In a truly (human) free market society, how would slavery be prevented?

Question: In claims of true free market enterprise with an anarchist type 'government' (meaning none), how would the different forms of slavery be avoided?  Granted your neighbor who watches your dog when you go on vacation isn't likely to kidnap your children and sell them, but in a society where money is the ultimate (sole?) decision maker, how do you prevent people (eventually) being enslaved?  Russia is still very much under a 'free' market, anything is for sale if you have enough money, (or enough power to just take it).
Comment: A prerequisite of a free market is that rights and contracts have to be enforceable. How does that happen in your hypothetical? The same thing will probably be the answer to your question.
Comment: There is massive slavery in America and even with a mostly free market economy. It's illegal but it very much exists. You don't need anarchy for slavery to be a problem...
Comment: Same way you prevent your neighbour from just shooting you in the head for shits and giggles. If there's nothing stopping him from doing that, there's nothing stopping him from enslaving you either.
Comment: @ArtOfCode seems odd to insist that all questions be assumed valid. Sometimes questions are simply not valid.
Comment: @bowlturner: Your last comment makes me think this question belongs on politics or economics more than here. If you are looking for real world explanations, ask the experts on these actual systems. :)
Comment: Market type doesn't really dictate how a human treats another human.  I won't say there is no impact but at the same time its not a major factor in my mind.  Slavery has existed in countries with all market types.
Comment: All, Many free marketers/anarchists preach that this is the only way to go for everyone to be 'equal'.  I've never understood 'how' this was supposed to work any better than pure socialism.  Humans are humans.
Comment: @Erik, But this is world building, and those that think this can work seem to be living in a fantasy world to me!  ;)
Comment: Get a [really big laser gun](http://gizmodo.com/holy-crap-this-real-life-laser-rifle-cuts-through-meta-1417295883) and dare them to try ;-)
Comment: All: please remember, take the premises in the question to be valid when answering. I don't want to see answers claiming the question's ideas are flawed, as those aren't answers and will get deleted.
Comment: @DA. not all *questions* are valid, but all *premises* in a *valid* question should be assumed true.
Comment: Anarchy is not self-sustainable, because nothing prevents creation of local governing bodies (usually most ruthless, bossy people forming gangs). "an anarchist type 'government'" can't be "none". For anarchy to exist and persist, an actual government is necessary, but its tasks and goals would be very narrow - dissolving/destroying any budding centers of power/governance; guarding the anarchist system. OTOH there would be no other means of enforcing contracts than baseless, unsupported trust and brute force. Why should I buy if I can kill the shopkeeper and take it?
Comment: @SF *Why should I buy if I can kill the shopkeeper and take it?* - Because how are you going to get it in the future now? You should just rough him up a little and take it.
Comment: Education. Educating the entire populace as to how it affects them and teaching them empathy would help a lot.
Comment: Not subsidizing enforcement of slavery would be a start.
Answer: In short, your premise is wrong: Free Market $\neq$ Anarchy.
One is an economic system, the other is a "form of government".  It's like saying "wearing green sweaters causes ducks to be eaten."
Free market

A free market is a market system in which the prices for goods and
  services are set freely by consent between sellers and consumers, in
  which the laws and forces of supply and demand are free from any
  intervention by a government, price-setting monopoly, or other
  authority.

Most free markets do require policing of some sort or other (either self or government) to ensure people follow through on trades, et al.  However, the government doesn't take place in the price of those goods and services.
Anarchy

Anarchy is the condition of a society, entity, group of persons or
  single person which does not recognize authority.

Presumably including other people's authority to manage themselves and own property.  In anarchy you have the situation you describe in which might makes right, people get enslaved, and generally bad stuff happens to good people.
Slavery
Slavery in the US came about for multiple reasons, one was there was already a slave trade in place bringing slaves to the new world so slaves could be bought "cheaply."  The other was both tobacco and cotton (which were the South's "cash crops") were extremely labor intensive.
Some scholars argue that economically speaking, slavery was already declining and likely to end in the US even without the Civil War.
Scholars agree that although individually advantageous to large plantation owners, the system of slavery severely retarded the South's economic and technological development (as exemplified by their lack of manufacturing ability during the war).  This "stasis" lead to the American Midwest's development as a manufacturing and agricultural powerhouse and competitor to some of the South's agricultural products.
Putting it another way, the South was slowly becoming uncompetitive with the rest of the world in the production of most goods, including their primary export crops.
Slavery at least in the form practiced in the early US, could not last indefinitely without collapsing.
Summary
Your premise that a completely free market economy requires anarchic government is false.
The economic system of a state isn't dependent upon the type of government of that state (e.g. Communist China is playing with a Free Market economic system).  Although I agree some economic systems more naturally associate with certain types of government this isn't always the case.
If you are world building, are you looking for the ultimate in free market society or are you looking at what the natural conclusions of a totally anarchic system of government might look like?
Comment: a)"in which the laws and forces of supply and demand are free from any intervention by a government"   b)"However, the government doesn't take place in the price of those goods and services."  However, the two statements are not compatible. Criminalization of drugs is a classic example. Government does not buy and sell such drugs, but has a major effect on supply and prices. The principle applies across a wide variety of government actions.
Comment: Dave, I agree but then so does the US government (meddle in the markets).  I think both economies would do better with less intervention - but no one asked me :)
Comment: Looking at Slavery in the South as a pure economic system leads to odd conclusions because it had a dual purpose as a means of racial social control for the white majority.  Thus, it persisted and was virtually reimposed in a new guise by Jim Crow laws after Emancipation.  In a anarchist society, too, there's no reason why an individual might not accept the inefficiency for the additional control slavery brings him.
Comment: >china is free market. except that the majority of their major corporations are funded and controlled by CCP entities and their banking system is similarly so.  Anything that 'the people' create of value is quickly gobbled up for exploitation by the CCP.
Comment: To add to @WhatRoughBeast, note that [sex slavery](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_slavery), although illegal, continues in spite of law enforcement efforts. This shows that (a) slavery does not simply die out and (b) the government has a significant impact on supply.
Comment: With you on everything you said except...there is no such thing as a free market.  The government of China of course provides incentives and disincentives to certain businesses and individuals.
Comment: and without outside competition it might last.  But if such a society was surrounded by others that did not, they would be out competed by those societies, become unstable, and eventually fail.  Sort of like a hydraulic empire http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydraulic_empire it is stable from internal strife but unstable when exposed to external stressers.
Comment: One of the major defeats of the south in the war was that they believed the British and other European powers would not care about the slavery issue so long as they provided cheaper product than their Egyptian and Indian competition.  As it turned out the British were more than fine with paying a little more for cotten from those places and avoid the moral price of slavery.  Additionally, technology such as the cotton gin meant that paying gin workers were more incentivized to produce than slaves.
Answer: What counts as slavery and how do you define ownership? For a market to exist contracts have to be enforceable.
The way that you appear to have structured things you aren't asking about a 'free market' but about some form of anarchy, which is rather the opposite of a 'free market' in many respects; as contracts are only enforceable as one is able to themselves enforce them. In which case, why would anyone choose to be a slave or allow themselves to be one? There is no mechanism to enforce the ownership, no way to say that the writ of sale is valid or that the ownership means anything; the slave owner has to create his own government that enforces the slavery by himself and enslave people himself, which is not done via free market transactions but via force.
In todays world however, we freely enslave ourselves all the time, and think very little of it. We enter into states of indentured servitude via student loans, car loans, house loans, and possibly even credit card debt and pay day loans (don't do the last two). Our work then becomes not our own but the owner of that debt, we are slaves to them but unlike chattel slaves we entered into it willingly, and get to care for ourselves. It is a much more efficient system than chattel slavery.
Comment: I'd suggest highlighting the question following 'In which case..." sentence by surrounding it with either *singe* or **double** asterisks, since that's really the key to the whole answer.  It might also be worthwhile to note that for slavery to be practical it's necessary not only to have laws which allow the slave owner to use coercion against the slave, but it's also necessary to have laws allowing slave owners to compel other people who are not slaves to involuntarily assist in the return of their "property".
Comment: +1 for challenging lazy assumptions of what constitutes slavery and why that's automatically "just bad, mkay".
Comment: A debt of cash incurs an obligation, but can be distinguished from enslavement or a debt of indefinite service in a couple of ways. Firstly that you get to decide what to do to attempt to acquire the money to pay the debt. Secondly that if you fail to acquire it you're still free to walk away as a bankrupt. When those things aren't possible for the debtor, then international human rights law starts to call it "slavery" regardless of whether or not the law of the place where it's happening actually upholds literally the ownership of another person.
Answer: In a world completely dominated by free market?  Where the only government control is capital control, and only money matters?
It wouldn't be prevented at all.
If we truly take this concept to the extreme, and say that all of society is governed by the free market, with capital being the only means by which one can seek recourse, slavery would be incredibly commonplace.  Assuming there are those who would have no moral quandaries with owning a person, people would be bought and sold as property.
The only thing preventing this from happening is other people purchasing themselves at a high enough markup to cause person-ownership to be prohibitively expensive. The only way to enforce that is through sheer capital, and if one has enough money to overpower that capital, without any laws preventing it, they can purchase a person and own them, with only the effort necessary to hold that person in ownership.
Some people may even voluntarily sell themselves as a 'servant' to avoid this fate, exchanging their life of servitude for the protection of not being purchased as a slave.  Without any government to prevent ownership of people, this is the only recourse they could seek, and even then, they may be sold off for profit if their owner decides they aren't worth the upkeep.
The short of it is, in a pure free market society without any governing body to regulate it, everything has a price - including people.
Comment: This is my view in general as well.  I keep running into people who naively believe that this sort of thing would never happen.  So I was looking for ways that it might believably come about.
Comment: @bowlturner Oligarchy.  But that's a separate question you're asking - a good question, but a separate one.
Comment: Note that even today slavery still *de facto* exists (although *de jure* it might be prohibited). Examples I can think of would be bottom caste workers in Indian brick factories or the foreign construction workers on Dubai sky scrapers.
Comment: @fgysin Prison labor is legal slavery as well.
Comment: @JDoe True.  And in general, nothing about having or not having a free market changes whether or not slavery happens - unless that society is *pure* free market, with absolutely nothing else interfering with the free exchange of goods and services, including morals.
Answer: I believe you're referring to anarcho capitalism.
Here's a discussion from reddit on this same subject.
Your question begs the question, how do slaves (or other oppressed people) deal with living under a totalitarian regime that wishes to oppress them?
Getting back to the question itself though, there are two styles of answer.
One answer is that slaves aren't as productive as free people working for a wage.  Slaves only work hard enough not to be punished which after many iterations of slaves under-performing would force the slave owner to continually set the bar lower and lower.  While slaves don't earn wages, they have to be fed, clothed, and sheltered which all have a cost associated with them.  At the end of the day, the productivity to cost ratio is likely to be lower for a slave than a wage earner.
Even assuming away the assumption from the first answer (which could be wrong depending on the industry), is that society at large collectively decides that slavery is inherently bad.  The US gov't once allowed slavery until it didn't.  Assuming laws don't prevent people from owning slaves there are still avenues for other members of society to stop slavers.  People who attempt to own slaves would be blackballed from their industry. While this may seem far fetched under our existing status quo of relying on government to enforce the norms of society, keep in mind that boycotts are still used where laws fail.  I google searched successful boycotts and the first one that came up was from 1791 in England when Parliament refused to outlaw slavery, the people decided to boycott sugar producers that exploited slave labor.
I think the extent to which people refuse to "vote with their wallets" in their daily product buying is because of strong governments.  We assume that if our products are made unsafely or unethically that some agency will punish them and so we, as consumers, don't both issuing our own punishments.
In addition to people boycotting slavers, there's also evidence in history of people who will actively work to set people free.  During US slavery there was the Underground Railroad which set out to set slaves free.  Another historical parallel to this would be people in Nazi Germany that hid Jews (like Schindler).  Keep in mind that Underground Railroad conductors and those that helped Jews escape did so under threat of law.  Under a lawless society, an anonymous slave liberator could free slaves at low cost whereas the slaver would incur significant cost to thwart these efforts.
Another set of rhetorical questions I'd like to ask:  If slavery were legal tomorrow, would you own slaves?  Do you know anyone who would?  How many more people wouldn't want anything to do with slave owners than there are people wanting to own slaves?
Comment: Free Range Eggs are probably a good example to use.
In Australia at least you will find both Cage and Free Range eggs on the supermarket shelves. Even though Free Range cost more than twice as much, they are still a viable product because many people (I suspect >50%) refuse to buy Cage eggs.
Comment: Thanks!  I was thinking about submitting a second answer along these lines.  People in power have often abused people over whom they hold power.  That abuse isn't always slavery but it is often pretty nasty.  It's the difference between a state governed by laws vs. a state governed by powerful people.
Answer: As others have showed why your premise is wrong (Free Market ≠ Anarchy), I'll focus on mechanisms to prevent slavery in your world.
First, you should ask yourself if "no slavery" in your world really needs to mean "zero slavery", or if something like "sufficiently low slavery" is good enough. And maybe keep in mind that you can put workers in a slave like relationship to their "employer" which is technically not slavery (the workers are not "property").
So, how could you prevent slavery without laws:

