Social contract - pretty much in all meaningful cases - implies that subsequent generations don't get to participate in the debate in the sense of establishing the framework. Did you participate in the Continental Congress or your state's constitution? Did you devise any of the laws that you live under?
I'd argue that social contracts imply a trust between generations and an obligations to treat those that came before and those that come after in the spirit of that contract - and improve upon it if we can.
As far as Social Security is concerned, the only real mistake on the table - for an otherwise successful program - is Bush's attempt to privatize it.
Social security is a social contract to take care of your elders and provide many of them with an income that enables them to live in something other than abject poverty. The right mentality is to pay it - not break the contract because you just KNOW someone will do it later when you are old.
I'm under 35 and I view Social Security as one of the smarter ways the U.S. government uses my tax dollars. Much more so than the money that goes toward supporting imperialist wars abroad and a military industrial complex (and the debt they both create) that currently consumes the largest chunk of our tax dollars.
Considering that press coverage where Carlson basically got carte blanche to respond after-the-fact in major papers like the Chicago Tribune, this is a fitting end. You especially have to love the comment:
"His career aspirations and our programming needs just don't synch up," Klein said. "He wants to host his own nighttime show and we don't see that in the cards here. Out of respect for him and his talent, we thought it would be best to let him explore opportunities elsewhere."
He'll probably reappear somewhere else like MSNBC - hopefully without the bow tie.
Non-free software is meant to be distributed to the public. Custom software is meant to be used by one client. There's no ethical problem with custom software as long as you're respecting your client's freedom.
Stallman doesn't argue that you should to release all your source code. He does argue that you should respect your client's freedom, e.g., the ability to change and change the source code.
You can do whatever you like. However, let's use a analogy. You are just trying to be practical and get your house painted. What does it matter whether you use lead based paint or not? Practically, lead based paint might be a better paint. However, the paint "theoretically" may contribute to health problems in your children or contaminate the environment.
The take away? There is nothing more practical than theory - especially if you wish to avoid even bigger practical problems in the future.
I like Firefox. However, I have used Hushmail - a java based email service - for years. Firefox freezes up if I try to login and check email.
It is absurd to need to use two browsers -even though I do it. So if he frequently or even occasionally needs to do something that uses Java or other things that Firefox chokes on, it is better just to keep him on IE.
There are people that are functionally illiterate. However, the main culprits in most of the places I have worked at are laziness and few obvious incentives to communicate well.
Writing clearly and well takes time and effort. If you read standard reference books on the topic like Writing That Works, the bulk of the suggestions are about thinking clearly, considering the needs of your audience and spending time to get it right. Examples:
Put down first what you want the reader to do, the 3 most important things a reader needs to understand to take action and then, start to write.
First, what you want. Second, who you are and why you want it. Third, appreciation.
Take out 50% of what you have written.
Do not send email unless the email:
Imparts new information to someone that needs it
Agrees to a request
Responds to a question
Asks a question or makes a request
Unfortunately, most workplaces do not evaluate employees based on how well they communicate. Unless communication is viewed as part of your "real job" that carries incentives to do it well, people will not spend the additional time to clarify their ideas, requests and responses so that they are communicated clearly. Why bother when you have tons of "real work" waiting for you on your desk?
The majority of the people posting stories and comments here are not being stage-managed by corporate handlers who have given them an agenda and talking points to follow.
First, buzz marketing isn't about stage managing or talking points. It's simply about finding ways to encourage people that like your product to talk about it.
Second, if buzz marketing did work the way you suggest, how do you know that companies like the one's mentioned are not hiring people to post to Slashdot - to smear competitors or hype their own products?
I will agree that there are people out there that try to hype their products in dubious ways. However, I think that ultimately comes back to bite the marketers that use that strategy in the ass. All it takes is for someone to find out once that you have been fooled by some shill - and then you will tell everyone far and wide about their experience. If they are doing to many people, that creates a lot of negative buzz about the product they are trying to sell and is undercutting their efforts. It's simply not smart.
