I went through part of the list last week and saw at least a handful of clearly Arabic sounding names. Furthermore, even if the percentage of Arabs that perished in the WTC was disproportionate, remember the people that occupied or visited the WTC tended to be more affluent and better educated than most of the population. This is one demographic that the Arabic population simply does not have proportional representation in the US (especially those with such clear cultural and religious ties). In other words, it's not suprising.
If you're trying to suggest some kind of conspiracy (as some of the repliers do) including Arabs at the WTC or at large, I don't buy it. At best, the terrorists would be taking a big risk. At worst, they'd surely be detected. Where it may be difficult or impossible for the US intelligence agencies to detect 50 or so handpicked people conspiring (with limited information, if we're to believe the "terrorist cell" theory), it would be highly improbable that the media, FBI, CIA, or some other agency would not pickup on large scale conspiracy of that sort.
My wife's adviser for her PhD in geology was called to testify on global warming to some government committee a few years ago. In this, he was questioned by a number of respected individuals in the science field, many of whom were geologists (although not of the same specialty as my wife's adviser). At the end, Gore came in for a short 5-minute Q&A period. My wife's adviser said that the questions Gore put forth were the most intelligent and thought provoking of the bunch. Obviously he had been well briefed by his aides, but my wife's adviser says that it was clearly his own thinking (follow-up questions to his answers and such). He would most surely disagree with your opinions about Gore.
In that particular situation, I could see Gore performing well. However, that does not really demonstrate a significant intellect. I would not at all be suprised if Gore were very prepared for this meeting. Firstly, he's very good at spitting out facts and figures. Secondly, environmental policy is his meat and potatoes. While I don't agree with him, I can see combination of his conviction to the issues and his familiarity as being impressive to some. Thirdly, as you indicated, the man would have, presumably, already heard all the arguments. Gore may have said something that your conservative fellow may not have heard before, that may have impressed him, but that doesn't necessarily mean that Gore really thought of it or even that he understood it. Fourthly, the man is a career politician, he has a great deal of practice in that kind of environment.
Furthermore, even if this man had every reason to believe Gore was as intellect from this meeting, it was just ONE 5 minute meeting, I've personally seen and heard of many examples contrary to his supposed intellect that I simply refuse to believe Gore is a "real" intellectual, let alone intelligent. Also, most people have not had the opportunity to see him personally like that. I really don't see how the general public _honestly_ develops that perception of him.
The real reason, in my opinion, is because the media has a very definite liberal bias and because Bush is not impressive intellectually. Gore is arguably more intellectual than Bush (However, I would say that he's overall less intelligent than GW, despite the fact that many would disagree.) Another major reason is because a lot of people do not truely understand what intellect is. They confuse the ability to recite facts and figures with intellect, conviction with comprehension, preparation with insight, and so on. Nonetheless, I do not believe that makes a really convincing picture for most the public.
The press says Gore is intellectual and few individuals take the trouble to see through it. The press says he's intelligent and intellectual, because he's the best choice to further their politics, given the fact that the other Democratic candidates were un-ellectable and that GW is a Republican.
You can be quite intelligent and now be an excellent orator. In fact you can be quite intelligent and not be very good at English. Don't put down Gore's intelligence. In fact, all the democrat presidents (and Gore) from the last half century stack up as wonderfully intelligent. However, most of them performed as president very poorly. Intelligence is not strongly correlated with the quality of one's presidency.
I agree very much with you on the fact that intellect doesn't necessarily equate with intelligence and that neither necessarily equate with being a capable leader. This is part of the reason why I voted for Bush. This is also the biggest reason why Gore would be one of the last candidates on my list, even if I were a Democrat; Gore, at best, has an average intellect and he has little else to offer.
Al Gore, an intellect by all accounts? I disagree
on
Bobby Fischer Online?
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
I couldn't disagree more about Gore. Gore is at most a mediocre intellect. His is most certainly greater than most of the American public, but he's positively mediocre when compared with other well educated individuals. His speaking abilities are pretty marginal. His use of diction is absolutely uninspiring, in fact, he repeats himself too much. His analytical abilities show no spark of insight. He is not that well read and, for what it's worth, he wasn't even a good student.
Frankly, I don't see why certain people choose to ascribe the word intellect to Gore. The man is essentially a geek and not much more. By this I mean, he puts a lot of energy into what he does. He memorizes lots of facts and figures and he's capable of blinding people with bullshit when absolutely necessary. Perhaps this trait impresses some, but not me, I do not call that intellect.
The bottom line is that I see little reason to think of Gore as being any more intelligent or intellectual than what is seen in Washington, company executives, and the like. If there's any good reason to believe otherwise, please point it out to me.
Come now, I'm all for experience, but this is "experience" hardly that.
Firstly, there is a world of difference between the "get-rich-quick" work ethic and that of someone fighting for a real startup--where they actually have to make things work.
Secondly, very few DotComemrs took real risk. Sure, many watched their stock options become worthless, but it was virtual money from the get go. It's not as if most of those kids could have gone to other jobs paying equivalent amounts of "real" money.
Thirdly, relatively few really were sufficiently high in management level positions to take any real responsibility for what happened. Many of those who were in "management" still do not; their attitude is that they had no responsibility for their investors money--it stinks.
Fourthly, besides the fact that they it was not their own money, by and large, they were living in such an artificial and over-inflated environment that few of them can claim to have any real business experience, other than perhaps to be a little more skeptical of the next fad.
Lastly, why shouldn't they hold their heads high? You think the DotCommers have it any worse than previous generations of college aged kids that were applying for jobs during full blow recessions? I have far more respect for the earlier generations there, they at least can claim to have seen real struggle.
First off, what does it matter if Japan or Europe beat us to the punch? Does this mean that their industry is necessarily ahead of ours? No. The gap here is not a technological one, it's one of implimentation and cost. Europe and Japan also have many economic factors in their favor, owing to their population density and population centers, often poor land lines, etc. How does this speak better of foreign nations?
Second, 3G shows many signs of being a failure overseas, already. By this I mean the European and Japanese 3G companies may well spend multiples more rolling out the technology (they've spent billions on the licenses alone) than they ever collect in revenues. What this says, in plain english, is that their own consumers did not feel the technology/implimentation is good enough to justify the cost. Why should we be jealous of this? If the costs exceed the benefits, it is hardly an accusation of US capitalism. No government is going to change this fact--all they might do is spread the costs out, by putting an increased tax burden on those that do NOT need it.
Third, even if 3G is a worthwhile technology, it's not necessarily worthwhile today. In other words, both US consumers and companies may be better served by waiting until better handsets come out. It would be premature and costly to introduce the technology 5 years before it is really worthwhile to consumers.
Fourth, from a more personal point of view, do YOU really need/want 3G today if it costs you 3x as much as normal cell phone service? Sure, high bandwidth on the road sounds great, but what can you REALLY do with it today? Between having crappy screens, lousy keyboards, no mouse, poor sound.... Just name an application that really makes it worthwhile for YOU? I mean streaming video sounds great, but other than the coolness/novelty factor, are you really going to want to bother with it? I don't think so.
Fifth, remember money NOT spent on 3G, is money spent somewhere else. It doesn't just go into a blackhole. This money may well be better spent on improving existing services, rolling out other technology, or what have you.
