Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

646 Excellent

1 Follower

About Armacing

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  • Location

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. No, we need that spot to become a massive building built to the maximum height possible to completely block City Lights view of everything. Then they can no longer object to anything built west of that location on the grounds that it blocks their view.
  2. I think the people behind it were just a bunch of Davidson county residents who didn't want to pay higher taxes. But you are right about their efforts being misguided... They should have put that effort and money towards moving to Williamson county.
  3. Although there have been a fair number of nuclear mishaps that deserved public scrutiny, I think the public at large has missed the major negative consequences of coal-fired power plants. I'm a fan of coal when pollution is minimized, but when pollution is not minimized, coal introduces a lot of toxic chemicals into the environment. Over time, those add up to a disaster that is on par with a nuclear incident. I'm amazed that people who are in favor of clean energy don't give more attention to the fact that 50% of the coal burned in the world is burned in China. Where's the global outcr
  4. Of course, we would be remiss if we didn't acknowledge that Tesla has been a major recipient of government subsidies: https://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-hy-musk-subsidies-20150531-story.html This is not the kind of clean energy revolution we need... this is another misguided government project.
  5. Rather than refrain from discussing it, why not address the issue head on? Since you love Memphis, you should start a "Memphis v/s Nashville" thread in the coffee house where we can all weigh in and settle this issue once and for all.
  6. Now that you've had the benefit of seeing the dialogue between me and two other posters, how do you feel about the issue of IP?
  7. Finland agrees with you: https://youtu.be/kYpiK3W-g_0
  8. When it comes to fusion, I'll believe it when I see it. They have been saying since the early 1990's that we are on the cusp of a Fusion breakthrough, but so far - nothing. The other thing about Fusion is this: If someone finally cracks the code that will mark the start of human colonization of the moon...because the best source of tritium is the moon. So that's another thing that makes the lack of progress on fusion so frustrating.
  9. I saw the pumps running one time for Pinnacle... I was hoping that was a one-time utility-related problem, but what you say makes sense. That is a major design flaw by the engineers!
  10. I'm disappointed by the fact that we haven't seen the dawn of Nuclear Fusion power within our lifetimes. That would be the holy grail of clean energy because the "waste" material is helium, which is useful at birthday parties. Also, I think more people will be motivated (or forced?) to provide power for their own homes in the future and live "off-grid". Hopefully advances in wind, solar, geothermal, and battery technology will mean the long-term end of things like electrical grids and gas pipelines. Of course, all of this advancement should happen strictly within the framework of t
  11. I definitely think you should be allowed to earn the maximum income possible from your song-writing skills and the tools you use to perform that trade. However, I don't see an objective reason give preferential treatment to your skills over someone else's skills. Your earnings should be obtained within the framework of peaceful and voluntary trade. If there is someone out there who is talented at recording songs, making copies of songs, and talented at selling copies, then that person should be allowed to perform their trade without interference from the government. If that person has
  12. Ideas should not be "protected", they should be shared and spread without limitation. When you say "protected" you are talking about the author's income stream. And I'm saying that's up to the author to determine how to leverage their skills in such a way that they obtain monetary gain. It's neither the government's right nor responsibility to help the author earn a living. On the other hand, it *is* the government's responsibility to make sure nobody is treading on the rights (life, liberty, property) of the author and preventing them from earning a living. See the difference? By the w
  13. It only sounds ludicrous to you because you have been indoctrinated your entire life to believe otherwise. In your book scenario, please tell me why someone with a photocopy machine can produce books cheaper than you and your publishing house can. Using a copier to produce books en masse sounds ludicrous to me - yet that is the scenario you have presented. Why would a publishing house pay authors? Oh, I don't know, maybe to have new literature to publish, which is demanded by consumers? Edit: Expanding on that last part: Why don't they wait for someone else to publish it? At th
  14. A copyright is just a patent for a particular type of product. The difference is purely in terminology, but the economic scenario is identical: right to produce a CD, right to publish a book, right to provide an online streaming service and make ad revenue. It all involves "IP owners" asking the government to stop someone from engaging in their business activities that involves using their property and skills. It really speaks to the level of indoctrination we (as Americans) have been subjected to because the knee-jerk reaction is "hey, that song is not their property, it belongs to the a
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.