So you see my point, buzz marketing does not work this way. If it did, it would essentially be a method for creating negative buzz - which wouldn't last very long before someone at the company in question clued in.
You perspective is interesting. Unfortunately, buzz marketing doesn't work this way. Buzz marketing is about getting people that like your product to talk abot it - not regurgiating a marketing text. So, it is very much about people talking about their honest opinion; buzz marketing is just a way for company's to encourage people with good things to say to talk about it more.
Buzz Marketing has been around for a long time. Books like the Anatomy of Buzz have been out since 2000 and have be subsequently refined conceptually into defining who people listen to by books like The Influentials or more geographically with books like Hub Culture.
It's not really that big of a deal. Buzz marketing is just another way of saying a product web of trust, and Slashdot is perhaps one of the better examples of buzz marketing I can think of.
Let's see in the last few days, people on Slashdot have mentioned Firefox and Thunderbird, AbiWord. and other programs. There are even whole sections - Book Reviews - that are essentially a form of buzz marketing.
The problem that people have is when this is disingenious. Slashdot deals with this by giving you the negative buzz too - anyone here going to rush out and buy a Treo 650? I know I'm not - and I'm thankful to the guy who posted the comment so I am aware of the problems of the new Treo.
Bottom line: buzz marketing - so long as it is accurate, is offered by someone you trust (or forum or what have you) and is appropriate given the circumstances (posting about a bad product experience on Slashdot for example) is not necessarily a bad thing and is often quite useful and good.
Hearing about new restaurants in your area, new software products, or whatever from people that have actually used them and had a good (or bad) experience is often an excellent way to find out about new things. I think most of us would agree on this point. So, don't get all bent out of shape about a 50 cent word used by marketroids.
Of the three, the Seattle source was what I was using for my "unbiased" source. It is fairly mainstream newspaper, and it broke the story.
The other two, while biased and definitely editorializing, provide additional information. One provides information from the original writer of the Seattle article that got edited out of the original article - presumably to make it less "biased". The other provides some discussion of what could happen in respect to the draft if a number of likely scenarios were to occur. Put the scenarios together with Bush putting contingency plans together for a draft as early as 2002, and I think you have something to be concerned about.
I could have made this clearer. Individual bills don't matter. Everyone may vote against a particular bill - especially prior to an election, and it doesn't mean squat.
As to how this could play out now that the election is over, try reading the second article. Specifically the section on Karl Rove and the GOP and this one:
This document is real, having been acknowledged by the DoD and the SSS when they said no action is being taken on it at the present time. However, given the current manpower shortages for certain skills and nurses, if Bush gets back in, expect all the options outlined in the Issue Paper to be implemented by the end of December of this year, and at the least a non-combat skills and medical draft to start next year, if not the male combat draft, ages 18-25.
You don't get it because you think bills in Congress matter. Why not take some time out to look at possible scenarios around Iraq, and ask yourself where will the soldiers come from? There is shortages just for Iraq. What if Bush decides he's like to take on Iran or someone else too?
If you think Bush hasn't been thinking about this, you better thinkagain.
I have a real tangible car worth $10,000 macdaddy. Do you want to buy it from me for $100,000?
See the analogy to stock worth $1400 selling for $14,000? It's one thing to claim it may appreciate in value but stock takes a long time to appreciate to 10x its book value.
I think you miss his point. If you object to the process or some aspect of the process - say to the fact that corporations fund candidates and their campaigns and are candidates are beholden to them - then no matter who you vote for your vote supports a system that you don't believe in.
If you object on grounds such as these, voting for a third party candidate does not solve the problem. In this election, anarchists have to decide which is the greater problem - George Bush or the system that made him president. Some such as Utah Phillips have decided Bush is the greater threat whereas folks like the original poster disagree.
I know it can be hard to understand objecting to voting but Utah Phillip's comment about other ways of voting - what he calls the body vote - is a useful way of looking at the issue. When I choose not to vote, I am in fact voting. It is no different than when I skip over voting a particular office because I don't like either candidate.
