Re: Re: Re: So Which Of The Four Kinds Of Dollars is Bottled Water Worth?
that, obviously, depends quite highly on the country you're in. (and possibly state.)
also, the Flavor of tap water is dependent on the mineral content. which is dependent on location, and there's a Lot of different mineral mixes which still meet those high standards. many of which really do taste pretty bad. (they're not unhealthy or anything. just taste terrible.)
then there's a bunch of places where the tap water really IS bad and bottled water's a lot safer.
(Christchurch, NZ used to have some of the best water in the world, along with Kaiapoi, which is a bit north. a bit further still and you got to places where the water was actually sometimes quite suspect and no good for drinking without filtration. anyway, the kaiapoi and christchurch water was very good, barely any noticeable taste... unless you went from one to the other. then it was quite a noticeable difference. but still a non-issue.
during the earthquakes christchurch's water was quite suspect, but never badly compromised and is back to being good. however, for some completely unknown reason, despite being perfectly fine to drink, the water, at least in this part of Christchurch, now intermittently tastes like pencil shavings. ... i'm really not sure what to make of that.)
this kind of stupid is why i buy my books in the one format which has none of these problems:
Paper and Ink.
the only downside to this is when the book in question is self published by an american author and the only international seller is amazon. the T and M costs go through the ROOF as i can either pay ~70NZD or more (depending on how fast i want it, exactly) to have it show up in a reasonable time period (less than a week) or i can pay a sensible amount ($10 or less) to have it go by ship and take anywhere from roughly 3 weeks (if i'm super lucky) to five MONTHS, with no information as to which it will be, and, given some of the issues with transporting things by ship and some dubious confluences of insurance and shipping policies regarding who's responsible for what, there is an, admittedly small chance that it'll literally fall off the bloody boat, in which case i not only do not get my book i don't get my money back either. (please note that amazon's cost to ship to Australia is closer to $20 and the cost of literally putting the thing in the Standard Post from Australia to NZ is closer to $5. they could employ a few people in Australia to do Just This and Still cut the shipping costs in half while killing the time difference. hell, as is, when available it is cheaper to order the same product from a British supplier, paying noticeably more, then pay for it to go by Royal Air Mail. the price is still reasonable, though more than sending it from the USA by ship. at standard rates that's 1-3 weeks for it to get here if my memory of instances where i've done just that is anything to go by.)
I also generally buy my games from Gamersgate (doesn't require ANY random crap. may or may not need an account in order to buy stuff, can't remember, but having one is more convenient than not if you don't.) they also very clearly Mark which games have DRM on them (and the more common/nastier DRM is marked by Name. 'other DRM' is always a bit of a risk though as there's no indication as to what it is. the vast majority of the time it's less of a menace. occasionally not.)
i pretty much refuse to buy Anything from EA anymore. well, except second hand console games. on the basis that EA gets NOTHING while the brick-and-mortar games shop i patronize (which i actually LIKE due to their spectacular customer service.) gets a decent amount And i get the game cheaper.
and if the developers i liked actually put their games out on non-sony platforms with any reliability i'd not buy ps3 stuff either. (unfortunately, there are entire Genres that US publishers and developers don't even Bother with... which the Japanese do. due largely to misplaced nationalism, so far as i can tell, combined with general corporate dickery, they only publish them on sony consoles. (well, some publish on nintendo, but the quality and nature of nintendo stuff is so compleatly unpredictable unless you're the sort of obsesive fan who reads every gaming news site in several languages every day that i don't even want to touch it most of the time.)
enforcement at that level is not technically possible.
if it Were technically possible the methods required would cause open revolt.
not really an issue.
much better for all concerned to instead acknowledge infringement as a fact and then use the far more effective practice of ignoring it and/or routing around it. (much like the Internet does with censorship, actually...)
... technically that last step is 'credit or debit card details'.
here, at least, there's a number of debit cards set up to interact with the credit card system. just instead of having a 'credit limit' it's a 'how much money do you actually Have?' limit. and any transaction shows up Immediately on your back account's transaction list (web-banking is useful like that.)
little bit riskier but lets you bypass all the nonsense with credit ratings and avoids getting you into debt (set up the account it's tied to not to allow overdrafts. which is... the default here anyway.)
it also has most, though not all, of the protections against other people using it without your permission that a credit card has. (from memory the biggest difference is that you have less time to catch it before they write it off as not their problem and you're out Actual Cash while they sort it out, rather than 'credit'. YMMV on the details of course.)
not that that Really changes your point any, but still.
