The author states that the intellectual property laws envisioned by the Founders aimed to strike a balance between authors, publishers, and readers. This is well and good. However, in his criticism of DCMA and other means to shift the balance towards the creators, he neglects the fact that there is more to this balance than just written law. There are many other forces at work which absolutely must be considered, but the author gives them no consideration.
For one, the nature of digital media enables people to pirate goods in a way that is totally unprecedented. No time before could a work of art, say a book, have been distributed by one lone pirate. It would have required transcription, printing presses, distribution networks, and so on. Even his concept of the so-called "fair use" as it is viewed today is extremely different from the "fair use" of 200 some years ago. When a professor today wants to do a lesson he can merely (many actually do this) photocopy whole chapter(s) and give them to his students, there was no equivelent of this in Jefferson's time. In other words, technology shifts the balance of power drastically into the pirates court. The same work that would have recieved balanced protection in Jefferson's time could be easily ripped off wholesale today.
Second, the author fails to consider the changing nature of the works produced and the markets that they are sold into. For instance, he mentions database producers recieving protection, yet he neglects that they are serving a unique function, a function unparalleled in Jefferson's time, that adds substantial value to the consumer, which is, in fact, very necessary in the digital world. There is little comparison between the levels and kinds of publications in Jefferson's days and that of today. The rate of creation, the shelf life, the specificity of published works, the amount of resources poored into development, and many other things have changed DRASTICALLY.
In short, the author takes means that were sufficient and proper in Jefferson's times to be a universal statement of what is right for all of time. Laws change for a reason. While I take issue with parts of the DCMA, it's simply ignorant to ignore the reasoning behind it. What's more, I disagree with the assertion that Jefferson would have supported the likes of Napster; Jefferson was a reasonable and intelligent individual, not an absolutist.
I agree with this, but, in my opinion, clear coding implies substantial architectural design wherever it is necessary (almost by definition). Whereas commenting, in and of itself, implies very little ( esp. given the number of worthless projects with worthless commenting).
I will make the point, however, that the projects that many, if not most, programmers work on do not great deal of formal up front design work. What's more, it's often outside of the scope of their job. Trying to over-design can be terribly unproductive.
While commenting code can be extremely valuable, it is often done as an afterthought. In other words, instead of abstracting, grouping, and naming (e.g., functions, variables, etc) the code properly at the get go, so that comments can be of significant value, comments are very often thrown on top in a manner that is of little help or, worse yet, is simply incorrect and confusing. Often times it's simply not possible to comment in a meaningful way until the code is properly designed. Ergo, I think most programmers are better advised to write clear code first and worry about the actual act of commenting second. My two cents.
And I repeat: FUD. Utter crap. The functionality of the apps available on Linux far exceed what any normal user would require. Your claims to the contrary don't change reality.
Your assertions are totally unsupported.
As for consumers not flooding the Linux market, this has nothing to do with the quality of the apps. This should be readily apparent even to you. Try thinking about it for more than thirty seconds to see if you can come up with any other reason Linux may not be taking an entrenched, monopolistic desktop market by storm (duuuuuh). The DOJ had some ideas, before that wanker Bush took office.
It is you that needs to think. If, as you assert, users can get all the software they need and want (with the ease of use of Windows), then why does MS' monopoly matter in the least? It really can't, not reasonably anyways. You couldn't even call *that* a monopoly. Their *current* monopoly is largely contingent on software development. Your assertion flies in the face of economic theory.
If the user is perfectly capable of switching software platforms, then MS is essentially toothless. While existing OEMs that are primarily selling Windows machines may not be willing to risk alienating MS by bundling Linux, MS' influence over them is derived entirely from the *relative* value of their OS and applications software. In other words, someone else (or them) would soon flood the market. Whatever price breaks the MS OEMs get pale in comparison to the price breaks on the supposedly equal Linux desktop platform (OS-WM-Apps).
I, on the other hand, feel that MS still IS a monopoly. Because Linux has such slim marketshare on desktops, no sane software developer is going to spend millions of dollars developing software that can compete head to head against that that is available for Windows--the economics are NOT there. [They (and OSS-minded people) will spend much smaller amounts of time/money/effort developing software that may take the Linux desktop, but not Windows.] Likewise, no sane commercial developer is going to try to develop a desktop OS that can compete head to head against Windows. It's a chicken and the egg problem. Then, of course, we have Office compatibility issues and such...but you deny this also, by asserting that Linux apps are perfectly capable. Blah.
It's rather clear, however, that no matter how functional or stable Linux apps are you'll scream to the high heavens that they can't equal the inane, shitty crap that comes from Redmond.
It's quite clear that you either:
a) Have not used them yourself.
b) Do know quality from crap.
c) Do not use them often enough, with sufficient complexity, to notice their many flaws.
Most likely, all of the above in your case.
I believe that MS' Applications and OS(s) are generally crappy given the amount of revenue they generate and the age. [In other words, it's well below the quality of what would be generated in a more competetive market place.] However, even MS' crappy software had millions of dollars and man hours poored into it. You are a fool if you think even those efforts are easily matched by a couple part time hackers or a company spending 1/1000th the amount of money on R&D.
lease, if you're that much in love with Bill's little tool then stick with the Windows you love so much (Linux user my hairy ass). You claim you've been using "Linux for many years now", but it's obvious from your rants that you despise Linux, think it sucks, and can't hope to compete with Windows. I seriously doubt that you've done much more than tried to install Mandrake some time in the past and failed miserably at it.
I think Linux has its place (e.g., servers, highly administrated environments, etc). But right now that's certainly not on the desktop.
And yes, I HAVE used and use Linux--all the major distributions. Debian, Slackware, Redhat, Suse, Mandrake, and others. The first Linux distro that I installed on my own machine was Redhat 2.0. [Messed around with slackware long before that.] How about you?
Btw, I develop software and I program in numerous languages. I'm a long time Unix user. In other words, Linux doesn't scare me. However, Linux on the desktop does take my time, which is valuable. Thus, I rather not use it when I can avoid it.
As for the 'development models', if you don't like open source/free software then stick with Windows - it's apparent that's about your speed anyway. Claiming that the model is flawed is fucking laughable considering just how far things have come, and how quickly, using that model. Any rational person would be amazed - that is, if they weren't disciples of the Great Gates.
Bull. I've stated my position on Open Source MANY MANY times on slashdot. If you care to look it up, then do so.
Btw, Nice troll. Nice User# too. Want to hop on another bandwagon?
Yet another FUDmeister who insists that Linux doesn't have "a lot of the quality software that users demand".
Uhuh, FUD that gets +5 in a generally pro-Linux crowd.
Listen up, boy: that line has been done, and done, and done again. It may have been true three or four years ago but it ain't true anymore. Buy yourself a clue or two.
Boy, eh? Look in the mirror.
Linux's software may not be quite as bad as it used to be, but it still is far below the state of Macintosh even. The level of moderation suggests that most people here agree with my sentiments. What's more consumers are not exactly flooding Linux en masse.
email
Which email client is *widely known* to be equal to Eudora or Outlook?
word processing
Staroffice and OpenOffice are sort of OK, but they're: bug ridden, lack a significant number of features, slow, and have significant compatibility problems for all but the most simple of documents. Don't even get my started about KWord.
spreadsheets
Bull.
web browsing
Please. Both netscape and mozilla for Linux today are behind where Netscape and IE were years ago for Windows, never mind today, when it comes to _real usability_ (as in decent speed/memory footprint/UI/rendering quality).
calendars
Which?
farting around on the job
Name them.
Linux has a great many apps that can do all of these things, thus satisfying the huge majority of those who actually work at their computers (or avoid working at their computers). Users don't demand anything more than this, because most users aren't employed in jobs that need anything more complicated. If you think otherwise you need to get out more.
This world is not binomial. Merely "having" an application that you can fit in checkbox A, B, and C is not the same thing as really having an application that really works for the user. Merely having a decent application (rare for Linux's desktop) is not sufficient for what most users to find Linux an acceptable choice. The fact is that Linux's desktop applications themselves are of (vastly) inferior quality to what can be found on Windows, prompting most users to prefer Windows (or Mac even) in that in and of itself. Furthermore, there are many other important flaws in Linux, as a package (not just the kernel...as in Linux+X+WM+UI+drivers...etc), which make independent use of Linux much more trouble than it is worth.