Lastly, capitalism is adaptive is nothing else. If Japan and Europe really experience a huge boon with 3G services, you can be sure that US industry will be beating down the doors to make it happen. At which point, new and improved 3G may well be attainable to US consumers, while not available in foreign nations.
Look, if the founders of the company themselves do not fundamentally believe in the technology OR how they're approaching their targeted market(s), then they have NO business wasting other people's money. First, not every idea is worthy of investment. Second, and perhaps even most importantly, even if the idea itself is worth something, if management does not know where or how to execute, it is wasteful of everyones time and money. If you don't at least have a fairly clear plan, you have no business being in business, at least when you're playing with other peoples' money.
Furthermore, while it is true that high return investments almost always bear higher risk, that does not mean that every high risk investment will or can return a decent amount. For instance, I could loan a fugitive 1 million dollars, while this is certainly high risk, it's almost certainly a formula for ruin. This point being that some investments are simply bad investments, deserving NO investment because they do not offer a return commensurate with the risk, relative to what can be had else where. Fundamental to the field of finance is that at any given level of risk you want the maximum amount of return. This is why: some companies cannot get additional capital, why some shares are priced so low, why some land is worth so little, and so on.
I say this from first hand experience, well from a parent that is an engineer and an extremely experienced and successful entrepreneur (e.g., not naive), but this article really does hit the mark with a great number of them, really. I've seen them at their best and at their worst.
Speaking in general terms:
As a community they are extremely incestuous.
As a community they are very risk averse, in a personal sense. They're willing to risk their investors money, but not if they themselves will hang out to dry. What this means is that they'll invest in the latest fads, so long as the herd is with them. By and large, they will not invest in superior investments from a risk/return perspective, if the herd is not there behind them.
Many are extremely amoral. There is a difference between being greedy and neglecting obligations and duties, to both the investors in their own funds and investors in that companies that they hold board seats on. I've personally seen this border into the illegal territory.
Many are simply ignorant--in both the financial, operations, and technical sense. Ok, they don't need to be experts, but what makes them dangerous is that the dont know what they dont know. On technical issues, they consult "experts" that are not experts in the least and consider it "expert" advise.
Most are in there for the short term. They're willing to invest in companies that are doomed to fail, just as long as they can flip it over in an IPO or to another company before it craters.
And it goes on... I really hate to make such sweeping statements, but this a terribly universal experience with VCs. Not just one or two firms, but many of them, in different regions and industries and from different perspectives (CEOs, founders, engineers, etc).
In short, many VCs really serve all involved poorly [In other words, I believe there are better real-world solutions for the necessary parties]. There are some really good VCs out there, but they are hard to find and they have finite resources. A beginning entrenprenuer would be well advised to get some solid and independent advise, both legally and otherwise, from people that are experienced with startups and dealing with these kinds of investors. Especially when it comes to issues like drawing up a solid board of directors...
I'm hardly a technophobe and I see real potential in having a thumb-keyboard (like RIM pagers) built in. Although I know all graffiti characters by heart, it is aggrivating to use for anything more than 50 characters at time. [Yes, I use and like Fitaly stamp, but this is better in my opinion. Certainly more comfortable..] This has NOT been my experience with the RIM pagers, where I can comfortably write 30 words a minute. If Handspring can create a similar thumb keyboard (though I think it has less to do with the keyboard and more to do with the form factor of the device itself) it might well be a hit with people like me as well. I love the RIM pager, but I can't carry a cell phone, PDA, and pager with me all the time....
Fuck Russia. What about the US? Those reds can eat cabbage soup all fucking day for all i care.
Can you say Enlightened Self-Interest? Two reasons. First, WE need quality software. In case you haven't noticed, there is a real lack of it in this country. Second, Russia still has nuclear and chemical arsenals, from a national security point of view, we're better off with them in reasonable economic condition than in the condition they're currently in, where their military is in complete disarray, weapons are for sale to the highest bidder, etc.
Plesk is providing consumers with what they want and, perhaps most importantly, very solid jobs in a country that rife with corruption, poverty, and starvation. Those kinds of wages put each one of those 25 year old kids into the top economic brackets in their region. It'd be like handing a 25 year old kid here 150k a year salary. Anyways, Russia needs MORE jobs like that, not less.
While I find article presents a compelling example of MS' all too common anticompetitive behavior, it does not really provide a credible explanation for BeOS' failure. BeOS may well be a superior OS, in and of itself, but that is not sufficient to attract customers. For instance, the lack of software and support can easily outweigh any benefit that any individual consumer could draw from increased stability and performance.
In addition, I find it hard to believe that installing BeOS as a dual boot system is any greater an obstacle than the numerous other disincentives that present themselves -- especially when it is possible to design software for make the conversion riduculously simple. Dual booting means that you sacrifice useful HD space to both the partition and the OS files. You must learn how to use it. You must purchase much of the software, if it even exists, for BeOS, that you either already own or comes bundled with Windows (hardly an argument for MS), at least if you wish to use it in that capacity. You may have to contend with compatibility issues. The Cost of BeOS itself. And the lists goes on. Any one of these could be sufficient reasons NOT to use BeOS, or any other OS, without that particular form of monopolistic behavior.
Although, MS has no reasonable excuse for its behavior, the writing was on the wall people. All Be's escapade has done is to demonstrate to some, those that believe BeOS to be a clearly superior OS, that a technically superior OS can fail. I do not understand how anyone familiar with the industry could not understand this. Certainly MS' monopoly position played a significant role in Be's demise, but moreso in other ways (e.g., the Applications && OS symbiotic relationsip--although much harder to quantify). Furthermore, even without MS' monopoly position, it is not necessarily impossible for a superior product (which is what Be is presumed to be) to fail.
While I find article presents a compelling example of MS' all too common anticompetitive behavior, it does not really provide a credible explanation for BeOS' failure. BeOS may well be a superior OS, in and of itself, but that is not sufficient to attract customers. For instance, the lack of software and support can easily outweigh any benefit that any individual consumer could draw from increased stability and performance.
In addition, I find it hard to believe that installing BeOS as a dual boot system is any greater an obstacle than the numerous other disincentives that present themselves -- especially when it is possible to design software for make the conversion riduculously simple. Dual booting means that you sacrifice useful HD space to both the partition and the OS files. You must learn how to use it. You must purchase much of the software, if it even exists, for BeOS, that you either already own or comes bundled with Windows (hardly an argument for MS), at least if you wish to use it in that capacity. You may have to contend with compatibility issues. The Cost of BeOS itself. And the lists goes on. Any one of these could be sufficient reasons NOT to use BeOS, or any other OS, without that particular form of monopolistic behavior.
Although, MS has no reasonable excuse for its behavior, the writing was on the wall people. All Be's escapade has done is to demonstrate to some, those that believe BeOS to be a clearly superior OS, that a technically superior OS can fail. I do not understand how anyone familiar with the industry could not understand this. Certainly MS' monopoly position played a significant role in Be's demise, but moreso in other ways (e.g., the Applications && OS symbiotic relationsip--although much harder to quantify). Furthermore, even without MS' monopoly position, it is not necessarily impossible for a superior product (which is what Be is presumed to be) to fail.
Is the cost of disincentivization of pharmaceutical companies (and therefore the risk of future products not being developed) in wealthy countries greater than the cost of millions of lives of those in poorer countries who cannot afford the drugs?