It's an interesting exercise in speculation. However, I wouldn't buy a stock trading at 10 times its book value per share. Your 3000 shares are actually worth $1314.
You may be able to sell them for your "record payday" to some other speculative investor - perhaps even someone on Slashdot intrigued by your post and wanting to get in on the action. However at some point someone is going to pay dearly for these shares when they trade closer to reality - like if Bush were to win for instance. Of course, in that case, the speculative investor taking the hit would be you.
Investing in these shares might work out for you. I hope it does. However as an investment strategy, this can only be called lunacy. I hope you don't do this kind of thing often - and if you do, you can afford to lose your shirt.
Government's power over the individual should be limited.
Um. That's not a conservative value either. In fact, that's not a value at all; it's a normative statement.
A value can be defined as something (as a principle or quality) intrinsically valuable or desirable. The initial statement meets that definition.
If you wanted to nitpick, how about focusing on the fact that the statement doesn't mean anything until you define what you mean by limited. The government should be limited to a level of oppression slightly less than Orwell's 1984 or the government should be slightly more than a primitive anarchy. There's a whole world that could be covered by limited - although it seems clear than he thinks we can all reasonably determine what limited might be.
As for your other arguments, the question is where to start.
Limited involvement in business? Care to talk about Enron?
Fiscally, there are more than two choices. Example, you could not cut taxes and spend the revenues on another Star Wars style missle defense program. Or you could cut taxes to the rich and still pursue a war in Iran! Don't worry. Your children will pick up the check.
Rights? While the claim is dubious, you could make the argument that there are laws and policies in place that undermine civil liberties from concentration camps in Cuba to the use of the Patriot Act to further police powers that infinge on rights. (Do the police need to know what books you checked out from the library? Do they need to right to issue gag orders about the information they ask for? What about the public's rights?) Should the government be putting together MATRIX style databases and what will the outcome be - if not an environment of reduced rights. I do not see how you can claim it is blatantly false.
The best is when you contradict yourself. How can you claim it is best for the government to not be involved in business but good policy for the government to subsidize farmers (read: agribusiness). Or is it only good policy when it feels right to you? Or did you think the word farmers was going to confuse us all into thinking that any significant amount of that money goes to the family farm?
So, we get to the crux. What does it mean to be conservative. Personal responsibility. One man went to Vietnam. The other used his father's connections to stay at home - then, has the audacity to challenge his opponents war record. Show up first son! That's the whole Bush campaign summed up in a nutshell. The man doesn't even show up and then walks in and talks about resolve. Give me a break.
Strong foreign policy? Bush can't even say nuclear - although he can fund weapons development of tactical nukes, which is decidedly bad foreign policy.
If conservatives believe in small business and tax cuts, why do all those cuts and help they provide go to big business (such as that help for agribusiness we talked about above)?
Why is more and more of the wealth and income concentrated into fewer hands? In fact, just answer me this: How does someone from a top 1% family have the same chances as someone from a bottom 1% family, economically or in any other way? Act of God?
If you put Bush up against Kerry and I were conservative, I'd have to go with Kerry. If for no other reason, the man at least understands the issues and can articulate a point that isn't on the talking points sheet supplied to him by Karl Rove and the Vice President.
Reminds me of a cartoon I saw recently. Two candidates. One promising to cut off your foot. The other promising to cut off your leg.
Who are you voting for?
Personally, I think your time would be better spent moving on election day than voting for candidates representing that kind of choice - or even registering your disinterest by voting for yourself (or Mickey Mouse).
Bush v. Kerry? The political programs they advocate aren't that much different. If Bush and his cronies weren't such brazen crooks, I would probably stay home on election day too.
Not voting - for me - has nothing to do with being lazy. It has everything to do with wanting a real voice - not just the ability to register my dissatifaction. Not participating in the farce of voting is not only expressing my dissatisfaction but undermining its very legitimacy.
Software is intellectual capital; a possession created by law that is essentially no different than other laws recognizing ownership: of land, of corporations by stockholders, etc.