So, FUD-guy, think up a new line. Yours is old, outdated, and simply not true anymore. Worse, it's boring. If you're going to slag Linux at least choose something that might actually be true.
It's the truth, whether or not you believe it. I've been using Linux for many years now. I'd love to see Windows/MS fall and Linux succeed (not for Open Source/"Free" idealogy though). However, it's certainly not nearly there yet and I can't recommend Linux to users today at the their expense (time, effort, resources). What's more, I believe the current development and business models have serious flaws so I am skeptical that it ever will (at least in its current configuration).
I'll agree that I may have underated Mac, but I still think that there is a strong Linux market than Mac.
I disagree and I think the facts belly my opinion.
Maybe it's just me, being in the Web/.com arena, but most ppl I know are running linux, either as a primary OS, or as a dev OS, and a good percentage of them do desktop type work on Linux.
What do you mean by Web/.com arena? Are you talking about web software developers preferring Linux? Perhaps, given the popularity of Perl, CGI, and such. However, that's a pretty small part of the population. If you're talking about graphics and other related pursuits, I don't buy it. I don't know of a single graphics person that would seriously consider Linux's options on par with that of Windows even, never mind Macintosh (Mac generally being regarded as superior by them).
I think a reason why many comercial companies aren't porting to linux is that they feel ppl won't buy. That is true for the most part, ppl in the linux market feel that they should be able to get a good solution for free, so they aren't willing to buy a software package that is available for download for free.
Maybe they feel they'd much prefer to get it for free, but most Linux users even, in my experience, recognize that there is a real lack of software for the desktop, Free B./Free S. or $$$$. Certainly they'd jump at the opportunity to buy software if it offers them a significantly better option. I know I would. A small percentage of hardcore developers will never buy proprietary/commercial software, but surely they can't be that large a part of Linux's supposed desktop market. The real problem is that developers don't see the market share, plus Linux is a pain in the butt to target for applications compared to Windows/Macintosh.
I think both of our arguments are flawed, but I'll stand by my guns.
I don't see what part of my argument is particularly flawed, especially since it can rest on a number of them.
*IF* Mac is as big as you say then why aren't there VAST mac dev projects as there are for linux?
I won't deny that there is little Open Source effort for the Macintosh (although I hear MacOSX is starting to change this, given it's portability with BSD), but this is beside the point. You see tons of efforts for Linux/BSD because they're very much inline with the Open/Free/Hack idealogy. You see some for Windows because of its sheer size. You see few for Mac because its market share isn't even a 1/5th of Windows and because it (traditionally, though MacOSX is changing this) couldn't be more opposed to what Linux/BSD stands for.
My point was simply that Linux has many (perhaps even most) great voids in the application arena that are unfilled by ANY viable option, be it Free, "Free", Closed, or what have you. Mac, on the other hand, has most of the mainstream applications pretty well covered, especially in the graphics arena. This fact calls into question the viability of Linux as a desktop for the user and also strongly suggests that developers don't believe that there is a sufficiently large market out there for Linux. Ergo, it is reasonable to conclude that Linux is not just as big as Macintosh on the desktop, but is, in fact, much smaller.
score 3 : ignorance
They should port it to mac to waste their time. No, but seriously, I am sure mac users would like having a nice email client, but not even someone with half the IQ of a dead squirel would believe that there is a 10X market for MACs over Linux, there isn't even 1/10 the market for MACs.
Check yourself son.
Prove it. Linux _might_ have a larger installed base, but even those statistics do not say that it is overtaking Macintosh as a desktop OS. In fact, there are many reasons to believe this is untrue.
1) Linux is, and has certainly, been focused as a server OS. Most of those official statistics may be pure server installations.
2) Even those that use Linux as a desktop may be using it for the novelty/coolness/geek factor, rather than for productivity.
3) Many of the statistics are based on numbers of downloads and other measures, hardly proof that it's really being used.
4) Linux lacks a lot of the quality software that users demand. Thus I find it hard to believe that most people can get away with, never mind prefer, using Linux in lieu of Windows or Macintosh.
5) If Linux's desktop marketshare is so small, why are so few commercial companies porting their desktop software to Linux?
6) There are actually official statistics from IDC and others that show Linux is still a notch or two below Macintosh as a "client" (read desktop) OS. [I don't think they tell the whole picture though...in regards to my other comments]
FYI, I'm a Linux/*Nix/Windows user, not Mac and I have more than half an IQ of a live squirel even. Imagine that!
what do you mean it doesn't follow? I'm not going to look it up for you, but the guy on the radio [this was on NPR.org a week or two ago... they have audio archives] said (and I believe him because I have no reason not to) that the number of hijackings per year has gone down, and the number of people killed in hijackings has gone up. If this is indeed a reality, it "follows" even if you don't have a theory to explain it. Don't blame me, I'm just reporting what I remember hearing.
What doesn't follow is the implication that arresting the amateur terrorists leads to _more_ committed terrorists in absolute terms or that more people die as a result.
Furthermore, it makes little sense to make sweeping conclusions from the apparent surge in terrorism, because it's so rare. e.g., Maybe bin Laden felt like bombing today because it's the 10th aniversary of yadda yadda yadda. It just takes one MAN (or a collective small group ) to cause this kind of destruction that represents a major spike on our charts.
Ah, now that you've expended much blood, sweat, and tears thinking about this, you've arrived at the starting point the guy on the radio was talking about: yes, and in raising the bar, you increase the scale and sophistication of any successful attack, and with scale and sophistication comes capability, and by raising the cost you raise the payoff they look for.
It only follows that we raise the payoff that they look for, if they were previously restraining themselves. If they're already fighting as hard as they know how, our cutting their JV-line is not going to make their Varsity efforts any more effective. Why should I, or anyone else, believe this to be untrue? If they're going to kill themselves, then one can reasonably conclude that they're going to want to inflict as much damage as possible. Anyways, this argument is really very academic, because it's a stretch to assert that the line was raised in any meaningful way in the US.
Bull. Which one of these terrorists were Palestinians? None. Which one of these terrorists had any direct claim against the US? None. Most of these terrorists led relatively middle class life styles and can't reasonably claim to have suffered at the hands of the US.
What's more, why should I believe that US action, or in action, will make a damn bit of difference when they believe blatantly untrue lies printed in their media and from the various religious zealots. 95% of the propaganda that these terrorists hear is simply untrue.
If they're really going against their suppossed oppressors, why the US of all places? It's totally disproportionate. The Soviet Union and many European powers did VASTLY more damage to the middle east than the US has ever done, in whole or in part.
This has far more to do with pride, or lack thereof. They believe they are the chosen people. The United States, being the most visible superpower, must be cheating them somehow, because why else are they still living in poverty, by and large, and us infidels are living it large? The United States and the Jews are generally being used as a scapegoat.
Furthermore, if these terrorist and sympathetic Arabs are really concerned for the plight of their fellow Arabs (generally not themselves), why is it that they have done so little to help as a group?
Hahah, so true, I've worked a couple conventions for my company. The teamsters and like unions at these convention centers really rip the exhibitors off. It's completely ridiculous. Granted, many of these companies rip themselves off, with completely excessive ~million dollar booths and such, but some of the crap that you have to put up with is unbelievable. My company would give out these stuffed animals as give aways...lots of them. The unions/convention center would force us to have them carry these _very_ light boxes for point A to point B (no more than 500 feet away) claiming union regulations (or "safety", hah), rip us off in process, then on top of that take their sweet time and expect quid pro quo at the end if they did their jobs half decently.
somebody on the radio pointed out that as we get better and better at stopping individual acts, the response is for a smaller number of more dedicated enemy to plan more thoroughly. So, for example, the number of hijackings has long been on the decline, but the number of people killed in each hijacking has gone way up.
This doesn't really follow.
Firstly, we have traditionally had virtually no defence against terrorism, because we have had very little of it compared to, say, Europe. Yet we had the single biggest act of terrorism, probably of anywhere. It's not as if the same primitive attacks that have been seen in Europe and elsewhere could not have been used against US.