'course, if you manage to establish a meaningful set of internet-law that massively outdoes the official law-of-the-land for Internet related stuff and find a way to enforce it legitimately, you're one step off having a legitimate government in your own right. (that step being the ability to protect your 'citizens' from hostile entties such as other governments)
what happens when the law-of-the-land becomes so absurd that people just outright Ignore it while a 'legitimate-enough' law-of-the-net is followed due to actually covering the necessary things and not screwing over the general public?
it would be messy for a while... but amusing to see.
'course, in the unlikely event that it panned out it has the dubious distinction of being likely to form a defacto 'world government'... which is, in all honesty, to be avoided.
think about how hard it is for the common people to truely change the US government when it screwes them over. think about how out of touch the US government is with the general population.
how much more so an entity governing the entire world?
probably illegal because it's not a 'campaign contribution'...
then again 'dear politicians: anyone willing to run on and enact this platform gets an equal share of this fund donated to their campaign in the following election.' (note: not the one they're running for at the time, or they'd just pull the usual stunt of breaking their promises for the next lot of money)
do it up all nice and legal and, in the USA at least, it's not even a bribe.
especially if the people elected based on that actually suffered any sort of penalty for failing to follow through. (one should allow for reality making it slow or necessitating tweaks and changes to the specifics. outright failure to even bother and/or taking bribes to do the exact opposite, however...
well, there's a reason why when i am involved in RPGs set in past eras my most inventive and unpleasent methods of execution are reserved for corrupt or treasonous officials.)
note that it says the copyrighted Works, not the copyright itself.
still not good, but less fail, one would hope.
even better: protect the creator's ability to make money. (VERY SPECIFICALLY the creators, not random middle men. it is rare the creator has the budget to fund crippling legislation by himself, after all.) if you can do that while gutting the current copyright system, which often screws over the creators as well, you'd have them backing you up rather than fighting against you, too.
people tend to do whatever they can get away with which does not appear to harm their interests of those of people they actually care about (a small number of people they deal with on a regular basis and actually like).
the vast majority of people do not, in general, care about the actions of others that do not affect their day to day lives.
the system needs a periodic shake up to keep it honest (not following this behaviour pattern when it has negative consequences for society as a whole) and effective (preventing the general public from following this behaviour pattern when it has negative consequences for society as whole) , but has got very good at avoiding the trigger events that cause such (avoiding those triggers is the ENTIRE POINT of representative democracy, i might add).
particularly significant trigger events in a system that is resisting minor fixes from lesser trigger events would seem to tend to result in major shakeups in the forms of revolutions, from where i'm sitting. but the shear cost of modern military tech means that that too is somewhat suppressed against an entity as large (and thus with as large a budget) as the USA as a whole unless something much closer to it's size is in favour of such changes (which goes from messy, but reasonably brief, revolution, to outright civil war very quickly, which is less than ideal...)
well, there might be some. surprisingly few seem to see fit to make use of it though.
there seems to be something of a standing mentality of 'when reality does not fit the model, reality is wrong' in a lot of schools of economic thought.
it's about the only 'science' where this is accepted logic.
i recomend the book 'Economyths' (or possibly Econo Myths. the title on the cover is layed out a bit oddly) for further explanation of this one. (probably can be found in a public library. it's fairly recent and written for public consumption, not as a purely academic publication.)
STUPID* regulations are a bad thing.
CORRUPT regulations are a bad thing
GOOD** regulations are a GOOD thing.
* (poorly thought out, without properly taking preexisting regulations into account. or just a terrible idea.)
**(intelligently designed and applied to the correct things in ways that actually aid the public good)
this is a fairly fundamental concept that apparently some people are too thick to grasp. i mean, it's hardly complicated.
there is also the nature of the entities responsible for enforcing them to consider.
i believe another significant point was that the laws need to be less complex.
even so, if the old law is failing because something else was changed, then that means it needs to be rewritten to accommodate the change, and Still shouldn't be approved 'as is'.
also, inflation doesn't keep an economy growing. a growing economy Causes inflation, but inflation doesn't keep the economy growing and may even slow it. what it Does do is functionally reduce the government's debts due to the debt being a fixed number but their tax take going up with the inflation, and strip any meaningful point away from the idea of savings. which encourages borrowing to pay for things instead. which does help the economy a bit, for a while, but is all to easy to lose control of, causing crashes.
don't know about Sweden, but here the constitution (or at least, the various random documents that are listed as 'part of the constitution' by whichever act they passed to try and formalize it) covers such things as how elections are to be conducted and the powers of the various aspects of government, at the very least.
one can't really challenge laws as unconstitutional, but it does make it more difficult for a government to, say, ban opposing political parties.
