As the other people said, SCSI *is* a BTO option using a high-end PCI card. But Apple is pushing FireWire as their high-end hard drive solution. As I understand it, it is a higher-performance option, and it is much more flexible and simpler.
One other thing to keep in mind is the Unified Motherboard Architecture. Apple's new computers will soon all be using the same basic motherboard. The iBook and the high-end "Sawtooth" G4's are UMA-based right now, and the soon-to-be released iMac revision will be as well. The Powerbook will be UMA-based early next year.
A big reason for this is to allow economies of scale, both to spread R & D around and to allow cheaper production costs. They took SCSI off the motherboard to save money on the low-end machines, and they're puching FireWire as the replacement on the new G4's.
never mind that they have to use that extra money for their own private police force
That makes no sense.
private investigators to investigate their uncertified doctors
There's no reason that everyone has to do this on their own. That's what the media and various research organizations are for. You could subscribe to a magazine, for example, that would rate doctors. And there would still be med-school diplomas. They just wouldn't be coercively enforced by the govt.
their own private chemistry lab to constantly test the air and water to make sure FreindlyCo isn't dumping toxic waste
Again, this doesn't have to be done on an individual basis.
their own private meat inspector to make sure their food isn't infected with botulism
If a meat packer sold meat with botulism in it, how long do you think it would last? In fact, meat packers would hire outside testing services to test their meat to prove it was safe, so they could get more customers.
ad infinitum
Exactly. All the wasteful, coercive, destructive things the government does would be replaced with voluntary private alternatives.
How is the software industry any different from any other, so much so that it shouldn't be scrutinized by the government in the same fashion every other industry is?
No different. I think other industries should not have to deal with antitrust either.
Your assertion that "even if they did break a law, it's a stupid law to begin with" holds absolutely no water. I happen to think having to stop at a red light is outdated and stupid, too. I think I'll start running them from now on. Let's see how far that gets me.
And that would be a stupid decision, because the law against running a red light is a good law and so you should be punished. I don't see how that's the least bit relevant. The fact that I object to antitrust law doesn't mean that I dislike all laws.
The fact of the matter is, the antitrust laws in this country *are* specific and to-the-point. If they weren't, there would be countless cases prosecuted under them every year. I don't see too many going to court, do you?
That's because only large companies are targets, and because the DoJ and state attorneys' general can bring antitrust suits. Study the history some time. You'll find that there are many cases in which people are prosecuted for categories of behavior that had never previously been prosecuted as crimes.
Microsoft broke the rules. Now it's time to pay up.
That's an incredibly concrete-bound mentality. Are you telling me that all laws are just? That's ridiculous. Legislators are mortals too, and they make mistakes. Your unwillingness to consider the merits of the specific law is disappoointing.
If I accidentally run over a kid. Did I murder that kid?
If I intentionally run over a kid. Did I murder that kid?
I didn't say all murders were exactly the same. Of course intent has something to do with it. That's not the point. The point is that assuming that a given action was intentional, it is pretty cut and dried what constitutes murder. Microsoft's problem is not that the violated antitrust laws by accident. Their problem is that they are being prosecuted for things that are not a crime for other companies, and that (at least prior to the previous lawsuit) was not considered a crime. No one has to worry that they might do something that later get reclassified as murder. Yet antitrust laws are so vague, that that's exactly what can happen to businesses. They do things that are considered legal at the time, and then a new administration comes in and decides to go after them. There's really nothng a successful company can do about it. Gaining a large market share is going to make you some enemies no matter how you do it. And so many successful companies get investigated for antitrust, when there was no way they could have known that they would be a target.
Running over a kid accidentally is a difference of intent. I'm not saying that Microsoft did what they did by accident. I'm saying they didn't know and could not know what actions would be considered crimes until the Do(in)J took action. That's wrong.
Let's start with perjury. Microsoft executives, up to Bill Gates himself, have been caught flat-out lying to the court. This doesn't require a fine on the part of Microsoft, but in fact is a series of criminal charges against members of their high command.
Fine, then we can charge him for that. That's a seperate issue however.
From there, we go to violating an agreement that they signed to get out of legal trouble earlier. The Microsoft position on the "bundling" issue is that the definition of "bundling" is indefensible, and that they thus signed a bogus document.
They signed that document to avoid being prosecuted for the same unjust laws they are being prosecuted for now. If antitrust law didn't exist, they never would have signed that document.
From there, we go to violating an agreement that they signed to get out of legal trouble earlier. The Microsoft position on the "bundling" issue is that the definition of "bundling" is indefensible, and that they thus signed a bogus document.
Antitrust law makes illegal "combinations in restraint of trade," and "anticompetitive practices." Taken literally, that makes all businesses criminal, since by definition, they work to beat their competition and drive them out of business. If that's not vague, I don't know what is. Now you might think that other parts of the law clarify that, but the fact is that government lawyers come up with new types of "combinations in restraint of trade" whenever a new bad guy comes along. It's elastic law, which means tyrranical law. Most of the things that Microsoft has done were not considered crimes when they were doing them. That's why the government emphasizes "patterns of behavior." Very few of MS's specific actions are illegal, but only "when taken as a whole" they are illegal. That seems to me overly broad.
As far as predicting which things are and are not illegal, forget the reinterpretations. Using a monopoly position, as such, to either keep that monopoly or gain a new monopoly, is illegal. Having a monopoly position by virtue of superior products, and keeping that position by improving one's product, is not illegal.
That sounds pretty vague to me. How much market share is a "monopoly?" How broadly do you define the market? How long do they have to hold the market? How much use of a monopoly in another market is acceptable? Taking the above literally, Microsoft should be prohibited from making software other than Windows, as should Apple. And who decides how much a given monopoly is based upon "product superiority?" That puts the courts in the position of judging the merit of computer products.
Now you can say that the courts can figure this stuff out, but my point is that it shouldn't have to. There's no ambiguity abouyt what constitutes murder. There might be some uncertainty at the edges about which kind of murder a given act is, but if you kill someone and you were not being attacked at the time, you are guilty of some form of murder. Antitrust law defies simple summary. If you are asked to say which specific acts constitute "anticompetitive practices" or "combinations in restraint of trade," you can't do it. Because the law does not regulate specific actions but "patterns of behavior." And that's so open-ended that any successful company is open to harassment.
I disagree. A law that is too specific can be worked around; the best way to avoid pseudocrime (acts which shouldbe crimes but really aren't due to a technicality) is to write a general law.
OK, how about a law that says "no one may do bad things." We can work the details out in court.
The point is that anything that can't be summarized in specifics (like murder or theft) should not be a crime. The law should be written in a way that given a set of facts, 90% of the people will interpret the law in the same way. This is because people need to know which things they are or are not allowed to do. Allowing the courts to decide after the fact whether a given action is illegal is a recipe of tyranny.