Religion: There could be a prevalent religion in your world which might encourage the freedom for people to do any kind of business that makes them prosper (this god loves people who prosper), but forbids ownership of people ("because only this god is above men").
As Dean MacGregor pointed out in his answer, slave labor is not free and probably less productive than free labor because slaves work to avoid punishment. This also means you need more resources to keep your slave business up running.
Slavery might be really, really uncool. So if word gets around that you use slave labor, customers might avoid you (and other businesses too, because these would risk their customers too). Or you don't find others who want to do business with "the loser who needs slave labor". The same would hold at home, too: If you get a slave to do your household, you lose your friends.
Having slaves might be too risky (and thus too expensive). People tried it in the past, there were slave riots, now you pay for work or use machines because it's easier.
Answer: The short anwser: Asuming no central authority and completely free market, make it cultural.
The long anwser:
Ok, first we have to clarify that anarchy means the lack of "authority", not the lack of order, and that slavery in itself may not be a completely undesirable situation for an individual. In some ancient cultures you could sell yourself into slavery for a few years if you had to, but your master had to take care of your basic needs and didn't had rights over your life and death, you were still a citizen.
A few days ago I read about some people working here in Spain just for food and shelter, so they could stay long enough to earn the right to stay in the country. Their employers were charged with crimes against the rights of workers. Link to the article (in spanish).
It was a good deal (well, good enough) for them, but for anyone who wants to have a decent job it's a catastrophe. Why would I pay you if someone in need may work for almost nothing? That's also why countries with extremely low taxes for business have bad relationships with their neighbours, for example.
So in order to keep a certain level of quality in the general conditions of life, specially in a country with no authority to grant it, society as a whole has to reject both slaves and slavers, and see them as extremely damaging to them personally.
If your society values business above all, this may be easier than you think. Just make it so anyone who dares to play with slavery will be reduced to ostracism. Nobody would buy or sell ANYTHING from this people or anyone who deal with them. If you cannot buy or sell anithing in a society like this, you've "de facto" became an outcast doomed to live like an animal. Also include angry mobs burning something on the face of those poor souls, for good mesure. They'll need to know how to tell from far away who's been naughty.
Let's see who dares to mess with the eight hours of work.
Answer: Without a law interfering with markets to prevent it, you probably wouldn't avoid things that we'd consider slavery under the definitions currently used by the UN, national governments, etc.
Carrying off children would be theft and worse, and would be prevented by whatever mechanisms are in place to prevent your "true free market enterprise" from degenerating into "one enormous fisticuffs". Whether you call that mechanism government or find another way to do it, there has to be some means by which property rights are (1) created, (2) adjudicated, (3) enforced, or else you cannot have a free market. A bunch of people robbing each other at gunpoint is not a free market. The same means as prevent theft can prevent kidnap, murder, etc, that are crimes against the body rather than against external property. So that form of slavery is covered to the extent that the free market can effectively be defended from violence. It's the same issue as "how would murder be prevented" -- perhaps not prevented 100%, but it would be opposed, and anyone carried off as a child wouldn't be recognised as the property of their captor or anyone who bought them from their captor.
So there needn't be slaves-by-kidnap, but there very well could be conditions of indentured servitude that fall under current definitions of "different forms of slavery". Why? Because some people have nothing to offer their creditors, or potential creditors in the case of wanting to borrow for medical treatment, education, or other such desirables, except their future productivity. If the creditor doesn't trust your judgement to make yourself sufficiently productive to pay the debt, then you can instead offer indentured service so that they control how productive you'll be. That is, once you've sold a kidney and still need money, you can sell yourself into slavery.
Whatever the means are by which property rights are created, recognised, and enforced, either they permit this kind of contract, "if you pay for my child's education then I will serve you for the rest of my life", or else they don't. Decide for yourself whether it represents a "more free market" to uphold such a contract or to forbid it. It depends which kind of freedom you want people to have, the freedom to walk around or the freedom to make a contract in which you receive value for giving up your freedom to walk around! But if want to explore the darker side of a "truly free market", then it should permit freely-entered contracts as far as possible, even if to our current society the contractual terms appear repugnant.
Some protection against it might be needed, since by this mechanism, a free market system could even collapse. If somebody achieves a near-monopoly on some essential resource, then absent market interference they can leverage that into contracts that purchase most or all of the future economic output of most or all of the people. They win at capitalism, and everyone else doesn't win. That's part of the general issue of whether anarcho-capitalism (or for that matter any form of social organisation) can be stable, and if so under what terms.
Note that in most non-archaic philosophical systems of property, you don't own your children, you just have custody of them. Therefore selling your children into slavery might be legally impossible where selling yourself isn't. As with the case of kidnap, it's the simple rule "nobody starts out owning you except maybe yourself" that prevents slavery by this route.
Answer: You've stated that this is a free market society without a government. This means that economic forces are the primary driver in your world. The economics of slavery are simple: A slave is always worth more to herself than she is to other people. For that reason, there's a market incentive to free slaves and subsequently protect them and trade with them because the slave is willing to pay more for their life than someone else is. If the market is a truly free market, there will be no slaves.
That's what pure "market forces" will dictate. Now, is it possible that something other than market forces allows for slavery? Certianly yes, after all that's exactly what governments did in enforcing slavery laws. One could imagine that certain people would pay exorbitant sums for certain types of slaves. However, since it wouldn't be economically viable for the reason already stated, this would presumably be quite rare. If it's a small minority, there may be enough people willing to pay a premium to see it stopped -- or there may not.
A point of clarification: slavery is not the same as indentured servitude. Note the definition of slavery:

The condition in which one person is owned as property by another and is under the owner's control, especially in involuntary servitude.