If you fancy the Marxist critique, you could also argue that capitalism also has to account for labor-power, which software also requires.
Linux may be a meritocracy. However, this fact does not support an argument that Linux is not capitalistic. It is possible for a capitalist system to also be a meritocacy.
You actually think these people are going to make it to the courts - even kangaroo, secret military tribunal courts? You're dreaming. The U.S. is not going to give these people a stage. They will be quietly executed or held indefinately in some secret place.
It really isn't that difficult to determine Disney's businesses. A quick look at their annual report under Key Businesses will given you a workable list if you are interesting in boycotting.
For movies, you have: Walt Disney Studios, Walt Disney Pictures, Touchstone, Walt Disney Feature Animation, DisneyToon Studios, Miramax and the various Buena Vista studios. You can then check in Rotten Tomatoes when you are looking up the critic reviews you can also take a look at the Release Company to see if it is one of the names above. Example: The Village
As you get into other businesses, it gets more difficult. They include: ABC, Lifetime, A&E, ESPN, and local TV stations in New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Philadelphia and San Francisco - among others. However, Disney is just one of the big five - so that gives you four other media companies to choose from - specifically, Time Warner, Viacom, News Corporation and Bertelsmann.
Frankly, I don't think the other four would disagree with Disney on this point.
In case you aren't aware of what librarians actually do, why not check out this profile provided by the U.S. Department of Labor. Here's one salient paragraph:
The traditional concept of a library is being redefined from a place to access paper records or books to one that also houses the most advanced media, including CD-ROM, the Internet, virtual libraries, and remote access to a wide range of resources. Consequently, librarians, or information professionals, increasingly are combining traditional duties with tasks involving quickly changing technology. Librarians assist people in finding information and using it effectively for personal and professional purposes. Librarians must have knowledge of a wide variety of scholarly and public information sources and must follow trends related to publishing, computers, and the media in order to oversee the selection and organization of library materials. Librarians manage staff and develop and direct information programs and systems for the public, to ensure that information is organized in a manner that meets users' needs.
It may be able to pluck books from shelves but a librarian it ain't.
Or you can just get the kernel and pass on the book. I used to hate the idea of Cliff Notes - but they make complete and total sense for business books. I find Getabstract.com and Summary.com. They tend to cost the same - or slightly less - than the paperback and condense it to between 4-8 pages. I find it easier to contain my gag reflex for that long.
...Most people don't actually do a lot of general research...How about General Electric? They aren't the singular monopoly you are used to, but rather the verticle type, controlling a whole line of products...They are a larger company than even Microsoft, the largest in the world last I checked.
If you look at company profits as the Fortune 500 does (2004), GE is 5th behind Wal-Mart, Exxon-Mobil, General Motors and Ford Motors. Microsoft, by comparison, is 47 on the list. So, yes GE is larger than Microsoft. However, it doesn't look like - even if you use other metrics such as sales - that GE is nearly as big as other companies. Example: Sales at Wal-Mart were $244.5 billion vs. GE's $134.1 billion for 2003.
Perhaps more important, none of these companies are monopolies. Wal-Mart competes against other major discounters such as Target, supermarkets, and other retail stores. Exxon Mobil competes with BP, Royal Dutch Shell and other companies. GM and Ford - with each other. General Electric - depending on what product line you are talking about - competes with Maytag, Walt Disney, CIGNA, Philips, Siemans and Sony.
Monopolies, by definition, are markets where there is a single seller. If there are no good substitute for their product, a monopolist can set output levels and price to maximize profit. Typically, monopolies rely on either a government mandate for a monopoly - AT&T or local utility services are classic examples - or government barriers to entry such as restrictive regulations, patents, copyright and so forth. Although, sometimes technology can be used to create similar barriers and make other products less attractive as substitutes - one key issue on this front is standards whether you are talking about the size of railroad gauges or software protocols.