Remember that the highest law in the land, the Constitution, is written up with a lot of vague laws. the vagueness of these laws is precisely what makes them useful two hundred years later.
Generality is not the same as vagueness. "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech" seems pretty straightforward to me. You can pretty easily determine when a law abridges freedom of speech. Of course the Supreme Court has decided that there are other concerns that overrule the first amendment in some cases, but that's a problem with their choices, not the law itself.
In addition, the Constitution is not a law in the same sense as other laws. It is a limitation on the power of government, not a limitation on the actions of the people. Thus it is much less important that it be narrowly focused, since an overly broad interpretation will provide more freedom to the people while a broad interpretation of other laws leads to less freedom.
The DoJ is prosecuting Microsoft on antitrust charges because their other crimes are committed against specific entities that can and should prosecute them seperately. Note that Sun Microsystems is currently suing Microsoft over their Java implementation. Caldera is or was suing Microsoft over their efforts to sabotage DR/DOS. The DoJ trial is not the only thing landing Microsoft in court these days.
Fine, and if those prosecutions are for real, specific crimes, I support their right to do so. But let's keep them seperate from this trial, which is not about specific crimes.
I don't care about punishment, and I don't want to punish anybody. I do care about keeping capitalism working. Monopolies break the assumptions of capitalism, and thus break the capitalism.
Capitalism means the free market. A free market in which the Federal government is allowed to step in and stop companies who act "unfairly" is a contradiction in terms. Over the long term, monopolies are impossible in a free market, even without antitrust law. Antitrust law is not a safeguard of a free market. It undermines it and makes it less free.
As for Microsoft being a "wrench" in the gears, I think you might be suffering from myopia. From a technical standpoint, Windows is a mediocre product. But for most users, it is *still* the best choice for many tasks. The Mac OS doesn't have the software base and the commodity hardware, and the Unices are intimidating for the average user. I hope something better comes along to replace Windows, but for now I think the existence of Windows is a good thing. I'd hate to see that obstructed by government interference.
The concept of "dumping" is absurd. Please tell me how low Microsoft's prices have to be to qualify as "dumping."
The per-unit cost of Windows is practically zero. A few bucks for the box and manuals, a couple of bucks for the CD burning, and that's it. IT WOULD seem that they could sell Windows for $20 and still not be "dumping."
Of course, they need to recover their R & D costs, but then the question is, how much of those costs must they recover with each sale? This depends on how many copies they sell. But then that means that you can't define "dumping" without a coplicated formula taking into account R & D costs, demand curves, and the like. The concept of "dumping" becomes ridiculous.
Besides, MS has made loads of money on Win98, so I don't see how it can be considered dumping in any case.
Now, you might say that their prices are lower than those of their conpetitors, but so what? That's what compatition is all about. Do you really expect Microsoft to charge the same amount as each competitor in every industry?
As for Netscape, keep in mind that both companies have been giving away their browsers for years, and both are doing just fine. It would seem that the fair market cost of a web browser is zero, the same way that the fair market cost of most web-based services is zero (recouped with ads)
The point is that "dumping," particularly in the conputer field, is simply not economically meaningful, and is a lousy basis for the law. For every genuine dumping complaint, you get 2 complaints from mediocre companies who can't compete in the market place, and so are whining to the government to prop them up. Laws against "dumping" and "predatory pricing" should be repealed.
No one claims Sun has done anything wrong when they bundle their own version of ls without including a copy of an alternative version. Are they engaging in "anticompetitive practices" when they install their ls by default?
The last thing we need is a precedent for government harrassment of the software industry. The idea that Microsoft should be punished for out-competing its competition is ludicrous. Given the number of alternatives there are to Windows, and given that both sides give their browsers for free anyway, I fail to see how Microsoft has done anything illegal in this matter.
Even if they have broken the law, we're talking about antitrust. Antitrust law is the most vague, overreaching, intrusive law that can be imagined. It literally gives the Feds the power to harrass any company that manages to get a large market share. And it gets reinterpreted every few years, so there's no way Microsoft can possibly predict which things are and are not illegal.
I don't deny that Microsoft is sleazy, but sleaziness is not a crime. Laws should be specific and to-the-point. If the best charges they can dream up are antitrust charges, that tells me that either they are innocent of any real crime, or there needs to be new laws to address the specific types of crimes they have committed. But to twist antitrust law to cover whatever activity the current dominant player in a given industry is without warning is a very bad thing. There was no way Micrsoft could have predicted what would be considered a crime, since the things they are accused of doing have been done by many other companies with no legal repercussions.
I just hope Microsoft gets off the hook. Even if they broke antitrust laws, they don't deserve to be punished.
Re:This is called collaborative filtering...
on
Moderation Ideas
·
· Score: 2
Not sure I see the distinction.
The way the NetP engine that Movielens uses works is there are users and items.
The users rate the items, and then the system uses this data to predict your ratings on other items. The "profile" would just be the set of all ratings you have done, and so yes, comparing this profile with the profiles of other users is what allows the system to predict which users you agree with.
Now I suppose that the system you are proposing is slightly different in that you are rating other moderator's moderations instead of coments directly. But if a moderator gives a given post a +1, and then you rate that person's rating a -1, isn't that essentially the same as you rating the comment -1?
In any event, it's a short leap from your idea to a full CF model, and that would eliminate the need for designated moderators. It is, however, a slow, expensive, non-portable thing to set up, so I doubt Rob would consider doing it. I wouldn't.
This is called collaborative filtering...
on
Moderation Ideas
·
· Score: 1
Check out movielens for an example of this technology. (I work for them.) The way it works is that everyone rates as many items as they can, and then the system figures out which comments you're likely to like based on your similarity to other moderators.
This is one of the silliest arguments that I've heard repeatedly on/.
The rights of companies derive from the rights of the individuals that make up that company. So, for example, Microsoft has a right to free speech because its employees have that right. And It has a right to its property because that property ultimately belongs to its shareholders.
When you propose to violate the rights of a corporation, you are proposing violating the rights of that corporation's management, workers, or shareholders. Splitting up MS, for example, will lead to a drop in the value of Microsoft stock, headaches for their management, and relocations for their workers. You arenot simply harming an abstract "corporation." You are harming the people in the corporation.
I fail to see how people lose their individual rights the moment they join a company. Rights do not generally conflict with other rights. Recognizing Microsoft's right to keep its property is not in conflict with others' right to keep their property.
Am I to suppose that you see nothing immoral about simply nationalizing Microsoft outright, and declaring all outstanding shares of Microsoft null and void? After all, Microsoft isn't acting in the nation's best interest, so it has no rights. Therefore, we may rightly do as we please with MS property.
I continue to be amazed at the cavalier tendency of/.ers to propose punishments for Microsoft with little regard for Micrsoft's rights, little sense of proportion, and no consideration to the long-term effects of their proposals.