(of course, to be fair, the act which formalizes the constitution is 'entrenched' making it Very difficult, though not quite impossible, to repeal. too bad the law that is used to entrench other laws is not recursive, and thus is not itself entrenched, meaning it can be repealed by a simple majority... stripping that protection from all the others.)
if that applies to the Swedish constitution as well it's not exactly worthless.
that said, the very Idea of a quorum seems offensive to me. it strikes me that, in order to pass a change, you should need a true majority to actively vote in favor of doing so. if less than 50%+1 of the people who can cast votes show up/do so, then you do not have a majority and should not be able to change it. there's too many tricks one can pull to ensure that only enough people show up to allow the vote to take place, and that everyone in favor of it shows up while as few people as possible who are against it do. Quorums based systems just seem far too ripe for abuse.
(i've also noticed that people tend to 'abstain' from issues only when they know which way the majority's going to go but are Afraid of the side they would be voting against. possibly only of souring relations with them, but even so.)
well, if it's 'too big to fail' and getting government bail-outs it's probably got there.
if it's doing the same after being the cause of a global economic meltdown then the people in charge of it are lucky that they live in a modern western state, however corrupt, as in earlier days they'd be executed out of hand for such behavior most of the time.
I'd also have to say that having an Empire larger than some continent is probably getting that way when it comes to centralized governments. (seriously, what the hell does the USA DO with 240 different governmental organizations?!)
when an entity's existence and behaviour are detrimental to the public good, economic or otherwise, and its own inertia prevents it from changing those facts, it's also probably too large.
certainly these are the points where it should be looked at very carefully, if not before.
... note that eliminating the limited liability 'only responsibility is to make money and only way to punish is to deprive of money which is simply a tax' corporation is not the same as eliminating the business. just means there's actually someone who can be held accountable for their screw-ups and punishments that can be implemented that cannot be simply written off as a 'cost of doing business'.
what would have happened is that Apple would have been forced to be a partnership or take loans, rather than forming a corporation, or, if it managed to get the necessary charter, would have ceased to be a corporation. 'paying out' could just as easily have been 'broken up into those parts which could function individually and those parts handed off to the investors as non-corporate businesses' or 'investors take ownership but also gain liability' or 'government takes ownership, pays off investors, operation continues' or any other number of variations.
the point is that corporations existing entirely to make money and responsible only to those who profit from their behavior are Dangerous to the public in general. even the law does not affect them. any violation of the law that is sufficiently profitable they will carry out simply because it pays for itself. there is no other penalty.
maybe if you made it illegal and instituted a deathpenalty for it... and enforced it.
but that would have all sorts of other unfortunate implications.
make it illegal, rule the associated behaviour as bribery and/or corruption with suitably harsh penalties (NOT cash penalties, those simply become 'cost of doing business'.) might work.
frankly, the fact that the US system accepts lobbying of the sort it does and 'campaign donations' as legitimate is going to take a fair bit more than just electoral reform to fix.
(and even without actual lobbyists it's hard to keep a lid on the various special interest groups influence And actually listen to the public at the same time.)
sounds fairly directly equivalent to 'by the people, for the people' then. or perhaps 'by the elites, for the people'
which seems to have defaulted back into 'by the elites for the elites' within a couple of generations every time it's been implimented through out history.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Sarbanes-Oxley should be the first to go
deliberately listing the ones that failed to doesn't refute my point :P
to the best of my knowledge the NZ government has done a pretty good job on that one, as an example. (admittedly, until the current lot of idiots, who are basically 'US government jr.'. the country would probably be better off if most of them were shot, but we don't have the capacity to do that...)
On the post: If You Want To Compete With Free, This Is What You Need To Know
Re: Re: Re: So Which Of The Four Kinds Of Dollars is Bottled Water Worth?
also, the Flavor of tap water is dependent on the mineral content. which is dependent on location, and there's a Lot of different mineral mixes which still meet those high standards. many of which really do taste pretty bad. (they're not unhealthy or anything. just taste terrible.)
then there's a bunch of places where the tap water really IS bad and bottled water's a lot safer.