This is a distortion; the choice is not so simple or black and white. The two are not mutually exclusive. We can support intellectual property while simultaneously providing drugs to poorer nations. The drug companies can (and have)protect their ability to make a profit in poor countries, while still saving just as many lives. They have done this through special programs, while those programs may not been ideal (debatable), that does not mean the other extreme is a better solution.
will not break even without massive sales outside of the top few wealthiest countries
You are assuming that these drugs were developed substantially for sale in wealthy countries, when AIDS is almost entirely IN poor countries, proportionately so, especially certain strains of it. Furthermore, the goal is not MERELY "breaking even". To "break even" on a few hit drugs, is to lose money hand over fist on the aggregate, since most drugs do not break even (whether or not IP is respected).
knew this *before* they started research/development (after all, you can't be disincentivized *before* you actually know what you want to do).
No, their intentions for THIS drug are hardly relevant. The issue, as for as society is concerned, is the development of NEW drugs. Once Brazil has demonstrated to the drug companies that they are effectively unwilling to pay the drug companies on these highly demanded drugs, they have demonstrated that ALL efforts that depend on these markets are no longer economically feasible. The drug companies recoup their costs on just a FEW drugs, only a FRACTION of those that actually MAKE it to market. You kill possibility of a hit drug on a given market, you kill the entire market. End of Story.
And yes, taking into account that a fixed amount of money has to be spent for "ongoing" research not tied to any given product.
But that is not exactly true. This is true in the EARLIER RESEARCH phase, but not in the development phase, which is where at least 90% of the costs occur. In the development phase, you get a pretty good idea of the targeted market. This means, if you discover that a certain drugs has properties that can only be used in fighting, say, a certain kind of malaria, it is a no-go.
Seeing as people in third world countries can't afford (and therefore are not buying) these drugs in the first place, I think it would be hard to make the above argument.
This is not exactly true. Cannot afford != Cannot afford to pay anything. It's also not this simple, as I mentioned earlier, the drug companies HAVE in fact setup programs to deliver drugs at or below marginal cost. Furthermore, Brazil showing utter disregard for this patent can have implications far far broader than JUST the loss of potential revenue in this one country. It can create a black market for illegal generics to not-so-poor countries and even to the United States. It can result in an avalanche effect.
even *if* private for-profit pharmaceuticals become disincentivized, inevitably someone somewhere will be developing drugs (probably governments).
So you'd give up all FUTURE fruits from the drug companies, because you can only see the present. That is short sighted. Yet you assure yourself that _maybe_ "someone" will solve the problems you create for you. Excuse me, but no non-profit or government entity has proven itself yet capable of delivering like the drug companies have.
Did you ever stop and ask yourself why 99% of the worlds modern drugs come from the United States and other Western Countries, all which happen to respect IP? India, China, Russia, and many others, they all have plenty of intelligent and well educated people (despite poverty in some areas), yet none are homes to significant domestic innovation (in drugs, or otherwise). Although India has just started some efforts, they're almost ENTIRELY for the United States and other countries. Any wonder?
Ahem, just because "some" people are willing to work for "nothing", does not mean it is a feasible OR a superior means of satisfying society's needs. The Open Source movement hardly answers even a MERE fraction of today's software, and the costs of R&D are almost laughable in comparison, not to mention the SLOW development times. Did you know that: The average drug costs 600million dollars to bring to market today (almost all of the costs are incurred in DEVELOPMENT, not research). While this figure does include the drugs that never make it to market, it does not take into account several other extremely powerful issues. For one, the average time to market (development & approvals time) is almost 15 years long today--that's an EXTREMELY tough position to be in financially. Secondly, of those drugs that make it to market, only a small fraction actually BREAK EVEN on total R&D costs (Hint: This does not even include marketing costs).
The drugs companies are VERY much dependent on a few "hit" drugs to offset the R&D costs for ALL other efforts (not just that one drug).
So to answer your two assertions:
First, poor countries' appropriation of these few successful drugs may MAKE future R&D efforts for ALL drugs specific to those regions economically unfeasible [even for a non-profit!!], not just this one AIDS drug. Brazil et. al is capping the only upside [even to break even alone], while doing nothing to relieve the downside and the risk.
Second, Open Source style development of drugs is an absolute and complete joke. Almost all of drug prices are the result of REAL costs. [Profit is a relatively small component of it, especially when it is adjusted for risk.] There is a world of difference between a LOOSE handfull of hackers around the world working PART TIME on a little code here and there for fun and the challenge, and that that is required to get a drug off the ground. It requires a vastly different mindset, not to mention a great deal of resources(The great costs still must be shouldered by society, minus a little bit of profit). You also can't ignore the time involved and the relative lack of reward per dollar/time/etc.
No, government MIGHT be able to manage it, but not a bunch of people poking around. However, it'd still cost society just as much money, maybe even more. Those costs may be borne out more evenly if government does it, but that's also kind of the point of insurance/HMOs (in theory).
Anyways, you miss the point, MIGHT != IS. If GNU/GPL/Whatever can do it cheaper and better and faster, let them. But until that time, only ONE system (IP + profit) really delivers; don't break it just because you have a theory.
I dare you to carry that through airport security!;)
"Some people want ..." != Napster 1% legit
on
The End of Innovation?
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
Yes, there is a large amount of free and open material out there. However, this does not mean that Napster is either necessary or superior at delivering that material.
First, relatively few major artists encourage or allow bootlegging. Second, those bands which do invariably have vastly better organized websites and ftp sites dedicated exclusively to that pursuit. I am a DMB fan, and I would far prefer to go to from the dedicated ftp/www sites, where I can download entire/full/non-corrupt albums, than a disorganized system like napster, where anything I searched for (any time during its existence) would result largely in his COMMERCIAL recordings. Third, given that most of the legitmate uses are not from well known/signed artists and the fact that Napster's user base absolutely plummetted after they blocked the various signed artists, how can you reasonably claim that even a reasonable minority was using it for legitimate means?
I hear all this crap about protecting the little guy, well that's fine and good. But the little guys interests needs to be balanced against the interests of society at large (and the legal claims of, what is in economic terms, the real majority). When the vast majority of the use is for piracy and the minority can have their legitimate claims answered by alternative means, in a superior way nonetheless, why bother? Even if we accept P2P as being important, P2P does not necessarily mean that we need a system of total anarchy, whereby any content is allowed. Napster could have implimented a system of trust for the much-hyped little guy, where they could register their songs and allow them complete access to the system, but they choose not to. I have very little sympathy for them.
You're basically correct, but you have it reversed
on
Secure IRC?
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
People continue to use IRC, by and large, as a method of open communication because of its particular user base: friends, acquaintance, partners, groups, and like-minded individuals use it.
It's basically a network effect, much like that which allows MS to continue to produce relatively mediocre products. In other words, you won't use method XXX, because your friends won't be there. Your friends won't because you (and others) won't be there. Unless a substantial portion of the given social groups actually agrees to coordinate a movement, the entrenched users will stay and put up with the crap (to a point).
The bottom line is that IRC, in and of itself, has very little going for it as an open forum: it's harder to learn and use; it's laggy; its service is poor; it's insecure; and so on. It's continuing use owes largely to its users, not to the technology itself.
