Not voting is an irrational form of protest. While this statement is common (I was about to post the same thing before I noticed yours) Democracy only works if all the people vote for canidates. People complain about government all the time, yet less than 50% of ALL registerd voters go to the polls one day a year. So only 50% of the people are making decisions for the other 50%.
Last I checked there is normally a "write in" slot where you can write in a canidates name. So if you don't like any of the canidates vote for yourself.
Additionally besides the presidency there are many local issues that will affect you more directly that you should go out and vote for. At least go out and voice your opinion for things that will be done in your small town, city, or suburb. By giving up this freedom you are turning the democratic process into a form of dictatorship.
Maybe we should force people to pay a voting tax. Back when they had a voting tax many more people excercised their right to vote. Women finally got the right in 1928? in the 20's and they don't vote any more than men.
at that point you really need to kill the commander.
what game did you like better? UFO defense or TFTD? I prefered the plot in UFO defense, but game options and research was better in TFTD. Ship missions were cool, but a lot harder than the city. And with 40+ aliens to a base that made it extremely difficult.
A tax cut won't inject more money into the economy, the money will just be spent differently.
What does the government do with your money? Save it? No, it spends it. Same with consumers.
The U.S. savings rate is -0.04%. We are spending more than we are making. I'd like to think that a tax cut would allow Americans to save, especially with the high interest rates but we'd just spend it.
Back to my point, a tax cut doesn't directly undermine what Alan Greenspan is trying to do. Whether the government or consumer spends the money, the bottom line is the money is spent. A tax cut has an indirect effect on the amount of money, but no direct one.
If you are worried about the amount of money, one of the reasons for our boom is foreign investors wanting $'s. The Dollar is the currency of choice right now. Until that changes it will be hard to cap inflation.
I do agree with you though. The money should be used to pay off the debt. But consumers need to do their part. Until consumers learn to save, the debt won't go down.
National Debt = Debt Held by the Government + Debt Held by the Public
That Negative savings rate doesn't help.
September 13, 2000 the NATIONAL DEBT was $5,685,088,778,465.03
Interest Payments are over $350 BILLION a year. Ouch.
According to the narrow minded blind, deaf and dumb professor, the world has no competition AND no company in the world wants to make a proffit.
First, IF windows cost $1000 a copy, companies would be scrabling to write their own OS's to cut into the OS market and grab their piece of the proffits. No one would allow M$ to get away with making that much money willingly.
Second, PC users would not upgrade their versions of windows, and Linux would look much more enticing as a "free" OS.
Third, The problem of "Double Marginalization", while real, is already happening with Windowns and M$ Office because of the monopoly abuse. Since the products together have no significant competition M$ has already increased the price to above the maximize profit level. We are already at the high level that the article is talking about. So breaking up the company will subject the company to price it's products on the Profit Maximization intersection, not above it.
The article is assuming that the two products "complete" against each other, that one can't operate without the other, but that is wrong. The OS is not dependant on the Office Suite. It just seems that way because it's been done for the last 5 years or so.
Fifth, as the cost of the OS increases, it will be more subject to piracy issues, further decreasing profit.
I fail to see your connection between Coke, Pepsi, and cutting labor. Did Coke or Pepsi cut labor before raising prices?
I'm guessing the price increase was related to higher costs. And since soda is basically the made from the same material, if cost of carbonated water goes up for Coke, it's also going to go up for Pepsi. Neither benefits by keeping the final sale cost down, so they raise prices. I'm betting it could have been mutual. Just speculation. I can't say that the price of Pepsi has gone up where I live. It was 69cents last week(for a 2 liter bottle). A special of course, it will be back up to $1.29 in no time.
If the proffit margin of a company, any company, gets too big there is a lot of incentive for new companies to enter the marketplace and take market share. I.e. Intel and AMD. Granted there were some technology issues, but hardware has never been so cheap and the price has never dropped faster.
That ultimately will benefit consumers in the long run. I should have clarified that earlier.
ALL OF MY ANALYSIS IS FOR THE LONG TERM
There, That said you are exactally right about the short term, it will increase a companies bottom line. No change comes instantaineous and benefits sometime take a couple of years to filter down to the consumer. Humans are too impatient, they want everything NOW! not later.