Even if we accept that Microsoft is guilty as sin and deserves anything we give them, "regulating Windows as an essential utility" is a terrible idea. Government regulations tend to be immortal, and they tend to protect their own interests. The moment the government nationalizes Windows, that will mean the end of Windows as a useful OS. Now I realize that a lot of/.ers would be thrilled at this prospect, but the fact is that a lot of people still rely on Windows to do things that they couldn't otherwise do. Imagine an OS that was as user-friendly and well-maintained as other "regulated monopolies" like phone and electrical services.
As long as Microsoft has the freedom to design its own product, there is a chance that they will clean up their act and produce better software. And as long as we have a free market, Microsoft *will* pay for producing crappy software-- Linux, Mac OS, Be, or some other OS will take market share. All the "unfair practices" in the world cannot stop people from buying alternative products, and as soon as enough people do this, OEM's will start selling computers pre-installed with that OS. However, if Operating Systems become "essential utilities," then a regulated Microsoft will be able to bellyache about "unfair competition" from unregulated competitors like Apple and Linux. The government will then likely want to "level the playing field" by regulating other OS's as well. I think we can all agree that that would be a bad thing.
Some people will protest that this is not what they are advocating, and that they only want to regulate the monopolistic companies. But that's not how governments work. Government officials like power, and the moment you give them a little bit of power, they start pushing for more. You *can't* just regulate the bad businesses. If you want the government to regulate Microsoft, you have to accept the risk that the government will impose the same regulations on others in the computer industry.
And government regulations seldom benefit the little guy. Think about it: policies are typically determined by lobbying efforts, and who can hire more lobbyists than Microsoft? The result will be that the "Microsoft regulatory commision" will be transformed from an organization designed to limit Microsoft into one that helps Microsoft keep new entrants out.
Microsoft has broken an obscure law whose definitions change on a yearly basis. They are doing things that, while they are certainly sleazy and underhanded, have never been considered illegal. Antitrust law is so vague and overreaching that pretty much any action by a large corporation can be considered to be "anticompetitive" or "in restraint of trade." Perhaps they need to be punished, but an action as drastic as splitting them up and then turning them into a regulated monopoly is not called for. I don't think they have done anything wrong, but even accepting that they did, many of the solutions proposed are excessive.
I'm not sure I see the advantage of handing space exploration over to big business. Besides satellites, why would businesses want to spend money on space exploration?
Because if there is value to space exploration for mankind beyond basic science, then corporations will fund space research to gain an edge in future space industries. But even if corporations don't fund any research, they would still pick up the R & D for more efficient means of getting into space, simply because they need satellites. That's a large part of what NASA does anyway, so much of the current money could be gotten just as easily from private sources.
The difference would be that the businesses would be paying the full cost, and so they would have much more incentive to cut costs. And there would likely be a couple of different space carriers, and competition would therefore drive down prices. The space market is no different from any other market: private organizations and free markets will find ways to get the job done more efficiently than the government could hope to accomplish.
As for basic research, this could probably be funded to some extent by universities and private organizations. Keep in mind that I'd cut a lot of other government programs as well, so there would be more money available for private charity.
I also question the notion that space exploration is so important that we should force people to pay for it. If no one is willing to pay for it voluntarily, what right do we have to force them to pay for it on the threat of going to jail? There is an infinite number of good causes, and the fact that many/.ers (myself included) like space exploration does not give us the right to force that preference on others.
As much as you deride "profit margins," they are the best device yet discovered for comparing the relative desires of people in an economy and giving them what they want most. If people like space exploration, they are free to form organizations and start missions of their own. If no one is willing to do this, then I question whether space exploration is really so important.
One of the reasons that private entities are not exploring space right now is that the government is subsidizing NASA. Space enthusiasts and companies would be silly to set up an alternative space program when they can get the same service at reduced price due to government subsidies. If the government didn't provide subsidized rides into orbit at taxpayer expense, we very well might see private alternatives arise. But why start a competing service when your competitor has billions of dollars in government funds to allow it to sell its services for less than their full cost?
In any event, I don't see how any of this relates to the space shuttle and space station. I didn't say that the government should not fund *any* basic research (although I'm inclined to think so.) Even if the government is going to fund space exploration, my point is that a private space industry with shuttle space purchased by the government is better than a government program that sells space to private entities, since in the long run the private carriers will develop cheaper, more efficient space program. There have been billions of dollars spent servicing the space shuttle, and for that money, private firms could have probably developed better and cheaper alternatives. But instead we are still stuck with 70's technology, and that looks like it won't change for another decade. Like all government agencies, NASA is bloated and inefficient, and I'd like to see it dismantled.
Only the government would waste money on such a massive and unnecessary project as the space station. Yes, it's cool, but the billions of dollars spent on the station would be far better put to smaller, more effective space efforts, or more desperately needed purposes here on Earth. It is amusing that when you ask people why they need a space station, their answer is "to find out how you live in space." My question is: if that's the only reason to put people in space, what's the point. There is very little that cannot be done with machines and/or short trips aboard space shuttles or the like.
The future of space exploration would be much better off if the government stopped pouring money at failed space programs rather than let free markets and competition work their magic. There are enough private companies needing satellites that had the government not subsidized their travel on the shuttle we would doubtless have a private space industry putting satellites into orbit. And the government could then purchase space on those privatge carriers for their legitimate research and military needs, and at reduced cost due to competition and innovation. Only the massive subsidies of the space shuttle and other pork barrel projects (and regulation of private rocket launches) have prevented private firms from finding better, cheaper ways of getting into space. And only a private space market will help us realize the dream of cheap, reliable space flight as soon as possible.
So I say can the space station, and NASA with it. Yes, there will be a period of reduced space exploration while private companies gear up to start taking cargo. But in the long run both space exploration and the space industry will be dramatically improved.
Having to slap in a primo expensive G4 to play nurse maid to all the wireless Iwhacks.
A low-end G4 will cost under $2000. A fully decked-out one will set you back $4000. That's pretty trivial to acompany that's going to be serving a dozen NetBoot iMacs, when you consider the money saved on administration. Plus there's no reason that I can see that another iMac couldn't serve as the server for a small office. Hard drive space might be tight, but that's upgradable.
The learning curve associated with making these 'alien' machines behave on a traditional UNIX/NT network.
This depends on the company. An engineering firm that has a lot of specialized apps on their NT or Unix machines might not do this too well, but for companies that do web browsing, email, database, graphics, and other more standard apps, this is not a big deal. Plus you can get Office 98 for the Mac, so that'll help the transition. And OS X is a real Unix, and as far as I know all of its networking can be done with TCP/IP. So once that's out, this will be less of an issue.
The high-price as compared to a traditional x86 PC.
If they can get a 350 MHz machine for $1000, that's not much of a price savings. If you include the value of a name-brand PC (in terms of support and quality) and the various TCO advantages of the Mac in general, this really isn't that much of a problem. And if NetBoot over AirPort works as advertised, that'll mean no one will have to worry about stringing wires around the office. Just set up the G4, configure it for NetBoot, and the iMac won't need anything but a power cord.