(Christchurch, NZ used to have some of the best water in the world, along with Kaiapoi, which is a bit north. a bit further still and you got to places where the water was actually sometimes quite suspect and no good for drinking without filtration. anyway, the kaiapoi and christchurch water was very good, barely any noticeable taste... unless you went from one to the other. then it was quite a noticeable difference. but still a non-issue.
during the earthquakes christchurch's water was quite suspect, but never badly compromised and is back to being good. however, for some completely unknown reason, despite being perfectly fine to drink, the water, at least in this part of Christchurch, now intermittently tastes like pencil shavings. ... i'm really not sure what to make of that.)
On the post: If You Want To Compete With Free, This Is What You Need To Know
Re: AMEN!
Paper and Ink.
the only downside to this is when the book in question is self published by an american author and the only international seller is amazon. the T and M costs go through the ROOF as i can either pay ~70NZD or more (depending on how fast i want it, exactly) to have it show up in a reasonable time period (less than a week) or i can pay a sensible amount ($10 or less) to have it go by ship and take anywhere from roughly 3 weeks (if i'm super lucky) to five MONTHS, with no information as to which it will be, and, given some of the issues with transporting things by ship and some dubious confluences of insurance and shipping policies regarding who's responsible for what, there is an, admittedly small chance that it'll literally fall off the bloody boat, in which case i not only do not get my book i don't get my money back either. (please note that amazon's cost to ship to Australia is closer to $20 and the cost of literally putting the thing in the Standard Post from Australia to NZ is closer to $5. they could employ a few people in Australia to do Just This and Still cut the shipping costs in half while killing the time difference. hell, as is, when available it is cheaper to order the same product from a British supplier, paying noticeably more, then pay for it to go by Royal Air Mail. the price is still reasonable, though more than sending it from the USA by ship. at standard rates that's 1-3 weeks for it to get here if my memory of instances where i've done just that is anything to go by.)
I also generally buy my games from Gamersgate (doesn't require ANY random crap. may or may not need an account in order to buy stuff, can't remember, but having one is more convenient than not if you don't.) they also very clearly Mark which games have DRM on them (and the more common/nastier DRM is marked by Name. 'other DRM' is always a bit of a risk though as there's no indication as to what it is. the vast majority of the time it's less of a menace. occasionally not.)
i pretty much refuse to buy Anything from EA anymore. well, except second hand console games. on the basis that EA gets NOTHING while the brick-and-mortar games shop i patronize (which i actually LIKE due to their spectacular customer service.) gets a decent amount And i get the game cheaper.
and if the developers i liked actually put their games out on non-sony platforms with any reliability i'd not buy ps3 stuff either. (unfortunately, there are entire Genres that US publishers and developers don't even Bother with... which the Japanese do. due largely to misplaced nationalism, so far as i can tell, combined with general corporate dickery, they only publish them on sony consoles. (well, some publish on nintendo, but the quality and nature of nintendo stuff is so compleatly unpredictable unless you're the sort of obsesive fan who reads every gaming news site in several languages every day that i don't even want to touch it most of the time.)
On the post: If You Want To Compete With Free, This Is What You Need To Know
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
if it Were technically possible the methods required would cause open revolt.
not really an issue.
much better for all concerned to instead acknowledge infringement as a fact and then use the far more effective practice of ignoring it and/or routing around it. (much like the Internet does with censorship, actually...)
On the post: If You Want To Compete With Free, This Is What You Need To Know
Re: Re: barriers
here, at least, there's a number of debit cards set up to interact with the credit card system. just instead of having a 'credit limit' it's a 'how much money do you actually Have?' limit. and any transaction shows up Immediately on your back account's transaction list (web-banking is useful like that.)
little bit riskier but lets you bypass all the nonsense with credit ratings and avoids getting you into debt (set up the account it's tied to not to allow overdrafts. which is... the default here anyway.)
it also has most, though not all, of the protections against other people using it without your permission that a credit card has. (from memory the biggest difference is that you have less time to catch it before they write it off as not their problem and you're out Actual Cash while they sort it out, rather than 'credit'. YMMV on the details of course.)
not that that Really changes your point any, but still.
On the post: Reddit Writes A Law: First Draft Of The Free Internet Act Emerges
Re:
what happens when the law-of-the-land becomes so absurd that people just outright Ignore it while a 'legitimate-enough' law-of-the-net is followed due to actually covering the necessary things and not screwing over the general public?
it would be messy for a while... but amusing to see.
