41–50 of 77 posts
eBaum has a reputation for plagiarism and copyright infringement-- what goes around comes around I guess.
http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/ebaumsworld
"Once upon a time, upon the internet, There was a guuyyyy. A very deeply flawed man, They called him Eric Bauman. He was a total asshole, And nobody knows why."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So Eric Bauman makes a site that profits from stealing other people's content. A song is written insulting him. An entire website blames their mayhem on him in revenge. He is caught altering watermarks and removing citations. He gets enough money to buy an apartment building and sponsor a boxer. His father writes insulting emails. Then suddenly another shady company buys him out and ruins his company, and it's proof…
Except, I'd think, for the bit where Eric Bauman makes even more money in the sale and faces no charges for a decade of illegal business that funneled capital away from the creators who deserved it. Dear lord, I think I just gave myself enough cognitive dissonance to stop using Bittorrent for hours. But my point is that Bauman hasn't really repaid his debt to society. He's been shamed, and a lot of us are glad for th…
The initial bit... I think it would have regulated itself if somebody'd brought publicity to the people getting ripped off and made lawsuits a primary goal. I was always surprised Lowtax from Something Awful never thought it worth it to declare copyright on his Photoshop Phridays and sue Bauman until he stopped.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The system was trying to regulate itself. Thats why the economic crisis is happening. The companies that are in trouble are ones that can not be maintained that either need to restructure them selves or die. In the infinite wisdom of our leaders they decided to stray from the theory of capitalism and interfere. Everyone likes to think that capitalism means that everything is happy daisy, but its not. If things go wro…
It's regulating itself like a poorly built skyscraper that is being regulated by gravity: collapsing. We have rules about how to build skyscrapers to keep people from getting hurt. Why not the economy? Take what works, throw out what hurts. There has to be an incentive for people to make money, but it should be ok if it's required to be within a set of guidelines. Unfettered capitalism builds an unstable system. Unst…
An economy has a large number of intrinsically unstable parts. As they displace from the "norm", they will displace even further. For example, the mere fact of a commodity's price going up can cause it to go up further as others react. This is intrinsically unstable.
An unstable system can not run like a stable system. Jerks are mathematically inevitable. The only way to prevent it is to do one of two things: Remove all such things from the system, or create an instantaneous counter force for each of these things. Neither is possible economically. The second sounds appealing, but the thing is that it has to be instantaneous to work, and completely (inhumanly!) accurate, or it becomes simply one more destabilizing force.
You can see this even in economies with no human interaction; this is the source of nature's constant ebb and flow.
The only thing you can do is make things worse by convincing people that you can stop the ebb and flow of the economy, so they don't prepare, then the storm comes anyhow and is all the worse for people not being prepared.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The system was trying to regulate itself. Thats why the economic crisis is happening. The companies that are in trouble are ones that can not be maintained that either need to restructure them selves or die. In the infinite wisdom of our leaders they decided to stray from the theory of capitalism and interfere. Everyone likes to think that capitalism means that everything is happy daisy, but its not. If things go wro…
It's regulating itself like a poorly built skyscraper that is being regulated by gravity: collapsing. We have rules about how to build skyscrapers to keep people from getting hurt. Why not the economy? Take what works, throw out what hurts. There has to be an incentive for people to make money, but it should be ok if it's required to be within a set of guidelines. Unfettered capitalism builds an unstable system. Unst…
Since much of the problem was caused by regulation ("encouraging" bogus loans, tax preferences for fannie mae investments, "mark to market" on illiquid assets, etc), faith in regulation seems misplaced.
You don't get to assume "take what works, throw out what hurts" because regulatory capture always happens.
I note that the new treasury secretary didn't bother to pay SSI despite being reimbursed for it with a separate payment and signing an acknowledgement of same, the new HUD secretary didn't bother to pay taxes on "in kind" payments, and top members of the senate committee that regulates banks and mortgages still won't talk about the sweetheart mortgages that they got.