The cost of training and new Apple-knowledgable IT/IS staff.
This is an issue, although some aspects of Mac networking (like file sharing) are so simple that literally anyone can be trained to do it in an hour or two. It's certainly true that this would be an expense, but I'm not sure it's all that big a deal.
Software development costs. You can't chuck a working bit of in-house software because Marketing wants Iwhacks..
No one is suggesting that this is the right solution for every company, nor that they should immediately throw out all their PC's. But I suspect there are a lot of companies that run 90% standard apps like office and Netscape, and those work cross-platform just fine. Those companies should be able to make the switch with minimal pain.
-Nazi Germany -Stalinist USSR -Communist China -Cambodia -Vietnam -Yugoslavia
Heck, I can't think of the others right now, but I know there's at least a half-dozen cases in which the government has performed mass murder of some segment of the population. No, that's not putting everyone in the concentration camps, but it's still putting a lot of them there. And having those people armed is a step in the right direction.
Why do they do it? Who cares? It's happened, and it continues to happen almost every year. No, it's not likely to happen in the US in the near future, but that's what people would have said about Germany in the late 20's. I'd prefer to be safe than sorry.
The whole point of the militia was that it was *not* a standing army and was therefore not a threat to peoples' freedoms. The militia were average citizens-- farmers mostly-- that were only called up in time of national emergency, and who made their living in the private sector the rest of the time. The US army is *not* a militia in the historical sense of the term, and that was not what the 2nd Amendment is talking about. Think about it: why would you write an amendment saying "The US military shall have the right to keep and bear arms?" I don't know of any country that has disarmed its own military. That would be retarded.
And a private school system could go a long ways toward fixing the problems you cite for a simple reason: they can kick kids out.
Yes, that's harsh, but frankly some kids need a good kick in the rear. Particularly if you are dealing with parents that don't give a damn or even take their kid's side, it might give the *parent* a wake-up call to do a better job at their parenting. And if a few kids simply get kicked out and stay kicked out, I'm not sure that's that big a deal. Students who repeatedly disrupt classrooms weren't likely learning much anyway.
Also, it might be profitable to set up private "boot camps" to whip bratty kids into shape. These would concentrate not so much on discipline as on getting kids to behave so they could return to the normal classroom.
The point is not that the above specifically will solve the problem, but that the ingenuity that is sparked by the free market will drive teachers and administrators to find better ways of dealing with these problems. The public schools are restricted in what they can do, and are forced to take all students no matter how atrocious their behavior. This lack of freedom for the teachers makes it much harder for them to deal with the problem students and concentrate on teaching the 80% of students who are somewhat interested in learning.
This is really pathetic. It sounds like they're patenting a sophiticated Eliza. If you want to preserve the memory of a relative, take pictures. It's a lot simpler and more dignified.
Read the federalist papers some time. You will find that the words mean... (and this is a paraphrase)
well-regulated = well maintained
militia = armed citizenry (The militia was basically all able-bodied men from 18 to 45)
So the 2nd Amendment means (in modern English)
A well-armed citizenry being necessary for the security of a free state,...
Sounds a little different when you actually find out what the words meant back then, doesn't it? In other words, it means that an armed citizenry is a check on government tyranny. I'm amazed by how many people are either ignorant of or deliberately ignore this point.
But that's an isolated incident, in which the antagonists were relatively secluded, and in which the governemtn generally had government support. Imagine if every tenth arrest resulted in a Waco-style seige with several government officials getting injured in each seige. It would be hard for the government to get much done then.
So yes, handgun ownership does not guaruntee that the government can't screw you over, but if a large minority of the populace were to arm themselves and refuse to cooperate with the government, it could slow down that government a whole lot. Certainly, it can't hurt, and if they're going to take me off to a concentration camp, I'd rather take a couple of them with me.
(like Firewire doesn't work well with long distances).
USB is even more limited distance-wise. It is designed to be a cheap, low-performance bus, and so it has crappy cables not designed for long distances.
- Fast Enough for Multiple Streams of 5-channel uncompressed audio, plus DVD or better quality video.
Firewire is faster right now than USB 2.0 is slated to be. And that won't be out for a year at least.
-Support Large Networks.
Not a chance. Intel has a host-device architecture, and doesn't do peer-to-peer connections. Therefore it makes a lousy networking solution. Firewire has peer-to-peer networking.
- Be an open standard.
Firewire is IEEE1394. USB is not overseen by any independent standards board.
- Support Peer to Peer Connections
That's not in the specs for 2.0.
- Be Simple enough that cheap hardware could support it.
That was the big draw of USB 1.1, but I've read that USB 2.0 will need much of the same logic as Firewire to do the necessary high speeds. That means that it will be every bit as complex as Firewire. Not only that, but backwards compatibility with USB 1.1 will require additional logic on top of that, so USB should end up about the same price as Firewire.
- Work with all populuar Audio, video, and Computer gear.
Firewire is already there. Most camcorders and digital cameras today have Firewire ports, and firewire hard drives have started appearing.
I don't know about New York specifically, but their web site is at http://www.ny.lp.org You can visit there and either send them email about theit ballot status or join the party.
Anyway, why would you want to vote for John McCain? If you're a libertarian (or even close) he's a terrible choice. (I assume you mean the Arizona Senator) His big issues are tobacco legislation and campaign finance "reform," neither of which is the least bit libertarian. On other issues he's a pretty standard moderate Republican. Nothing to get excited about. None of the Republicans are really worth supporting, but if you must pick one, vote for Steve Forbes. He's at least got a semi-libertarian outlook in his economic views.
I didn't say that the government would instantly turn on its citizens the moment the last handgun was collected. But the danger certainly is there, and if another Hitler were to come to power, the Brits would be better off if some of them had weapons.
You're right. USB is a great solution for low-end, low-bandwidth peripherals. Ethernet is great for networking. But until USB 2.0, even Intel was puching Firewire as the standard port for high-bandwidth peripherals. This includes digital cameras, external hard drives, digital video, some scanners, and similar devices. Firewires is (IIRC) several times as fast as most SCSI implementations, and has the advantages of dedicated bandwidth, plug-and-play, hot-swappable design, no terminators or SCSI id's to fool with, and peer-to-peer architecture that allows any device on the bus to communicate with any other. In other words, Firewire is a lot better than SCSI for high-end HDD's.
Firewire was *not* aimed to do everything under the sun. It is positioned to work in concert with USB and ethernet: USB for the low end, ethernet for networking, and Firewire for high-bandwidth devices. That's how Apple's professional desktops are designed, and within a year all of Apple's other products will be as well (iMac in a few weeks, PowerBooks in a few months, iBook might be a while yet.) USB 2.0 is attempting to be all things to all people, and as a result it is going to be mediocre all around. Firewire is simply a better technology targeted at high-bandwidth multimedia and storage devices.