'course, in the unlikely event that it panned out it has the dubious distinction of being likely to form a defacto 'world government'... which is, in all honesty, to be avoided.
think about how hard it is for the common people to truely change the US government when it screwes them over. think about how out of touch the US government is with the general population.
how much more so an entity governing the entire world?
On the post: Reddit Writes A Law: First Draft Of The Free Internet Act Emerges
Re: Re: Re: Re: Compromise...
probably illegal because it's not a 'campaign contribution'...
then again 'dear politicians: anyone willing to run on and enact this platform gets an equal share of this fund donated to their campaign in the following election.' (note: not the one they're running for at the time, or they'd just pull the usual stunt of breaking their promises for the next lot of money)
do it up all nice and legal and, in the USA at least, it's not even a bribe.
On the post: Reddit Writes A Law: First Draft Of The Free Internet Act Emerges
Re: Re:
especially if the people elected based on that actually suffered any sort of penalty for failing to follow through. (one should allow for reality making it slow or necessitating tweaks and changes to the specifics. outright failure to even bother and/or taking bribes to do the exact opposite, however...
well, there's a reason why when i am involved in RPGs set in past eras my most inventive and unpleasent methods of execution are reserved for corrupt or treasonous officials.)
On the post: Reddit Writes A Law: First Draft Of The Free Internet Act Emerges
Re: Re:
still not good, but less fail, one would hope.
even better: protect the creator's ability to make money. (VERY SPECIFICALLY the creators, not random middle men. it is rare the creator has the budget to fund crippling legislation by himself, after all.) if you can do that while gutting the current copyright system, which often screws over the creators as well, you'd have them backing you up rather than fighting against you, too.
but yeah, your general point stands.
On the post: Reddit Writes A Law: First Draft Of The Free Internet Act Emerges
Re: Re: Re: Free Liberty!
people tend to do whatever they can get away with which does not appear to harm their interests of those of people they actually care about (a small number of people they deal with on a regular basis and actually like).
the vast majority of people do not, in general, care about the actions of others that do not affect their day to day lives.
the system needs a periodic shake up to keep it honest (not following this behaviour pattern when it has negative consequences for society as a whole) and effective (preventing the general public from following this behaviour pattern when it has negative consequences for society as whole) , but has got very good at avoiding the trigger events that cause such (avoiding those triggers is the ENTIRE POINT of representative democracy, i might add).
particularly significant trigger events in a system that is resisting minor fixes from lesser trigger events would seem to tend to result in major shakeups in the forms of revolutions, from where i'm sitting. but the shear cost of modern military tech means that that too is somewhat suppressed against an entity as large (and thus with as large a budget) as the USA as a whole unless something much closer to it's size is in favour of such changes (which goes from messy, but reasonably brief, revolution, to outright civil war very quickly, which is less than ideal...)
On the post: Economist Notices That The US Is Getting Buried Under Costly, Useless Over-Regulation
Re: Re: Re:
there seems to be something of a standing mentality of 'when reality does not fit the model, reality is wrong' in a lot of schools of economic thought.
it's about the only 'science' where this is accepted logic.
i recomend the book 'Economyths' (or possibly Econo Myths. the title on the cover is layed out a bit oddly) for further explanation of this one. (probably can be found in a public library. it's fairly recent and written for public consumption, not as a purely academic publication.)
On the post: Economist Notices That The US Is Getting Buried Under Costly, Useless Over-Regulation
Re: Re: Re: Re:
CORRUPT regulations are a bad thing
GOOD** regulations are a GOOD thing.
* (poorly thought out, without properly taking preexisting regulations into account. or just a terrible idea.)
**(intelligently designed and applied to the correct things in ways that actually aid the public good)
this is a fairly fundamental concept that apparently some people are too thick to grasp. i mean, it's hardly complicated.
there is also the nature of the entities responsible for enforcing them to consider.
On the post: Economist Notices That The US Is Getting Buried Under Costly, Useless Over-Regulation
Re: Re:
even so, if the old law is failing because something else was changed, then that means it needs to be rewritten to accommodate the change, and Still shouldn't be approved 'as is'.
also, inflation doesn't keep an economy growing. a growing economy Causes inflation, but inflation doesn't keep the economy growing and may even slow it. what it Does do is functionally reduce the government's debts due to the debt being a fixed number but their tax take going up with the inflation, and strip any meaningful point away from the idea of savings. which encourages borrowing to pay for things instead. which does help the economy a bit, for a while, but is all to easy to lose control of, causing crashes.
yay.
