If a sentence is starting with any variation of "some people", you know it's garbage.
There's a big difference, namely opinion vs. fact. Saying that some people have an argument to make that something is racist could be meaningful depending on the strength of the arguments, because whether it's racist is not a factual matter. When Trump says it, it's about facts. "Lots of people are saying X" where X is an event that did not in fact occur. The number of people saying something factually incorrect is irrelevant.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Missed the point
I am not saying BLOCK them, I am saying no free admittance and easy access as a refugee. Each refugee needs to be reviewed as a special case.
That's exactly what we're doing. Any claims by Trump or anyone else that we have no idea who we're letting in are hogwash. The screening is of course imperfect but we didn't just throw the doors open, and we are bringing in tens of thousands of Syrian refugees, not millions.
This would make future meritless suits that much harder.
I would like to think that's true, but with so many meritless suits after our legal system has been in place for so long, I'm not so sure. It doesn't have to get very far to be cheaper to settle than to fight. Just discovery alone can be crippling for a small company. You're right about EFF but there's only so much they can do.
You think the MPAA and RIAA et al would just let service providers go about their business if the DMCA were repealed? No, they would launch a blizzard of lawsuits, and only the biggest players would be able to survive it. Would the suits have any merit? Does it even matter? That's why the safe harbors are important.
as I said before I'm reacting to that "magic of the market" trope. It really does annoy me.
Supply and demand really is an incredibly powerful thing. However I think where it goes wrong is with some people thinking that the solution is to back off and let everyone do what they want without interference. Sounds nice, but that results in the powerful preying on the weak and uninformed.
Kickstarter backers who get a game key in exchange for early backing of a game ARE the most passionate fans... but that doesn't mean they're the best suited to reviewing a game, because they already have a stake in how it's perceived.
Also, people (not picking on gamers, this is a human thing) tend to justify decisions after the fact. If I spent money on something, I will subconsciously find ways to believe that it was a good idea to do so. Someone who spent a lot of money before the game even came out might be even more motivated to do that.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Federal Regulation...
It's not, as such...
Erm, yes it does.
Now I'm confused.
Particularly since you'll find other distortions, e.g. subsidies, in play as well if you dig a bit.
I think it's worth noting that there could be a market that isn't 100% free but mostly operates that way. There may not be a market that is totally and entirely free from interference but that isn't a very useful standard to apply (IMO).
"the laws and forces of supply and demand are free from any intervention by a government, price-setting monopoly, or other authority."
I interpret that to mean supply and demand is allowed to operate freely. So you don't have things like price floors or tariffs. Regulations about, for example, collusion actually promote the operation of a free market.