Secondly, while the only reasonable response to better security would be more competent terrorists, that does not necessarily mean that the number of lives lost would go up. There may be a real lack of more capable terrorists out there in the world (and that's completely ignoring recruitment issues and such). The aggregate damage may still be less.
All in all, there evidence simply isn't there to make this assertion. It may be true that the number of deaths in terrorism shot way up in this year for the US, but there are a zillion other possible reasons for this. e.g., external politics, economic reasons, bad luck (hardly a large population here to draw from), a new resolve on the part of the terrorists (irrespective of our security), and so on. To suggest that we should loosen or not tighten our security is frankly foolish. So-called men like Osama bin Laden want to cause as much damage and fear as they can to further their objectives, so why should we believe that they might hold anything back? How can more security, providing it's reasonable and in proportion, cause more deaths? At the very least, it raises the bar substantially for bin Laden's organization.
Since it would seem you are for some reason unable to understand that 'allowing the free market to work the problem out' is putting money above all other values
It is you who is misguided. Your argument lacks any coherant or lucid thought.
You claim that free choice leads to "putting money above all other values". This is simply false on its face. It is the individual that is allowed to decide what values they want to pursue, but this is rarely ever money above all else. You cannot reconcile your assertion with some well known and undeniable facts. For instance:
People with top notch skills choosing much lower paying jobs. e.g., teaching
People choosing to have families, despite the costs and diminishment of wealth.
People choosing to follow their religious convictions even when it means missing out on opportunity.
People opting to work a mere 8 hours a day, rather than working more hours with the hope (or gaurantee) of making more money.
I could go on, but the examples abound of people opting out on the opportunity to spend or make money in favor of family, society, political agendas, cultural opportunities, and so on.
Furthermore, your "lowest common denominator" concept lacks any real meaning in the context of your argument. That a product or service is merely what people choose en masse, does not necessarily mean it is either the most nor the least expensive. It's just what people choose, so how does it follow that "money" is being put above all else? How does buying from, say, McDonalds put money above all else? Are you going to claim that the individuals, the customers, seek to increase the wealth of McDonald's shareholders or employees? You might argue that McDonalds is the nearly the most efficient configuration of delivering that particular product, but removing waste is not a bad thing in and of itself. Nor can you claim that people just go for the best value, else we would not have hundreds of thousands of small restraunts in this country. When people want that personal touch, they will and do pay for it. But when they want fast and affordable, they'll not waste resources unnecessarily.
Why is it that you presume people are unable to decide for themselves what is best for themselves? Do you really presume yourself to be sufficiently intimate with their situation to make the optimal decision? Unbelievable.
Why is it that you presume that yourself or any other central authority to be better able to make these decisions?
Why is it that you presume that you are even capable of measuring the worth of cultural elments? Even if you know what is "right" and "wrong", do you honestly believe that you can administrate these decisions in a superior fashion?
Both society and culture are products of evolution (of sorts). No society or culture, past or present, is given by God to be "the way." They are the products of human choice and they are dynamic, not perfect and certainly not static. Your society and culture has evolved greatly, I can guarantee you, since 200 years before. Would you say like minded people 200 years before were correct? [e.g., That we shouldn't allow the use of machines on farms] Would you rather spend virtually every waking hour, from sunrise to sundown, working and toiling on a field? Society can and should continue to evolve.
While I agree with much of your sentiment, hardly being a fan of the Ivory Tower, if you take a look at some of the projects on the website, you'll see that many of them are things that are hard to simulate AT ALL in the real world. For instance, there are projects there to research methods of stopping DDos attacks. They can hardly start flooding a real WAN to test their software. While it is true that they can fall back to mathematical models, these are complex and can never hope to realistically simulate some of the non-deterministic elements nearly as well as a real WAN (or this network).
That said, I also can't say that this network really has SUFFICIENT usefulness to justify its existence (after all, how many people need to test denial of service attacks and such?); we'll let the markets resolve that, eh?
I think I should state here why large companies can be a problem from the viewpoint of economic theory:
Most of (macro-)economic theory is based on the assumption of "atomic supply", meaning a large number of independent suppliers for a given good. In such a scenario the market can reach its equilibrium, which is the optimal state. It can even be shown that the economy as a whole is worse off with monopolies than without. Unfortunately, history has shown that free markets tend to be increasingly monopolized over time. That is why many countries have anti-monopolistic laws (see the Microsoft and AT&T cases).
IMO the problem here is not really the good old mom-and-pops we all liked so much (or not), but rather the loss of choice of both goods and prices.I think I should state here why large companies can be a problem from the viewpoint of economic theory:
Most of (macro-)economic theory is based on the assumption of "atomic supply", meaning a large number of independent suppliers for a given good. In such a scenario the market can reach its equilibrium, which is the optimal state. It can even be shown that the economy as a whole is worse off with monopolies than without. Unfortunately, history has shown that free markets tend to be increasingly monopolized over time. That is why many countries have anti-monopolistic laws (see the Microsoft and AT&T cases).
IMO the problem here is not really the good old mom-and-pops we all liked so much (or not), but rather the loss of choice of both goods and prices.
This is a disingenuous argument. While it is true that most economists agree that monopolies are problematic and should be restrained, most of these are not monopolies nor can they readily become monopolies. For instance, McDonalds may be a large franchise, but even in the smallest of towns there are other choices, even for fast food. What's more, companies like McDonald's have pretty much identical pricing across the nation, so it'd be difficult to argue they they can practice monopolistic pricing. Their success, or lack thereof, is entirely contingent on the (generally rational) choices that customers make. You may assert that McDonalds offers a limited pallete of bland tastes (and I'd be inclined to agree with you), but established economic theory would quickly reprimand you if you were to try to meddle with the preferences of the people. The customers should be the ones to weigh McDonald's positive attributes (e.g., relatively quick, cheap, and consistent) against the negative ones (e.g., bland, unhealthy, etc).
What these mom-and-pops and anti-corporatists ask for runs contrary to economic theory. By asking for the restraint of the introduction of the corporations into their region or subsidies for themselves, they are asking government to make a centralized determination of worth. Although government should police blatant monopolies, it's another thing entirely to artificially impede the growth of any larger institition on the grounds that it merely COULD become a monopoly. Likewise, it's a mistake for government to try to protect commercial culture.
Furthermore, there is a real paucity of evidence on the rising lack of choice in both products/services and suppliers (on the aggregate). In what other country in the world can you go to any sizable city are find as many choices of restraunts and unique flavors? Varieties of shoes? Grocery Goods? In how many small towns have the introduction of, say, Wallmart, reduced the choice of customers in that town (it's actually very much the opposite)?...
I called that 'lowest common denominator stuff' because all things cited as such above are designed to appeal to the masses, to the center of the Gaussian bell curve, which implies, of course, eradication of anything with enough of a 'taste' to potentially displease a certain number of people (frog legs, strong coffee, command line tools, etc, to give admittedly approximative examples of what I mean). I hope I'm being a bit clearer?
Ok, that's a more coherant definition. However, that doesn't make my statement any less true, that customers are perfectly capable of deciding for themselves what they prefer. If simple market forces cause the death of anything that you term not to be the LCD, then that is for the better. In other words, if 90% of the public prefers national brand coffee and you're amongst the 10% that prefer regional brand, why should the 90% be forced to effectively subsize your preference? It's simply ridiculous.
I disagree. A land has an economical value, because you can grow things on it (ie, produce). While a culture, per se, doesn't produce much (outside the aforementionned folklore commerce, which is anecdotic).
This is a really a semantic argument, but let's move on. The same thing could be said for, say, artwork, paper money, and so on. Likewise, any cultural value is attached some economic value, either directly or indirectly. To deny its existence in a world of economic realities is simply foolish.
I never said otherwise. My point, however, was that we should protect those regions inhabitants' right to decide for themselves, as opposed to forcing them to switch to some 'global' culture. Which is, of course, the issue at hand.
No one, but no one, is forcing people to eat these corporate brands. They exist and grow by choice of the local inhabitants, by and large. To say that you need to protect them by NOT allowing them to make their own decisions (e.g., by not allowing McDonalds to have a restraunt in a particular region) is a very disingenuous assertion.