On the post: Economist Notices That The US Is Getting Buried Under Costly, Useless Over-Regulation
Re: Re:
one can't really challenge laws as unconstitutional, but it does make it more difficult for a government to, say, ban opposing political parties.
(of course, to be fair, the act which formalizes the constitution is 'entrenched' making it Very difficult, though not quite impossible, to repeal. too bad the law that is used to entrench other laws is not recursive, and thus is not itself entrenched, meaning it can be repealed by a simple majority... stripping that protection from all the others.)
if that applies to the Swedish constitution as well it's not exactly worthless.
that said, the very Idea of a quorum seems offensive to me. it strikes me that, in order to pass a change, you should need a true majority to actively vote in favor of doing so. if less than 50%+1 of the people who can cast votes show up/do so, then you do not have a majority and should not be able to change it. there's too many tricks one can pull to ensure that only enough people show up to allow the vote to take place, and that everyone in favor of it shows up while as few people as possible who are against it do. Quorums based systems just seem far too ripe for abuse.
(i've also noticed that people tend to 'abstain' from issues only when they know which way the majority's going to go but are Afraid of the side they would be voting against. possibly only of souring relations with them, but even so.)
On the post: Economist Notices That The US Is Getting Buried Under Costly, Useless Over-Regulation
Re: Re:
if it's doing the same after being the cause of a global economic meltdown then the people in charge of it are lucky that they live in a modern western state, however corrupt, as in earlier days they'd be executed out of hand for such behavior most of the time.
I'd also have to say that having an Empire larger than some continent is probably getting that way when it comes to centralized governments. (seriously, what the hell does the USA DO with 240 different governmental organizations?!)
when an entity's existence and behaviour are detrimental to the public good, economic or otherwise, and its own inertia prevents it from changing those facts, it's also probably too large.
certainly these are the points where it should be looked at very carefully, if not before.
On the post: Economist Notices That The US Is Getting Buried Under Costly, Useless Over-Regulation
Re: Re:
what would have happened is that Apple would have been forced to be a partnership or take loans, rather than forming a corporation, or, if it managed to get the necessary charter, would have ceased to be a corporation. 'paying out' could just as easily have been 'broken up into those parts which could function individually and those parts handed off to the investors as non-corporate businesses' or 'investors take ownership but also gain liability' or 'government takes ownership, pays off investors, operation continues' or any other number of variations.
the point is that corporations existing entirely to make money and responsible only to those who profit from their behavior are Dangerous to the public in general. even the law does not affect them. any violation of the law that is sufficiently profitable they will carry out simply because it pays for itself. there is no other penalty.
On the post: Hollywood's Latest 'Conciliatory' Effort Towards Silicon Valley? Forcing Lobbyists To Drop Tech Companies As Clients
Re: Re: Re: Re:
but that would have all sorts of other unfortunate implications.
make it illegal, rule the associated behaviour as bribery and/or corruption with suitably harsh penalties (NOT cash penalties, those simply become 'cost of doing business'.) might work.
frankly, the fact that the US system accepts lobbying of the sort it does and 'campaign donations' as legitimate is going to take a fair bit more than just electoral reform to fix.
(and even without actual lobbyists it's hard to keep a lid on the various special interest groups influence And actually listen to the public at the same time.)
On the post: Australian Collection Society Upset It Doesn't Get To Collect Extra For Radio Simulcasts Online
Re:
also, they gave us an argument why everyone else should LOWER those license fees, not why Australia should Raise them.
On the post: Economist Notices That The US Is Getting Buried Under Costly, Useless Over-Regulation
Re: Re: Re:
which seems to have defaulted back into 'by the elites for the elites' within a couple of generations every time it's been implimented through out history.
nice idea, but unlikely to work out.
On the post: Economist Notices That The US Is Getting Buried Under Costly, Useless Over-Regulation
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Sarbanes-Oxley should be the first to go
to the best of my knowledge the NZ government has done a pretty good job on that one, as an example. (admittedly, until the current lot of idiots, who are basically 'US government jr.'. the country would probably be better off if most of them were shot, but we don't have the capacity to do that...)
On the post: Trademark Lobby Wants To Help European Court of Justice Forget About EU Citizens' Rights
Re: What about the citizens who have trademarks? Don't they have rights too?
or just stupid.
Next >>