<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"><channel><title>OpenMarket.org - Latest Comments in X Prize &amp;#8212; another comment</title><link>http://openmarket.disqus.com/</link><description></description><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Tue, 18 Nov 2008 12:19:48 -0000</lastBuildDate><item><title>Re: X Prize &amp;#8212; another comment</title><link>http://www.openmarket.org/2008/03/21/x-prize-another-comment/#comment-3879610</link><description>I think you misunderstand what "interventionists" are advocating. It is not that trade-offs can be eliminated, but that &lt;i&gt;some&lt;/i&gt; trades are intrinsically wrong and must not be pursued, even if the market would accommodate them. Thus we are not allowed to pursue a trade-off that would eliminate safety glass in favor of less cost.</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">AAAlan</dc:creator><pubDate>Tue, 18 Nov 2008 12:19:48 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: X Prize &amp;#8212; another comment</title><link>http://www.openmarket.org/2008/03/21/x-prize-another-comment/#comment-3876292</link><description>Technology CANNOT eliminate tradeoffs; nor can technology advance prizes. The belief that tradeoffs can be eliminated is at the basis of much of the popularity of “technology mandates.”</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Artificial</dc:creator><pubDate>Tue, 18 Nov 2008 08:43:20 -0000</pubDate></item></channel></rss>