Public IRC should be extinct by all rights. That said, the fact that is easy to setup a server and free, means that it still has a role for private/commericial uses.
But not everyone wants a laptop for the road
on
Which Laptop To Buy?
·
· Score: 2
I have an Inspiron 8000 (900mhz, GeForce2Go, 256megs ram, etc). It fills my needs very well. What I _need_, or rather find a major time saver, is to have one computer that I can use at work, at home, at my beach house. True portability here takes a secondary role to functionality. I need a machine with enough power to get all my tasks done (including, preferrably, the occassional 3d shooter). Furthermore, when I cannot get to an honest to god keyboard, having a near-full size built in keyboard helps a lot. I can type with most of those ultra-lights, but not nearly as well or as comfortably. [Not to mention the fact that most of them can't support 1600x1200 (or near) resolution, that I work well in]
Although I would not want to lug around this if I were on the road as a salesperson, the weight difference is pretty irrelevant to me for the occassional trip. In short, neither a desktop system or an ultra-portable can do as good of a job as what I have now.
First and foremost, being awarded a PATENT means very little per se. This is nothing new; it has been this way for at least 100 years. The patent systems main function is largely to be a repository of CLAIMS. Merely making CLAIMS does not mean that it is UNIQUE, WORTHWHILE, or even INNOVATIVE. Contrary to popular opinion, the patent office is not supposed to be the final arbitrator of a patent. Their main role is to keep the database to a reasonably manageable size and scope, to this end, they do some filtration, but only nominally so. It is enough to keep out most of the population's complete and utter flatulence out, but not much more.
All that has really changed is society. PEOPLE today are far more inclined to see the value of mere IDEAS, whereas decades before, PHYSICAL GOODS and SERVICES were more respected. This increasing popularity has lead to MORE patents, unsuprisingly. As a result of this surge of patents, more have been accepted. In the process, the patent office has gotten a little overwhelmed, and has had to step back their review process to some extent; however, when it comes to real industry and substantial companies, not much has changed. Companies and capable innovators still file and recieve sufficient protection. When their patents are challenged, it is the COURTS that play that final and important role, never the patent office.
While it is true that the patent office could improve some things, I think slashdot needs to take a step back and really understand the history and the way the system really works before they jump to conclusions. For instance, I often hear that patents need much more scrutiny (completely ignoring for a minute all the fools that say IP should not exist). But would they really want this? First and foremost, in order to cope with even the legitimate flow of patents, it would require orders of magnitudes more funding. Society would either have to subsidize this or filing fees would have to be dramatically increased--neither are really desirable. Second, this would put a tremendous amount of power into the hands of a few patent office employees (or the "panel" of academics that decides). Patents are NECESSARILY complex animals and there is really no fair and equitable way around some kind of litigation process, whereby both, contesting, parties can make themselves heard--to bring forth their best evidence, experts, and such. In both cases, in order to make the system equitable and profitable, we would still end up with a terribly complex and expensive system, much like the system we have today. Furthermore, if you force this level of review up front, you would lose many of the advantages of our existing system. Our current system allows the amount of resources to scale with the worth and the value of the patent to a large degree.
...oh well this is too involved to lay it all out right now. Just THINK, people.
That is in essense what you are talking about, is reducing the risks in gambling. Those that have a lot of money and want to gamble it, that dont want to risk that comes with gambling.
and therein lies the problem. It is not that society wants to make the investor richer, but rather that we need their investment. If we make certain classes of investment (or all investment) so risky that it becomes unpalatable for any investor, then we lose that source of investment. Thus, society as a whole suffers.
In other words, investments that once offered a sufficient return for the previous level of risk would become impossible given a drastic rise in risk. Some investments are very sensitive to even the slightest increase in risk.
Anyways, gambling and investing are quite different (even though investing may technically be called a gamble, depending on who you ask). Gambling strongly implies a game of negative or equal expected returns. The players play for the thrill (otherwise they're quite certainly stupid). Investment is almost always done with expected returns significantly exceeding the investment. For instance, the US stock markets as a whole have returned more than 10% a year on average (over the past 80 years or so). Riskier investments, like those in startup companies, offer multiplies higher returns. In other words, if you could invest in enough of them, you would expect to make a great deal of money over time, even though the returns on a few (or even the whole market) is uncertain and may result in the complete loss of the investment. Whereas if you walk into your average casino and stay for long enough, the law of averages says that you'll eventually walk out pennyless.
You mention double taxation. However, the U.S. corporate tax laws are so riddled with loopholes that many large firms (GM and Microsoft, to name two) pay minimal to no tax. I have been involved in some IPOs, and one motivation for transitioning from a partnership to a publicly-traded corporation is that the overall tax regime is more favorable. This is even true for smallish firms (market cap less than 100MM).
Yes, there are some notable exceptions, but this is generally only because partnerships can be extremely complex animals. It is not the rule. On the aggregate, corporations still bear a larger tax burden. While it is true that there are some loopholes, they are generally far from enough to avoid even half the taxes. Though it is true that Microsoft and Cisco were able to avoid taxes for a year or two, this must be qualified. First, it was not free, they had to offer billions of dollars worth in stock options to employees, which serves to dillute shareholder equity. Second, companies can only do that for so long, it is of questionable wisdom, and can really only be done when the market is very bouyant.
However, there is nothing wrong with society establishing acceptable norms of behavior on corporations, and imposing sanctions up to and including the revocation of corporate charters, for violation of those norms. Unless shareholders recognize this to be a risk, they will not hold management accountable for some of the abuses that are now commonplace. Corporate governance now is a joke, with most shareholders taking a largely passive role.
I agree and disagree with these sentiments. Yes, i agree with you in the sense that we should have controls on corporate misbehavior. However, it is foolish to act as if the only acceptable deterrent is the revocation of corporate charter. Financial damages (e.g., RICO action) alone are enough to effectively destroy a corporation, never mind the thousand of other ways that shareholder wealth can be diminished, these are all deterrents.
Furthermore, I submit to you that revocation of charter is too drastic and too sudden to be an effective deterrent. A great many of these corporate "crimes" happen outside the scope of the investors knowledge. Even when the investor only owns but a few stocks, the information that they have is so high level, relative to the charges that are typically levied. Whether it be price gouging, malpractice, monopolistic practices, or what have you. For instance, it would not be reasonable to expect the shareholder to know of a flaw in a medical device, since understanding that flaw would require a degree in engineering, not to mention internal knowledge and a great deal of time. If the shareholder is incapable of knowing about the act, why penalize them? Why not penalize those that actually have the ability to control that kind of company behavior, like the CEO, and only do it where they are directly responsible.
Though this can be done currently, it is a very tough wall to climb. Certainly I would demand the same level of evidence that is seen in criminal trials, but it could be made easier, without hurting legitimate business. It would be far more effective.
So instead of smashing up a Starbucks like a hopped-up retard, do something positive like lobby the government to abolish corporations. Or at least take away their "human rights."
You are clearly advocating the abolition of corporations here. Your other statements make your reasoning, or rather, lack thereof, quite clear. If you want to back out of this argument and say you only take issue with the "human rights", then you must at least make it clear what "rights" you take issue with.
Punishing the corporation and restricting its activities, however, gets to the root of the problem, where there is one.