Slashdot Mirror
As the other people said, SCSI *is* a BTO option using a high-end PCI card. But Apple is pushing FireWire as their high-end hard drive solution. As I understand it, it is a higher-performance option, and it is much more flexible and simpler.
One other thing to keep in mind is the Unified Motherboard Architecture. Apple's new computers will soon all be using the same basic motherboard. The iBook and the high-end "Sawtooth" G4's are UMA-based right now, and the soon-to-be released iMac revision will be as well. The Powerbook will be UMA-based early next year.
A big reason for this is to allow economies of scale, both to spread R & D around and to allow cheaper production costs. They took SCSI off the motherboard to save money on the low-end machines, and they're puching FireWire as the replacement on the new G4's.
never mind that they have to use that extra money for their own private police force
That makes no sense.
private investigators to investigate their uncertified doctors
There's no reason that everyone has to do this on their own. That's what the media and various research organizations are for. You could subscribe to a magazine, for example, that would rate doctors. And there would still be med-school diplomas. They just wouldn't be coercively enforced by the govt.
their own private chemistry lab to constantly test the air and water to make sure FreindlyCo isn't dumping toxic waste
Again, this doesn't have to be done on an individual basis.
their own private meat inspector to make sure their food isn't infected with botulism
If a meat packer sold meat with botulism in it, how long do you think it would last? In fact, meat packers would hire outside testing services to test their meat to prove it was safe, so they could get more customers.
ad infinitum
Exactly. All the wasteful, coercive, destructive things the government does would be replaced with voluntary private alternatives.
How is the software industry any different from any other, so much so that it shouldn't be scrutinized by the government in the same fashion every other industry is?
No different. I think other industries should not have to deal with antitrust either.
Your assertion that "even if they did break a law, it's a stupid law to begin with" holds absolutely no water. I happen to think having to stop at a red light is outdated and stupid, too. I think I'll start running them from now on. Let's see how far that gets me.
And that would be a stupid decision, because the law against running a red light is a good law and so you should be punished. I don't see how that's the least bit relevant. The fact that I object to antitrust law doesn't mean that I dislike all laws.
The fact of the matter is, the antitrust laws in this country *are* specific and to-the-point. If they weren't, there would be countless cases prosecuted under them every year. I don't see too many going to court, do you?
That's because only large companies are targets, and because the DoJ and state attorneys' general can bring antitrust suits. Study the history some time. You'll find that there are many cases in which people are prosecuted for categories of behavior that had never previously been prosecuted as crimes.
Microsoft broke the rules. Now it's time to pay up.
That's an incredibly concrete-bound mentality. Are you telling me that all laws are just? That's ridiculous. Legislators are mortals too, and they make mistakes. Your unwillingness to consider the merits of the specific law is disappoointing.
If I accidentally run over a kid. Did I murder that kid?
If I intentionally run over a kid. Did I murder that kid?
I didn't say all murders were exactly the same. Of course intent has something to do with it. That's not the point. The point is that assuming that a given action was intentional, it is pretty cut and dried what constitutes murder. Microsoft's problem is not that the violated antitrust laws by accident. Their problem is that they are being prosecuted for things that are not a crime for other companies, and that (at least prior to the previous lawsuit) was not considered a crime. No one has to worry that they might do something that later get reclassified as murder. Yet antitrust laws are so vague, that that's exactly what can happen to businesses. They do things that are considered legal at the time, and then a new administration comes in and decides to go after them. There's really nothng a successful company can do about it. Gaining a large market share is going to make you some enemies no matter how you do it. And so many successful companies get investigated for antitrust, when there was no way they could have known that they would be a target.
Running over a kid accidentally is a difference of intent. I'm not saying that Microsoft did what they did by accident. I'm saying they didn't know and could not know what actions would be considered crimes until the Do(in)J took action. That's wrong.
Let's start with perjury. Microsoft executives, up to Bill Gates himself, have been caught flat-out lying to the court. This doesn't require a fine on the part of Microsoft, but in fact is a series of criminal charges against members of their high command.
Fine, then we can charge him for that. That's a seperate issue however.
From there, we go to violating an agreement that they signed to get out of legal trouble earlier. The Microsoft position on the "bundling" issue is that the definition of "bundling" is indefensible, and that they thus signed a bogus document.
They signed that document to avoid being prosecuted for the same unjust laws they are being prosecuted for now. If antitrust law didn't exist, they never would have signed that document.
From there, we go to violating an agreement that they signed to get out of legal trouble earlier. The Microsoft position on the "bundling" issue is that the definition of "bundling" is indefensible, and that they thus signed a bogus document.
Antitrust law makes illegal "combinations in restraint of trade," and "anticompetitive practices." Taken literally, that makes all businesses criminal, since by definition, they work to beat their competition and drive them out of business. If that's not vague, I don't know what is. Now you might think that other parts of the law clarify that, but the fact is that government lawyers come up with new types of "combinations in restraint of trade" whenever a new bad guy comes along. It's elastic law, which means tyrranical law. Most of the things that Microsoft has done were not considered crimes when they were doing them. That's why the government emphasizes "patterns of behavior." Very few of MS's specific actions are illegal, but only "when taken as a whole" they are illegal. That seems to me overly broad.
As far as predicting which things are and are not illegal, forget the reinterpretations. Using a monopoly position, as such, to either keep that monopoly or gain a new monopoly, is illegal. Having a monopoly position by virtue of superior products, and keeping that position by improving one's product, is not illegal.
That sounds pretty vague to me. How much market share is a "monopoly?" How broadly do you define the market? How long do they have to hold the market? How much use of a monopoly in another market is acceptable? Taking the above literally, Microsoft should be prohibited from making software other than Windows, as should Apple. And who decides how much a given monopoly is based upon "product superiority?" That puts the courts in the position of judging the merit of computer products.
Now you can say that the courts can figure this stuff out, but my point is that it shouldn't have to. There's no ambiguity abouyt what constitutes murder. There might be some uncertainty at the edges about which kind of murder a given act is, but if you kill someone and you were not being attacked at the time, you are guilty of some form of murder. Antitrust law defies simple summary. If you are asked to say which specific acts constitute "anticompetitive practices" or "combinations in restraint of trade," you can't do it. Because the law does not regulate specific actions but "patterns of behavior." And that's so open-ended that any successful company is open to harassment.
I disagree. A law that is too specific can be worked around; the best way to avoid pseudocrime (acts which shouldbe crimes but really aren't due to a technicality) is to write a general law.
OK, how about a law that says "no one may do bad things." We can work the details out in court.
The point is that anything that can't be summarized in specifics (like murder or theft) should not be a crime. The law should be written in a way that given a set of facts, 90% of the people will interpret the law in the same way. This is because people need to know which things they are or are not allowed to do. Allowing the courts to decide after the fact whether a given action is illegal is a recipe of tyranny.
