witty_username

11 ms·

91.
by witty_username 10y ago
> I'm thinking of the model that: Profit should be made up by charging more than the cost of duplication. That's what we already do. Duplicating content without the copyright owner's permission is copyright infringement wh
92.
by witty_username 10y ago
What is the current economic model? I'm assuming it's capitalism. How does the duplication of digital goods being free mean capitalism no longer makes sense? Kickstarter is essentially risky lending and charity (you put in money a
93.
by witty_username 10y ago
If I discuss ideas between me and another person society does not benefit; only the two benefit. If I subscribe to a magazine and journal, only I benefit. So, why should the people who don't use mail pay for the people who do use mail?
94.
by witty_username 10y ago
Why?
95.
by witty_username 10y ago
What is the societal value? Only the two people who send and receive benefit.
96.
by witty_username 10y ago
Why not subsidize any form of mail, including those through private companies? But wouldn't it be more equitable (people will send different amounts of mail) and more utilitarian to just directly transfer the cost of the subsidy to eve
97.
by witty_username 10y ago
Why should the USPS be subsidized?
98.
by witty_username 10y ago
> The idea was proposed by Frank Wilczek in 2012. His speculation was that a construct would have a group of particles that move and periodically return to their original state, perhaps moving in a circle, and form a time crystal. In ord
99.
by witty_username 10y ago
What is wrong with a homogeneous student body? Forced diversity is AS racist as discrimination against blacks.
100.
by witty_username 10y ago
From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ejido : "Ejidatarios do not actually own the land, but are allowed to use their allotted parcels indefinitely as long as they do not fail to use the land for more than two years.
101.
by witty_username 10y ago
Yes, I agree.
102.
by witty_username 10y ago
> the instant defense of something that wasn't even attacked I just said how collective ownership fails and how capitalism is a better solution. Is there something I said that I shouldn't have? > There's no point in dis
103.
by witty_username 10y ago
> people who are fundamentalist capitalists Who? > Who can't even quietly consider other approaches that might work just fine in particular circumstances. I explained how it might not work. You are attacking me but not my reasoni
104.
by witty_username 10y ago
I live in India and many poor people have cellphones or basic smartphones. They did not have that earlier.
105.
by witty_username 10y ago
No, I meant that suspecting Chrome of covertly sending data to Google (without telling us) is paranoia. Especially since the source code is open.
106.
by witty_username 10y ago
Are you saying the printer market is a government sanctioned monopoly? How so? Especially regarding the part about "government sanctioned"?
107.
by witty_username 10y ago
The purchase of the printer is voluntary. It is the buyer's responsibility to check that the cartridges will not be expensive. Just like how when purchasing a car, buyers check MPG to ensure the cost of fuel will not be too high.
108.
by witty_username 10y ago
This is just semantics. You think that this does not constitute purchasing. The company can just make it clear that they are not selling the product.
109.
by witty_username 10y ago
Community ownership only works if humans are identical robots. We disagree very often so how would you decide usage of land based on communities? Look at housing societies in India; they enforce rules like no single women or no Muslims. It&
110.
by witty_username 10y ago
It can be explicitly labelled as not being a "purchase".
111.
by witty_username 10y ago
In a post-scarcity society food/etc is very cheap and thus even poor people can afford sufficient food even if they don't work much (this is already true for developed countries). Even a small amount of charity would provide anybo
112.
by witty_username 10y ago
I think as long as it is communicated clearly to the consumer I don't have any problem with whatever restrictions the company wants (purchasing is a voluntary decision).
113.
by witty_username 10y ago
No. But I use Chromium so the source code is open. I mean if we're going to go to this level of paranoid; then we might as well look at attacks on Firefox (which have been suspected to be used by the NSA against Tor Browser).
114.
by witty_username 10y ago
I've configured Chrome to not send my address bar to Google and to encrypt my sync with a custom passphrase. What data does Google own?
115.
by witty_username 10y ago
For example, I've given the WPA2 password to many people; and that can be used to snoop on it passively (there's no forward security). Modems are anyways way more insecure due to the default password being admin or 123456, etc. An
116.
by witty_username 10y ago
Just speculating, but I think Google is at such a huge scale whenever the internet wins Google wins. That's why they're trying to improve internet access with Project Loon and WiFi in Indian railway stations. If privacy improves t
117.
by witty_username 10y ago
Those are good points, but there are ways to fix that. There's no reason why NIT needs to involve large amounts of paperwork. NIT only involves income, so a person simply needs to give their income (unlike taxes, which are much more co
118.
by witty_username 10y ago
The Laffer curve deals with output from labor. When you tax someone you reduce the money they get per unit work, i.e. their wage. If the wage is too low they might not find it worth doing the work. If I'm a paid shill/some job and
119.
by witty_username 10y ago
UBI is inefficient--taxing someone and then giving them money. NIT (negative income tax) makes more sense and can actually have the same effect as UBI depending on the slabs.
120.
by witty_username 10y ago
See Laffer curve. Redistribution will make people work less (i.e. less total output), so assuming the money supply doesn't change, inflation will occur.

More ›