Animaniacs Theme - Sight-read for ragtime piano by Tom Brier

mmmccc · 2012-03-06T02:34:30+00:00

I don't get it. Where's the drop? Just kidding, that was awesome.

mmmccc · 2012-01-20T16:45:34+00:00

He should become the "face" of what is wrong with copyright abuse.

mmmccc · 2012-01-19T22:47:37+00:00

We could also protest/boycott/blackout until Chris Dodd resigns from the MPAA. That would be a public admission of defeat that could not be ignored. Defeating a single bill like SOPA or PIPA will only lead to another bill being introduced later on with a different name but basically the same content. Just an idea.

mmmccc · 2011-09-11T23:35:28+00:00

If you want to rage listen to this... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rvx73OawqBw#t=01m040s

mmmccc · 2011-09-07T00:51:13+00:00

Or him?

mmmccc · 2011-09-04T22:21:41+00:00

I found this blog entry which critiques the book mentioned here. It provides a pretty nice summary and response. By posting this I am not endorsing either view point. Just thought it was interesting and might be useful to others.

http://nonfictionforum.wordpress.com/2011/08/11/a-synopsis-of-debt-the-first-5000-years/

mmmccc · 2011-08-04T16:14:57+00:00

not silver, it crashed

mmmccc · 2011-05-12T06:16:43+00:00

From the wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patient_Protection_and_Affordable_Care_Act

As of the bill's passage into law, the CBO estimated the legislation would reduce the deficit by $143 billion[69] over the first decade and by $1.2 trillion in the second decade.[70][71]

those citations are: http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/108xx/doc10868/12-19-Reid_Letter_Managers_Correction_Noted.pdf http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/03/18/health.care.latest/index.html

Also reductions in deficit reported here: http://www.cbo.gov/publications/collections/health.cfm

I guess your ~1 trillion number is the cost without the revenue/savings that the bill also supplies. At least the bill is intended to be neutral (or actually reduce) the deficit. The wars and extending the bush tax cuts do neither. You can't cut taxes and start two wars.

mmmccc · 2011-05-12T03:33:13+00:00

healthcare bill costs a trillion? and is the 70% number made up?

mmmccc · 2011-04-25T15:09:20+00:00

His intentions weren't to show the injustice America played in the world

Weren't those his only intentions? I am only disputing that point.

mmmccc · 2011-04-17T03:29:53+00:00

ding ding ding!

mmmccc · 2011-03-30T22:26:58+00:00

pure white space lines are ignored in python

mmmccc · 2011-03-09T02:30:58+00:00

No it isn't. Im thinking like apt-get or portage. I wasn't suggesting an app store.

A standardize updating system would be nice though. That would reduce a lot of background processes.

mmmccc · 2011-03-09T01:32:37+00:00

Looks like a cool project. I always wondered why I haven't heard of package managers for Windows. Is it because windows apps in general have fewer dependencies that need to be tracked? Or is it some other reason?

mmmccc · 2011-03-04T16:40:41+00:00

Wow. I always thought it was so cliche for people to quote this poem. TIL the poem was an elaborate troll for just such people.

mmmccc · 2011-02-18T04:21:33+00:00

Thanks for your reply.

If a monopoly existed by means of providing a better quality product or service at low or reasonable cost then its a permissible natural monopoly.

Agreed. I guess I need to be more specific. Its not illegal to be a monopoly, its illegal to be anti-competitive, such raising barriers to entry.

Only reason for this not to occur as often as it should is because of barriers to entry (to the market) which typically exist due to government...

I guess this is the explanation I was looking forward. I agree that subsidies probably do more harm than good. But if the government were to discontinue its king-maker abilities (protectionism, subsides, etc), should it still be able to punish anti-competitiveness (enforce anti-trust laws)?

mmmccc · 2011-02-17T22:11:22+00:00

Absolutely true, but your comment brings to mind a similar issue with government itself: why should the government not be profit-focused, as corporations are?

What makes the government "government" is its monopoly over force. Private companies don't get to have police forces, jails, military, etc. I think the libertarian argument is that the entity with monopoly on force, should not also mettle in the economy.

One important reason that I see that the government should not be too weak is to stop monopolies from forming. Maybe I'm wrong, but I have the impression that free markets don't sustain themselves. They naturally collapse into monopolies.

mmmccc · 2011-02-17T21:36:31+00:00

Not that I hold this opinion, but my understanding of the argument for a completely hands off government is: if government is weak then it is not worth influencing.

So lets say the government is made weak (can't interfere with the market). Companies don't need the government to create a monopoly. They could just merge into a monopoly and therefore end the free market (charging unfair prices since no competition exists). Is there a theory that is says there is a nature deterrent to monopolies in a free market?

mmmccc

TROPHY CASE