Indentured servitiude, by contrast to slavery, likely would exist in a free market society because many people would be willing to sell their labor (not themselves!) to another party. That's how some impoverished people were able to gain passage across the Atlantic to the New World. (Some others were sent as a punishment for crimes, which is likely closer to slavery than indentured servitude.)
Comment: Indentured Servitude is more akin to a Long Term contract.  Some slavery in Roman times might have been similar - i.e. the Greek tutors who got Roman Citizenship and a nice position for educating a senators son to adulthood. Would not have worked if the expectation of being freed rather than sent to salt mines was not met.
Comment: The UN says, "Debt bondage can hardly be distinguished from traditional slavery because it prevents the victim from leaving his job or the land he tills until the money is repaid ... The 1926 Convention's definition of slavery was broadened to include the practices and institutions of debt bondage ... adopted at a United Nations conference in Geneva in 1956. The Supplementary Convention has been ratified or acceded to by 106 States". It's possible the dictionary isn't up to date, but anyway I hope the questioner doesn't need answers to rely on one of competing definitions of slavery :-)
Comment: http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Publications/FactSheet14en.pdf
Comment: @SteveJessop, I agree that the question doesn't pertain to competing definitions of slavery. Whether you call it "indentured servitude" or "pterodactyl", clearly owning a right to a certain quantity of someone's labor is not the same as owning the person as one owns a cow. The former is a contract I might voluntarily enter into, the latter is not.
Comment: No, but owning all of someone's labour and using force to defend yourself against the loss of that property interest (e.g. by keeping them physically restrained to prevent escape) *is* the same as owning the person as one owns a cow, even though the legal mechanism by which it's done is different. There may also be minor differences in terms of whether the indenture is tradable, but in this hypothetical extreme free market one would expect it can be. And I suspect that it's also not a contract you would voluntarily enter into, but *even if it was*, the UN would still call it a form of slavery.
Comment: ... another distinguishing feature is, what happens to the indentured servant if they don't show up for work? If they can only be sued for compensation to be paid in fungible assets in lieu of the contracted service then it's not like owning a cow. If they can be rounded up and brought back to the custody of the owner of their labour then it's like owning a cow. Whether you call the thing that's owned "their body", "their labour" or "pterodactyl" doesn't determine the outcome, the practices of the hypothetical society do.
Comment: @ElephantsonParade This was the best explanation in terms of reality.  I'm shocked more people haven't up voted this.
Answer: Does your society have some 'social norms' enforced ?
There are two options how your hypothetical society can function - either there are some social norms that are enforced by someone (possibly everyone), using coercion and violence or threat of it if they're [about to be] broken; or there are no such norms.
If someone enforces them, then the question is reduced to who does that in "an anarchist type government". It could be that the more powerful local mobs enforce some of their morality/ideology/religion/etc, and punish slavers -  phyically, economically or by social ostracism. It could be that everyone does that - it's a common social norm, and is aggresively prosecuted by any individual who witnesses that. It could be a separate society or organization that explicitly makes their business to prevent/reduce slavery everywhere.
If noone enforces social norms, then the obvious result is that slavery is not prevented; people or groups who are strong enough will protect themselves from being enslaved, and weaker groups will become enslaved to the extent that it is useful/beneficial/desired by the stronger groups. Same logic applies for robbery, rape, murder, theft, commercial fraud, etc.
There can (and should be expected) significant differences between theory and practice. As historical experience shows, in places where you don't have any formal law enforcement and government, very quickly informal/unwritten laws get assumed and enforced, and some de-facto government system emerges. Sure, it will initially be very decentralized and unstable, with every local place possibly having different norms, but every society will come to some approach of conflict resolution that will over time become a habit, tradition and eventually law. Even if that law is limited to something like a consensus of 'Around here, if someone keeps slaves, rapes kids or steals horses, then people tend to spontaneously gather in mobs and beat them to a bloody pulp.'
Answer: Social pressure and culture. Humans listen to culture even when they ignore laws and stuff, widespread beliefs are stronger than any law. If that aberration for slavery was cultural as culture doesn't goes away with gov there would be no demand and therefore no market, of course there would be exceptions as in the real world, but not generalized slavery.
Comment: I like this take on the question.  Welcome to the site @zardilior
Answer: You've touched on the difference between "free market" and "anarchy".
If people cannot trust contracts between themselves and others, then they simply won't trade: it would make no sense to do so. But without trade, there can be no kind of market system, free or otherwise, and so even if there is no government per se, a truly free-market system must have some sort of mechanism to enforce contracts. The implementation of such a mechanism is left as an exercise for the reader: governments usually fill this role in the real world, but I cannot rule out the possibility that a different mechanism might be devised. For lack of a better term, I will call this mechanism a "contract authority".
As a matter of logistics, a contract authority must have some ability to decide what constitutes a valid contract. This ability, however, carries considerable power. Among other things, a contract authority could prevent slavery by refusing to enforce contracts which treat people as property, or induce other people to do so. This leaves slaveowners no recourse to recapture fleeing or kidnapped slaves, and without that recourse, slavery makes a lot less sense: some people will likely try in the beginning, but the hassles involved will prove to be more trouble than they are worth.
Answer: There is a great lecture by learned liberty discussing the free market and the family as well as slavery. Retrospective studies helped to reveal the root cause of defeating slavery was the market. It is an inefficient system of production: forced laborers have no incentive to produce maximally, therefore lower production results (when slaves had their own land to subsist on they produced several fold more); slave masters incur a greater cost to survey, house, feed, train, and force the slaves to work; it depresses wages for non-slaves who then fight to end slavery/boycott products/etc.
Lastly, ignore those who claim to be anarchists. Anarchy means no rulers (no one can use force to make you act), they conflate it with lack of hierarchy (no person is above another in status, skill, etc.). It stems from a false equivalency. You can have peaceful mutually voluntary transactions on a mass scale (the free market) and lack of government. The Mises Institute produces a plethora of lectures and data on the subject of a free market anarchy.
Answer: I agree with most of what I read here.
Even though, I think that if you still wanna keep your world somehow Anarchic there's kind of an option. The richest and most powerful could create and pay for a private police that enforces some rights they think must be guaranteed are protected. Or maybe, rather than doing so for their good will, it's some kind of contract between the most powerful, in order to ensure they will never be slaved.
Comment: I find it hard to consider that an anarchy - it's more of a plutocratic government.
Answer: Free market is a fantasy resulting from the desire of the burgeoise class to justify their ruling. Free market showed itself impossible time to time. When a crisis leads the government intervention (with the usual use of public money to save this or other company) you see that the market cannot regulate itself. This is true at various levels, even when not under crisis, capitalism needs the anti-trust organizations to prevent the forming of monopolies, wich are the usual consequence of a free market economy without any government intervention.
The mechanism of monopoly formation is very well understood by marxists. When a company becomes big enough it holds a power over the market that allows it to dump its price in order to destroy the incumbent companies and allow them to be sold at much smaller prices than under normal circuntances. The existence of anti-trust laws is a clear cut surrender to the inevitable fact that the market cannot regulate itself.
Besides that point, market autoregulation is usually thought to be based on supply and demand. There is a high demand for weapons, so the market produce those, even if this is not the best rational choice for a society to invest its productive forces. When the market "self-regulates" it does so in "numerical" terms, not on a rational choice of allocation of resources from the point of view of society itself.
Besides that point, its a clear confusion about the roles of politics and economy. Politics come from polis, the greek city state and its affairs. We assume that politics means power and all that is related to power. Well, economy IS POWER. If you have more money than someone else, you have more power than someone else, period. This money will, and usually do, convert itself into political power. What the anarco-capitalist thinkers forget is that power is inherent to humans. Even if the power that you hold over other people is informal, not the result of a reconizable formal political entity, it is still power. If you remove the democratic formal entities that usually hold power, all you are going to do is to free the power of the larger economical groups to enforce their will, becase to have power is to be able to force someone else to do what it might not want to do. So, if the state apparattus is not present to present a large company to impose its will, balancing it, this large company will impose its will at large unharmed.
If a president is limited by the power of a constitution and a democratic election process, a large company is usually a ditactorship where the ownership of it allows the owners to do as they suit. They usually cannot do as they want all the time, simply because the state exists to prevent this. A company owner is not elected to be a company owner, it does this by the socially accepted concept of ownership and private property. This is diametrically oposed to the concept of democracy. But, in the absence of a state to prevent this, you will see company owners do whatever they want.
Ownership is the capacity to do what you want with what you have and exclude others from doing the same with what you have. In other words, its a ditactorship over what is owned. This is usually limited by state laws. The public comes to say "hey, your ownership is limited by this law, and this one too" etc.
