« First « Previous Comments 237 - 276 of 305 Next » Last » Search these comments
They already do that in China. Google was recently investigated because one of the people it turned in from its search engine (again government outsourcing of tyrany) was actually executed. The downside, a little bad PR, but hey the stock was doing well.
In the end, people here do not care. If they have time, they may care a little about Darfur or "global warming." Recently, they have bigger worries.
That’s not how it’s supposed to work. That atitude is capitulation. In fact, under some laws with credit cards, paying it actually removes your right to dispute it. Different case but same principle.
But for credit cards, amounts under dispute are not required to be paid immediately.
what they left out of your program (among other things) is basic sociology that even the Romans knew.
And I wonder what happened to the Romans? :roll:
I believe in strong IP protection also, not having it redefined and certainly not these junk patents like sticky place setting paper strips. Not for things that have already been invented and are just repackaged inventions. Another redefinition of copyrights, somehow the original definition of life of the artist or author plus 75 years had also been bastardized in that now they are transferable or somehow go into some estate trust for perpetuity.
Go check out the Eiffel Tower official website. Somehow France thinks a copyright exists for all photographs of the tower lighted at night. That is a weird one for me to grasp. No matter who takes a picture they have a copyright of the tower at night:
"Q : Is the publishing of a photo of the Eiffel Tower permitted?
A : There are no restrictions on publishing a picture of the Tower by day. Photos taken at night when the lights are aglow are subjected to copyright laws, and fees for the right to publish must be paid to the SETE. "
Source: http://www.tour-eiffel.fr/teiffel/uk/pratique/faq/index.html
"But for credit cards, amounts under dispute are not required to be paid immediately."
Correct because under our basic law a creditor has the burden to prove the debt. Just like any court action.
The sociology stuff would be in the undergrad elective classes, and a business ethics class which means more to me now than ever before. I thought it was wrong at the time to require it, I have come to realize that was an immature point of view at the time.
Correct because under our basic law a creditor has the burden to prove the debt. Just like any court action.
True. But they can also enter derogatory items in your credit report without prove. Sometimes doing the "right" thing is not optimal. :(
I believe in strong IP protection also, not having it redefined and certainly not these junk patents like sticky place setting paper strips.
Many patents cannot be easily defended. One always needs competent legal representations.
Credit cards at least are a long term relationship, and require good business sense. I'm a great customer so I never have problems with Discover or MBNA. Too bad that vet didn't think ahead because they ended up losing more than if they had just compromised in the beginning, they got a complaint filed with the state, and on RipoffReport.com Banfield Pet Hospital, the biggest piece of shit ripoff vet, has yet another entry on an already long list of complaints. All this over a whopping $150.
The sociology stuff would be in the undergrad elective classes, and a business ethics class which means more to me now than ever before.
Ethical people do ethical things. Why do you need to take a class? :)
If you approach life with love and respect, how can you do anything unethical?
[duck and cover]
They then recently had the nerve to send my dog a fucking birthday card. Mother fuckers.
Are we being led to believe our pets require more care than necessary?
I am not going to do CAT scans on our cats.
"Ethical people do ethical things. Why do you need to take a class? "
That was my point of view at the time. The final project: Write an essay on who are directore responsible to.
I said the shareholders only because ethical shareholders would not expect directors to do unethical things. Got a B or a B- on the paper.
Evidently shareholders put the results ahead of the ethics.
MBA Marketing class conclusion. Vets are in a unique position because and I quote "When Fido is on the operating table, people will pull out the credit card and not question the amount."
Since I love sharing the pet horror story I may as well post the link:
http://www.ripoffreport.com/reports/0/236/RipOff0236998.htm
I said the shareholders only because ethical shareholders would not expect directors to do unethical things. Got a B or a B- on the paper.
Well, IF I am the shareholder you are hired. ;)
“When Fido is on the operating table, people will pull out the credit card and not question the amount.â€
I will tell the vet that my cat prefers alternative medicine.
Present the vet with an advanced directive signed by your cat saying not to use any expensive treatments to prolong its life. :(
Sorry I know that may strike an emotional nerve.
I was lucky...
In one of the ethics classes, I claimed that bribery is not necessarily evil and that it is more of an indication of inefficiency.
The instructor did not disagree.
The need to have bribery to get something done is more indicitive of a corrupt or otherwise broken system.
I somewhat share your point of view since system design is the core of my undergraduate and professional focus.
