratic Republic (you can also add "Constitutional" in there, if you like).
You know that piece of paper that starts with "We the people"? That pretty much defined it as a democracy. Maybe you are confusing it with Direct Democracy (as opposed to Representative Democracy), where everything is decided by direct vote by the whole population.

Now, about your arguments. Comparing "Google Glasses" with "slavery or death" is kinda funny, really. But I understand the point you are making. The point, however, is quite different. Requiring 4/5 Majority (or 100% majority) is not feasible, and it is actually not required for most decisions, not should it be. It would ultimately lead to anarchy, following the total collapse of a frozen system.

Your last argument of not being able to vote with your wallet to trump someone else's rights is valid, but based on a faulty assumption. You are working under the assumption that it was already decided it violates other people's rights, and the jury (and the people) is still out on that one. And one of the ways people express their decision regarding that is with their wallets. So what they are ultimately voting is on the question of it violating their rights or not.

Stay in school

Thank you. That is good advice for everyone. They even have some very good books on State Theory that cover all these subjects quite well. You should try one, if you haven't already.

Them let me explain it to you.

My point is that, if people are buying and using it, they are VOTING it is a good thing. It is a characteristic of capitalists societies, and generally referred to as "voting with your wallet". Thus, "the democracy of the wallet".

It is very easy to say "democracy is good" and that you defend it when people agree with your point of view. When they are doing things you don't agree (like violating your privacy), it gets tricky. But if you defend democracy (I'm making an assumption here), you have to accept it, like it or not. You keep voting (elections or shops) against it, but you accept the result of the democratic process.

Thus, when the parent post said it was "to vote out the government", I said it is also possible to vote out products, and the fact people are using them is a sign they are voting FOR it. And, as with a senator (which I used as an example), all it takes is a significant number of people (far from the majority) to make it happen. Still, it is both the economical, social and political system you live in and, if not you, that most of Americans claim to defend and support.

And no, I don't like it either, being overruled by people who lack even the basic common sense. It is the price we pay to have a system that is not as bad as the other alternatives, although it is far from ideal.

Also, I'm sure most people will appreciate if you ask for clarification next time you don't understand something, instead of simply assuming it is a troll.

Cool. Are you also planning on replying to anything I actually wrote in my post?
Because what you wrote would be better located in a threat of its own.

Even if what you wrote on your post was 100% correct (and it is not), it would still have nothing to do with what I wrote. Just because saying "the sky is blue" is correct doesn't mean it is a valid answer to "how fast is your car?"...

If everyone else, or the majority of people, is wearing them, how is that different from voting? It is exactly the same principle.
I'm sure it take more people to make a Google product like this viable than it takes to elect a senator.

It is "the democracy of the wallet".

Notice: for people who will say that your privacy will be violated even if the majority is not using it, read again my second phrase about electing a senator.

That is just saying labour is an integral part of it. That is not the labour theory of value.

Mill, on the other hand, states plainly that the totality of the value of something depends on the labour applied. (Yes, I'm paraphrasing here).

But, as I said, I will have to check my reference books tomorrow. Anything else I say on this subject, right now, will be purely based on my recollection, since I exhausted my notes already. And since it is 2:30am right now, it is not only my noted that are exhausted.

You will notice you were the one claiming it was Locke's work, not me. So the fact that Adam Smith lived after Locke doesn't contradict a single line I wrote. I will give I wrote 19th century on my first post when I should have written 18th (Mill and MacCulloch), tho. That was particularly lazy of me.

The fact capitalism existed before Smith is irrelevant, as we both know (interesting to notice since there are other people reading). The point being that the existence of capitalism and one of the economic theories that explain/analyse it was two separate things.

Actually, I think our only point of content is: was Locke the first one to create the labour theory of value? I really don't think so. I checked my notes here (I wrote a paper about it a couple months ago), but I have to confess I don't have my economy books around. My notes point to James MIll and MacCulloch being the first ones to create a pure labour theory of value, after removing capital (David Richard = labour + capital) and land (Adam Smith = labour + capital + land) from the equation.

Saying Locke's theory are the basis is like saying Aristotle's theories are the basis for it all. It is technically correct, but it doesn't mean Aristotle created the labour theory of value either.

But I promise you I will check my reference books again tomorrow, but I do ask you to do the same, since I sincerely believe you are mistaken.