If there is no more state, no laws, you get a plain simple ditactorship steeming from the ownership of the means of production, plainly and simply. Worse, the market cannot trully regulate itself. It is bound to become a big monopoly hindering inovation.
How the dumping strategy works ?
1 - Two or three companies stabilish themselves in a market.
2 - The competition between them drives the prices low.
3 - In order to prevent the further fall of prices they setup a cartel.
4 - A forth company decides to enter the market. The cartel sets the price below the cost of production, rendering the forth (incumbent company) unable to compete.
5 - The forth company (incumbent) goes out of cash and goes bankrupt. Its bought out by the cartel.
6 - The cartel now sets back the price very high and recoup their loses due to the dumping.
7 - If another company enters the market they repeat the process, indefinitely.
The key to this strategy is that smaller capitals cannot enter the market once the top players are stabilished. You might say that someone who amassed more capital could enter the market, but this only means that the bigger hoard of gold will capture the market in the dumping game. If you watch carefully you will detect that smaller capitals cannot endure the dumping period against bigger capitals, rendering competition impossible. Theres no "Free market" solution to this. This clearly shows that the concept of "free market" is a bogus, ideological concept used to justify laws and moves that forster the big capital at the expense of other parts of society.
TL;DR
Free Market capitalism has no internal mechanism to prevent monopolies, lacking laws, all sorts of strategies can be devised, by those rich enough, to prevent competition. Its by no luck that we have anti-trust and anti-dumping laws.
Comment: Let us [continue this discussion in chat](http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/35182/discussion-between-jorge-aldo-and-razorsyntax).
Answer: People seem to forget that anarchy doesn't necessarily mean no government for a free market society. As I pointed out before,  some anarchists like anarcho-syndicalist Noam Chomsky support a night-watchman state: a state that does not have a monopoly on violence and meets the minimum requirement set by John Locke in his book Two Treatises of Government to be considered a government. In a traditional federal state, some people with elevated legal status and power enforce the state through a monopoly on violence and a vertical hierarchy (pyramid-like top-down power structure) that separates them from the average person. In anarchism, there is little to no monopoly on violence and, if there is any hierarchy at all, a general horizontal hierarchy (an organizational structure with few or no levels of middle management between the average person and those in charge) where no one has any legal power that doesn't belong to other citizens in general.
This type of government has been used in real-life anarchist societies without a monopoly on violence like  FEJUVE or The Federation of Neighborhood Councils-El Alto which practices a form of market anarchism called mutualism and Freetown Christiania that practices a form of market anarchism called agorism. Both of these places have general free markets and prevent slavery with a volunteerism form of law enforcement where said volunteers get training to prevent people from being murdered or turned into slaves, but the enforcers are treaded more like citizens in uniform than people that are the sole protectors and enforcers of the state. Considering these societies have been able to function and be autonomous for decades, I say this system works pretty well.
Basically, having a nightwatchman state and volunteer law enforcement allows for a free market without slavery because a free market (and even certain forms of anarchism) does not necessarily equal complete lawlessness and anyone can do whatever they want.
Answer: I know this is an old question, but I feel like the most obvious answer is missing.
How to avoid (or minimize) slavery in the this world?  give them modern technology.
It's not just the goverment, or even our culture, preventing slavery in fist world countries.  Even if you somehow changed the rules and made everyone okay culturally with slavery in the US you would see very little slavery (well, probably sexual slavery, but that's a whole different issue...).
The reason why is because it's not economical.
Once upon a time it made sense to have slaves because you needed someone to an your physically difficult menial labor.  Now of days we don't really have that much menial labor, not compared to the old days.  We have machines to lift and move heavy things, we have automated factories building our resources and cars moving items from A to B.  It no longer makes sense to have a person doing much of this work because they do it so much worse then technology.
However, a slave still requires you feed, cloath, and house them, which is expensive.  Minimum wage arguably isn't enough for someone to live on their own, so there is a standard for what it costs just to keep someone alive to be your slave.  Now sure your not going to spend as much on housing as even a minimum wage worker does, you can save some money there.  However, you also need to pay to restrain and gaurd them; and slaves generally work far less efficently then non-slaves (less motivation obviously) so your getting less work out of them.  You can afford to pay someone well..not minimum wage, but not all that far off from it for the expense of having them as a slave.
So, for a slave to be worthwhile at minimum they must be performing work that is notiable worth more then minimum wage.
Lets look at modern jobs.  All the high paying ones require education, you don't want to throughly educate slaves because it gives them too much power, and because without motivation to work hard for you it's unlikely your get as much value out of them then you would paying an already educated person.
There are some hard working physical labor jobs where slaves are still useful, but not that many.  In addition most of them are the sort of thing where no one person benefits from a slave.  Sure having someone to weed my yard is great and I may want my slave to do that, he has earned his room and board for the day.  But tomorrow my yard is weeded...and I still have a slave.  I don't have enough personal tasks I need done.  I may be able to sell my slave out to others to have him weed their yard, taking the profit.  However, the profit isn't that high and in addition to the effort of figuring out where to send him to I need to figure out how to make sure he doesn't escape, it's too logistically expensive for a job that doesn't pay that much higher then what it costs to keep him unless I do it in large numbers to benefit from economy of scales; and there just aren't that many large number of jobs out there that need physical labor.
Service industry is the biggest place for people without college or even high school degrees to work, but slaves aren't as well suited for this.  Part of the service industries existance is because people feel better talking to people then machines, we only want service from humans if it makes us feel better.  Seeing a beaten and abused slave who obviously hates where they are at isn't going to make us feel as good.  lowering the value of a human representative at all.
So there would be some physical jobs and some service jobs where slaves would be useful, but not that many and for limited profit.  However, for slaves to work a goverment needs to support the system, it needs to put money into catching escape slaves for instance.  This is not a trival amount of money, as all your slaves are going to want to run away.  The goverment thus will want to tax anyone with slaves to help pay for the "slave catching services", that tax can be enough to remove any profit the slaves have.  And, as already mentioned, there is an issue of economy of scales, unless you have allot of jobs that slaves are good at it doesn't become worth setting up the logistical effort for getting slaves where they need to be and making sure they don't escape.
The net result of all this is that slaves really aren't worth the expense in a first world country.  Finally, people naturally are opposed to slavery in general, so if slaves made only minor profit someone who would have been tempted to go along with slavery if it was a strong profit may find the tiny benefit isn't worth violating their instinctual (yes instinctual, there are evolutionarily engraded instincts at work here) ethics against slavery.  Even if someone is a sociopath and has no moral qualms others will, and they may lose business to those who take offense.  Without a strong financial benefit, enough to tempt those with questionable morals and encourage the fully immoral to put expense into indoctrinating others into accepting slavery, it's just not worth trying to get people to accept the moral violations.
So in short, with modern technology slavery just isn't worth having, at least in any quantity.  Some individuals may keep slaves, but that slave is best kept secret so they don't have to worry about how others react to it.  This will be the exception though, I don't see regular slaves being any more common then they are in today America (because yes, slaves do exist today, not legally but there are always some who require it).
That is with the exception of sexual slavery, which I could see being more common in such a situation.  Look to the other answers to address that.  The big point was simply that it's not that hard to do away with slavery because there isn't that much of a motivation for it anyways today.
*all these arguments assumes world that has modern technology.  That means third world countries, where human knowledge exists but the same access to machines is not as available, would still benefit from slaves more.
Answer: It is not possible to prevent slavery when economics is based exclusively in a secular (human) society.  Respect for life and liberty is not a natural result of an evolutionary model.  The implications of the evolution model is dog eat dog, survival of the fittest.  In such a model there is nothing morally wrong with slavery.
When moral principles are derived from a non-secular, no-evolutionary model (aka creationism) there exists a supernatural moral authority under which slavery is considered evil.
In short, the only way to prevent slavery is for society to adopt a higher moral standard than that which derives from a purely secular model of existence.
Comment: "there exists a supernatural moral authority under which slavery is considered evil" -- well, there exists an authority under which slavery *might* be considered evil. Or then again the religion might endorse slavery. Both have been seen historically, and indeed both views have been seen *within an ostensibly single religion* in different times or places.
Comment: I am not sure that I agree with your assertion.  In a strictly economic sense a person could look at slavery as economically detrimental to the whole (though not certain enriched individuals).  People with a stake in the best outcome, meaning they benefit from better performance will be more productive.  Allowing all people to be as productive as possible is good for the whole and that does not require a non-secular perspective.
Comment: James, why should the individual consider the good of the collective when the only naturally occurring "good" is what seems best for the individual over a short span of life?  From a purely natural perspective "good" is only what the individual entity makes of it.
Comment: Steve, never mistake the practice of religion with existence of the divine.