Define 'quality of life'. You're thinking in terms of money again. I have a friend (about as Welsh as it goes) who dropped everything and moved to France (rural Brittany, to be precise) to breed goats, basically. And he's very happy about the improvement of his quality of life. What does that tell you? Bingo, quality of life is a relative notion, exactly like values. Cope. He's got exactly the same right to seek his definition of quality of life as you do.Nope, I suggest that regional cultures have a right not to let economical powers obliterate them in the name of values that may not be theirs.
The only problem is that in order to maintain this dream world of yours, you either need to not allow the local inhabitants the choice or you need to force those local inhabitants that would choose to shop the alien cororation to subsidize the desires of the others (generally, the few).
Besides, you're once again thinking within the limited confines of your country. Because, mind you, there's a world outside your boundaries, and to that world's scale, your culture IS a minority. Hell, to Asia's scale alone, your culture is a minority. Would you switch to another culture and other values, just because the majority of mankind thinks differently from you? I think not. And it's your right!
So stop looking at your own navel, and get a look at the broader picture. Try to force your values and your culture on people, or even to obliterate those people's culture in the name of yours, and they WILL want to fight your oppression.
Give me a break. It's not as if the US military is saying let McDonalds put a franchise on your block or we'll start carpet bombing; it's especially not true that the US is demanding that consumers actually shop there. Quite the contrary, the bulk of these societies CHOOSE the corporate brand, while some small minority want to deny the winds of change by force or non-representative legislation or regulation.
Your argument is kind of like Microsoft implying that Open Source should be banned or discouraged, because it is unamerican, whatever that's supposed to mean. While I happen to think MS would or should prevail over OSS (for simple economic reasons), I allow and insist that consumers make choices for themselves, allowing the free market to work the problem out. In the event that MS is hurt by the growth of Open Source, they deserve neither subsidies nor the retardation of Open Source.
Wow- the Microsoft employees are taking a broader view than they used to:) must be feeling their oats after corrupting the U.S. courts and beating the government;)
I'm not, I have never been, nor will I ever be a Microsoft employee [At least, not unless MS fundamentally changes its character and leadership.] Microsoft cannot make this argument because their customers cannot be reasonably argued to have had a real choice; they are clearly a monopoly. The multitude of corporations, on the other hand, cannot be said to be monopolies, by and large. In other words, it is generally true that customers can choose, even to this day, amongst other corporations or even another mom-and-pop outfit. This was certainly true, in the very least, when the corporation(s) enter the market [e.g., Even if no mom-and-pop choice no longer exists, they certainly made an overwhelming choice then, and the same factors are still in play--because, frankly, the evidence isn't there to say that they merely jacked their prices up]
No, I've read pretty much all the Federalist papers at different times and more. In fact, if you really want to understand the justification then you should start at 9, as 10 is really just a continuation of 9. It happens to contain some relevant distinctions that can apply to this argument.
Actually, it's the foundation of American politics and the reason we have a republic instead of a democracy.
You, Sir, need to re-read the papers to better understand the meaning and the letters if this is your understanding. The fundamental thrust behind both #9 and #10, not to mention the Constitution itself, is that our Republic, as a distinction from the classical Democracy, might protect BOTH the greater good and the liberties of the minority. This is not to be confused with saying that any whim of any minority should prevent action of the many in their own lives--if this was the intent then every vote would require 100% (or something near that) consensus. This is also one of the reasons why they gave the Federal government the right, one of the few enumerated rights, to regulate interstate commerce.
Put bluntly, the right of two parties to engage in this kind of trade passes both objections with flying colors. It does as a matter of fact (evidence and theory) and as a matter of definition (in this argument) serve the greater good. It also does this while protecting everyone's liberties. Furthermore, this kind of action has a great deal of precedent behind it, it passes through our Federal legislature and review by our higher courts. [Hint: The fact that such promulgation is possible suggests that that the design of our Republic allows for it, never mind the fact that it also passes judicial review.]
Suffice to say- you are suggesting that a majority should override a small minority's preference to maintain their culture.
Yep, this is precisely what I'm saying. There is no reasonable rational that could be used to justify the restraint of the actions that of the many, between the many, for the greater good, and without having any significant direct effect on the few.
Your limited and sophmoric understanding confuses this with say, 90% of the country voting that 10% be made to give up their wealth to the former. There is no direct or reasonable threat to any liberty here. You have a right to practice your culture, within reason, free from governmental intervention or criminal interference by civilians. But this does not mean that you have a right to force your views on commerce on others so that your culture may survive, any more than, say, IBM should have prevented the introduction of the personal computer so that they may survive.
Brush up on your history until you understand the difference or show me some valid precedent denying it. Also please read the mountains of precedent dealing with tarrifs and undue restraint of trade in interstate commerce which are very much applicable to this argument.
Nope. People (as a whole) go for the cheapo commodity stuff. Or, more precisely, the 'lowest common denominator' stuff (which isn't exactly the same -- Windows is, for example, the lowest common denominator in its category, while only being cheapo in its technical side, not its price).
Firstly, I never said that customers always use all of my listed criteria, rather that they choose amongst them. Secondly, few customers in the developed world are that strongly motivated by price these days. If that were really true, the corporations like Nike, Starbucks, Nordstroms, and so on would not be thriving. Thirdly, you are utterly vague and incoherant in respect to your use of "lowest common denominator". The only thing that I can tell is that term anything the lcd if it succeeds.
What economical value do those local cultures have? Little to none (outside the simple folklore market). Hence their decline in the face of globalization. Does it mean they're not worth protecting?
Just because you can't attach an explicit monetary value to it doesn't mean that it doesn't or shouldn't have economic value. It has economic value just like a piece of land has economic value. There is no intrinsic value in either. The lands worth is determined by what society is willing to pay for it. Similarly, the value of the language is determined by its participants. e.g., How much of their time are they willing to learn to speak it? If the locals and no one else choose to continue learning or speaking it, then I WOULD argue it's simply not WORTH the trouble. (e.g., if they must learn language X instead of english and thus miss out of opportunity)
A language is just a bunch of sounds that people understand to have common meaning. While it is true that some people may have a certain emotional attachment to those particular sounds, learning and speaking it has a real COST (time and effort). We should allow people to determine for themselves how they want to weigh the relative worth of their pursuits (e.g., this language), rather than forcing it on them.
Or, to take a broader instance of the matter, since it may be easier to process if you're not willing to spend some time thinking of it, why would you be upset if, say, the Afghani lifestyle started spreading rapidly in your country for some logical reason, economical or other, thus forcing you to either 1) adopt it too and abandon your own lifestyle, 2) accept being marginalized, then wiped out, or 3) fight back?
I assert that if it reaches such a point, it is the greater good. If your "cultural" lifestyle demands that your entire country misses out on the opportunity to enjoy a higher quality of life (or rather, in most cases, a QUALITY life...as in somewhere approaching or exceeding a subsistence lifestyle), then it probably is not worth the trouble. Let the free market decide rather than trying to impliment some archaic and overly complex top-down system; it's far more democratic.
What you suggest is that a small minority's preference to maintain their culture should override the majority's preferences. That is simply ridiculous.
No, it places individual choice above top down control. Profit and commerce are ultimately results of individual consumer choice. McDonalds doesn't force burgers on people at gunpoint.
Precisely. I did not argue with the assumption that McDonalds or whomever has a right to profit, but rather that the customer has a right to decide. That profits arise is merely incidental to my argument, even if necessary to secure the the production of the goods and services that customers prefer.
Bull. I'm directly contradicting the statements of the vast majority of the regionalists. Here are the three most common categories, paraphrased to be as precise as possible:
A) "Corporations succeed because they fix prices, then raise them once competition fails."
B) "Corporations succeed because there is no economic way to measure the worth of local business."
C) "Corporations succeed because they offer lower prices and that's the only decision customers use (not quality, not service, etc). It's not fair!"
Rather they will often superfically lower their price below profitability to get everybody in the region to buy from them. Then once they have driven their local competition to bankrupcy, they can raise prices and start charging more. If a new competitior opens up in town they can just restart the process.