Note To: NecroPuppy Nothing said was personal, sometimes it seems that way. Sorry if it did.
Consumers are also "dying" to maximize the value of their dollar, or pound, or whatever. They can't do that if there is a massive labor shortage in the technology sector.
Think about it. Your salary drops $5000 a year due to the influx of labor. Yet you can now purchase $6000 more a year in Goods and Services (G&S) due to the lower costs that the companies pass on to the consumer. So you have benefited from the cheaper products. Same applies if you move to a new area and take a salary cut. You may actually be better off because G&S are significantly cheaper.
Most Supply and demands curves are very elasic to price changes. Decreasing the price 1% could result in a 2% increase in sales, not only does that offset the expense of the lower sale cost, but the company makes significantly more revenue from the additional sale. Only a few items (Drugs, medical treatment) have inelastic demand curves.
--A mind is like a paracute, it only functions when open.
If everyone in the world took this view, than we would be building a 50ft wall around each country, then each state, then each county, then each town, then each home. You get the point. If the labor market brings thousands of jobs over here then you (as a consumer) will benefit from CHEAPER and BETTER products. Just because you aren't a good enough programer to hold a job against competition doesn't mean the other 270 MILLION americans in this country need to pay more just to keep you employed.
Competition brings out the best in all of us. and like you said, lets think about this critically. From an economic standpoint (which I have a degree in too, in addition to my computer science degree)If you don't allow the for the free movement of labor, than you will get the movement of goods and services into your country. everyone complains about the trade deficit, but it is caused by us (as a nation) not producing the goods here in america, but overseas because it is too expensive here (due to the tight labor market). This is not a good or bad thing, it is just a natural economic process.
So, in conclusion, if you don't open the boarders to overseas workers, you will lose your job to them anyway because they will start exporting their goods and services into the U.S. effectively putting YOU out of a job and your company out of business. Then you will have to move to another country to find work and compete. Who would your rather have move? Them or us?
Have a nice day!
---A mind is like a parachute, it only functions when opened.
First what does unchristian have to do with anything? Is the author blaming Christians for creating copyrights? I'm a Christian and what I was taught was that we should share not hord. I don't see any link between Christianity and pattents. Could someone elaborate who has a different point of view?
Say what you want about IP and pattents, but without them we would not be where we are today economically. Business would have little ensentive to innovate, medical breakthroughs would rarely happen (why would you put up millions of $$ in R&D if you can't recoup any of the cost) While I think the DMCA was to extreme and a bunch of politians who have no technical experience had no idea what they were writting, that happens with just about all the bills that are passed by congress. Health care, gun control, social security, etc.
Lets see, how many congresspeople have been doctors? Served on a police force? Most make too much money in retirement that they don't even get a social security check! Yet they pass regulations on it. They are not our best and brightest. You can't expect perfection. The best and brightest normally go elsewhere and do other things.
Back to the article. It's easy to print gloom and doom. Americans love it. Just look at all the Y2K books! I picked up one and it claimed that there are over 15,000 embeded computer chips in every oil rig in the world, and they will all shut down on Jan 1, 2000. What bull. Lets spend our time and energy fighting and educating people about the shortcomings of these laws (which most of us are doing) instead of trying to gain publicity for personal gain.
Please elaborate how 'developing a process and getting a pattent for it' is related to 'the effort that you put into driving a car'. Last time I checked, you had to purchase a car from a dealership (or another owner). When you did that you got the right/privillage to put that effort into driving the car. Your driving ability, like playing basketball, is not pattentable. there is no relationship. You also spent thousands of hours learning to walk. Should be pay you royalties too?
Do you not agree with intelectual property rights? Do you have a better solution? If so please enlighten all of us. I'd like to think I have an open mind.
What does the oil blockage and Seattle Riots have to do with DeCSS? I support DeCSS 100%, but the oil blockage of France did not do the country any good and the riots of Seattle did little for the people stuck in sweatshops working 18 hour days.
Instead of the consumer paying for gas as they use it (IMO, the fair way), the government pays for it. Last time I checked, the government get's its revenue from taxes, which a citizen pays whether or not they drive a car. Add the additional burocracy to implement the program and you end up paying more per gallon in the end. Not to mention that cheaper gas promotes more pollution and does not give us an incentive to find, develop, or use alternative energy resources.