Remember that the highest law in the land, the Constitution, is written up with a lot of vague laws. the vagueness of these laws is precisely what makes them useful two hundred years later.
Generality is not the same as vagueness. "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech" seems pretty straightforward to me. You can pretty easily determine when a law abridges freedom of speech. Of course the Supreme Court has decided that there are other concerns that overrule the first amendment in some cases, but that's a problem with their choices, not the law itself.
In addition, the Constitution is not a law in the same sense as other laws. It is a limitation on the power of government, not a limitation on the actions of the people. Thus it is much less important that it be narrowly focused, since an overly broad interpretation will provide more freedom to the people while a broad interpretation of other laws leads to less freedom.
The DoJ is prosecuting Microsoft on antitrust charges because their other crimes are committed against specific entities that can and should prosecute them seperately. Note that Sun Microsystems is currently suing Microsoft over their Java implementation. Caldera is or was suing Microsoft over their efforts to sabotage DR/DOS. The DoJ trial is not the only thing landing Microsoft in court these days.
Fine, and if those prosecutions are for real, specific crimes, I support their right to do so. But let's keep them seperate from this trial, which is not about specific crimes.
I don't care about punishment, and I don't want to punish anybody. I do care about keeping capitalism working. Monopolies break the assumptions of capitalism, and thus break the capitalism.
Capitalism means the free market. A free market in which the Federal government is allowed to step in and stop companies who act "unfairly" is a contradiction in terms. Over the long term, monopolies are impossible in a free market, even without antitrust law. Antitrust law is not a safeguard of a free market. It undermines it and makes it less free.
As for Microsoft being a "wrench" in the gears, I think you might be suffering from myopia. From a technical standpoint, Windows is a mediocre product. But for most users, it is *still* the best choice for many tasks. The Mac OS doesn't have the software base and the commodity hardware, and the Unices are intimidating for the average user. I hope something better comes along to replace Windows, but for now I think the existence of Windows is a good thing. I'd hate to see that obstructed by government interference.
The concept of "dumping" is absurd. Please tell me how low Microsoft's prices have to be to qualify as "dumping."
The per-unit cost of Windows is practically zero. A few bucks for the box and manuals, a couple of bucks for the CD burning, and that's it. IT WOULD seem that they could sell Windows for $20 and still not be "dumping."
Of course, they need to recover their R & D costs, but then the question is, how much of those costs must they recover with each sale? This depends on how many copies they sell. But then that means that you can't define "dumping" without a coplicated formula taking into account R & D costs, demand curves, and the like. The concept of "dumping" becomes ridiculous.
Besides, MS has made loads of money on Win98, so I don't see how it can be considered dumping in any case.
Now, you might say that their prices are lower than those of their conpetitors, but so what? That's what compatition is all about. Do you really expect Microsoft to charge the same amount as each competitor in every industry?
As for Netscape, keep in mind that both companies have been giving away their browsers for years, and both are doing just fine. It would seem that the fair market cost of a web browser is zero, the same way that the fair market cost of most web-based services is zero (recouped with ads)
The point is that "dumping," particularly in the conputer field, is simply not economically meaningful, and is a lousy basis for the law. For every genuine dumping complaint, you get 2 complaints from mediocre companies who can't compete in the market place, and so are whining to the government to prop them up. Laws against "dumping" and "predatory pricing" should be repealed.
No one claims Sun has done anything wrong when they bundle their own version of ls without including a copy of an alternative version. Are they engaging in "anticompetitive practices" when they install their ls by default?
The last thing we need is a precedent for government harrassment of the software industry. The idea that Microsoft should be punished for out-competing its competition is ludicrous. Given the number of alternatives there are to Windows, and given that both sides give their browsers for free anyway, I fail to see how Microsoft has done anything illegal in this matter.
Even if they have broken the law, we're talking about antitrust. Antitrust law is the most vague, overreaching, intrusive law that can be imagined. It literally gives the Feds the power to harrass any company that manages to get a large market share. And it gets reinterpreted every few years, so there's no way Microsoft can possibly predict which things are and are not illegal.
I don't deny that Microsoft is sleazy, but sleaziness is not a crime. Laws should be specific and to-the-point. If the best charges they can dream up are antitrust charges, that tells me that either they are innocent of any real crime, or there needs to be new laws to address the specific types of crimes they have committed. But to twist antitrust law to cover whatever activity the current dominant player in a given industry is without warning is a very bad thing. There was no way Micrsoft could have predicted what would be considered a crime, since the things they are accused of doing have been done by many other companies with no legal repercussions.
I just hope Microsoft gets off the hook. Even if they broke antitrust laws, they don't deserve to be punished.
Not sure I see the distinction.
The way the NetP engine that Movielens uses works is there are users and items.
The users rate the items, and then the system uses this data to predict your ratings on other items. The "profile" would just be the set of all ratings you have done, and so yes, comparing this profile with the profiles of other users is what allows the system to predict which users you agree with.
Now I suppose that the system you are proposing is slightly different in that you are rating other moderator's moderations instead of coments directly. But if a moderator gives a given post a +1, and then you rate that person's rating a -1, isn't that essentially the same as you rating the comment -1?
In any event, it's a short leap from your idea to a full CF model, and that would eliminate the need for designated moderators. It is, however, a slow, expensive, non-portable thing to set up, so I doubt Rob would consider doing it. I wouldn't.
Check out movielens for an example of this technology. (I work for them.) The way it works is that everyone rates as many items as they can, and then the system figures out which comments you're likely to like based on your similarity to other moderators.
This is one of the silliest arguments that I've heard repeatedly on /.
The rights of companies derive from the rights of the individuals that make up that company. So, for example, Microsoft has a right to free speech because its employees have that right. And It has a right to its property because that property ultimately belongs to its shareholders.
When you propose to violate the rights of a corporation, you are proposing violating the rights of that corporation's management, workers, or shareholders. Splitting up MS, for example, will lead to a drop in the value of Microsoft stock, headaches for their management, and relocations for their workers. You arenot simply harming an abstract "corporation." You are harming the people in the corporation.
I fail to see how people lose their individual rights the moment they join a company. Rights do not generally conflict with other rights. Recognizing Microsoft's right to keep its property is not in conflict with others' right to keep their property.
Am I to suppose that you see nothing immoral about simply nationalizing Microsoft outright, and declaring all outstanding shares of Microsoft null and void? After all, Microsoft isn't acting in the nation's best interest, so it has no rights. Therefore, we may rightly do as we please with MS property.
I continue to be amazed at the cavalier tendency of /.ers to propose punishments for Microsoft with little regard for Micrsoft's rights, little sense of proportion, and no consideration to the long-term effects of their proposals.