While your argument is the most lucid, falling into category A, it also is concrete enough to be shown to be extremely false. Oh sure, there may be a couple cases where you can point to a chain fixing prices, but there's a real paucity of it and mountains of evidence against it.
Starbucks? Consistently very high prices.
Nike? Always high prices.
McDonalds? Relatively high prices, institution-wide.
WalMart? Continually low prices because of their excellent logistics. While the accusations are rampant, it's infinitely provable that they continue to offer lower prices even after the mom and pops die off.
The fact of the matter is that MOST of the most hated corporations are not simply never that cheap (with the exception of WalMart). If you have any evidence or even examples, then please list them.
I, for one, get tired of hearing all this hub-bub about how large corporations are "supressing" local culture or somehow magically putting mom-and-pops out of business (with the implication that they're superior). The simple fact of the matter is that, by and large, where these corporations prevail, the corporations are prevailing with the will and consent of each and every one of their customers. The local culture or shop may do one or two things better, but overall, the failing institutions are failing for a reason: the disruptive corporation/culture is providing something the individual prefers, on the aggregate. People don't go and do business with corporations that they think are worse; they shop the shops that do the best by them on the aggregate. These choices are made on a wide variety of grounds: speed, price, selection, quality of service, novelty, consistency, and so on. No matter what poor judgement you feel these choices are made with, they are just that, choices, many of them. Rather than allowing the individual to exercise free will, a vocal minority wants to regulate and legislate this choice out of existence.
It's the highest form of snobbery and arrogance. If you don't like the choices made, then try to enlighten the individuals; bring hard evidence to the table. If you feel the companies are succeeding because of unethical practices, then fight those unethical practices and/or push for greater transparency.....But do NOT try to assert your value system on other people by force and the rule of law. It's unfair and inefficient.
While I think most of the choices made in this article are both poor and suspect, I, too, have wanted a PC that can handle FPS games well and allow me to sleep while they are on (though not playing games simultaneously, duh!). I find the fan noise from computers, especially some, somewhere between mildly grating to impossible to sleep with. I've considered replacing fan parts and such, but I rarely have the time and the energy to devote to that kind of pursuit. Virtually every pre-built PC out there that is marketed as being quiet is either sold at ridiculously high premiums or has lousy performance, especially for games.
Because fast and quiet PCs seem to be almost mutually exclusive, it is potentially interesting to some (e.g., myself) that a fast (enough for demanding games), quiet, and reasonably priced PC can be put together with a minimum of hassle. Throwing together the parts is not that troublesome, but tracking down the best parts for the job is a pain in the butt. That said, I don't think he did a very good job of it.
Look at how consumer electronics devices have blossomed in the Orient...They've made 3G devices a part of their lives. The reason it won't work here is because our society as a whole looks down on a lot of the new technology as being fad-ish. Until marketers get a clue and discover just how to pitch these devices and demonstrate how they can complete our meaningless lives, they're not gonna take off.
Sorry, but I find it difficult to believe that 3G itself as it is presently configured is of any real value to people. Nor have I seen any evidence to contradict this. You suggest that the devices are selling in the "Orient", well fine, but this does not mean 3G itself is worth anything even over there. Firstly, are they really using the features that only 3G offers (e.g., streaming video)? Secondly, have the 3G devices themselves really penetrated the bulk their market, more than just the few early adopters (finding the 3G part is worth little, but keeping the devices anyways). Thirdly, has 3G been profitable over there, on the aggregate, for the device and service providers? In other words, if the devices only sell when the providers engage in ruinous competition or are soaked in government subsidies, it cannot be used as proof of its net worth to society.
I'm very skeptical and I have absolutely no invested interest in this matter other than that as a consumer. Any one of the above questions can (or should) sink the worth of 3G in the respective countries. What's more, the question remains if the investment in 3G is more worthwhile than investment in other infrastructures and devices. For instance, I, for one, would rather have a seemlessly integrated PDA, Cell Phone, Wireless email (and maybe light weight web) device [similar to the Treo...possibly] than a cell phone with streaming video and little else [Especially given the current limitations on battery life, data entry, screen size, and so on.]
Oh yeah.. that's right. Slashdot mentality at its finest. If everyone likes it, it must suck because then it would be trendy. And of course if you are trendy, that means you must be a mindless idiot. So Open Source, even though it goes against the mainstream trend, because it's trendy among geeks, it must suck. Oh yeah, and all religions must suck too because they are popular.. well except for oddball religions. Morons. The only non-conformity is had in trying neither to conform nor diverge.
While I agree with the basic sentiment that people should learn to think critically and independently, no matter if that conclusion is popular or unpopular, no where did I see the poster mention or allude to conformity, or the lack thereof, for its own sake. His point likely was that the majority of slashdot's readers, especially the more established ones, cannot see the problems with Open Source because they're so emotionally attached to it.
So when you people are done playing line-hop over the "Open Source" / "Proprietary" line and decide that money matters more than ethics, you can go fritter away your life doing meaningless work making somebody else rich and destroying the freedom of what we now know as computers. Hope you enjoy the world you create.
The "ethics" of Open Source is pretty much besides the point. When I create an idea, be it code, music, literature, or what have you, it is by definition a CREATIVE act. My choice to create, not create, or to control the distribution of my idea does NOT TAKE from you in any way. If it is unethical for me to retain control over my idea, then it is even more unethical for me to choose not to create to begin with. Shame on Linus Torvalds for not creating Linux when he was 12! This position is simply ridiculous.
It's also ridiculous to suggest that producing a proprietary product is "meaningless". If people are choosing to PURCHASE the product, it clearly has substantial worth to that individual, otherwise the customer would not have parted with their hard earned money. Many propreitary products are life saving or drastically improve the quality of life of the purchaser. This cannot be called meaningless. Just because money changes hand does even mean the creator is completely self-interested, but rather that he/she must face certain economic realities, such as paying his salary, his employees, providing a reasonable rate of return to shareholders to secure future funding, etc.
In any event, my fundamental issue with Open Source is that I do NOT believe that it serves the greater good of society given its lack of overall viability. If Open Source can't deliver on its promises or just can't do a good job of delivering, then society is better off in a propreitary world. Most consumers would rather have a significantly better proprietary software package without any source code than a broken open source one with all its broken code. This is, as a matter of fact, what happens day in and day out at software stores all around the country.
This is not say that I support the destruction or the regulation of Open Source. Quite the contrary, Open Source has its place and can sometimes, though rarely, provide a superior product for specific applications. Given that both systems can co-exist, by and large, it makes sense to allow them both to compete against each other and let the markets (e.g., consumers) decide which serves their particular needs better. I just don't believe that Open Source will be on the winning side very often.
Slashdot Mirror
The author states that the intellectual property laws envisioned by the Founders aimed to strike a balance between authors, publishers, and readers. This is well and good. However, in his criticism of DCMA and other means to shift the balance towards the creators, he neglects the fact that there is more to this balance than just written law. There are many other forces at work which absolutely must be considered, but the author gives them no consideration.
For one, the nature of digital media enables people to pirate goods in a way that is totally unprecedented. No time before could a work of art, say a book, have been distributed by one lone pirate. It would have required transcription, printing presses, distribution networks, and so on. Even his concept of the so-called "fair use" as it is viewed today is extremely different from the "fair use" of 200 some years ago. When a professor today wants to do a lesson he can merely (many actually do this) photocopy whole chapter(s) and give them to his students, there was no equivelent of this in Jefferson's time. In other words, technology shifts the balance of power drastically into the pirates court. The same work that would have recieved balanced protection in Jefferson's time could be easily ripped off wholesale today.
Second, the author fails to consider the changing nature of the works produced and the markets that they are sold into. For instance, he mentions database producers recieving protection, yet he neglects that they are serving a unique function, a function unparalleled in Jefferson's time, that adds substantial value to the consumer, which is, in fact, very necessary in the digital world. There is little comparison between the levels and kinds of publications in Jefferson's days and that of today. The rate of creation, the shelf life, the specificity of published works, the amount of resources poored into development, and many other things have changed DRASTICALLY.