Monopolies are rare. Most mature capitalistic markets given current conditions tend toward oligopolies - a handful of large companies dominate the market. A few select industries I can think of off the top of my head that are oligopolies include: game consoles, oil, aircraft manufacture, advertising and processors.
ARM is not a monopoly. Sysco is not a monopoly - assuming you are talking about the company that primarily does food distribution. Microsoft is really a special case where their product enables them to use copyright law and changing technical standards to create monopolisitc conditions. However, Apple and other companies that are more focused on selling software also have competed with Microsoft - again depending on what product line you are talking about, so even they are not a true monopoly.
The general trend is toward oligopolies not monopolies. I think you may have a point that eventually oligopolies may move more toware duopolies or monopolies - however, your comments thus far don't support that position.
I like a heated political debate with the un-informed-and-ignorant-left as well as the next bright-well-informed person...
Makes me wonder why you aren't talking to some informed and sharp-witted "leftists". Afraid they might challenge you and get you to reconsider some of your most fundamentally held beliefs? Is this way you leave forums of the uninformed - presumably forums that have a different opinion than yours?
You are essentially saying that, Slashdot shouldn't cover non-tech topics such as the 9/11 attacks, legal blocking of FCC ownership rules or public anonymity because they are not technical topics. However, clearly these topics do have an impact on our society and how we use technology. Where do you draw the line and how do you rationalize this choice?
I don't know why he agreed to appear on Fox. Sure there would be plenty of slick editing - it would be used to make him look like a fool and give Fox the appearance of being balanced. If he showed up, he deserves everything he would have got.
Slashdot Mirror
Social contract - pretty much in all meaningful cases - implies that subsequent generations don't get to participate in the debate in the sense of establishing the framework. Did you participate in the Continental Congress or your state's constitution? Did you devise any of the laws that you live under?
I'd argue that social contracts imply a trust between generations and an obligations to treat those that came before and those that come after in the spirit of that contract - and improve upon it if we can.
As far as Social Security is concerned, the only real mistake on the table - for an otherwise successful program - is Bush's attempt to privatize it.
Social security is a social contract to take care of your elders and provide many of them with an income that enables them to live in something other than abject poverty. The right mentality is to pay it - not break the contract because you just KNOW someone will do it later when you are old.
I'm under 35 and I view Social Security as one of the smarter ways the U.S. government uses my tax dollars. Much more so than the money that goes toward supporting imperialist wars abroad and a military industrial complex (and the debt they both create) that currently consumes the largest chunk of our tax dollars.
Considering that press coverage where Carlson basically got carte blanche to respond after-the-fact in major papers like the Chicago Tribune, this is a fitting end. You especially have to love the comment:
He'll probably reappear somewhere else like MSNBC - hopefully without the bow tie.
Stallman doesn't argue that you should to release all your source code. He does argue that you should respect your client's freedom, e.g., the ability to change and change the source code.
You can do whatever you like. However, let's use a analogy. You are just trying to be practical and get your house painted. What does it matter whether you use lead based paint or not? Practically, lead based paint might be a better paint. However, the paint "theoretically" may contribute to health problems in your children or contaminate the environment.
The take away? There is nothing more practical than theory - especially if you wish to avoid even bigger practical problems in the future.
I like Firefox. However, I have used Hushmail - a java based email service - for years. Firefox freezes up if I try to login and check email.
It is absurd to need to use two browsers -even though I do it. So if he frequently or even occasionally needs to do something that uses Java or other things that Firefox chokes on, it is better just to keep him on IE.
There are people that are functionally illiterate. However, the main culprits in most of the places I have worked at are laziness and few obvious incentives to communicate well.
Writing clearly and well takes time and effort. If you read standard reference books on the topic like Writing That Works, the bulk of the suggestions are about thinking clearly, considering the needs of your audience and spending time to get it right. Examples:
Unfortunately, most workplaces do not evaluate employees based on how well they communicate. Unless communication is viewed as part of your "real job" that carries incentives to do it well, people will not spend the additional time to clarify their ideas, requests and responses so that they are communicated clearly. Why bother when you have tons of "real work" waiting for you on your desk?
