Slashdot Mirror

If everybody does what's in his immediate best interest, everybody may end up with a sub-optimum outcome.

True, which is why societies seek unification of the group through either ideology or heritage. The classic statement of this problem is "The Tragedy of the Commons" by Garrett Hardin.

Used to live in a city with "free wifi". It was horrendously slow because everybody used it and most still paid a normal provider.

If you make a public resource, you have what economists call a "free rider" problem: most people aren't obligated to pay in to it, so they simply take advantage of it without paying in.

This causes the quality of service to decline. It is related to the "Tragedy of the Commons" where overconsumption of a public resource results in its depletion.

A better option to "free" internet might be aiming to lower costs and improve performance, and then allow local residents to use additional bandwidth to provide free local hotspots.

Like I said, here, I'll make it very, very easy:

http://www.garretthardinsociety.org/articles/art_tragedy_of_the_commons.html

Our social species, by the way, has a reptile brain with all of its appetites right in the middle of all of that mammal and primate cortex, and yeah, we're nothing more than heavily evolved reptiles with all of the same appetites. We want food, shelter, sex, status, victory over competitors. Mammal cortex makes us like small cute things so we don't eat our own offspring so much any more, mostly. Primate cortex gives us a fighting chance to transcend the basic reptile and mammal drives programmed into our core, but it isn't a matter of being a psychopath or narcissist -- or not, it is a matter of using reason -- or not. Morality is either based on reason and enlightened (or if you prefer, educated) self-interest or it is almost by definition borderline insane -- for example religious mythology such as Christian or Communist morality -- and generally dysfunctional.

But if you want to solve the problems of the world by identifying and punishing everybody who disagrees with your solution (because they are obvious psychopaths and narcissists by your clearly objective standards), well, have at it. Sounds pretty psychopathic and narcissistic to me, though...

rgb

...and that the number of undernourished people had grown to about 923 million worldwide...

And you've just defended the very position you were trying to argue against. The current model of aid, which is what you mean by "right to food", has done nothing to fix the problem, and in fact actually makes it worse.

while we're waiting for that, how about if you give some evidence that the kind of aid you're espousing actually helps in the long term. In other words, give us some evidence that this guy is wrong.

That's the problem with everything. There's always a few who will take a short term gain even knowing that, in the long run, everyone -- including themselves -- will be fucked. http://www.garretthardinsociety.org/articles/art_tragedy_of_the_commons.html

As the name "horseless carriage" suggests, technological evolution is as much - or more - about subtracting things from society as about adding them. The Popular Science view of a jetpack in every garage and a submarine in every bathtub also neglects the layers of infrastructure needed to make a new paradigm work.

Combine these two and you must face dark economic wizards like Malthus, and evil powers like the Tragedy of the Commons. James Bond (or rather, Q) can employ a single jetpack. But a Robert Moses is needed to bring us all to the promised land of some new visionary technology (casually crushing the South Bronx along the way, of course).

Using Adam's idea of an invisible hand as an argument in any single case flawed. First of all, it is (just) a model ("All models are wrong. Some models are useful." - George Box), and he's observation was for the total effect of all individuals. He did not (as you make it seem) proclaim that it was the case for all individual cases. In fact, the benefit for a single individual is in many cases a disadvantage for the society. See The Tragedy of the Commons or here for details.

Competition between companies can be hard; being best is very difficult. So most companies try avoid competing on being best and instead go for alternative strategies like hindrance of competitors (using patents or exclusive distribution agreements[1] for instance) or by trying to make the consumers less likely to switch products (vendor lock-in is very popular[2], some also try to appeal to a loyalty feeling (any product marketed as "original", "American" (in USA), etc)). Influencing/lobbying/bribing politicians is also very lucrative.

In this case Qualcom trying force their products into Iraq through the politician route, because, as others have pointed out, the "best" product for Iraq would be GSM.

[1]
I really hate Coca Cola for their exclusive distribution agreement with McDonalds. "You shall only sell Coca Cola products" implicit means "You shall not sell products competing with Coca Cola" and that is wrong. I have absolutely no problems with Coca Cola making an agreement "You shall sell Coca Cola products" with McDonalds. By all means, Coca Cola is then improving their distribution channels and thus making their products "better". Great. But the "you shall not sell" part I have a problem with. Why should companies be allowed to misuse their enormous power to deny customers to decide if they want to buy a Pepsi in addition to a cheeseburger, ignoring that "the customer is always right"?

In my opinion, exclusive distribution agreements should be illegal with (at least) the same punishment as for illegal price agreements. I mean, with illegal price agreements you as a customer at least can buy the product (although to a too high price); with exclusive distribution agreements you cannot even buy it.

[2]
To misquote a slogan used by Ericsson: "It's all about vendor lock-in. The rest is technology." - Me

PS
Speaking of models and Adam Smith, you all have seen the curves with supply and demand, but have you reflected over under what conditions they are supposed to work (again, this is just a model)? Well the model is based on the assumption of a perfectly free marked, with an unlimited number of suppliers and demanders. What is happening today with globalization? The current trend with fewer and bigger companies are creating a less free market.