While I'm off topic I'll mention Seattle. Those rioters were not concerned about the welfare of third world countries, they were concerned about their own hourly wage. By closing America to cheaper foreign imports, they have less competition (this is labor competition, not product competition) so they can charge hire wages, ultimately making our companies less competitive.
Before you say sweatshops are evil/bad/whatever, I agree completely, but America had sweatshops and other poor working conditions from approximately 1820-1920. 100 years of exploting the poor. Yet without this period of hard work, the economy could not have developed to the next level. In the 19th century, no one knew what factories would do to society. Now we do. Now we have money to speed up the process. This is not a step that a developing nation can skip in the economic process, but the pain and suffering of 100 years that our culture experience can be drastically reduced to hopefully 30-40 years. We have money. We have experience. The fastest/best way to share that is with free trade with the 3rd world economies. Any anyone for the free distribution of information must understand that the free distribution of goods & services is equally important.
Monopolies are not illegal in the U.S. contrary to public opinion. ABUSE of monopoly power is illegal in the U.S. Electric companies have had monopoly power for years. The counter force is strict government regulation. While I don't favor government regulation and intervention, in some circumstances it is warranted.
In certain circumstances monopolies are desired but you are right, most of the time they are not. There is no incentive to develop better products (Intel! but they now have some serious comptetion from AMD) Why give companies the ability/temptation to break/abuse the consumer? Being held accountable is a great deterrant.(sp?)
What did the author mean by the "one-click-shopping patent" ? Are you trying to tell me that Amazon.com is attempting to patent the single click? Let me guess, they will attempt to extract royalties from any other company that sells or has sold a good or service on the internet, correct?
I hate to get off subject but I've never heard of this. Does anyone have a website, article, or proof? (I do believe you, I just want to learn more)
Do they honestly think they can get that through the patent office?
I DO work at LM. While I don't work on the Tomahawk missle (what horrible spelling I had the first time, no excuse for that) I'm not ignorant of the fact that the Air Force launches them from B-52's and the Navy launches them from surface ships and Los Angeles Class Submarines.
This story was not about multiple versions. They were comparing apples to apples.
As to valuing human life, I do value it, but I would work on the Tomahawk or any other weapons systems. It sounds like you don't understand the value of a strong military, and that by having a strong military as a deteriant you save lives.
You must know about M.A.D. and Nuclear weapons. While the thought of nuclear war is crazy, if we had not had such a large array of weapons, who knows what the U.S.S.R. might have done.You can't "uninvent" nuclear weapons or nuclear power.
One of the reasons Hitler killed so many people and caused so much destructions is because we were unwilling to act sooner! Jews were being killed and we ignored evidence. Even after Perl Harbor was bombed, we were caught with our pants around our ankles jerking off. And a large number of passifists did not want to declare war.
The sad thing is in human history, Barbarians and chaos have always eventually won. We think the U.S. is so powerful, but it's not even 225 years old. Rome was around for almost 700 YEARS! before it fell to the barbairans. Lets see where we are 500 years from now before we start claiming a great society. And the reason that Rome fell was that they lost their political will to fight (and the Rhine froze over the winter of 406 allowing the barbairans to cross in large numbers which had never happened before.)
We all know that space travel is dangerous an costly. When the two probes crashed last December, CBS news reported that out of 16 missions to mars (between the U.S. and former Soviet Union) only 9 were successful.
I can think of a lot of places that the government wastes our money with NO benefit to us. Take the military for example. How many Billions of "pork" are added to the militaries budget for equipment they don't want or need?
Last fall (can't remember) the two senators from Utah added to a bill a multi-million dollar contract to build old Tomahock cruise missles.(can't remember the exact number, want to say 320 but that could be way off) Ironically the "old" facility was located in their state, the new facility for "new" Tomahock cruise missles was located elsewhere.
Cost of one Old Missle $1,100,000
Cost of one New Missle $600,000
(prices approximate)
Now, why would the military want the old missles when the new ones were cheaper, more accurate, and could travel farther with updated guidance systems and engines.