Mercedes - What type of connector is this?

Question: I need to buy a new connector for the light in the boot of my Mercedes C180 W204. However I have been unable to find out what the name of this connector is and where I can purchase it. Does anyone have any ideas? It's a simple 2 pin connector (used for connecting the boot light).
Answer: If all else fails, wrecking yards (I'm not sure what they call them in the UK) may have the same car you own. It's as simple as clipping one out of a wrecked car, then soldering it into yours. It's been my experience, such places don't charge much for it and it'll be an exact fit. If the wreckers don't have your exact model, you may also look at models close to yours, as manufacturers (yes, even MB) use the same connector in the same place in many different models to save engineering/manufacturing costs.
Answer: The connector will most likely be made by TE Connectivity (TE.com).
Use their site to search for the part number that should be on one side or inside the connector.
If there is no part number use the search function. Choose Parts, Automotive connectors, connector housings, housings for female terminals. Use the filters to narrow down the results such as number of positions, colour, non sealed etc etc.
Failing that Mercedes are pretty good at supplying connectors and pins so speak to the parts department and see if they can get it.
Comment: solder / crimp wires onto the pins and use a cheaper / simpler connection also less time involved...
Comment: Had to contact Mercedes in the end. The connector is made by Delphi.


Palm Tree Identification

Question: I need help identifying this particular palm tree. Unfortunately, I don't have many details to give, and I'm by no means one to say I'm even an amateur at plant identification. We are unsure of its origin and can only confirm it's age by how long we've resided here in Hockessin, Delaware. The plant is over the age of 14, and it stands a little over 12 feet high. The foliage is composed of single green shoots coming from the head of the plant which descend gracefully and reorganize into what one without knowledge would say is bark. We are looking to purchase another tree of this species or a close relative; there was a recent loss of an identical tree which sat opposed to this one.
Comment: Probably not a palm, looks like something in the *Agavaceae* so for example, a yucca or joshua tree (though not that specifically).  Try searching your local nursery websites for "yuccas" or something similar.  Or show the picture to your local nursery/landscape person or horticulture expert (maybe county extension agent).
Comment: I'm not sure about the species, but the staking seems a little intense. Was the other tree staked the same way?
Comment: I notice the soil is sandy and there is *Opuntia* growing nearby.  *Yucca* and *Opuntia* like it dry typically, and warm.  I see you are outside Philadelphia PA USA, where there are very cold winters.  This must be a species of *Yucca* that can take the cold.
Answer: Appears to me to be a Yucca tree, from the family Asparagaceae, whereas palms are typically a member of Arecaceae.
Answer: After searching various sites about cold-hardy yuccas, and looking at images, I think you have Yucca rostrata or possibly a hybrid of it.  According to Wikipedia it can be grown in zone 5.  Your location is zone 7, but perhaps if the microhabitat is just right it can survive your winters (perhaps the sandy soil evident in the picture helps it survive, since sand drains well).  I suggest you look at the description of the plant and images online and compare it to your specimen to see how well it fits.

Palm Tree Identification


Should I run while sore?

Question: I would say I ran about a mile-ish in under 15 minutes, which is very slow. I'm overweight and out of shape, so I was not surprised to feel sore after it. Although, many other people are not sore, it's just me. The day after that we ran again, this time I did worse, because I still didn't heal fully. I'm not sure if I should keep pushing myself, I didn't have gym today, but I'm still in pain. Walking down the stairs is the real difficulty, I can't do a squat without it hurting. Pain is normal, but I'm not sure if I should wait to heal.
Comment: Pain when going downstairs is one of the signs of shin splints. There are stretches that help alleviate pain from shin splints. They are also sign of over-training, you need to take it easier.
Comment: Are you being forced to exercise? I'm not sure why you are acting as if you are trapped in this situation. Besides, exercise isn't just legs.
Comment: I'm not really trapped, I could just not run, but I am in school so technically I would have to do something, I would want suggest something else, but he's the teacher so I don't have much freedom. I am dumb, unable to just speak openly and instead I cry over nothing. Perhaps I should just get rid of that part since it doesn't add to the question, I was just really emotionally upset, not sure why. I hope I didn't annoy you at all. I want to get better, I'm not really put off by the pain, I'm annoyed at my inability to speak up.
Answer: Getting a feel for what is normal soreness, and what is an injury developing is a difficult and important skill for a runner. If you are new to this, then build up distance slowly.
A few general notes that may help to tell the difference between soreness that's part of normal muscle (etc) development as part of exercise, and what is an injury developing:

If the pain is extremely sharp, stop immediately
If the pain fades as you warm up, it may be fine to continue
If the pain is in the same place every time you run, and gets worse each time, then it's worth trying a longer gap between runs.
If the pain is in the same place after each run, and gets worse each time, then it's worth trying a longer gap between runs.
Answer: Nothing to be ashamed of at all, your body simply isn't used to it.

Here is a reason you can tell your teacher.

You have shin splints and let him know about the pain that's been
getting worse when you run.
Have a parent write a note saying the this and stop by the your gym teachers office or you can drop it off in the morning at the principals office and ask them to give it to your teacher.

If the kids ask why you're not running say you have a "bone bruise"
   and your doctor said not to.

Below is a good article you can show your patients that talks about what can cause that. You can even print and bring it your next
        doctor visit if you want.

https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/242169.php
Answer: This question is very broad, almost too broad.
It very much depends on how much you exercise and afterall, only you can really judge how exhausted you feel and whether you should exercise.
It's okay to go running with during some muscle soreness, in fact it's a good thing to do as it helps to get the blood flow going. As long as it doesn't physically hurt so much that it causes you pain, then I don't see why you shouldn't be able to run.

Should I run while sore?


Samsung Galaxy Tab 7.0 Plus will not enter recovery mode

Question: I have recently gotten a Samsung Galaxy Tab 7.0 Plus (Wifi only). I am attempting to boot it into recovery mode for the sake of rooting the device, but it is not working as anticipated. When I start the device by holding down power + vol down I see the warning screen that prompts me to press volume up to "continue", or volume down to "cancel (restart tablet)". When I press volume up, it goes to the Odin Mode screen, showing the green android robot, and the words "Downloading... Do not turn off target!!". It remains that way indefinately until I hold down the power button to turn it off. Kies is installed on my PC, and I have tried to reboot it into recovery both with it plugged in to the PC and without. If it is plugged in to the PC while it is stuck at "downloading", eventually a popup appears in Kies stating "Device not responding. To resolve the issue reboot the device." Does anyone see something I am doing wrong? Thank you very much for any help!
Answer: Well, I will answer to help anyone else. I still cannot get to recovery with only the device, but I was able to reboot into recovery and successfully root the device by using "adb reboot recovery" from the command line on my PC while the Galaxy Tab was attached to USB.
Answer: I know this is an old question but hopefully this answer will help someone.  For the Samsung Tab 3, Tab 3 Lite, Tab 4, and many other tablets:
To get into recovery mode

Hold Power button and Volume Up button and Menu button.
If your device is rooted and you have ADB enabled - Type in: adb reboot recovery

To get into Download Mode

Hold Power button and Volume Down button and Menu button.
If your device is rooted and you have ADB enabled - Type in: adb reboot download


Tenant Wants Years of Rent Reimbursed Before Buying House

Question: We bought a house for my daughter and grandchildren in 2009.  In 2013, my daughter's boyfriend moved in with our permission.  We have no written rent agreement.  In 2016, we opened dialogue for the boyfriend to buy the house.  In calculating the sales price, the boyfriend deducted three years' rent. No written offer and acceptance happened.  The boyfriend contends since there was a shaking of hands after the dialogue was concluded, he considered that our acceptance of the figures he came up with.     Now, in 2019, we are again discussing the boyfriend buying the house.  He insists we had an offer-and-acceptance agreement back in 2016, and he therefore made improvements in the house he thought was going to be his.  When we disputed his perception of what happened in 2016, he now is presenting us with more than $10,000 worth of expenses he's incurred when making the improvements.  We value the house at $225,000.  He's willing to buy the house for $150,000 then deducting $50,000 of rent.  After normal costs are deducted, our net profit will be $32,000, according to his calculations.   Does he have a leg to stand on in his calculations?  Does he get to have years of rent reimbursed to him?  Again, he is an at-will tenant.
Comment: A rent-to-own agreement must be in writing, as far as I know.  I wouldn't object to giving a "family discount."  It's hard to wrap my brain around his calculations.
Comment: Real estate contracts have to be written and signed by both parties. Handshakes do not a contract make in this case.
Comment: What country/jurisdiction is this?
Comment: The house is located in town of Susanville, in Lassen County in the state of California, in the USA.
Comment: Sounds like he's treating this as a rent-to-own but those usually don't credit 100% of the rent. You might look at what's usual for those types of contracts and offer him some amount off, but not 100%.
Comment: If none of it was discussed, written, agreed to beforehand then it is all in his head and it would seem he'd have no legal standing whatsoever.
Comment: Thanks, user6726 and Sizzle.  We've heard from multiple sources that his calculations have no validity.  Here's an interesting twist:  The statement was made that if we don't sell the house to them, they will get audited which would lead to us getting audited.  If we get audited, the IRS will see that we haven't been claiming as income the mortgage payments they've been making.  Huh??? We derived NO income at all. We declared no income.  Their entire monthly payments went to the mortgage.  Curiouser and Curiouser.
Answer: He gets exactly what you give him. If you think the home is worth $225,000 then you should offer him to buy the house for $225,000, and that's it. There is no reason why would accept a lower purchase price of $150,000, there is absolutely no reason to deduct $50,000 rent from the purchase price, because that $50,000 is rent for living there, and there is no reason for anyone other than him to pay the $10,000 for changes that he wanted.
Alternatively, you can put the house on the market for $225,000, and if it is sold, your daughter and boyfriend can find somewhere else to live.
On further thought, and reading the comment: This boyfriend seems to be quite the sleaze bag. So if you gave in to his demand, and sold him the house for less than half what it's worth, you shouldn't be surprised if he sold it for $225,000, moved away with his new girlfriend who is not your daughter, and left your daughter homeless.
Comment: I agree with you 200 percent, gnasher729.  This is such a far-fetched situation, I can't help thinking the boyfriend has something up his sleeve.  The comment was made, "Well, if you don't sell the house to us, we will get audited, then you will get audited, then we all lose."  I'm still trying to figure out what that cryptic comment means.  Sigh...
Comment: In reply to your further thought, gnasher729, we hired an attorney who will serve him with a 60-day notice to vacate, because he and my daughter have been living there more than a year, and we have a realtor putting together a listing for the house.  If the boyfriend wants to make a "reasonable" offer, we can go from there.  Oh, by the way, he's a narcissist which answers your "sleaze bag" comment...lol.  I hate to do this to my daughter, but until she wakes up, we need to do this.  Your insights about him were spot on.
Answer: In most jurisdictions contracts for sale/purchase of real property are not binding unless they are in writing. California is no exception (Cal. Civ. Code. 1624):

(a) The following contracts are invalid, unless they, or some note or
  memorandum thereof, are in writing and subscribed by the party to be
  charged or by the party's agent:
(3) An agreement for the leasing for a longer period than one year, or
  for the sale of real property, or of an interest therein; such an
  agreement, if made by an agent of the party sought to be charged, is
  invalid, unless the authority of the agent is in writing, subscribed
  by the party sought to be charged.