First, buzz marketing isn't about stage managing or talking points. It's simply about finding ways to encourage people that like your product to talk about it.
Second, if buzz marketing did work the way you suggest, how do you know that companies like the one's mentioned are not hiring people to post to Slashdot - to smear competitors or hype their own products?
I will agree that there are people out there that try to hype their products in dubious ways. However, I think that ultimately comes back to bite the marketers that use that strategy in the ass. All it takes is for someone to find out once that you have been fooled by some shill - and then you will tell everyone far and wide about their experience. If they are doing to many people, that creates a lot of negative buzz about the product they are trying to sell and is undercutting their efforts. It's simply not smart.
So you see my point, buzz marketing does not work this way. If it did, it would essentially be a method for creating negative buzz - which wouldn't last very long before someone at the company in question clued in.
You perspective is interesting. Unfortunately, buzz marketing doesn't work this way. Buzz marketing is about getting people that like your product to talk abot it - not regurgiating a marketing text. So, it is very much about people talking about their honest opinion; buzz marketing is just a way for company's to encourage people with good things to say to talk about it more.
Buzz Marketing has been around for a long time. Books like the Anatomy of Buzz have been out since 2000 and have be subsequently refined conceptually into defining who people listen to by books like The Influentials or more geographically with books like Hub Culture.
It's not really that big of a deal. Buzz marketing is just another way of saying a product web of trust, and Slashdot is perhaps one of the better examples of buzz marketing I can think of.
Let's see in the last few days, people on Slashdot have mentioned Firefox and Thunderbird, AbiWord. and other programs. There are even whole sections - Book Reviews - that are essentially a form of buzz marketing.
The problem that people have is when this is disingenious. Slashdot deals with this by giving you the negative buzz too - anyone here going to rush out and buy a Treo 650? I know I'm not - and I'm thankful to the guy who posted the comment so I am aware of the problems of the new Treo.
Bottom line: buzz marketing - so long as it is accurate, is offered by someone you trust (or forum or what have you) and is appropriate given the circumstances (posting about a bad product experience on Slashdot for example) is not necessarily a bad thing and is often quite useful and good.
Hearing about new restaurants in your area, new software products, or whatever from people that have actually used them and had a good (or bad) experience is often an excellent way to find out about new things. I think most of us would agree on this point. So, don't get all bent out of shape about a 50 cent word used by marketroids.
Of the three, the Seattle source was what I was using for my "unbiased" source. It is fairly mainstream newspaper, and it broke the story.
The other two, while biased and definitely editorializing, provide additional information. One provides information from the original writer of the Seattle article that got edited out of the original article - presumably to make it less "biased". The other provides some discussion of what could happen in respect to the draft if a number of likely scenarios were to occur. Put the scenarios together with Bush putting contingency plans together for a draft as early as 2002, and I think you have something to be concerned about.
Of course, your mileage may vary.
I could have made this clearer. Individual bills don't matter. Everyone may vote against a particular bill - especially prior to an election, and it doesn't mean squat.
As to how this could play out now that the election is over, try reading the second article. Specifically the section on Karl Rove and the GOP and this one:
If you think Bush hasn't been thinking about this, you better think again.
I have a real tangible car worth $10,000 macdaddy. Do you want to buy it from me for $100,000?
See the analogy to stock worth $1400 selling for $14,000? It's one thing to claim it may appreciate in value but stock takes a long time to appreciate to 10x its book value.
I think you miss his point. If you object to the process or some aspect of the process - say to the fact that corporations fund candidates and their campaigns and are candidates are beholden to them - then no matter who you vote for your vote supports a system that you don't believe in.
If you object on grounds such as these, voting for a third party candidate does not solve the problem. In this election, anarchists have to decide which is the greater problem - George Bush or the system that made him president. Some such as Utah Phillips have decided Bush is the greater threat whereas folks like the original poster disagree.