Firstly, this is not what you said before. Secondly, there already are penalties for corporate misbehavior. Few shareholders care what the technical status of the corporation is if they stand to lose the majority of their investment. The real problem, like with actual humans, is enforcement, not the laws themselves. Thirdly, revoking the chartership of a corporation is an odd and essentially meaningless punishment, since investors already stand to lose their investment and management their jobs.
Corporations are legal persons and are afforded all the rights of a flesh and blood person.
No, this is not exactly true. Corporations are not afforded all the rights that people are, they enjoy some of the rights, but some of those "rights" are also severely diminished by their very nature. For instance, unlike a person, the 5th ammendment affords them little to no protection. In a nutshell, the government can compel any of the corporations' employees to tell all of the corporations evils by granting that single employee immunity from prosection.
They just happen to also be very rich, and able to do more than one thing at a time (unlike flesh and blood persons).
No, just like people their wealthy varies all over the map, in fact, most corporations are quite small and unheard of.
They also operate under a different set of law; law that sheilds them from the consequences of their actions.
Yes, they are afford some protections that humans are not. However, it is clear that you are confusing this with the limited liability that the shareholders have. Just because the shareholder cannot be held personally liable, does not mean that the corporation is immune, nor does it mean that the investor bears no risk; it just means that the investor can only lose what the investor invested.
Corporations are dissolved quite often. Shareholders can, and do, lose ALL of their investment. For some shareholders, this can be pretty traumatic. Anyways, the proof is in the pudding, investors are clearly risk averse. Baring all but the most fly by night corporations, the threat of criminal and civil lawsuits is taken very seriously indeed.
So instead of smashing up a Starbucks like a hopped-up retard, do something positive like lobby the government to abolish corporations. Or at least take away their "human rights."
You totally fail to consider WHY corporations exist in the first place, or why they're founded. The shareholders of corporations bear a significantly increased task burden, it generally far exceeds that of sole proprietorships or partnerships. Essentially, they pay taxes twice. The corporations pay taxes on their earnings and the shareholders pay taxes on both capital gains and dividend checks (the two ways that investors get a return on their investment). They are willing to accept the diminishment of earnings because it is quite necessary.
Without corporate status, each and every one of the investors takes a great deal of personal risk (baring some notable and hardly relevant exceptions). What this means is that if you own even the tinniest number of shares, you stand lose your house, your car, and all of your savings. Consider investing in a well diversified portfolio. You could very expose yourself to MORE risk, not less risk, since just one company need default on a loan, run affoul of the law, get sued by some ambulance chaser, get struck down by some overzealous bureaocrat, or what have you. Many many businesses would simply become impalatable for the reasonable investor, not just "evil" corporations like tabacco companies, but medical devices companies, medical technology companies, drug companies, car companies, you name it. Without investment, those industries would eventually die.
Slashdot Mirror
I went through part of the list last week and saw at least a handful of clearly Arabic sounding names. Furthermore, even if the percentage of Arabs that perished in the WTC was disproportionate, remember the people that occupied or visited the WTC tended to be more affluent and better educated than most of the population. This is one demographic that the Arabic population simply does not have proportional representation in the US (especially those with such clear cultural and religious ties). In other words, it's not suprising.
If you're trying to suggest some kind of conspiracy (as some of the repliers do) including Arabs at the WTC or at large, I don't buy it. At best, the terrorists would be taking a big risk. At worst, they'd surely be detected. Where it may be difficult or impossible for the US intelligence agencies to detect 50 or so handpicked people conspiring (with limited information, if we're to believe the "terrorist cell" theory), it would be highly improbable that the media, FBI, CIA, or some other agency would not pickup on large scale conspiracy of that sort.
Furthermore, even if this man had every reason to believe Gore was as intellect from this meeting, it was just ONE 5 minute meeting, I've personally seen and heard of many examples contrary to his supposed intellect that I simply refuse to believe Gore is a "real" intellectual, let alone intelligent. Also, most people have not had the opportunity to see him personally like that. I really don't see how the general public _honestly_ develops that perception of him.
The real reason, in my opinion, is because the media has a very definite liberal bias and because Bush is not impressive intellectually. Gore is arguably more intellectual than Bush (However, I would say that he's overall less intelligent than GW, despite the fact that many would disagree.) Another major reason is because a lot of people do not truely understand what intellect is. They confuse the ability to recite facts and figures with intellect, conviction with comprehension, preparation with insight, and so on. Nonetheless, I do not believe that makes a really convincing picture for most the public.
The press says Gore is intellectual and few individuals take the trouble to see through it. The press says he's intelligent and intellectual, because he's the best choice to further their politics, given the fact that the other Democratic candidates were un-ellectable and that GW is a Republican.
I agree very much with you on the fact that intellect doesn't necessarily equate with intelligence and that neither necessarily equate with being a capable leader. This is part of the reason why I voted for Bush. This is also the biggest reason why Gore would be one of the last candidates on my list, even if I were a Democrat; Gore, at best, has an average intellect and he has little else to offer.
I couldn't disagree more about Gore. Gore is at most a mediocre intellect. His is most certainly greater than most of the American public, but he's positively mediocre when compared with other well educated individuals. His speaking abilities are pretty marginal. His use of diction is absolutely uninspiring, in fact, he repeats himself too much. His analytical abilities show no spark of insight. He is not that well read and, for what it's worth, he wasn't even a good student.
Frankly, I don't see why certain people choose to ascribe the word intellect to Gore. The man is essentially a geek and not much more. By this I mean, he puts a lot of energy into what he does. He memorizes lots of facts and figures and he's capable of blinding people with bullshit when absolutely necessary. Perhaps this trait impresses some, but not me, I do not call that intellect.
The bottom line is that I see little reason to think of Gore as being any more intelligent or intellectual than what is seen in Washington, company executives, and the like. If there's any good reason to believe otherwise, please point it out to me.
Come now, I'm all for experience, but this is "experience" hardly that.
Firstly, there is a world of difference between the "get-rich-quick" work ethic and that of someone fighting for a real startup--where they actually have to make things work.
Secondly, very few DotComemrs took real risk. Sure, many watched their stock options become worthless, but it was virtual money from the get go. It's not as if most of those kids could have gone to other jobs paying equivalent amounts of "real" money.
Thirdly, relatively few really were sufficiently high in management level positions to take any real responsibility for what happened. Many of those who were in "management" still do not; their attitude is that they had no responsibility for their investors money--it stinks.
Fourthly, besides the fact that they it was not their own money, by and large, they were living in such an artificial and over-inflated environment that few of them can claim to have any real business experience, other than perhaps to be a little more skeptical of the next fad.
Lastly, why shouldn't they hold their heads high? You think the DotCommers have it any worse than previous generations of college aged kids that were applying for jobs during full blow recessions? I have far more respect for the earlier generations there, they at least can claim to have seen real struggle.
I'll sell you a bunch of shares in various DotComs at their 1999 levels? OK???? In fact, I'll give you a deal, half off.
First off, what does it matter if Japan or Europe beat us to the punch? Does this mean that their industry is necessarily ahead of ours? No. The gap here is not a technological one, it's one of implimentation and cost. Europe and Japan also have many economic factors in their favor, owing to their population density and population centers, often poor land lines, etc. How does this speak better of foreign nations?