Therefore, legally speaking, it is irrelevant whether there was offer/acceptance in this case. It is a proposed property sale, hence no written contract means no contract at all.
The fact that the boyfriend paid rent and made improvements gives him no legal entitlement to the property whatsoever. The most this fact could do for him is to play some part in your mind when making it up about the asking price and considering his offers.
That said, on the face of it he genuinely believed that the house will be his for a price within certain range, and so he put his money and effort into improving it. He was perhaps hoping that you would give him a discount because of that and also because he is kind of a member of your family. Now he is trying to present that as his legal entitlement, either in mistaken belief that it is true, or in attempt to persuade you that it is true while knowing it is not. Either way, it is totally up to you how to judge this and whether to give any discount. Again, legally, he is not entitled to any, though morally he might be.
Comment: Thanks for the post, Greendrake.  We've literally spoken to three attorneys about this and after they stopped laughing, we got down to the business of evicting him and my daughter.  Oh, plus, he has stopped paying rent.  So on top of everything else, we need to bring him to small claims court.  He thinks he can live in our home rent free until he's reimbursed his improvement expenses.  What a jerk.
Answer:
since there was a shaking of hands after the dialogue was concluded,
  he considered that our acceptance of the figures he came up with

People shake hands out of cordiality regardless of whether or not their negotiations culminate in an agreement. Shaking hands is more a sign of civilized conduct than of the formation of a contract. Thus, the boyfriend's allegation sounds unavailing.

Does he get to have years of rent reimbursed to him?

I am not knowledgeable of CA law, but that seems very unlikely. Transfer of real estate is significant enough to warrant rent-to-own agreements to be clearly established beforehand so as to pre-empt confusions as to the parties' alleged understanding, the development of housing market, and so forth.
Not only there is no evidence that you two entered a rent-to-own (verbal) agreement. But also any favorable treatment of his tenancy tends to weaken the boyfriend's presumption that his rent payments shall be construed as amortization of equity. For instance, if his rent is lower than what you would have charged a generic tenant, then it seems unlikelier that --on top of that-- you would willfully consider his reduced rent payments an advancement of the purchase.
Likewise, the parties' subsequent conduct helps discerning each one's understanding from the dialogue in year 2016. First and foremost, the fact that he did not remind you of (or did not revisit) the matter for the next three years suggests that (1) he himself did not consider the 2016 conversation a cognizable contract and/or (2) the alleged contract is voided because its non-performance has exceeded a reasonable time.

Does he have a leg to stand on in his calculations?

It is unclear how he (or you) came up with those numbers that would translate to your profit of $32,000.
Comment: Thanks for the advice, Inaki Viggers.  Common sense demands that I disregard this astonishing proposal by the boyfriend.  I don't see this ending with our relationship with our daughter intact, unfortunately; but this is our retirement nest egg.  Hard lines have to be drawn.  It doesn't make it hurt any less.


How do I use chmod on a Mac to make new files inherit parent directory permissions?

Question: On MacOS. I want to make it so that any new files/folders that get created within a specific folder have the same permissions (not group, that's already taken care of) as those of the parent directory.
On Linux, I would normally use setfacl, but it looks like chmod on MacOS might be able to do what I'm looking for. I've read through the man page for chmod but I still can't figure out how to properly format the command to get what I want.
Answer: First, a bit of background to explain what's going on: Files in OS X can have two quite different kinds of permission settings applied to them: POSIX and ACLs.
Files always (well, almost always) have POSIX permissions applied, consisting of an owner, group, and others (with some combination of read, write, and execute for each of those).  There is no way to control inheritance of POSIX permissions: new items are always owned by whatever user created them, the group assignment is inherited from the folder they're in, and the access is determined by the umask (which is pretty much always: owner gets full access, group and others read only + execute for folders).  So POSIX permissions won't work for what you're trying to do.
Files can also have an access control list (ACL) applied.  This is a list of access control entries (ACEs), each of which applies to a user or group, specifies types of access (in great detail), whether they're being allowed or denied, and whether the ACE should also be copied to items created inside the folder.  That last bit is the part that makes this useful for you; you need to create an ACE on the folder that specifies the group you want, the types of access you want, and full inheritance.
chmod on OS X can manipulate ACEs with the +a, -a, etc permissions options.  If I understand what you want, you'd use this (with your group name and folder path substituted) to create the ACE:
chmod +a "group:examplegroup allow list,add_file,search,add_subdirectory,delete_child,readattr,writeattr,readextattr,writeextattr,readsecurity,file_inherit,directory_inherit" /path/to/folder

Note: the inheritance is not "live", i.e:

it doesn't apply to items created before you assigned the ACE
it doesn't apply to items created somewhere else and then moved into the folder.

You can apply it to existing contents by using -R (i.e: chmod -R +a ...).  I don't know of a way (except Apple's server admin tools) to force inheritance to items moved into the folder.
Comment: `ls -l` only shows POSIX permissions (although the "+" after the permissions indicates that there's an ACL present).  Use `ls -le` to show ACLs as well.
Comment: Thanks for the great explanation. I just tried it out though and it still just created a new file with user read/write, everybody else read permissions.

The parent folder (outdoors) is set to 775 permissions with my user (jhicks) as the owner and _www as the group. I've added myself to the _www group.

drwxrwxr-x+ 13 jhicks  _www    442B Nov 16 09:47 outdoors

I ran your command as follows:

chmod +a "group:_www allow list,add_file,search,add_subdirectory,delete_child,readattr,writeattr,readextattr,writeextattr,readsecurity,file_inherit,directory_inherit" outdoors
Comment: If the groupname has a space in it, you can use : as the delimiter. For example, "group:my group with a space:allow"
Comment: Followed the `chmod +a ...` command, then I created an _abc.txt_ in the folder. Switched to another user and edit with TextEdit, the file is indicated as _Locked_ and is not editable.
Comment: I've been doing some playing with this I think that you force inheritance with +ai
Answer: Try adding -R to @gordon's command, like so:
chmod -R +a "group:_www allow list,add_file,search,add_subdirectory,delete_child,readattr,writeattr,readextattr,writeextattr,readsecurity,file_inherit,directory_inherit" outdoors

The -R option will (as noted here):

Recurse: Change the mode of file hierarchies rooted in the files
  instead of just the files themselves.

Changing the file hierarchies seems to be what you're looking for (for new files, directories, etc.).
You can also check out this Apple.SE post, which covers a situation somewhat similar to yours (except relating to a shared directory), which required a sudo tacked onto the front.
Answer: This (-R) is not what most people seek to do; most of the time they would prefer to change the ACL on the topmost directory and do something magical to force all contained objects to inherit flags according to the ACL they specified on the root of that sub-tree. This is much more elegant as the ACLs on the objects will sort these inherited ACEs according to policy.
And yes, I had to write a python script to do this, I didn't find anything appropriate either.
Comment: Do you care to share (e.g. on a [gist](https://gist.github.com/)? If you don't mind, I think that was a nice gesture.
Answer: On a Mac try using PathFinder, it makes it easy to set ACL and POSIX. If you're hosting WordPress on a Mac Server you'll also need to set define('FS_METHOD', 'direct'); in the wp-config.php so that installing plugins and upgrading won't ask you for FTP details.
So basically you keep the default POSIX permissions, and add the user _www (not group) to ACL, then click Propagate Permission in the ACL window.
Answer: chmod +ai, i = inherit acl rules


What does the sign "Caution your blast" mean?

Question: At London City Airport (LCY) there exists a "CAUTION YOUR BLAST" sign. This isn't one I've seen before. What does it mean?
Answer: I'm fairly sure that sign is beside taxiway C*, and as you can see from the aerodrome chart it is right next to the main apron. Aircraft holding in this position have the main apron directly behind them.

The sign is instructing pilots to use the minimum thrust necessary to move off from that position, as there could be personnel, vehicles etc on the apron. As this is a bit of a mouthful "Caution your blast" is used.
This is further backed up by the aerodrome textual data which states:

Pilots are requested to use minimum power when manoeuvring on and off parking stands and when entering the runway.
  The use of minimum power is particularly emphasised when holding at the the entry points to the runway and when
  entering the runway.

The other hold points around the apron seem to have a similar problem Taxiway B has the same sign. Perhaps the others do too.

(Image source: https://www.airlinequality.com/review-pages/gallery-airline-reviews/)

* This was based on personal memory of seeing this exact sign, and of being aware at which hold point we were at. I went and checked using google earth/street view. There is a good view from the terminal however the sign itself is obscured by an aircraft. However you can clearly see the building opposite from the original picture, and so the position for Taxiway C lines up.
Answer: Jet aircraft are legendary for generating enough exhaust force behind them to blow over people, baggage carts, smaller aircraft, or any other loose object.  An extended NASA safety reporting system discussion of the hazard is at https://asrs.arc.nasa.gov/publications/directline/dl6_blast.htm.  Boeing further describes blast details at http://www.boeing.com/commercial/aeromagazine/aero_06/textonly/s02txt.html, noting that the hazard extends hundreds of feet behind the aircraft's engines.  When a jet has been stopped and needs to start moving, the crew needs to set power to reach "breakaway thrust", which is substantial for a large aircraft.  Once moving, power can be reduced - but there will still be a blast hazard close behind a taxiing aircraft.  In the environment described in the LCY question, all the runway entry points are likely to have stopped aircraft that need to go to breakaway thrust to start moving onto the runway, and that could easily cause control problems for aircraft moving on the apron behind them.