I know it can be hard to understand objecting to voting but Utah Phillip's comment about other ways of voting - what he calls the body vote - is a useful way of looking at the issue. When I choose not to vote, I am in fact voting. It is no different than when I skip over voting a particular office because I don't like either candidate.
It's an interesting exercise in speculation. However, I wouldn't buy a stock trading at 10 times its book value per share. Your 3000 shares are actually worth $1314.
You may be able to sell them for your "record payday" to some other speculative investor - perhaps even someone on Slashdot intrigued by your post and wanting to get in on the action. However at some point someone is going to pay dearly for these shares when they trade closer to reality - like if Bush were to win for instance. Of course, in that case, the speculative investor taking the hit would be you.
Investing in these shares might work out for you. I hope it does. However as an investment strategy, this can only be called lunacy. I hope you don't do this kind of thing often - and if you do, you can afford to lose your shirt.
A value can be defined as something (as a principle or quality) intrinsically valuable or desirable. The initial statement meets that definition.
If you wanted to nitpick, how about focusing on the fact that the statement doesn't mean anything until you define what you mean by limited. The government should be limited to a level of oppression slightly less than Orwell's 1984 or the government should be slightly more than a primitive anarchy. There's a whole world that could be covered by limited - although it seems clear than he thinks we can all reasonably determine what limited might be.
As for your other arguments, the question is where to start.
Limited involvement in business? Care to talk about Enron?
Fiscally, there are more than two choices. Example, you could not cut taxes and spend the revenues on another Star Wars style missle defense program. Or you could cut taxes to the rich and still pursue a war in Iran! Don't worry. Your children will pick up the check.
Rights? While the claim is dubious, you could make the argument that there are laws and policies in place that undermine civil liberties from concentration camps in Cuba to the use of the Patriot Act to further police powers that infinge on rights. (Do the police need to know what books you checked out from the library? Do they need to right to issue gag orders about the information they ask for? What about the public's rights?) Should the government be putting together MATRIX style databases and what will the outcome be - if not an environment of reduced rights. I do not see how you can claim it is blatantly false.
The best is when you contradict yourself. How can you claim it is best for the government to not be involved in business but good policy for the government to subsidize farmers (read: agribusiness). Or is it only good policy when it feels right to you? Or did you think the word farmers was going to confuse us all into thinking that any significant amount of that money goes to the family farm?
So, we get to the crux. What does it mean to be conservative. Personal responsibility. One man went to Vietnam. The other used his father's connections to stay at home - then, has the audacity to challenge his opponents war record. Show up first son! That's the whole Bush campaign summed up in a nutshell. The man doesn't even show up and then walks in and talks about resolve. Give me a break.
Strong foreign policy? Bush can't even say nuclear - although he can fund weapons development of tactical nukes, which is decidedly bad foreign policy.
If conservatives believe in small business and tax cuts, why do all those cuts and help they provide go to big business (such as that help for agribusiness we talked about above)?
Why is more and more of the wealth and income concentrated into fewer hands? In fact, just answer me this: How does someone from a top 1% family have the same chances as someone from a bottom 1% family, economically or in any other way? Act of God?
If you put Bush up against Kerry and I were conservative, I'd have to go with Kerry. If for no other reason, the man at least understands the issues and can articulate a point that isn't on the talking points sheet supplied to him by Karl Rove and the Vice President.
Reminds me of a cartoon I saw recently. Two candidates. One promising to cut off your foot. The other promising to cut off your leg.
Who are you voting for?
Personally, I think your time would be better spent moving on election day than voting for candidates representing that kind of choice - or even registering your disinterest by voting for yourself (or Mickey Mouse).
Bush v. Kerry? The political programs they advocate aren't that much different. If Bush and his cronies weren't such brazen crooks, I would probably stay home on election day too.
Not voting - for me - has nothing to do with being lazy. It has everything to do with wanting a real voice - not just the ability to register my dissatifaction. Not participating in the farce of voting is not only expressing my dissatisfaction but undermining its very legitimacy.