Second, 3G shows many signs of being a failure overseas, already. By this I mean the European and Japanese 3G companies may well spend multiples more rolling out the technology (they've spent billions on the licenses alone) than they ever collect in revenues. What this says, in plain english, is that their own consumers did not feel the technology/implimentation is good enough to justify the cost. Why should we be jealous of this? If the costs exceed the benefits, it is hardly an accusation of US capitalism. No government is going to change this fact--all they might do is spread the costs out, by putting an increased tax burden on those that do NOT need it.
Third, even if 3G is a worthwhile technology, it's not necessarily worthwhile today. In other words, both US consumers and companies may be better served by waiting until better handsets come out. It would be premature and costly to introduce the technology 5 years before it is really worthwhile to consumers.
Fourth, from a more personal point of view, do YOU really need/want 3G today if it costs you 3x as much as normal cell phone service? Sure, high bandwidth on the road sounds great, but what can you REALLY do with it today? Between having crappy screens, lousy keyboards, no mouse, poor sound.... Just name an application that really makes it worthwhile for YOU? I mean streaming video sounds great, but other than the coolness/novelty factor, are you really going to want to bother with it? I don't think so.
Fifth, remember money NOT spent on 3G, is money spent somewhere else. It doesn't just go into a blackhole. This money may well be better spent on improving existing services, rolling out other technology, or what have you.
Lastly, capitalism is adaptive is nothing else. If Japan and Europe really experience a huge boon with 3G services, you can be sure that US industry will be beating down the doors to make it happen. At which point, new and improved 3G may well be attainable to US consumers, while not available in foreign nations.
Look, if the founders of the company themselves do not fundamentally believe in the technology OR how they're approaching their targeted market(s), then they have NO business wasting other people's money. First, not every idea is worthy of investment. Second, and perhaps even most importantly, even if the idea itself is worth something, if management does not know where or how to execute, it is wasteful of everyones time and money. If you don't at least have a fairly clear plan, you have no business being in business, at least when you're playing with other peoples' money.
Furthermore, while it is true that high return investments almost always bear higher risk, that does not mean that every high risk investment will or can return a decent amount. For instance, I could loan a fugitive 1 million dollars, while this is certainly high risk, it's almost certainly a formula for ruin. This point being that some investments are simply bad investments, deserving NO investment because they do not offer a return commensurate with the risk, relative to what can be had else where. Fundamental to the field of finance is that at any given level of risk you want the maximum amount of return. This is why: some companies cannot get additional capital, why some shares are priced so low, why some land is worth so little, and so on.
I say this from first hand experience, well from a parent that is an engineer and an extremely experienced and successful entrepreneur (e.g., not naive), but this article really does hit the mark with a great number of them, really. I've seen them at their best and at their worst.
Speaking in general terms:
As a community they are extremely incestuous.
As a community they are very risk averse, in a personal sense. They're willing to risk their investors money, but not if they themselves will hang out to dry. What this means is that they'll invest in the latest fads, so long as the herd is with them. By and large, they will not invest in superior investments from a risk/return perspective, if the herd is not there behind them.
Many are extremely amoral. There is a difference between being greedy and neglecting obligations and duties, to both the investors in their own funds and investors in that companies that they hold board seats on. I've personally seen this border into the illegal territory.
Many are simply ignorant--in both the financial, operations, and technical sense. Ok, they don't need to be experts, but what makes them dangerous is that the dont know what they dont know. On technical issues, they consult "experts" that are not experts in the least and consider it "expert" advise.
Most are in there for the short term. They're willing to invest in companies that are doomed to fail, just as long as they can flip it over in an IPO or to another company before it craters.
And it goes on... I really hate to make such sweeping statements, but this a terribly universal experience with VCs. Not just one or two firms, but many of them, in different regions and industries and from different perspectives (CEOs, founders, engineers, etc).
In short, many VCs really serve all involved poorly [In other words, I believe there are better real-world solutions for the necessary parties]. There are some really good VCs out there, but they are hard to find and they have finite resources. A beginning entrenprenuer would be well advised to get some solid and independent advise, both legally and otherwise, from people that are experienced with startups and dealing with these kinds of investors. Especially when it comes to issues like drawing up a solid board of directors...
0123456789
MONEY=EVIL
See, isn't that simple?
I'm hardly a technophobe and I see real potential in having a thumb-keyboard (like RIM pagers) built in. Although I know all graffiti characters by heart, it is aggrivating to use for anything more than 50 characters at time. [Yes, I use and like Fitaly stamp, but this is better in my opinion. Certainly more comfortable..] This has NOT been my experience with the RIM pagers, where I can comfortably write 30 words a minute. If Handspring can create a similar thumb keyboard (though I think it has less to do with the keyboard and more to do with the form factor of the device itself) it might well be a hit with people like me as well. I love the RIM pager, but I can't carry a cell phone, PDA, and pager with me all the time....
Plesk is providing consumers with what they want and, perhaps most importantly, very solid jobs in a country that rife with corruption, poverty, and starvation. Those kinds of wages put each one of those 25 year old kids into the top economic brackets in their region. It'd be like handing a 25 year old kid here 150k a year salary. Anyways, Russia needs MORE jobs like that, not less.
Save your outrage for someone else.
While I find article presents a compelling example of MS' all too common anticompetitive behavior, it does not really provide a credible explanation for BeOS' failure. BeOS may well be a superior OS, in and of itself, but that is not sufficient to attract customers. For instance, the lack of software and support can easily outweigh any benefit that any individual consumer could draw from increased stability and performance.
In addition, I find it hard to believe that installing BeOS as a dual boot system is any greater an obstacle than the numerous other disincentives that present themselves -- especially when it is possible to design software for make the conversion riduculously simple. Dual booting means that you sacrifice useful HD space to both the partition and the OS files. You must learn how to use it. You must purchase much of the software, if it even exists, for BeOS, that you either already own or comes bundled with Windows (hardly an argument for MS), at least if you wish to use it in that capacity. You may have to contend with compatibility issues. The Cost of BeOS itself. And the lists goes on. Any one of these could be sufficient reasons NOT to use BeOS, or any other OS, without that particular form of monopolistic behavior.
Although, MS has no reasonable excuse for its behavior, the writing was on the wall people. All Be's escapade has done is to demonstrate to some, those that believe BeOS to be a clearly superior OS, that a technically superior OS can fail. I do not understand how anyone familiar with the industry could not understand this. Certainly MS' monopoly position played a significant role in Be's demise, but moreso in other ways (e.g., the Applications && OS symbiotic relationsip--although much harder to quantify). Furthermore, even without MS' monopoly position, it is not necessarily impossible for a superior product (which is what Be is presumed to be) to fail.
While I find article presents a compelling example of MS' all too common anticompetitive behavior, it does not really provide a credible explanation for BeOS' failure. BeOS may well be a superior OS, in and of itself, but that is not sufficient to attract customers. For instance, the lack of software and support can easily outweigh any benefit that any individual consumer could draw from increased stability and performance.