Nash's ICM calculation

Question: I would like to understand the Nash' ICM model and how to use it. I have found this calculators here and here, and  I have tried to play with them. But I don't understand the output. Who can help me explaining me the output or telling me where i can find a good textbook for reference? I am interested in the theory too so i would like to understand the mathematics behind this numbers.
Answer: This is pretty complex question and proper answer is worth a chapter in book
(Try Collin Moshman's SNG strategy it's a must read for every sng student.)
Usage
No one ever solved Nash equlibrium for such complex game as poker, if such strategy was found, it would be unbeatable strategy. (Not most profitable though, because its static strategy and doesnt involve adjusting to our opponent play.)
We are able to calculate strategy for simplier variant of poker. In this simple variant, every player has to decide, whether he want to go all-in or fold preflop. No other moves are allowed. Because this simple variant differs so much from hold-em poker(which involves planning our strategy for multiple streets, weightening outs, counting pot odds... ), we can use this strategy only in situations, when our optimal play will likely no differ from optimal play in our all-in/fold simplified variant.
Nash is therefore used just in HU when effective stacks are <12 (some authors claim its -EV and recommend playing nash when effective stacks are <8) or in SNG, usually during bubble play and all-in/fold phase. (3-5 players on 9max, 2-4 players on 6max)
I recommend reading Merseneary free e-book for more advanced and deep discussion about this topic.
Theory
I think Soner Gonul explained this well and I would just copy him.
Great tools to practice
Can be found here
Understanding output of calculators
I will refer to one instance of calculation.
First table
Informs us about structure of sit-n-go, number of players and number of runs(These tools don't calculate NASH but only estimate it pretty correctly. Runs is number of games simulated to get result.)
Second table
Player - Refers to player position at the table
Stack - Number of chips player has
push% - If all his opponents play correctly, he should push top push% percent
of hands.
EQPre - This is the fair division of prizepool to players before dealing the
hand based on propability, how much money are players going to win in the long run.
EQPost - This is the fair division of prizepool to player after playing one round.
You can see, that it's decreasing for SB, he is shortstack on the bubble, he has another shortstack who can survive to next round or push to him and also he has bigstack on right side who usually has no problem to call his all in. CO benefits the most from this situation, he can get into the money after this round, although he has only 2BB. BB has so much chips, that his expected amount of prize will not change dramatically.
EQdiff = EQPre - EQPost
Third table :
Row by row:
CO should push his top 4% hands...
if CO push, BU should call with QQ+
if CO push, BU calls, SB should only with AA
if CO push, BU calls, BB should only with AA
if CO push, BU folds, SB should call with JJ+
if CO push, BU folds, SB calls, BB should call with top 58%
if CO push, BU folds, SB folds, BB should call with top 58%
if CO folds, BU should push top 13,7%
if CO folds, BU push, SB should call 5,6%
if CO folds, BU push, SB call, BB should call 9.8%
.
.
.
Answer: It seems to me that you're conflating three separate concepts:

ICM equities
EV calculations
Nash equilibria

I'll go over these in turn an explain how push/fold calculator software uses them to produce solutions for real-life scenarios.
ICM Equity
ICM equities are a way to determine each player's equity share in poker games with non-linear payout structures (i.e. tournaments).
ICM equities are expressed as a percentage of the total prize pool and are calculated solely based on the distribution of chips among the players and the tournament payout table.
For example, in a typical 6-max hyperturbo SNG (payouts 65%/35% for first and second finisher respectively), with 3 players remaining whose stacks are:

player 1: 1500 chips
player 2: 1000 chips
player 3: 500 chips

an ICM algorithm might tell you that the first player's ICM equity is approximately 45% of the total prize pool.
I've made a video explaining how different algorithms calculate these equities here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JtBAxjR21o8 and you can use our (https://omni.poker) ICM equity calculator for free if you want to play around with these (instructional video here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XuEBxON9fGQ).
You can read up on ICM algorithms in the Mathematics of Poker by Bill Chen.
Ben Robert's algorithm is described here: http://www.pdf-archive.com/2014/08/04/benrobertsequitymodel/benrobertsequitymodel.pdf.
ICM equities are used in practice to:

negotiate final table deals (when the last few remaining players in an MTT decide to chop the remaining prize pool, they'll usually allocate prize money according to the ICM equities implied by their chip stacks)
adapting the concept of pot odds to tournament situations (called tournament odds and described in the book Kill Everyone by Nelson/Streib/Heston)
as a heuristic when doing EV calculations in tournament settings

EV Calculations
To do an EV calculation simply means taking a simplified (in terms of game tree size) poker game, intended to model some real poker game with reasonable accuracy, writing down the full game tree for the simplified game, and then calculating the expected value of each decision in order to be able to pick the best decision.
For example, arguably the simplest useful model of preflop poker is the push/fold game. In this game, one player may go all-in or fold and the other player(s) may call the all-in or fold.
Continuing our scenario above, let's say the first player folded and the second player must now decide between pushing and folding. We get a game tree that looks like this:
<code>             p1_fold
            /       \
        p2_push   p2_fold
       /       \
   p3_call   p3_fold
    /   \
p2_win  p2_lose
</code>
We now need to assign values to each choice node, and this is where ICM equities come into play.
Let's take the simpler case first. If p2 decides to fold, what is his expected value? One way to answer this question is to look at how ICM equities are affected by a given choice. To make this concrete, let's say the current blinds are 20/40, so that when player 2 folds, 20 of his chips will move to player 3.
I plugged these values into an ICM equity calculator and got the following results (using the Malmuth-Weitzman algorithm):

before the hand: p2 has 35.67% ICM equity
after the hand: p2 has 35.06% ICM equity

so the EV of folding is -0.61% ICM equity
What's the EV of player 2 going all-in? This is considerably more complex.
First off, we need to model player 3's behavior, i.e. we need to estimate the distribution of hands that player 3 will call an all-in with.
Given this information, we can then calculate a conditional probability (conditioned on player 2's holdings' card removal effects) of player 3 calling an all-in as well as the equity of player 2's holding against player 3's range.
We'll end up with something like this:
<code>EV_chips(push)     = EV_chips(p3_calls) + EV_chips(p3_folds)
EV_chips(p3_calls) = P(p3_has_calling_hand) * (P(p2_wins)*500 + P(p2_loses)*-500)
EV_chips(p3_folds) = 1-P(p3_has_calling_hand) * 40

where P() indicates the probability of an event
</code>
This gives us the Chip EV (i.e. the expected number of chips won or lost) of player 2's decision to push all-in:

the 500/-500 in EV(p3_calls) are simply player 3's stack size
the +40 in EV(p3_folds) is the big blind

which we can convert to ICM EV by plugging the updated chip stacks into an ICM equity calculator in each case.
Commercial push/fold calculators such as our PUSH/FOLD module or ICMIZER do these steps for you, i.e.:

you input an opponent model (a calling range for each opponent)
the calculator builds a game tree, assigns probabilities, calculates chip EV and converts that to ICM EV
the calculator does this for every starting hand and shows you the hands with higher EV(push) than EV(fold) as your pushing range

Nash Equilibria
Finally, let's talk about Nash equilibria in poker.
A Nash equilibrium is a solution concept for two-player zero-sum games which describes a strategy pair (i.e. one strategy for each player) such that no player can unilaterally improve his EV by deviating from the solution strategy.
What does that mean in practice? Recall from the EV calculation example above that we had to model our opponents behavior in order to do our calculation.
While we may have a good idea of how specific opponents or populations of opponents behave (and we may be able to base our modeling on a large database of hand that we've played) we might instead want to know what optimal play would look like against an optimal opponent.
To determine optimal play, we'll essentially solve a given game tree many times, with players adjusting to each other in an alternating fashion.
E.g. to solve our game tree above, we'd start by putting in any random range of calling hands for player 3 and calculate the optimal range of pushing hands for player 2. We'd then keep this range of pushing hands fixed and solve the tree again from the perspective of player 3 (i.e. calculate the optimal range of calling hands given player 2's pushing range). We'd now go back to looking at the tree from player 2's perspective and calculate the optimal pushing range given player 3's new calling range, and so forth.
This process will eventually reach a stable state, where neither player can improve his expectation by changing his range and this is the game's Nash equilibrium.
For the curious, the algorithm I just described is called Fictitious Play and is only minimally more complex in practice than what I outlined above (rather than always switching to the best response strategy one mixes the best response strategy into the current strategy to avoid oscillation and rather than running it until it has reached a stable state, one measures the distance of the current solution to the true solution, by measuring the magnitude of EV changes, and stops once it's close enough).
Why are equilibrium solutions interesting? IMO there are three main uses:

to get a feel for what correct play looks like in a given situation, which one can use as a baseline for one's strategy development
as a default strategy against unknown or scary opponents
at the highest level of play today (e.g. high-stakes HUSNGs) players employ optimal or near-optimal strategies in many situations and it's necessary to play GTO strategies oneself in order to compete

As a final note, you may have noticed that I used two-player games for my examples. This is because only in two player games do Nash strategies give a non-negative profit guarantee. Informally, this is because any game has some value and when there's only two players, one player foregoing some of that value must mean that the other player captures it. In multi-player games, one player making a -EV decision might mean that some or all of his opponents end up capturing that value which makes playing equilibrium strategies in that setting a lot less appealing: you may be playing optimally against an opponent, but him playing sub-optimally against you may benefit another opponent rather than yourself.
HTH
Comment: The notion of Nash equilibrium is defined for any type of game, not just 2-player zero-sum games, with any number of players, even a continuum of players.
Answer: I will talk about the theory part because I'm not sure about how the mathematic part works. On wikipedia page, there are some explanation about the math part but it is little bit complicated.
Nash ICM calculation is the based on Nash equilibrium theory. This theory belongs on John Forbes Nash. If you remember there was a movie called A Beautiful Mind about John Nash's life.
In these days, It is close to impossible to find the exact Poker Nash Equilibrium strategy for games with many possible strategies. Really hard because the possibilities of a games as complex as poker are vast.
From Wikipedia;

In game theory, the Nash equilibrium is a solution concept of a
  non-cooperative game involving two or more players, in which each
  player is assumed to know the equilibrium strategies of the other
  players, and no player has anything to gain by changing only his own
  strategy unilaterally. If each player has chosen a strategy and
  no player can benefit by changing his or her strategy while the other
  players keep theirs unchanged, then the current set of strategy
  choices and the corresponding payoffs constitute a Nash equilibrium.

