eglover

Just a note, obviously an exaggerated "review" meant to be funny, not serious. There were minor problems with gas that have been fixed in the new recipes. (Note the date on this.)

ZZLBox/Furk have been doing something similar for a long time for real bandwidth costs on their side. If the DMCA had the authority they wished they had, Pirate Bay wouldn't exist.

I would like to hear the answer to your other question though. It looks like a marriage between the iflix server and your own connection with most bandwidth being put on your side.

Really impressive. I remember lots of attempts at this a while ago but no real success.

Hm, I can't tell how good this will be and if it will beat RSS. There's not enough to go on.

Back in the real world? What are you talking about? Clear facts and clear history isn't real?

Roderick T. Long is a very well respected author, he's a household name in the Austrian economics world and is looked up to by a great many scholars.

If the subject source makes you uncomfortable and you're therefore unwilling to consider what it says, say that or say nothing.

In the real world, these foundations for publishing never last but a few years and most are soaked up into others. Welcome to it.

Everyone doesn't have to use money in the same way for it to be useful. That's the entire point of money to begin with. It is these kind of shallow political articles that drives it down. Not those who are currently trading.

I don't know but it's BuzzFeed dumb.

DeBeers only has a 40% market share, bad publicity is a major driver for them. At their highest they only had 90% share, that means there were other choices. >.>

Not a monopoly. No real harm either. If you want to complain about where the money went after the transactions were made, that's another subject.

You're so set on arguing with me. I think it's best if you sat down.

By. Definition. That's all that needs to be known.

In the case that anyone is wondering, this is a joke.

http://hotmeme.net/media/i/4/f/d1Z-thats-not-how-it-works-th...

Right. A mixed economy is neither socialist NOR capitalist. You simply can NOT act as if the three have the same effects or even look the same.

Natural monopolies are near impossible, and have never harmed anyone. I've only heard of 2 in all of U.S. history. I don't remember which they were, but they didn't last long and they were entirely insignificant in the grand scheme of things.

Potentially, but not by definition. That's an important difference. Only one has the potential to be good, and only one is controllable by the people who are truly effected by it.

Either way, government is evil. Remember, libertarian is a philosophy, not a political belief and the Libertarian Party gets a lot of flak for making compromises in order to be popular.

There's nothing wrong with calling yourself libertarian and supporting some sentimentalized conservative version of government, but government by definition violates the "non-aggression principle".

I don't disagree with you either, in fact you've really only restated what I said.

You're a joke. Everything you've said to me is a way to ignore the issue at hand and to excuse your own stupidity. Keep running little puppy, keep searching for those "reasonable discussions". I'm confident you'll never learn anything, but if blindly running around the world is all you know how to do, might as well do it.

Mixing business with government is government. It takes the power from the customer and puts it into the hands of regulators.

No kidding, these kinds of hit pieces are just more excuses for more socialism. It's a shame when the world has no idea how big of a difference there is between a capitalist economy and "mixed economy". (ie. partially socialist)

underinformed/underrepresented/broke = dumb/minority/poor

There is literally no difference. Your concentration on this is just a way for you to tuck your tail between your legs without running. You're wrong, so you concentrate on what you think is "controversial" and pick out semantics so you don't have to confront your own ignorance.

Just bought a Note Pro, thanks for the idea again, it should work out perfectly.

1. Stupid, poor, minority are your words. It's funny how you can use terms with the exact same definition, but get scared when reality strikes.

2. There's nothing inherently wrong with being a Marxist (despite an obvious misunderstanding of economics).

3. From 1 and 2, it is only your politically correct / conversationally damaging standoffishness that creates your perception of "heated". This explains a lot really. You're more worried about being inoffensive than right, which is exactly why you've chosen the path you've chosen. Ignoring facts and complaining about nonexistent "strong and heated" words. This isn't a good way to learn anything.

I can't tell if you're joking or not. Please say yes.

Starting out with "strong reaction" suggests you're either confused, or want to back off from the reality of your original point by trying to take a middle ground or change your wording.

I've never ever heard of a "single capitalist" taking advantage of an entire race. You sound like a Marxist when you say that. OED has a fine definition of capitalism that will help you out here. You can't possibly know what a capitalist is by suggesting such a thing.

When someone makes a choice to take a lower wage, it's usually because they can't get anything better. Guess what? Capitalism implies (and I really do mean implies) competition. The minimum wage (originally lobbied for by white unions) means companies are restricted to hiring only those who can produce more than that minimum. For the "stupid poor minority" you're so hell bent on "protecting", this means making it far harder to gain experience and work their way to the middle class. (You know, like immigrants used to do.) Instead, they're paid not to work via welfare programs (meant to make things "easier" right?) and not allowed to work off the books while living off of others.

Also, you're going to have to say it again if you seriously want to stick to the point that unions have no bargaining power. If this is the case I'll be less "strong" (lol) and we'll do this at a lower level. I'll write you up a whole 10 page step-by-step paper on all of the opportunity cost losses that you'd create if, theoretically, you were in charge of the economy. Hell, if you are indeed a Marxist or even socialist I'd be happy to give you the "See Spot Run" version of what subjective value and economic calculation is.

No, I'm not. Pay attention. I'm saying you don't need to pack on unnecessary arbitrary laws because you think you're smarter than everybody else.

There are universals, for the times when there is not, you MUST recognize that by forcing them you ONLY cause harm. There's no arguing that.

Example?

You're already talking about a much different issue than what you listed.

Laws on everything you listed reduce opportunity and all cause problems with unemployment. Yet, you've avoided the entire issue by saying, "Well... dumb minority poor people!" Let's ignore the fact that these are the people most harmed by "statutory protection" for a second and address the issue of superiority.

You're telling me that your ideas must be enacted across the entire nation because you think dumb, minority, poor people all need your protection. They can't possibly work things out for themselves or seek help from friends, family and local communities to solve individual issues. Instead, you're going to blanket the whole thing and not harm a single person? How wrong you are.

No. You're turning a fallacy into a bumper sticker. First of all, speed limits are way below the capabilities of how safely cars can move today. Hence, the original federal law that said limits should represent the top 80th percentile of drivers. (That's obviously not used anymore.) Slow can mean dangerous, don't depend on obvious quips for all your thinking.

Second, "sweatshops" in the derogatory sense only exist in socialist countries where families are starving to death trying to support the government. If kids didn't work, they wouldn't have food. You know very well they and their parents would prefer that school be an option.

Third, the work that these companies provide are NOT inherently wrong. Making clothes? Sounds like a good skill to me. Don't base your "opinions" on some dark imagery you've developed in your head.

Stop thinking of things in some petty nationalist sense. Communities can handle their own problems in a much smarter and more efficient way.

You don't need an "ironclad law" no such thing exists. You just need to recognize that it's wrong to abuse children. That's like saying you need an "ironclad law" to determine how wrong it is to be drunk when you've killed someone in traffic.

...What? It's manslaughter, wtf are you talking about?

It's a shame children can't work more often. I think people are smart enough to tell the difference between abuse and an awesome opportunity for experience.