After getting off topic, producing these missles is just one of thousands of examples of wasted money. I'm not sure how scientific research is wasted money. And as a percentage of our GDP the probes were just a drop in an ocean. You take the good and the bad, I just don't see why someone has to be blamed for every project that turn out perfect. (exception, whoever screwed up the inches/meters measurement on the first Mars probe DID waste our money! )
Oh, besides those two mars probes, can someone list other recent NASA failures? Now list thier successes.
Tell me again how a nuclear power plant produces greenhouse gases? Oh, that's right It doesn't!, unless you start counting the cars that the workers drive to work in and the polution emited from the construction crew. There is no combustion involved therefor to the best of my knowledge you can't emit C20 or H20, the byproducts of combustion.
Nuclear power is the future, more specifically Nuclear Fussion.
FYI, the approximate population of Great Britian is 60 million.
The approximate pop. of the U.S. is 270 million. So it's about 22% of the U.S. population, crammed into a state the size of Virginia? Probably closer to Virginia and West Virginia combined.
And they have many more government sponsered programs which require tax dollars (gas taxes!) I don't agree with many of their socialist programs, but that is my personal opinion.....
Okay, so guns protect 2 million people each year. I've never heard about that stat. It still doesn't explain why other 1st world countries in Europe, who have very strick gun control laws, have so few homicides. I think Great Britian was under or near 100 gun related deaths a year in the late 90's. With a population of approximately 60 million? that would be the equivalent of 500 deaths a year in the U.S.
As a counterpoint to myself, G.B. also has much higher rates for rape, assaults, and robbery than the U.S. does.
Okay, lets talk about those 35,000 gun deaths. I'm guessing that only 1% are justified (self-defense) and warranted. But lets assume that 10% are justified. Even so you then have 31,500 people that shouldn't have died. (of course outlawing guns will not solve the problem.)
For the record: The ACLU holds the 2nd Amendment is not an individual right.
This may be true, but what an organization says and what it does can be two different things.
I wasn't trying to claim that a product would be put to bad ends, I just was stating that everyone jumps on the bad and rarely focuses on the good a device like this could cause.
What is worse, having your civil liberities being violated or being critically injured?
False dilemma. Those aren't our only choices
This is not a false dilemma, it's an example of how people priorities fall. Just an example. Nothing more. I see it as misplaced priorities. Sorry if I offended you.
All the company has to do is refuse to sell a policy to anyone who doesn't consent to be scanned. If every insurance company does it, what's your recourse?
You naturally assume that all insurance companies are going to install them and the government and the people will just stand by silently while our civil liberties are being violated. To quote you from earlier, "False dilemma". We both know that people will not stand by and just watch, and we both know that the government will probably do something (Remember doing something and doing the right thing are completely different.)
I know this is flaimbait, but most of you who post on/. are the most pessimistic people in the world! I also feel that you have your priorities backwards.
Just becuase a product MIGHT be abused doesn't mean that it will. Why don't all of you start a campain against Guns in the U.S. because that is a product that kills about 35,000 each year! (Approximate # of deaths due to gunshot wounds).
What is worse, having your civil liberities being violated or being critically injured? Don't worry, the ACLU will fight for you concerning this device, but they won't fight for gun control (or at least I've never seen them, maybe they do)
It sounds like the benefits of this device could far outweigh the potential negative misuses. Yet you concentrate on the misuses. Insurance companies installing them? My guess is running an illegal scan of your body without written concent would probably subject them to being sued.
--the person who wrote this has now been sacked.
Re:Why change when you can force a dystopian reg..
on
Hacker Crackdown?
·
· Score: 1
While I partially agree with most of what you said, I really don't think the FBI is going to use their Carnivore boxes for "illegal" network programs like Napster (unless ordered by a judge then that is a whole different issue with different implications.)
Even they would probably consider it a waste of resources, and last I checked Congress did not give them an infinate budget to track down every illegal file transfer in the U.S.
--If Pro is opposite of Con, then is Congress the opposite of Progress?
I got a B.A. degree in Economics (to go along with my Comp. Sci degree, strange I know) and it's in one of my old Econ books(one of those facts you don't forget. FYI, Australia became part of the British Empire in 1901) Before that they were just british criminals. I thought the same think that you did when I first read that, but it was proven to me to be correct.