In addition, I find it hard to believe that installing BeOS as a dual boot system is any greater an obstacle than the numerous other disincentives that present themselves -- especially when it is possible to design software for make the conversion riduculously simple. Dual booting means that you sacrifice useful HD space to both the partition and the OS files. You must learn how to use it. You must purchase much of the software, if it even exists, for BeOS, that you either already own or comes bundled with Windows (hardly an argument for MS), at least if you wish to use it in that capacity. You may have to contend with compatibility issues. The Cost of BeOS itself. And the lists goes on. Any one of these could be sufficient reasons NOT to use BeOS, or any other OS, without that particular form of monopolistic behavior.
Although, MS has no reasonable excuse for its behavior, the writing was on the wall people. All Be's escapade has done is to demonstrate to some, those that believe BeOS to be a clearly superior OS, that a technically superior OS can fail. I do not understand how anyone familiar with the industry could not understand this. Certainly MS' monopoly position played a significant role in Be's demise, but moreso in other ways (e.g., the Applications && OS symbiotic relationsip--although much harder to quantify). Furthermore, even without MS' monopoly position, it is not necessarily impossible for a superior product (which is what Be is presumed to be) to fail.
You are assuming that these drugs were developed substantially for sale in wealthy countries, when AIDS is almost entirely IN poor countries, proportionately so, especially certain strains of it. Furthermore, the goal is not MERELY "breaking even". To "break even" on a few hit drugs, is to lose money hand over fist on the aggregate, since most drugs do not break even (whether or not IP is respected).
No, their intentions for THIS drug are hardly relevant. The issue, as for as society is concerned, is the development of NEW drugs. Once Brazil has demonstrated to the drug companies that they are effectively unwilling to pay the drug companies on these highly demanded drugs, they have demonstrated that ALL efforts that depend on these markets are no longer economically feasible. The drug companies recoup their costs on just a FEW drugs, only a FRACTION of those that actually MAKE it to market. You kill possibility of a hit drug on a given market, you kill the entire market. End of Story.
But that is not exactly true. This is true in the EARLIER RESEARCH phase, but not in the development phase, which is where at least 90% of the costs occur. In the development phase, you get a pretty good idea of the targeted market. This means, if you discover that a certain drugs has properties that can only be used in fighting, say, a certain kind of malaria, it is a no-go.
This is not exactly true. Cannot afford != Cannot afford to pay anything. It's also not this simple, as I mentioned earlier, the drug companies HAVE in fact setup programs to deliver drugs at or below marginal cost. Furthermore, Brazil showing utter disregard for this patent can have implications far far broader than JUST the loss of potential revenue in this one country. It can create a black market for illegal generics to not-so-poor countries and even to the United States. It can result in an avalanche effect.
So you'd give up all FUTURE fruits from the drug companies, because you can only see the present. That is short sighted. Yet you assure yourself that _maybe_ "someone" will solve the problems you create for you. Excuse me, but no non-profit or government entity has proven itself yet capable of delivering like the drug companies have.
Did you ever stop and ask yourself why 99% of the worlds modern drugs come from the United States and other Western Countries, all which happen to respect IP? India, China, Russia, and many others, they all have plenty of intelligent and well educated people (despite poverty in some areas), yet none are homes to significant domestic innovation (in drugs, or otherwise). Although India has just started some efforts, they're almost ENTIRELY for the United States and other countries. Any wonder?
Ahem, just because "some" people are willing to work for "nothing", does not mean it is a feasible OR a superior means of satisfying society's needs. The Open Source movement hardly answers even a MERE fraction of today's software, and the costs of R&D are almost laughable in comparison, not to mention the SLOW development times. Did you know that: The average drug costs 600million dollars to bring to market today (almost all of the costs are incurred in DEVELOPMENT, not research). While this figure does include the drugs that never make it to market, it does not take into account several other extremely powerful issues. For one, the average time to market (development & approvals time) is almost 15 years long today--that's an EXTREMELY tough position to be in financially. Secondly, of those drugs that make it to market, only a small fraction actually BREAK EVEN on total R&D costs (Hint: This does not even include marketing costs).
The drugs companies are VERY much dependent on a few "hit" drugs to offset the R&D costs for ALL other efforts (not just that one drug).
So to answer your two assertions:
First, poor countries' appropriation of these few successful drugs may MAKE future R&D efforts for ALL drugs specific to those regions economically unfeasible [even for a non-profit!!], not just this one AIDS drug. Brazil et. al is capping the only upside [even to break even alone], while doing nothing to relieve the downside and the risk.
Second, Open Source style development of drugs is an absolute and complete joke. Almost all of drug prices are the result of REAL costs. [Profit is a relatively small component of it, especially when it is adjusted for risk.] There is a world of difference between a LOOSE handfull of hackers around the world working PART TIME on a little code here and there for fun and the challenge, and that that is required to get a drug off the ground. It requires a vastly different mindset, not to mention a great deal of resources(The great costs still must be shouldered by society, minus a little bit of profit). You also can't ignore the time involved and the relative lack of reward per dollar/time/etc.
No, government MIGHT be able to manage it, but not a bunch of people poking around. However, it'd still cost society just as much money, maybe even more. Those costs may be borne out more evenly if government does it, but that's also kind of the point of insurance/HMOs (in theory).
Anyways, you miss the point, MIGHT != IS. If GNU/GPL/Whatever can do it cheaper and better and faster, let them. But until that time, only ONE system (IP + profit) really delivers; don't break it just because you have a theory.
I dare you to carry that through airport security! ;)
Yes, there is a large amount of free and open material out there. However, this does not mean that Napster is either necessary or superior at delivering that material.
First, relatively few major artists encourage or allow bootlegging. Second, those bands which do invariably have vastly better organized websites and ftp sites dedicated exclusively to that pursuit. I am a DMB fan, and I would far prefer to go to from the dedicated ftp/www sites, where I can download entire/full/non-corrupt albums, than a disorganized system like napster, where anything I searched for (any time during its existence) would result largely in his COMMERCIAL recordings. Third, given that most of the legitmate uses are not from well known/signed artists and the fact that Napster's user base absolutely plummetted after they blocked the various signed artists, how can you reasonably claim that even a reasonable minority was using it for legitimate means?
I hear all this crap about protecting the little guy, well that's fine and good. But the little guys interests needs to be balanced against the interests of society at large (and the legal claims of, what is in economic terms, the real majority). When the vast majority of the use is for piracy and the minority can have their legitimate claims answered by alternative means, in a superior way nonetheless, why bother? Even if we accept P2P as being important, P2P does not necessarily mean that we need a system of total anarchy, whereby any content is allowed. Napster could have implimented a system of trust for the much-hyped little guy, where they could register their songs and allow them complete access to the system, but they choose not to. I have very little sympathy for them.
People continue to use IRC, by and large, as a method of open communication because of its particular user base: friends, acquaintance, partners, groups, and like-minded individuals use it.
It's basically a network effect, much like that which allows MS to continue to produce relatively mediocre products. In other words, you won't use method XXX, because your friends won't be there. Your friends won't because you (and others) won't be there. Unless a substantial portion of the given social groups actually agrees to coordinate a movement, the entrenched users will stay and put up with the crap (to a point).
The bottom line is that IRC, in and of itself, has very little going for it as an open forum: it's harder to learn and use; it's laggy; its service is poor; it's insecure; and so on. It's continuing use owes largely to its users, not to the technology itself.
Public IRC should be extinct by all rights. That said, the fact that is easy to setup a server and free, means that it still has a role for private/commericial uses.