In short, the author takes means that were sufficient and proper in Jefferson's times to be a universal statement of what is right for all of time. Laws change for a reason. While I take issue with parts of the DCMA, it's simply ignorant to ignore the reasoning behind it. What's more, I disagree with the assertion that Jefferson would have supported the likes of Napster; Jefferson was a reasonable and intelligent individual, not an absolutist.
I agree with this, but, in my opinion, clear coding implies substantial architectural design wherever it is necessary (almost by definition). Whereas commenting, in and of itself, implies very little ( esp. given the number of worthless projects with worthless commenting).
I will make the point, however, that the projects that many, if not most, programmers work on do not great deal of formal up front design work. What's more, it's often outside of the scope of their job. Trying to over-design can be terribly unproductive.
While commenting code can be extremely valuable, it is often done as an afterthought. In other words, instead of abstracting, grouping, and naming (e.g., functions, variables, etc) the code properly at the get go, so that comments can be of significant value, comments are very often thrown on top in a manner that is of little help or, worse yet, is simply incorrect and confusing. Often times it's simply not possible to comment in a meaningful way until the code is properly designed. Ergo, I think most programmers are better advised to write clear code first and worry about the actual act of commenting second. My two cents.
It is you that needs to think. If, as you assert, users can get all the software they need and want (with the ease of use of Windows), then why does MS' monopoly matter in the least? It really can't, not reasonably anyways. You couldn't even call *that* a monopoly. Their *current* monopoly is largely contingent on software development. Your assertion flies in the face of economic theory.
If the user is perfectly capable of switching software platforms, then MS is essentially toothless. While existing OEMs that are primarily selling Windows machines may not be willing to risk alienating MS by bundling Linux, MS' influence over them is derived entirely from the *relative* value of their OS and applications software. In other words, someone else (or them) would soon flood the market. Whatever price breaks the MS OEMs get pale in comparison to the price breaks on the supposedly equal Linux desktop platform (OS-WM-Apps).
I, on the other hand, feel that MS still IS a monopoly. Because Linux has such slim marketshare on desktops, no sane software developer is going to spend millions of dollars developing software that can compete head to head against that that is available for Windows--the economics are NOT there. [They (and OSS-minded people) will spend much smaller amounts of time/money/effort developing software that may take the Linux desktop, but not Windows.] Likewise, no sane commercial developer is going to try to develop a desktop OS that can compete head to head against Windows. It's a chicken and the egg problem. Then, of course, we have Office compatibility issues and such...but you deny this also, by asserting that Linux apps are perfectly capable. Blah.
It's quite clear that you either:
a) Have not used them yourself.
b) Do know quality from crap.
c) Do not use them often enough, with sufficient complexity, to notice their many flaws.
Most likely, all of the above in your case.
I believe that MS' Applications and OS(s) are generally crappy given the amount of revenue they generate and the age. [In other words, it's well below the quality of what would be generated in a more competetive market place.] However, even MS' crappy software had millions of dollars and man hours poored into it. You are a fool if you think even those efforts are easily matched by a couple part time hackers or a company spending 1/1000th the amount of money on R&D.
I think Linux has its place (e.g., servers, highly administrated environments, etc). But right now that's certainly not on the desktop.
And yes, I HAVE used and use Linux--all the major distributions. Debian, Slackware, Redhat, Suse, Mandrake, and others. The first Linux distro that I installed on my own machine was Redhat 2.0. [Messed around with slackware long before that.] How about you?
Btw, I develop software and I program in numerous languages. I'm a long time Unix user. In other words, Linux doesn't scare me. However, Linux on the desktop does take my time, which is valuable. Thus, I rather not use it when I can avoid it.
Bull. I've stated my position on Open Source MANY MANY times on slashdot. If you care to look it up, then do so.
Btw, Nice troll. Nice User# too. Want to hop on another bandwagon?
Boy, eh? Look in the mirror.
Linux's software may not be quite as bad as it used to be, but it still is far below the state of Macintosh even. The level of moderation suggests that most people here agree with my sentiments. What's more consumers are not exactly flooding Linux en masse.
Which email client is *widely known* to be equal to Eudora or Outlook?
Staroffice and OpenOffice are sort of OK, but they're: bug ridden, lack a significant number of features, slow, and have significant compatibility problems for all but the most simple of documents. Don't even get my started about KWord.
Bull.
Please. Both netscape and mozilla for Linux today are behind where Netscape and IE were years ago for Windows, never mind today, when it comes to _real usability_ (as in decent speed/memory footprint/UI/rendering quality).
Which?
Name them.
This world is not binomial. Merely "having" an application that you can fit in checkbox A, B, and C is not the same thing as really having an application that really works for the user. Merely having a decent application (rare for Linux's desktop) is not sufficient for what most users to find Linux an acceptable choice. The fact is that Linux's desktop applications themselves are of (vastly) inferior quality to what can be found on Windows, prompting most users to prefer Windows (or Mac even) in that in and of itself. Furthermore, there are many other important flaws in Linux, as a package (not just the kernel...as in Linux+X+WM+UI+drivers...etc), which make independent use of Linux much more trouble than it is worth.
It's the truth, whether or not you believe it. I've been using Linux for many years now. I'd love to see Windows/MS fall and Linux succeed (not for Open Source/"Free" idealogy though). However, it's certainly not nearly there yet and I can't recommend Linux to users today at the their expense (time, effort, resources). What's more, I believe the current development and business models have serious flaws so I am skeptical that it ever will (at least in its current configuration).
What do you mean by Web/.com arena? Are you talking about web software developers preferring Linux? Perhaps, given the popularity of Perl, CGI, and such. However, that's a pretty small part of the population. If you're talking about graphics and other related pursuits, I don't buy it. I don't know of a single graphics person that would seriously consider Linux's options on par with that of Windows even, never mind Macintosh (Mac generally being regarded as superior by them).
Maybe they feel they'd much prefer to get it for free, but most Linux users even, in my experience, recognize that there is a real lack of software for the desktop, Free B./Free S. or $$$$. Certainly they'd jump at the opportunity to buy software if it offers them a significantly better option. I know I would. A small percentage of hardcore developers will never buy proprietary/commercial software, but surely they can't be that large a part of Linux's supposed desktop market. The real problem is that developers don't see the market share, plus Linux is a pain in the butt to target for applications compared to Windows/Macintosh.
I don't see what part of my argument is particularly flawed, especially since it can rest on a number of them.
I won't deny that there is little Open Source effort for the Macintosh (although I hear MacOSX is starting to change this, given it's portability with BSD), but this is beside the point. You see tons of efforts for Linux/BSD because they're very much inline with the Open/Free/Hack idealogy. You see some for Windows because of its sheer size. You see few for Mac because its market share isn't even a 1/5th of Windows and because it (traditionally, though MacOSX is changing this) couldn't be more opposed to what Linux/BSD stands for.
My point was simply that Linux has many (perhaps even most) great voids in the application arena that are unfilled by ANY viable option, be it Free, "Free", Closed, or what have you. Mac, on the other hand, has most of the mainstream applications pretty well covered, especially in the graphics arena. This fact calls into question the viability of Linux as a desktop for the user and also strongly suggests that developers don't believe that there is a sufficiently large market out there for Linux. Ergo, it is reasonable to conclude that Linux is not just as big as Macintosh on the desktop, but is, in fact, much smaller.
1) Linux is, and has certainly, been focused as a server OS. Most of those official statistics may be pure server installations.
2) Even those that use Linux as a desktop may be using it for the novelty/coolness/geek factor, rather than for productivity.
3) Many of the statistics are based on numbers of downloads and other measures, hardly proof that it's really being used.
4) Linux lacks a lot of the quality software that users demand. Thus I find it hard to believe that most people can get away with, never mind prefer, using Linux in lieu of Windows or Macintosh.
5) If Linux's desktop marketshare is so small, why are so few commercial companies porting their desktop software to Linux?
6) There are actually official statistics from IDC and others that show Linux is still a notch or two below Macintosh as a "client" (read desktop) OS. [I don't think they tell the whole picture though...in regards to my other comments]
FYI, I'm a Linux/*Nix/Windows user, not Mac and I have more than half an IQ of a live squirel even. Imagine that!