I would have given you an A for original thought, and courage.
Thanks.
As humans, we like to believe in justice, equality, fairness, and decency. The real world is not exactly like that... :(
The need to have bribery to get something done is more indicitive of a corrupt or otherwise broken system.
Yep. It also means that resources (services or resources) are severely mis-allocated.
Free Market seems to be promising. One challenge is to suitably regulate the market just so that it is efficient and HUMAN.
But yet you defend the conditions in which the evils fester and (often correctly since state power does the same) yet don't even allow the option of the collective contribution for the overall social betterment. That presents a dilema to me.
If a meteor was heading to Earth and going to wipe everyone out, who in your mind would try to stop it?
DinOR says: On the East Coast it’s all about “old money†and tracing your families wealth to the “whaling fleetâ€.
DinOR, have you ever even been to the East Coast? I mean really traveled there, not just flown in for a few days and then filled in the rest with movies and TV shows. The northern East Coast is about immigrants, not blue bloods. The defining aspect of the culture is Wall Street, Capitol Hill and the attitude that "anyone can make it in America".
The southern East Coast... well that's something entirely different.
But yet you defend the conditions in which the evils fester
It is more complicated than that... let's say we always oscillate from one extreme to another. Perhaps human society is a dilemma? Hey, if even God is unable or unwilling to solve the human problem, the dilemma is either hard or purposeful. :)
If a meteor was heading to Earth and going to wipe everyone out, who in your mind would try to stop it?
Interesting question. I doubt it can be stopped. I will call Bruce Willis and Ben Affleck.
Assume it can, and if not hopefully someone would try. Who would it be? A government? Would a heroic corporation lose its wealth knowing it was the only one and there was no compensation?
Or is this too simple? Maybe it clearly falls under "Provide for the common defense." Still the fundamental since I'm sure your conviction goes beyond the constitutional definition of government role. A strict libertarian view, who stops the meteor?
How will the free market stop it? The government is small and doesn't have the resources in this problem.
Assume it can, and if not hopefully someone would try. Who would it be? A government? Would a heroic corporation lose its wealth knowing it was the only one and there was no compensation?
Perhaps someone should write a novel about this scenario.
To make it more interesting...
Let's say a meteor is to hit Earth in 100 years with 75% certainty. How will humanity react? There may be enough time to develop new technology but the treat may not materialize. What should we do? :)
Peter Paul the libertarian candiate surprises everyone and wins the election. In his first week he eliminates the IRS, and reshapes government to his ideal view. A month later an amateur (no government scientists left) sees the meteor in his telescope. The space program has been cancelled but everything is still there, the auction hasn't happened yet.
What does Peter do?
I can't answer your scenario first because that would help you. I promise I have the solution in my hybrid model.
What does Peter do?
We are doomed! :)
But that is the worst case, right?
Peter,
Do nothing. I mean, really, who cares about the survival of the human race. I expect a lot of sex happening all over the world when people know they're going to be wiped out. Not just with humans, with monkeys, dogs, cats, snakes and ants, too. Many people have secret desires that a meteor will bring to fulfillment. Not long ago, a man in Washington died from having sex with his horse.
Ok, you lost my vote :)
My solution under your scenario and probability:
Levy a per capita tax and put it into a specific account. That account will grow each year until the meteor is stopped. Whoever, or whichever corporation stops the meteor gets all of the money as a national prize. I believe in paying for performance.
The probability is irrelevent, just having it on an undisputed course with the Earth is enough of a crisis.
Perhaps the scenario is just outside Free Market's "envelope" of capability.
I can bet that all markets will breakdown and we will all revert to the basic mode. It is not going to be pretty.
« First « Previous Comments 237 - 276 of 305 Next » Last » Search these comments
Sale prices are always given as an absolute number, without context. The reality is that falling prices can be masked to some extent by a longer number of days on the market.
Getting $500,000 within a week of listing is not at all the same thing as getting $500,000 after having the house on the market for 2 years, yet both are recorded as the same price. Ultimately, you can pretend your house is worth whatever you want by letting days on market go to infinity -- just pulling it off the market. No one will buy it for your dream price, but you don't have to face the reality that it is not worth what you thought either. Assuming you can pay the mortgage.
Realtors know that increasing days on market proves that a house is not worth the asking price. That's why they commonly try to scam users by re-listing a house as if it just came on the market.
Patrick
#housing