/.ers would be thrilled at this prospect, but the fact is that a lot of people still rely on Windows to do things that they couldn't otherwise do. Imagine an OS that was as user-friendly and well-maintained as other "regulated monopolies" like phone and electrical services.
Even if we accept that Microsoft is guilty as sin and deserves anything we give them, "regulating Windows as an essential utility" is a terrible idea. Government regulations tend to be immortal, and they tend to protect their own interests. The moment the government nationalizes Windows, that will mean the end of Windows as a useful OS. Now I realize that a lot of
As long as Microsoft has the freedom to design its own product, there is a chance that they will clean up their act and produce better software. And as long as we have a free market, Microsoft *will* pay for producing crappy software-- Linux, Mac OS, Be, or some other OS will take market share. All the "unfair practices" in the world cannot stop people from buying alternative products, and as soon as enough people do this, OEM's will start selling computers pre-installed with that OS. However, if Operating Systems become "essential utilities," then a regulated Microsoft will be able to bellyache about "unfair competition" from unregulated competitors like Apple and Linux. The government will then likely want to "level the playing field" by regulating other OS's as well. I think we can all agree that that would be a bad thing.
Some people will protest that this is not what they are advocating, and that they only want to regulate the monopolistic companies. But that's not how governments work. Government officials like power, and the moment you give them a little bit of power, they start pushing for more. You *can't* just regulate the bad businesses. If you want the government to regulate Microsoft, you have to accept the risk that the government will impose the same regulations on others in the computer industry.
And government regulations seldom benefit the little guy. Think about it: policies are typically determined by lobbying efforts, and who can hire more lobbyists than Microsoft? The result will be that the "Microsoft regulatory commision" will be transformed from an organization designed to limit Microsoft into one that helps Microsoft keep new entrants out.
Microsoft has broken an obscure law whose definitions change on a yearly basis. They are doing things that, while they are certainly sleazy and underhanded, have never been considered illegal. Antitrust law is so vague and overreaching that pretty much any action by a large corporation can be considered to be "anticompetitive" or "in restraint of trade." Perhaps they need to be punished, but an action as drastic as splitting them up and then turning them into a regulated monopoly is not called for. I don't think they have done anything wrong, but even accepting that they did, many of the solutions proposed are excessive.
I'm not sure I see the advantage of handing space exploration over to big business. Besides satellites, why would businesses want to spend money on space exploration?
/.ers (myself included) like space exploration does not give us the right to force that preference on others.
Because if there is value to space exploration for mankind beyond basic science, then corporations will fund space research to gain an edge in future space industries. But even if corporations don't fund any research, they would still pick up the R & D for more efficient means of getting into space, simply because they need satellites. That's a large part of what NASA does anyway, so much of the current money could be gotten just as easily from private sources.
The difference would be that the businesses would be paying the full cost, and so they would have much more incentive to cut costs. And there would likely be a couple of different space carriers, and competition would therefore drive down prices. The space market is no different from any other market: private organizations and free markets will find ways to get the job done more efficiently than the government could hope to accomplish.
As for basic research, this could probably be funded to some extent by universities and private organizations. Keep in mind that I'd cut a lot of other government programs as well, so there would be more money available for private charity.
I also question the notion that space exploration is so important that we should force people to pay for it. If no one is willing to pay for it voluntarily, what right do we have to force them to pay for it on the threat of going to jail? There is an infinite number of good causes, and the fact that many
As much as you deride "profit margins," they are the best device yet discovered for comparing the relative desires of people in an economy and giving them what they want most. If people like space exploration, they are free to form organizations and start missions of their own. If no one is willing to do this, then I question whether space exploration is really so important.
One of the reasons that private entities are not exploring space right now is that the government is subsidizing NASA. Space enthusiasts and companies would be silly to set up an alternative space program when they can get the same service at reduced price due to government subsidies. If the government didn't provide subsidized rides into orbit at taxpayer expense, we very well might see private alternatives arise. But why start a competing service when your competitor has billions of dollars in government funds to allow it to sell its services for less than their full cost?
In any event, I don't see how any of this relates to the space shuttle and space station. I didn't say that the government should not fund *any* basic research (although I'm inclined to think so.) Even if the government is going to fund space exploration, my point is that a private space industry with shuttle space purchased by the government is better than a government program that sells space to private entities, since in the long run the private carriers will develop cheaper, more efficient space program. There have been billions of dollars spent servicing the space shuttle, and for that money, private firms could have probably developed better and cheaper alternatives. But instead we are still stuck with 70's technology, and that looks like it won't change for another decade. Like all government agencies, NASA is bloated and inefficient, and I'd like to see it dismantled.
Only the government would waste money on such a massive and unnecessary project as the space station. Yes, it's cool, but the billions of dollars spent on the station would be far better put to smaller, more effective space efforts, or more desperately needed purposes here on Earth. It is amusing that when you ask people why they need a space station, their answer is "to find out how you live in space." My question is: if that's the only reason to put people in space, what's the point. There is very little that cannot be done with machines and/or short trips aboard space shuttles or the like.
The future of space exploration would be much better off if the government stopped pouring money at failed space programs rather than let free markets and competition work their magic. There are enough private companies needing satellites that had the government not subsidized their travel on the shuttle we would doubtless have a private space industry putting satellites into orbit. And the government could then purchase space on those privatge carriers for their legitimate research and military needs, and at reduced cost due to competition and innovation. Only the massive subsidies of the space shuttle and other pork barrel projects (and regulation of private rocket launches) have prevented private firms from finding better, cheaper ways of getting into space. And only a private space market will help us realize the dream of cheap, reliable space flight as soon as possible.
So I say can the space station, and NASA with it. Yes, there will be a period of reduced space exploration while private companies gear up to start taking cargo. But in the long run both space exploration and the space industry will be dramatically improved.
Having to slap in a primo expensive G4 to play nurse maid to all the wireless Iwhacks.
A low-end G4 will cost under $2000. A fully decked-out one will set you back $4000. That's pretty trivial to acompany that's going to be serving a dozen NetBoot iMacs, when you consider the money saved on administration. Plus there's no reason that I can see that another iMac couldn't serve as the server for a small office. Hard drive space might be tight, but that's upgradable.
The learning curve associated with making these 'alien' machines behave on a traditional UNIX/NT network.
This depends on the company. An engineering firm that has a lot of specialized apps on their NT or Unix machines might not do this too well, but for companies that do web browsing, email, database, graphics, and other more standard apps, this is not a big deal. Plus you can get Office 98 for the Mac, so that'll help the transition. And OS X is a real Unix, and as far as I know all of its networking can be done with TCP/IP. So once that's out, this will be less of an issue.
The high-price as compared to a traditional x86 PC.
If they can get a 350 MHz machine for $1000, that's not much of a price savings. If you include the value of a name-brand PC (in terms of support and quality) and the various TCO advantages of the Mac in general, this really isn't that much of a problem. And if NetBoot over AirPort works as advertised, that'll mean no one will have to worry about stringing wires around the office. Just set up the G4, configure it for NetBoot, and the iMac won't need anything but a power cord.