Furthermore, it makes little sense to make sweeping conclusions from the apparent surge in terrorism, because it's so rare. e.g., Maybe bin Laden felt like bombing today because it's the 10th aniversary of yadda yadda yadda. It just takes one MAN (or a collective small group ) to cause this kind of destruction that represents a major spike on our charts.
It only follows that we raise the payoff that they look for, if they were previously restraining themselves. If they're already fighting as hard as they know how, our cutting their JV-line is not going to make their Varsity efforts any more effective. Why should I, or anyone else, believe this to be untrue? If they're going to kill themselves, then one can reasonably conclude that they're going to want to inflict as much damage as possible. Anyways, this argument is really very academic, because it's a stretch to assert that the line was raised in any meaningful way in the US.
Bull. Which one of these terrorists were Palestinians? None. Which one of these terrorists had any direct claim against the US? None. Most of these terrorists led relatively middle class life styles and can't reasonably claim to have suffered at the hands of the US.
What's more, why should I believe that US action, or in action, will make a damn bit of difference when they believe blatantly untrue lies printed in their media and from the various religious zealots. 95% of the propaganda that these terrorists hear is simply untrue.
If they're really going against their suppossed oppressors, why the US of all places? It's totally disproportionate. The Soviet Union and many European powers did VASTLY more damage to the middle east than the US has ever done, in whole or in part.
This has far more to do with pride, or lack thereof. They believe they are the chosen people. The United States, being the most visible superpower, must be cheating them somehow, because why else are they still living in poverty, by and large, and us infidels are living it large? The United States and the Jews are generally being used as a scapegoat.
Furthermore, if these terrorist and sympathetic Arabs are really concerned for the plight of their fellow Arabs (generally not themselves), why is it that they have done so little to help as a group?
Hahah, so true, I've worked a couple conventions for my company. The teamsters and like unions at these convention centers really rip the exhibitors off. It's completely ridiculous. Granted, many of these companies rip themselves off, with completely excessive ~million dollar booths and such, but some of the crap that you have to put up with is unbelievable. My company would give out these stuffed animals as give aways...lots of them. The unions/convention center would force us to have them carry these _very_ light boxes for point A to point B (no more than 500 feet away) claiming union regulations (or "safety", hah), rip us off in process, then on top of that take their sweet time and expect quid pro quo at the end if they did their jobs half decently.
Firstly, we have traditionally had virtually no defence against terrorism, because we have had very little of it compared to, say, Europe. Yet we had the single biggest act of terrorism, probably of anywhere. It's not as if the same primitive attacks that have been seen in Europe and elsewhere could not have been used against US.
Secondly, while the only reasonable response to better security would be more competent terrorists, that does not necessarily mean that the number of lives lost would go up. There may be a real lack of more capable terrorists out there in the world (and that's completely ignoring recruitment issues and such). The aggregate damage may still be less.
All in all, there evidence simply isn't there to make this assertion. It may be true that the number of deaths in terrorism shot way up in this year for the US, but there are a zillion other possible reasons for this. e.g., external politics, economic reasons, bad luck (hardly a large population here to draw from), a new resolve on the part of the terrorists (irrespective of our security), and so on. To suggest that we should loosen or not tighten our security is frankly foolish. So-called men like Osama bin Laden want to cause as much damage and fear as they can to further their objectives, so why should we believe that they might hold anything back? How can more security, providing it's reasonable and in proportion, cause more deaths? At the very least, it raises the bar substantially for bin Laden's organization.
You claim that free choice leads to "putting money above all other values". This is simply false on its face. It is the individual that is allowed to decide what values they want to pursue, but this is rarely ever money above all else. You cannot reconcile your assertion with some well known and undeniable facts. For instance:
People with top notch skills choosing much lower paying jobs. e.g., teaching
People choosing to have families, despite the costs and diminishment of wealth.
People choosing to follow their religious convictions even when it means missing out on opportunity.
People opting to work a mere 8 hours a day, rather than working more hours with the hope (or gaurantee) of making more money.
I could go on, but the examples abound of people opting out on the opportunity to spend or make money in favor of family, society, political agendas, cultural opportunities, and so on.
Furthermore, your "lowest common denominator" concept lacks any real meaning in the context of your argument. That a product or service is merely what people choose en masse, does not necessarily mean it is either the most nor the least expensive. It's just what people choose, so how does it follow that "money" is being put above all else? How does buying from, say, McDonalds put money above all else? Are you going to claim that the individuals, the customers, seek to increase the wealth of McDonald's shareholders or employees? You might argue that McDonalds is the nearly the most efficient configuration of delivering that particular product, but removing waste is not a bad thing in and of itself. Nor can you claim that people just go for the best value, else we would not have hundreds of thousands of small restraunts in this country. When people want that personal touch, they will and do pay for it. But when they want fast and affordable, they'll not waste resources unnecessarily.
Why is it that you presume people are unable to decide for themselves what is best for themselves? Do you really presume yourself to be sufficiently intimate with their situation to make the optimal decision? Unbelievable.
Why is it that you presume that yourself or any other central authority to be better able to make these decisions?
Why is it that you presume that you are even capable of measuring the worth of cultural elments? Even if you know what is "right" and "wrong", do you honestly believe that you can administrate these decisions in a superior fashion?
Both society and culture are products of evolution (of sorts). No society or culture, past or present, is given by God to be "the way." They are the products of human choice and they are dynamic, not perfect and certainly not static. Your society and culture has evolved greatly, I can guarantee you, since 200 years before. Would you say like minded people 200 years before were correct? [e.g., That we shouldn't allow the use of machines on farms] Would you rather spend virtually every waking hour, from sunrise to sundown, working and toiling on a field? Society can and should continue to evolve.
While I agree with much of your sentiment, hardly being a fan of the Ivory Tower, if you take a look at some of the projects on the website, you'll see that many of them are things that are hard to simulate AT ALL in the real world. For instance, there are projects there to research methods of stopping DDos attacks. They can hardly start flooding a real WAN to test their software. While it is true that they can fall back to mathematical models, these are complex and can never hope to realistically simulate some of the non-deterministic elements nearly as well as a real WAN (or this network).
That said, I also can't say that this network really has SUFFICIENT usefulness to justify its existence (after all, how many people need to test denial of service attacks and such?); we'll let the markets resolve that, eh?
What these mom-and-pops and anti-corporatists ask for runs contrary to economic theory. By asking for the restraint of the introduction of the corporations into their region or subsidies for themselves, they are asking government to make a centralized determination of worth. Although government should police blatant monopolies, it's another thing entirely to artificially impede the growth of any larger institition on the grounds that it merely COULD become a monopoly. Likewise, it's a mistake for government to try to protect commercial culture.
Furthermore, there is a real paucity of evidence on the rising lack of choice in both products/services and suppliers (on the aggregate). In what other country in the world can you go to any sizable city are find as many choices of restraunts and unique flavors? Varieties of shoes? Grocery Goods? In how many small towns have the introduction of, say, Wallmart, reduced the choice of customers in that town (it's actually very much the opposite)?...
This is a really a semantic argument, but let's move on. The same thing could be said for, say, artwork, paper money, and so on. Likewise, any cultural value is attached some economic value, either directly or indirectly. To deny its existence in a world of economic realities is simply foolish.
No one, but no one, is forcing people to eat these corporate brands. They exist and grow by choice of the local inhabitants, by and large. To say that you need to protect them by NOT allowing them to make their own decisions (e.g., by not allowing McDonalds to have a restraunt in a particular region) is a very disingenuous assertion.
The only problem is that in order to maintain this dream world of yours, you either need to not allow the local inhabitants the choice or you need to force those local inhabitants that would choose to shop the alien cororation to subsidize the desires of the others (generally, the few).
Give me a break. It's not as if the US military is saying let McDonalds put a franchise on your block or we'll start carpet bombing; it's especially not true that the US is demanding that consumers actually shop there. Quite the contrary, the bulk of these societies CHOOSE the corporate brand, while some small minority want to deny the winds of change by force or non-representative legislation or regulation.
Your argument is kind of like Microsoft implying that Open Source should be banned or discouraged, because it is unamerican, whatever that's supposed to mean. While I happen to think MS would or should prevail over OSS (for simple economic reasons), I allow and insist that consumers make choices for themselves, allowing the free market to work the problem out. In the event that MS is hurt by the growth of Open Source, they deserve neither subsidies nor the retardation of Open Source.