I have an Inspiron 8000 (900mhz, GeForce2Go, 256megs ram, etc). It fills my needs very well. What I _need_, or rather find a major time saver, is to have one computer that I can use at work, at home, at my beach house. True portability here takes a secondary role to functionality. I need a machine with enough power to get all my tasks done (including, preferrably, the occassional 3d shooter). Furthermore, when I cannot get to an honest to god keyboard, having a near-full size built in keyboard helps a lot. I can type with most of those ultra-lights, but not nearly as well or as comfortably. [Not to mention the fact that most of them can't support 1600x1200 (or near) resolution, that I work well in]
Although I would not want to lug around this if I were on the road as a salesperson, the weight difference is pretty irrelevant to me for the occassional trip. In short, neither a desktop system or an ultra-portable can do as good of a job as what I have now.
First and foremost, being awarded a PATENT means very little per se. This is nothing new; it has been this way for at least 100 years. The patent systems main function is largely to be a repository of CLAIMS. Merely making CLAIMS does not mean that it is UNIQUE, WORTHWHILE, or even INNOVATIVE. Contrary to popular opinion, the patent office is not supposed to be the final arbitrator of a patent. Their main role is to keep the database to a reasonably manageable size and scope, to this end, they do some filtration, but only nominally so. It is enough to keep out most of the population's complete and utter flatulence out, but not much more.
All that has really changed is society. PEOPLE today are far more inclined to see the value of mere IDEAS, whereas decades before, PHYSICAL GOODS and SERVICES were more respected. This increasing popularity has lead to MORE patents, unsuprisingly. As a result of this surge of patents, more have been accepted. In the process, the patent office has gotten a little overwhelmed, and has had to step back their review process to some extent; however, when it comes to real industry and substantial companies, not much has changed. Companies and capable innovators still file and recieve sufficient protection. When their patents are challenged, it is the COURTS that play that final and important role, never the patent office.
While it is true that the patent office could improve some things, I think slashdot needs to take a step back and really understand the history and the way the system really works before they jump to conclusions. For instance, I often hear that patents need much more scrutiny (completely ignoring for a minute all the fools that say IP should not exist). But would they really want this? First and foremost, in order to cope with even the legitimate flow of patents, it would require orders of magnitudes more funding. Society would either have to subsidize this or filing fees would have to be dramatically increased--neither are really desirable. Second, this would put a tremendous amount of power into the hands of a few patent office employees (or the "panel" of academics that decides). Patents are NECESSARILY complex animals and there is really no fair and equitable way around some kind of litigation process, whereby both, contesting, parties can make themselves heard--to bring forth their best evidence, experts, and such. In both cases, in order to make the system equitable and profitable, we would still end up with a terribly complex and expensive system, much like the system we have today. Furthermore, if you force this level of review up front, you would lose many of the advantages of our existing system. Our current system allows the amount of resources to scale with the worth and the value of the patent to a large degree.
...oh well this is too involved to lay it all out right now. Just THINK, people.
and therein lies the problem. It is not that society wants to make the investor richer, but rather that we need their investment. If we make certain classes of investment (or all investment) so risky that it becomes unpalatable for any investor, then we lose that source of investment. Thus, society as a whole suffers.
In other words, investments that once offered a sufficient return for the previous level of risk would become impossible given a drastic rise in risk. Some investments are very sensitive to even the slightest increase in risk.
Anyways, gambling and investing are quite different (even though investing may technically be called a gamble, depending on who you ask). Gambling strongly implies a game of negative or equal expected returns. The players play for the thrill (otherwise they're quite certainly stupid). Investment is almost always done with expected returns significantly exceeding the investment. For instance, the US stock markets as a whole have returned more than 10% a year on average (over the past 80 years or so). Riskier investments, like those in startup companies, offer multiplies higher returns. In other words, if you could invest in enough of them, you would expect to make a great deal of money over time, even though the returns on a few (or even the whole market) is uncertain and may result in the complete loss of the investment. Whereas if you walk into your average casino and stay for long enough, the law of averages says that you'll eventually walk out pennyless.
I agree and disagree with these sentiments. Yes, i agree with you in the sense that we should have controls on corporate misbehavior. However, it is foolish to act as if the only acceptable deterrent is the revocation of corporate charter. Financial damages (e.g., RICO action) alone are enough to effectively destroy a corporation, never mind the thousand of other ways that shareholder wealth can be diminished, these are all deterrents.
Furthermore, I submit to you that revocation of charter is too drastic and too sudden to be an effective deterrent. A great many of these corporate "crimes" happen outside the scope of the investors knowledge. Even when the investor only owns but a few stocks, the information that they have is so high level, relative to the charges that are typically levied. Whether it be price gouging, malpractice, monopolistic practices, or what have you. For instance, it would not be reasonable to expect the shareholder to know of a flaw in a medical device, since understanding that flaw would require a degree in engineering, not to mention internal knowledge and a great deal of time. If the shareholder is incapable of knowing about the act, why penalize them? Why not penalize those that actually have the ability to control that kind of company behavior, like the CEO, and only do it where they are directly responsible.
Though this can be done currently, it is a very tough wall to climb. Certainly I would demand the same level of evidence that is seen in criminal trials, but it could be made easier, without hurting legitimate business. It would be far more effective.
Firstly, this is not what you said before. Secondly, there already are penalties for corporate misbehavior. Few shareholders care what the technical status of the corporation is if they stand to lose the majority of their investment. The real problem, like with actual humans, is enforcement, not the laws themselves. Thirdly, revoking the chartership of a corporation is an odd and essentially meaningless punishment, since investors already stand to lose their investment and management their jobs.
No, just like people their wealthy varies all over the map, in fact, most corporations are quite small and unheard of.
Yes, they are afford some protections that humans are not. However, it is clear that you are confusing this with the limited liability that the shareholders have. Just because the shareholder cannot be held personally liable, does not mean that the corporation is immune, nor does it mean that the investor bears no risk; it just means that the investor can only lose what the investor invested.
Corporations are dissolved quite often. Shareholders can, and do, lose ALL of their investment. For some shareholders, this can be pretty traumatic. Anyways, the proof is in the pudding, investors are clearly risk averse. Baring all but the most fly by night corporations, the threat of criminal and civil lawsuits is taken very seriously indeed.
You totally fail to consider WHY corporations exist in the first place, or why they're founded. The shareholders of corporations bear a significantly increased task burden, it generally far exceeds that of sole proprietorships or partnerships. Essentially, they pay taxes twice. The corporations pay taxes on their earnings and the shareholders pay taxes on both capital gains and dividend checks (the two ways that investors get a return on their investment). They are willing to accept the diminishment of earnings because it is quite necessary.
Without corporate status, each and every one of the investors takes a great deal of personal risk (baring some notable and hardly relevant exceptions). What this means is that if you own even the tinniest number of shares, you stand lose your house, your car, and all of your savings. Consider investing in a well diversified portfolio. You could very expose yourself to MORE risk, not less risk, since just one company need default on a loan, run affoul of the law, get sued by some ambulance chaser, get struck down by some overzealous bureaocrat, or what have you. Many many businesses would simply become impalatable for the reasonable investor, not just "evil" corporations like tabacco companies, but medical devices companies, medical technology companies, drug companies, car companies, you name it. Without investment, those industries would eventually die.