Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re:No he isn't (Score 1) 611

The point is that stealing something physical deprives the original owner whereas using their IP doesn't deprive them of that IP. That's the crux of it.

There is no deprivation when IP is used by someone else. Hence why we set up copyright to implement limited monopolies to encourage people to create more. Monopolies are anti-capitalist obviously.

So are cable TV monopoly franchises. But by granting that limited monopoly, we get faster delivery of a network that benefits everybody rather than only for people who it is profitable to serve. Society is better off in that slightly less 'capitalist' scenario.

Comment Re:No he isn't (Score 1) 611

Perfectly reasonable. Technological advancement has always affected the status quo, and the modern internet age is no different.

Offering creators a limited term monopoly to incentivize creation of new content is good for society, that's how IP works. Pre-internet/computers there was physical costs/labor associated with duplicating and distributing said content.

Now that duplication and distribution costs are basically nil, it will radically change how IP works, but that doesn't mean IP isn't an important concept that still bears fruit.

Comment Re:Welcome to Capitalism (Score 3, Insightful) 611

are you saying it is internally inconsistent as a philosophy

Yep, exactly what I'm saying.

People who want small government don't understand that 'government' is how we resolve disputes between independent parties. Unless they're going to magically make the human race stop having 'disputes', government will always be around and be relatively large (assuming the populations that support them are likewise large).

Desiring a more efficient/streamlined government would be reasonable, but mostly they aren't asking for that from what I've seen, both Libertarians and Republicans/Conservatives.

Comment Re:Libertarianism versus libertarianism (Score 1) 611

How is this 'fraud'? They're accurately and honestly promoting him. They aren't claiming to 'be' him at all, just espouse his views and policies.

Trademark is anti-free market. It's meant to stop things for a greater good as you say. But that's not libertarianism. Libertarianism is that the market will correct itself.

Comment Re:Welcome to Capitalism (Score 4, Insightful) 611

This isn't domain squatting. They've been actively using the site for multiple elections expressly to promote Ron Paul. These are *his* ardent supporters who did this on their own dime and if he wants to control the benefits of that...guess what, pay up. They aren't asking for millions, just a paltry 250K. Spread over 4 years over multiple people. It's hardly trying to 'cash in' on something.

Ron Paul is both hypocritical here and right on the money. Which is that his libertarian views are that he's allowed to do whatever he wants...including suing people or running to governmental agencies for help.

Libertarianism itself is hypocritical...and it's downright fun to watch the ardent supporters get a lesson in that...

Comment Re:Of course it will... (Score 1) 626

From your OP:

prices naturally come down as manufacturers try to cut costs and maximize profits

Now you say that manufacturing doesn't bring down prices?

We should be waiting until solar panels are the best alternative before mass production

So as soon as it's cheap, it's good? News flash, it will never be cheap and it will always be getting better. You can't wait until its 'better'. If you wait, you never start. Solar power is fully realizable right now, there are simply no technological hurdles to implementing it.

To do the production before it is economically competitive is just wasteful and potentially more harmful to the environment.

The only reason solar makes any sense over coal is global warming, and to a lesser extent pollution. If global warming isn't a clear and present danger, then solar and most other renewables aren't worth it. We have plenty of coal to run our grid for literally centuries.

If it is a clear and present danger, then it does make clear economic sense to start now well before it's economical. Because the macro economics are that the costs of continued coal use will dwarf any production costs and interest over time. How much is moving NYC going to cost? Miami?

let the market produce whatever is cheaper (using true costs) of all energy production methods

Ok, now what about the century head start oil and gas have over solar? That's not a fair playing field, they have the advantage already just by standing still.

even if you throw out the environment, how about we subsidize US industry to build faster and then sell the results of that R&D through manufacturing to the rest of the world? Because that's exactly what China is doing right now. Or do you want to cede the entire market to the Chinese? The rest of the world WANTS solar in a big way, and yet you're arguing we shouldn't be subsidizing our home grown manufacturing to build what the world wants? Economic suicide.

Comment Re:Of course it will... (Score 1) 626

I think it would be much more effective to spend our tax money on researching making solar panels cheaper than spending money on building lots of expensive solar panels.

So don't subsidize the market, which will lower production right?

The knowledge is valuable, not the actual product. The products will keep evolving and improving.

But we don't have production to evolve and improve because we aren't subsidizing it...

You HAVE to subsidize the upstarts when you are subsidizing the status quo. The oil companies receive 12 BILLION a year in subsidies. There isn't a startup tech in the world that can compete competitively with that. Renewables got about 2.5 billion, and a bunch of that went to the oil companies too.

It's reasonable to say that subsidies affect a market - but you have to look at both directions. The subsidies that make coal 'cheap' directly affect the affordability of solar panels. If you aren't willing to price things accurately...such as CO2 emissions...then the existing subsidies heavily favor the status quo.

And yes, I'm talking about making coal and oil and gas more expensive. They will get more expensive over time anyway, oil and gas because of scarcity, coal because of the environmental costs. Solar will remain relatively flat or even go down some, but it likely won't ever be cost competitive with current fossil fuel prices.

The problem is neither with fossil fuel prices. If we don't start pricing them closer to reality, then when the shit really hits the fan via climate change, we'll have to pay both the astronomical costs of that PLUS the costs to rapidly convert to something else. Doing something at national scale at that speed will also be astronomical.

Increase the prices on fossil fuels a little now so we get more money to subsidize solar and renewable sources so we can spread the costs out over time and make them as cheap as possible.

Slashdot Top Deals

They laughed at Einstein. They laughed at the Wright Brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown. -- Carl Sagan

Working...