You, Sir, need to re-read the papers to better understand the meaning and the letters if this is your understanding. The fundamental thrust behind both #9 and #10, not to mention the Constitution itself, is that our Republic, as a distinction from the classical Democracy, might protect BOTH the greater good and the liberties of the minority. This is not to be confused with saying that any whim of any minority should prevent action of the many in their own lives--if this was the intent then every vote would require 100% (or something near that) consensus. This is also one of the reasons why they gave the Federal government the right, one of the few enumerated rights, to regulate interstate commerce.
Put bluntly, the right of two parties to engage in this kind of trade passes both objections with flying colors. It does as a matter of fact (evidence and theory) and as a matter of definition (in this argument) serve the greater good. It also does this while protecting everyone's liberties. Furthermore, this kind of action has a great deal of precedent behind it, it passes through our Federal legislature and review by our higher courts. [Hint: The fact that such promulgation is possible suggests that that the design of our Republic allows for it, never mind the fact that it also passes judicial review.]
Yep, this is precisely what I'm saying. There is no reasonable rational that could be used to justify the restraint of the actions that of the many, between the many, for the greater good, and without having any significant direct effect on the few.
Your limited and sophmoric understanding confuses this with say, 90% of the country voting that 10% be made to give up their wealth to the former. There is no direct or reasonable threat to any liberty here. You have a right to practice your culture, within reason, free from governmental intervention or criminal interference by civilians. But this does not mean that you have a right to force your views on commerce on others so that your culture may survive, any more than, say, IBM should have prevented the introduction of the personal computer so that they may survive.
Brush up on your history until you understand the difference or show me some valid precedent denying it. Also please read the mountains of precedent dealing with tarrifs and undue restraint of trade in interstate commerce which are very much applicable to this argument.
Just because you can't attach an explicit monetary value to it doesn't mean that it doesn't or shouldn't have economic value. It has economic value just like a piece of land has economic value. There is no intrinsic value in either. The lands worth is determined by what society is willing to pay for it. Similarly, the value of the language is determined by its participants. e.g., How much of their time are they willing to learn to speak it? If the locals and no one else choose to continue learning or speaking it, then I WOULD argue it's simply not WORTH the trouble. (e.g., if they must learn language X instead of english and thus miss out of opportunity)
A language is just a bunch of sounds that people understand to have common meaning. While it is true that some people may have a certain emotional attachment to those particular sounds, learning and speaking it has a real COST (time and effort). We should allow people to determine for themselves how they want to weigh the relative worth of their pursuits (e.g., this language), rather than forcing it on them.
I assert that if it reaches such a point, it is the greater good. If your "cultural" lifestyle demands that your entire country misses out on the opportunity to enjoy a higher quality of life (or rather, in most cases, a QUALITY life...as in somewhere approaching or exceeding a subsistence lifestyle), then it probably is not worth the trouble. Let the free market decide rather than trying to impliment some archaic and overly complex top-down system; it's far more democratic.
What you suggest is that a small minority's preference to maintain their culture should override the majority's preferences. That is simply ridiculous.
A) "Corporations succeed because they fix prices, then raise them once competition fails."
B) "Corporations succeed because there is no economic way to measure the worth of local business."
C) "Corporations succeed because they offer lower prices and that's the only decision customers use (not quality, not service, etc). It's not fair!"
While your argument is the most lucid, falling into category A, it also is concrete enough to be shown to be extremely false. Oh sure, there may be a couple cases where you can point to a chain fixing prices, but there's a real paucity of it and mountains of evidence against it.
Starbucks? Consistently very high prices.
Nike? Always high prices.
McDonalds? Relatively high prices, institution-wide.
WalMart? Continually low prices because of their excellent logistics. While the accusations are rampant, it's infinitely provable that they continue to offer lower prices even after the mom and pops die off.
The fact of the matter is that MOST of the most hated corporations are not simply never that cheap (with the exception of WalMart). If you have any evidence or even examples, then please list them.
I, for one, get tired of hearing all this hub-bub about how large corporations are "supressing" local culture or somehow magically putting mom-and-pops out of business (with the implication that they're superior). The simple fact of the matter is that, by and large, where these corporations prevail, the corporations are prevailing with the will and consent of each and every one of their customers. The local culture or shop may do one or two things better, but overall, the failing institutions are failing for a reason: the disruptive corporation/culture is providing something the individual prefers, on the aggregate. People don't go and do business with corporations that they think are worse; they shop the shops that do the best by them on the aggregate. These choices are made on a wide variety of grounds: speed, price, selection, quality of service, novelty, consistency, and so on. No matter what poor judgement you feel these choices are made with, they are just that, choices, many of them. Rather than allowing the individual to exercise free will, a vocal minority wants to regulate and legislate this choice out of existence.
It's the highest form of snobbery and arrogance. If you don't like the choices made, then try to enlighten the individuals; bring hard evidence to the table. If you feel the companies are succeeding because of unethical practices, then fight those unethical practices and/or push for greater transparency.....But do NOT try to assert your value system on other people by force and the rule of law. It's unfair and inefficient.
While I think most of the choices made in this article are both poor and suspect, I, too, have wanted a PC that can handle FPS games well and allow me to sleep while they are on (though not playing games simultaneously, duh!). I find the fan noise from computers, especially some, somewhere between mildly grating to impossible to sleep with. I've considered replacing fan parts and such, but I rarely have the time and the energy to devote to that kind of pursuit. Virtually every pre-built PC out there that is marketed as being quiet is either sold at ridiculously high premiums or has lousy performance, especially for games.
Because fast and quiet PCs seem to be almost mutually exclusive, it is potentially interesting to some (e.g., myself) that a fast (enough for demanding games), quiet, and reasonably priced PC can be put together with a minimum of hassle. Throwing together the parts is not that troublesome, but tracking down the best parts for the job is a pain in the butt. That said, I don't think he did a very good job of it.
I'm very skeptical and I have absolutely no invested interest in this matter other than that as a consumer. Any one of the above questions can (or should) sink the worth of 3G in the respective countries. What's more, the question remains if the investment in 3G is more worthwhile than investment in other infrastructures and devices. For instance, I, for one, would rather have a seemlessly integrated PDA, Cell Phone, Wireless email (and maybe light weight web) device [similar to the Treo...possibly] than a cell phone with streaming video and little else [Especially given the current limitations on battery life, data entry, screen size, and so on.]
The "ethics" of Open Source is pretty much besides the point. When I create an idea, be it code, music, literature, or what have you, it is by definition a CREATIVE act. My choice to create, not create, or to control the distribution of my idea does NOT TAKE from you in any way. If it is unethical for me to retain control over my idea, then it is even more unethical for me to choose not to create to begin with. Shame on Linus Torvalds for not creating Linux when he was 12! This position is simply ridiculous.
It's also ridiculous to suggest that producing a proprietary product is "meaningless". If people are choosing to PURCHASE the product, it clearly has substantial worth to that individual, otherwise the customer would not have parted with their hard earned money. Many propreitary products are life saving or drastically improve the quality of life of the purchaser. This cannot be called meaningless. Just because money changes hand does even mean the creator is completely self-interested, but rather that he/she must face certain economic realities, such as paying his salary, his employees, providing a reasonable rate of return to shareholders to secure future funding, etc.
In any event, my fundamental issue with Open Source is that I do NOT believe that it serves the greater good of society given its lack of overall viability. If Open Source can't deliver on its promises or just can't do a good job of delivering, then society is better off in a propreitary world. Most consumers would rather have a significantly better proprietary software package without any source code than a broken open source one with all its broken code. This is, as a matter of fact, what happens day in and day out at software stores all around the country.
This is not say that I support the destruction or the regulation of Open Source. Quite the contrary, Open Source has its place and can sometimes, though rarely, provide a superior product for specific applications. Given that both systems can co-exist, by and large, it makes sense to allow them both to compete against each other and let the markets (e.g., consumers) decide which serves their particular needs better. I just don't believe that Open Source will be on the winning side very often.