Three comments:
You actually think these people are going to make it to the courts - even kangaroo, secret military tribunal courts? You're dreaming. The U.S. is not going to give these people a stage. They will be quietly executed or held indefinately in some secret place.
It really isn't that difficult to determine Disney's businesses. A quick look at their annual report under Key Businesses will given you a workable list if you are interesting in boycotting.
For movies, you have: Walt Disney Studios, Walt Disney Pictures, Touchstone, Walt Disney Feature Animation, DisneyToon Studios, Miramax and the various Buena Vista studios. You can then check in Rotten Tomatoes when you are looking up the critic reviews you can also take a look at the Release Company to see if it is one of the names above. Example: The Village
As you get into other businesses, it gets more difficult. They include: ABC, Lifetime, A&E, ESPN, and local TV stations in New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Philadelphia and San Francisco - among others. However, Disney is just one of the big five - so that gives you four other media companies to choose from - specifically, Time Warner, Viacom, News Corporation and Bertelsmann.
Frankly, I don't think the other four would disagree with Disney on this point.
Or you can just get the kernel and pass on the book. I used to hate the idea of Cliff Notes - but they make complete and total sense for business books. I find Getabstract.com and Summary.com. They tend to cost the same - or slightly less - than the paperback and condense it to between 4-8 pages. I find it easier to contain my gag reflex for that long.
If you look at company profits as the Fortune 500 does (2004), GE is 5th behind Wal-Mart, Exxon-Mobil, General Motors and Ford Motors. Microsoft, by comparison, is 47 on the list. So, yes GE is larger than Microsoft. However, it doesn't look like - even if you use other metrics such as sales - that GE is nearly as big as other companies. Example: Sales at Wal-Mart were $244.5 billion vs. GE's $134.1 billion for 2003.
Perhaps more important, none of these companies are monopolies. Wal-Mart competes against other major discounters such as Target, supermarkets, and other retail stores. Exxon Mobil competes with BP, Royal Dutch Shell and other companies. GM and Ford - with each other. General Electric - depending on what product line you are talking about - competes with Maytag, Walt Disney, CIGNA, Philips, Siemans and Sony.
Monopolies, by definition, are markets where there is a single seller. If there are no good substitute for their product, a monopolist can set output levels and price to maximize profit. Typically, monopolies rely on either a government mandate for a monopoly - AT&T or local utility services are classic examples - or government barriers to entry such as restrictive regulations, patents, copyright and so forth. Although, sometimes technology can be used to create similar barriers and make other products less attractive as substitutes - one key issue on this front is standards whether you are talking about the size of railroad gauges or software protocols.
Monopolies are rare. Most mature capitalistic markets given current conditions tend toward oligopolies - a handful of large companies dominate the market. A few select industries I can think of off the top of my head that are oligopolies include: game consoles, oil, aircraft manufacture, advertising and processors.
ARM is not a monopoly. Sysco is not a monopoly - assuming you are talking about the company that primarily does food distribution. Microsoft is really a special case where their product enables them to use copyright law and changing technical standards to create monopolisitc conditions. However, Apple and other companies that are more focused on selling software also have competed with Microsoft - again depending on what product line you are talking about, so even they are not a true monopoly.
The general trend is toward oligopolies not monopolies. I think you may have a point that eventually oligopolies may move more toware duopolies or monopolies - however, your comments thus far don't support that position.
Makes me wonder why you aren't talking to some informed and sharp-witted "leftists". Afraid they might challenge you and get you to reconsider some of your most fundamentally held beliefs? Is this way you leave forums of the uninformed - presumably forums that have a different opinion than yours?
You are essentially saying that, Slashdot shouldn't cover non-tech topics such as the 9/11 attacks, legal blocking of FCC ownership rules or public anonymity because they are not technical topics. However, clearly these topics do have an impact on our society and how we use technology. Where do you draw the line and how do you rationalize this choice?
I don't know why he agreed to appear on Fox. Sure there would be plenty of slick editing - it would be used to make him look like a fool and give Fox the appearance of being balanced. If he showed up, he deserves everything he would have got.