"Regulation" gives us bailouts. It results in socialized risk. (Which, in some sense, is only fair. If govt is going to impose rules, why shouldn't govt pay for the consequences.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's regulating itself like a poorly built skyscraper that is being regulated by gravity: collapsing. We have rules about how to build skyscrapers to keep people from getting hurt. Why not the economy? Take what works, throw out what hurts. There has to be an incentive for people to make money, but it should be ok if it's required to be within a set of guidelines. Unfettered capitalism builds an unstable system. Unst…
> It's regulating itself like a poorly built skyscraper that is being regulated by gravity: collapsing. We have rules about how to build skyscrapers to keep people from getting hurt. Why not the economy? Take what works, throw out what hurts. Since much of the problem was caused by regulation ("encouraging" bogus loans, tax preferences for fannie mae investments, "mark to market" on illiquid assets, etc), faith in re…
What would that have to do with economic policy?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's regulating itself like a poorly built skyscraper that is being regulated by gravity: collapsing. We have rules about how to build skyscrapers to keep people from getting hurt. Why not the economy? Take what works, throw out what hurts. There has to be an incentive for people to make money, but it should be ok if it's required to be within a set of guidelines. Unfettered capitalism builds an unstable system. Unst…
A building is intrinsically stable. I mean that in the physics sense; if the building displaces itself one centimeter to the left, the forces in the building pull it back. No part of it is intrinsically unstable. An economy has a large number of intrinsically unstable parts. As they displace from the "norm", they will displace even further. For example, the mere fact of a commodity's price going up can cause it to go…
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9A03EFDA1F3BE...
January 4, 1914, Sunday [...]
Several of New York City's skyscrapers are away out of plumb and have a tendency to emulate the famous leaning tower of Pisa according to the engineering department of the Building Bureau.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
With Bittorrent and the like, your usual garden variety piracy, you at least know who you're stealing from and you know that everyone involved is simply supplying bandwidth, information alone, and that no money is changing hands. If at any point in time you prefer to purchase a legitimate copy of what you have obtained, you are free to do so, and many people often do. What Ebaum did was claim the content as their own…
You cannot steal anything with Bittorrent. Stealing necessarily involves the previous owner being a previous owner, but Bittorrent and other copying methods don't remove the item from the owner. Refusing to let someone get their files from a computer is more like stealing (though since the computer itself is rightfully owned by the new owners of ebaumsworld, it's certainly arguable that it's just rude, not stealing).…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A building is intrinsically stable. I mean that in the physics sense; if the building displaces itself one centimeter to the left, the forces in the building pull it back. No part of it is intrinsically unstable. An economy has a large number of intrinsically unstable parts. As they displace from the "norm", they will displace even further. For example, the mere fact of a commodity's price going up can cause it to go…
A building is intrinsically stable. [...] if the building displaces itself one centimeter to the left, the forces in the building pull it back. No part of it is intrinsically unstable. http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9A03EFDA1F3BE... January 4, 1914, Sunday [...] Several of New York City's skyscrapers are away out of plumb and have a tendency to emulate the famous leaning tower of Pisa according to the…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It's regulating itself like a poorly built skyscraper that is being regulated by gravity: collapsing. We have rules about how to build skyscrapers to keep people from getting hurt. Why not the economy? Take what works, throw out what hurts. Since much of the problem was caused by regulation ("encouraging" bogus loans, tax preferences for fannie mae investments, "mark to market" on illiquid assets, etc), faith in re…
the new treasury secretary didn't bother to pay SSI [...] the new HUD secretary didn't bother to pay taxes on "in kind" payments What would that have to do with economic policy?
The current "stimulus" package is a great example. Well over half is just pumping up budgets for existing programs. Does anyone believe that those "enhanced" budgets will not become permanent?
Govt regulation also reduces diversity. It says that everyone pretty much has to behave the same way. We know how that works out.
Govt regulation is also political in the worst sense. Wells Fargo took a huge hit when it stayed out of the subprime mortgages. Regulators refused to let WF enage in unrelated activities (acquisitions, opening branches, etc.)because WF didn't "play ball", activities that said regulators let cooperative institutions do.
Note that regulators don't take the hit.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A building is intrinsically stable. I mean that in the physics sense; if the building displaces itself one centimeter to the left, the forces in the building pull it back. No part of it is intrinsically unstable. An economy has a large number of intrinsically unstable parts. As they displace from the "norm", they will displace even further. For example, the mere fact of a commodity's price going up can cause it to go…
A building is intrinsically stable. [...] if the building displaces itself one centimeter to the left, the forces in the building pull it back. No part of it is intrinsically unstable. http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9A03EFDA1F3BE... January 4, 1914, Sunday [...] Several of New York City's skyscrapers are away out of plumb and have a tendency to emulate the famous leaning tower of Pisa according to the…