The cost of training and new Apple-knowledgable IT/IS staff.
This is an issue, although some aspects of Mac networking (like file sharing) are so simple that literally anyone can be trained to do it in an hour or two. It's certainly true that this would be an expense, but I'm not sure it's all that big a deal.
Software development costs. You can't chuck a working bit of in-house software because Marketing wants Iwhacks..
No one is suggesting that this is the right solution for every company, nor that they should immediately throw out all their PC's. But I suspect there are a lot of companies that run 90% standard apps like office and Netscape, and those work cross-platform just fine. Those companies should be able to make the switch with minimal pain.
-Nazi Germany
-Stalinist USSR
-Communist China
-Cambodia
-Vietnam
-Yugoslavia
Heck, I can't think of the others right now, but I know there's at least a half-dozen cases in which the government has performed mass murder of some segment of the population. No, that's not putting everyone in the concentration camps, but it's still putting a lot of them there. And having those people armed is a step in the right direction.
Why do they do it? Who cares? It's happened, and it continues to happen almost every year. No, it's not likely to happen in the US in the near future, but that's what people would have said about Germany in the late 20's. I'd prefer to be safe than sorry.
The whole point of the militia was that it was *not* a standing army and was therefore not a threat to peoples' freedoms. The militia were average citizens-- farmers mostly-- that were only called up in time of national emergency, and who made their living in the private sector the rest of the time. The US army is *not* a militia in the historical sense of the term, and that was not what the 2nd Amendment is talking about. Think about it: why would you write an amendment saying "The US military shall have the right to keep and bear arms?" I don't know of any country that has disarmed its own military. That would be retarded.
And a private school system could go a long ways toward fixing the problems you cite for a simple reason: they can kick kids out.
Yes, that's harsh, but frankly some kids need a good kick in the rear. Particularly if you are dealing with parents that don't give a damn or even take their kid's side, it might give the *parent* a wake-up call to do a better job at their parenting. And if a few kids simply get kicked out and stay kicked out, I'm not sure that's that big a deal. Students who repeatedly disrupt classrooms weren't likely learning much anyway.
Also, it might be profitable to set up private "boot camps" to whip bratty kids into shape. These would concentrate not so much on discipline as on getting kids to behave so they could return to the normal classroom.
The point is not that the above specifically will solve the problem, but that the ingenuity that is sparked by the free market will drive teachers and administrators to find better ways of dealing with these problems. The public schools are restricted in what they can do, and are forced to take all students no matter how atrocious their behavior. This lack of freedom for the teachers makes it much harder for them to deal with the problem students and concentrate on teaching the 80% of students who are somewhat interested in learning.
This is really pathetic. It sounds like they're patenting a sophiticated Eliza. If you want to preserve the memory of a relative, take pictures. It's a lot simpler and more dignified.
well-regulated = well maintained
militia = armed citizenry (The militia was basically all able-bodied men from 18 to 45)
...
So the 2nd Amendment means (in modern English)
A well-armed citizenry being necessary for the security of a free state,
Sounds a little different when you actually find out what the words meant back then, doesn't it? In other words, it means that an armed citizenry is a check on government tyranny. I'm amazed by how many people are either ignorant of or deliberately ignore this point.
But that's an isolated incident, in which the antagonists were relatively secluded, and in which the governemtn generally had government support. Imagine if every tenth arrest resulted in a Waco-style seige with several government officials getting injured in each seige. It would be hard for the government to get much done then.
So yes, handgun ownership does not guaruntee that the government can't screw you over, but if a large minority of the populace were to arm themselves and refuse to cooperate with the government, it could slow down that government a whole lot. Certainly, it can't hurt, and if they're going to take me off to a concentration camp, I'd rather take a couple of them with me.
(like Firewire doesn't work well with long distances).
USB is even more limited distance-wise. It is designed to be a cheap, low-performance bus, and so it has crappy cables not designed for long distances.
- Fast Enough for Multiple Streams of 5-channel uncompressed audio, plus DVD or better quality video.
Firewire is faster right now than USB 2.0 is slated to be. And that won't be out for a year at least.
-Support Large Networks.
Not a chance. Intel has a host-device architecture, and doesn't do peer-to-peer connections. Therefore it makes a lousy networking solution. Firewire has peer-to-peer networking.
- Be an open standard.
Firewire is IEEE1394. USB is not overseen by any independent standards board.
- Support Peer to Peer Connections
That's not in the specs for 2.0.
- Be Simple enough that cheap hardware could support it.
That was the big draw of USB 1.1, but I've read that USB 2.0 will need much of the same logic as Firewire to do the necessary high speeds. That means that it will be every bit as complex as Firewire. Not only that, but backwards compatibility with USB 1.1 will require additional logic on top of that, so USB should end up about the same price as Firewire.
- Work with all populuar Audio, video, and Computer gear.
Firewire is already there. Most camcorders and digital cameras today have Firewire ports, and firewire hard drives have started appearing.
I don't know about New York specifically, but their web site is at http://www.ny.lp.org You can visit there and either send them email about theit ballot status or join the party.
Anyway, why would you want to vote for John McCain? If you're a libertarian (or even close) he's a terrible choice. (I assume you mean the Arizona Senator) His big issues are tobacco legislation and campaign finance "reform," neither of which is the least bit libertarian. On other issues he's a pretty standard moderate Republican. Nothing to get excited about. None of the Republicans are really worth supporting, but if you must pick one, vote for Steve Forbes. He's at least got a semi-libertarian outlook in his economic views.
I didn't say that the government would instantly turn on its citizens the moment the last handgun was collected. But the danger certainly is there, and if another Hitler were to come to power, the Brits would be better off if some of them had weapons.
You're right. USB is a great solution for low-end, low-bandwidth peripherals. Ethernet is great for networking. But until USB 2.0, even Intel was puching Firewire as the standard port for high-bandwidth peripherals. This includes digital cameras, external hard drives, digital video, some scanners, and similar devices. Firewires is (IIRC) several times as fast as most SCSI implementations, and has the advantages of dedicated bandwidth, plug-and-play, hot-swappable design, no terminators or SCSI id's to fool with, and peer-to-peer architecture that allows any device on the bus to communicate with any other. In other words, Firewire is a lot better than SCSI for high-end HDD's.
Firewire was *not* aimed to do everything under the sun. It is positioned to work in concert with USB and ethernet: USB for the low end, ethernet for networking, and Firewire for high-bandwidth devices. That's how Apple's professional desktops are designed, and within a year all of Apple's other products will be as well (iMac in a few weeks, PowerBooks in a few months, iBook might be a while yet.) USB 2.0 is attempting to be all things to all people, and as a result it is going to be mediocre all around. Firewire is simply a better technology targeted at high-bandwidth multimedia and storage devices.