Stated simply, Amy and Phil are in Nash equilibrium if Amy is making
  the best decision she can, taking into account Phil's decision, and
  Phil is making the best decision he can, taking into account Amy's
  decision. Likewise, a group of players are in Nash equilibrium if each
  one is making the best decision that he or she can, taking into
  account the decisions of the others.

Informal definition

Informally, a set of strategies is a Nash equilibrium if no player can
  do better by unilaterally changing his or her strategy. To see what
  this means, imagine that each player is told the strategies of the
  others. Suppose then that each player asks himself or herself:
  "Knowing the strategies of the other players, and treating the
  strategies of the other players as set in stone, can I benefit by
  changing my strategy?"

If any player would answer Yes, then that set of strategies is not a
  Nash equilibrium. But if every player prefers not to switch (or is
  indifferent between switching and not) then the set of strategies is a
  Nash equilibrium. Thus, each strategy in a Nash equilibrium is a best
  response to all other strategies in that equilibrium

If you really interested in game theories, you can read Theory of Games and Economic Behavior. I didn't read this book but it called a legendary about game theories.
Comment: Thanx Soner, but I know the definition of Nash equilibrium. The question is about how to use ICM model in order to solve Nash equilibrium for many players on texas hold'em.
Answer: essentially what the Nash solution tells you: How to play without giving the opponent an opportunity to exploit me
So in tournament poker, what the Nash chart will tell you is how to play each hand depending on the number of chips you have, your cards and how many opponents are left to act. To arrive at the solution, the algorithm iterates until there is no more adaptive moves left. I hope that makes sense :)

Nash's ICM calculation


How to get started with Mindstorms?

Question: I want to introduce my 8 year old son to Lego Mindstorms.
Where should I start?
Is there a starter kit which is the best starting point?
Comment: Many thanks for your help.  I've ordered the NXT 2.0 kit as suggested.  Can't wait for Christmas!  er - I mean, my _son_ can't wait for Christmas.  My son. Not me.
Comment: It's Chrismas Day, so now I'm on a precious break from my day job as a programmer.  How do I spend this hard-won free time, you ask?  ... PROGRAMMING, of course, with the new NXT 2.0.  Thanks again everyone for your advice  ;)
Answer: The most current Mindstorms set would be the NXT 2.0.

The set is advertised for children aged 10+ (previously 16+). If you or your child is under 10 but has a talent for building with LEGO and a basic understanding of computers or engineering the whole process should be fairly easy to get to grips with.
The set itself is quite an investment (RRP £235/$350) yet it provides the most complete Mindstorms package. Half of the time spent playing with the set will probably involve programming via the NXT-G software which comes with the set.

NXT-G is an intuitive, icon-based drag-and-drop programming language
  designed for an easy introduction to programming for new users and
  experienced users. By choosing program blocks that work with the
  motors and make the sensors react to inputs, you simply build up your
  program block by block, and you can create programs that range from
  simple to complex.
  (Source)
Answer: The best thing you can do to get experience with Mindstorms is to try to build some robots with the kit. You should get the normal NXT kit, as this includes the software, the electronics and some sample Mindstorms models.
Anyway, there are two aspects to Mindstorms, building and programming.
Building: If you have experience with Lego Technic, building should be familiar to you. However as this is often not the case with young people, you will want to get some experience building with Lego Technics by using building instructions. There are the sample models included in the kit, but you might also want to buy some Technic sets to get some further experience (and more pieces to build with).
Programming: The programming can be a bit more tricky. First you should make the example programs included with the software. If I remember correctly, it will let you make a program step by step. The important part is to pay attention to what you are doing and why you are doing it during this process! Do not just make the program and run it, use some time to understand how the program is working. Try to make modifications to it and see what happens! Give yourself challenges and try to solve them, "can I make it do this instead?".

Once you have made the models in the kits and experimented a bit with them, you can find even more Mindstorms models online. One example is nxtprograms.com. There are also books which you can read, for example The LEGO®MINDSTORMS® NXT 2.0 Discovery Book. The important part with the programming, especially when downloading programs from the web is to really take some time with trying to understand them. I will point it out again, do not just run them, as this will learn you nothing!
The best way of learning however is to experiment, try to build or program something either as a modification of another model or something completely from scratch. The reason Mindstorms is fun is because you can create something yourself with it, so the steps above should be treated as steps in order to reach this stage where you don't need instructions. So it is important to mix these two approaches in the beginning, do something from instructions and try doing something yourself.
The RCX 2.0 had a section with "advanced" models. The primary difference between the simple and advanced models were that the simple models had building instructions where the advanced models only had the key steps . So you had to fill in the other steps yourself, which is a great way to learn how to build, since you are forced to think about what you are doing. Try to take some of the robots from nxtprograms.com, but remove all but the most important steps and give those to your son.
Comment: Speaking fo books, I can also recommend [The Mayan Adventure](http://www.amazon.com/LEGO-Mindstorms-NXT-Adventure-Technology/dp/159059763X) which is oriented towards problem-solving and uses just the retail kit (version 1 though, so maybe you'll need a few extra parts). There's also [The King's Treasure](http://www.amazon.com/LEGO-MINDSTORMS-NXT-2-0-Technology/dp/1430224916/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1323342962&sr=1-1) which is for version 2.
Answer: I can only answer based on my past experiences with RCX 2.0.
Mindstorms comes as one great box with everything included.  Back with RCX it was very simple to get started.  You simply had to install the software that came in the box.  The whole thing was designed to be used by kids.  It was very intuitive with a nice tutorial going over every programming concepts.  This was all done while programming the real hardware so it was encouraging to see the results in real time.
All the coding was done using visual elements (like building blocks) that were linked together to form the full program.  Again it was very intuitive for young kids.
My son and I had a great time with RCX 2.0 and I would recommend it any time.  I hope NXT is the same or even better.
Comment: Although this refers to RCX (The older version of Mindstorms) most of the advice still applies to NXT. The main differences can be found listed   [here](http://bricks.stackexchange.com/questions/446/what-is-the-difference-between-the-nxt-and-the-rcx).
Answer: As others said, the Mindstorms retail kit is the obvious starting point (begin the only kit readily available).
There is an education kit which contains mostly the same things as the retail kit, with the notable exception of the software (which is sold separately). It's certainly not really suitable for a standalone usage, and possibly difficult to acquire depending on where you live.
However, LEGO education could be a interesting route as well that your kid's school may be interested to investigate. This could mean that the kids get an introduction to robotics as a class and you'd see if your son gets a taste for it before needing to buy a kit yourself. The target age of the education kit is 8+, by the way, so don't worry too much about the 10+ range of the retail kit.
From LEGO education, there's also the WeDo kit. While not part of the Mindstorms range (it doesn't use the same hardware at all), it can also be an interesting introduction to robotics, aimed at slightly younger children. For a school, it's also a less heavy investment than Mindstorms, which can be easier to justify.
Comment: I've seen the "Education" stuff.  I've wondered about getting some as a gift for school. Do you have experience with it?  Perhaps I should post this as a separate question!
Comment: Sorry, I've got no actual experience with it, to be honest. I know some universities use it around here, but I think the prices in Europe are a bit too high to consider it in other age ranges schools.

How to get started with Mindstorms?


Editing favorite URL

Question:
How can I edit URL in Edge favorites?
How can I add link from page directly to favorites?
Comment: Ok, so it seems there is more clutter and less functionality in IE compared to 8.x WP. Is this a good thing nowadays?
Comment: Just to clarify, do you mean Edge? There is no IE in Windows 10 Mobile.
Comment: @Indrek yes, Edge in WP 10.
Answer: Unfortunately it seems that currently the answer to both of your questions is, you can't.

It's not possible to edit the URL of a favourite. As a workaround, you can open the favourite, change the URL in the address bar, add that back to favourites and then delete the old one.
It also doesn't look like you can add the target of a link directly to favourites (though you can add it to reading list). You'll have to open the link, then add the opened page to favourites.

If you need this functionality, you may want to let Microsoft know using the Feedback Hub.
Answer: In addition to what @Indrek said in his answer, there is an additional workaround.
You can use tools like Edge Manage in PC to edit bookmarks, folders, etc... and sync them back to your phone. This may be a bit of work but it provides additional functionalities like local backup of bookmarks. Although it requires the use of a PC it may be highly useful when you require to edit in bulk.
Comment: Tnx, it would be great to have mobile app for that.
Comment: @mpapec I am not sure if it is possible. But anyways, you could ask the developer. You can find his contact info in this webpage. http://www.emmet-gray.com/AboutMe.html.

Editing favorite URL