If I was home and not at work I could give you the book, page #, etc. I have not found published World GDP data on the web, but it's probably there somewhere. I'm not trying to pull your chain or anything like that (I prefer written facts too)
Okay, by definition, the largest economy is the one with the highest GDP (Gross Domestic Product). In 1900, Argentina had the Highest GDP of any nation in the world.
Slashdot Mirror
Not voting is an irrational form of protest. While this statement is common (I was about to post the same thing before I noticed yours) Democracy only works if all the people vote for canidates. People complain about government all the time, yet less than 50% of ALL registerd voters go to the polls one day a year. So only 50% of the people are making decisions for the other 50%.
Last I checked there is normally a "write in" slot where you can write in a canidates name. So if you don't like any of the canidates vote for yourself.
Additionally besides the presidency there are many local issues that will affect you more directly that you should go out and vote for. At least go out and voice your opinion for things that will be done in your small town, city, or suburb. By giving up this freedom you are turning the democratic process into a form of dictatorship.
Maybe we should force people to pay a voting tax. Back when they had a voting tax many more people excercised their right to vote. Women finally got the right in 1928? in the 20's and they don't vote any more than men.
at that point you really need to kill the commander. what game did you like better? UFO defense or TFTD? I prefered the plot in UFO defense, but game options and research was better in TFTD. Ship missions were cool, but a lot harder than the city. And with 40+ aliens to a base that made it extremely difficult.
X-COM! What a great game! What sucked was when your commander got chased down by a crysalid (sp?)Bye Bye best squadie! Now you're a zombie.
A tax cut won't inject more money into the economy, the money will just be spent differently.
What does the government do with your money? Save it? No, it spends it. Same with consumers.
The U.S. savings rate is -0.04%. We are spending more than we are making. I'd like to think that a tax cut would allow Americans to save, especially with the high interest rates but we'd just spend it.
Back to my point, a tax cut doesn't directly undermine what Alan Greenspan is trying to do. Whether the government or consumer spends the money, the bottom line is the money is spent. A tax cut has an indirect effect on the amount of money, but no direct one.
If you are worried about the amount of money, one of the reasons for our boom is foreign investors wanting $'s. The Dollar is the currency of choice right now. Until that changes it will be hard to cap inflation.
I do agree with you though. The money should be used to pay off the debt. But consumers need to do their part. Until consumers learn to save, the debt won't go down.
National Debt = Debt Held by the Government + Debt Held by the Public
That Negative savings rate doesn't help.
September 13, 2000 the NATIONAL DEBT was $5,685,088,778,465.03
Interest Payments are over $350 BILLION a year. Ouch.
According to the narrow minded blind, deaf and dumb professor, the world has no competition AND no company in the world wants to make a proffit.
First, IF windows cost $1000 a copy, companies would be scrabling to write their own OS's to cut into the OS market and grab their piece of the proffits. No one would allow M$ to get away with making that much money willingly.
Second, PC users would not upgrade their versions of windows, and Linux would look much more enticing as a "free" OS.
Third, The problem of "Double Marginalization", while real, is already happening with Windowns and M$ Office because of the monopoly abuse. Since the products together have no significant competition M$ has already increased the price to above the maximize profit level. We are already at the high level that the article is talking about. So breaking up the company will subject the company to price it's products on the Profit Maximization intersection, not above it.
The article is assuming that the two products "complete" against each other, that one can't operate without the other, but that is wrong. The OS is not dependant on the Office Suite. It just seems that way because it's been done for the last 5 years or so.
Fifth, as the cost of the OS increases, it will be more subject to piracy issues, further decreasing profit.
The End
I fail to see your connection between Coke, Pepsi, and cutting labor. Did Coke or Pepsi cut labor before raising prices?
I'm guessing the price increase was related to higher costs. And since soda is basically the made from the same material, if cost of carbonated water goes up for Coke, it's also going to go up for Pepsi. Neither benefits by keeping the final sale cost down, so they raise prices. I'm betting it could have been mutual. Just speculation. I can't say that the price of Pepsi has gone up where I live. It was 69cents last week(for a 2 liter bottle). A special of course, it will be back up to $1.29 in no time.
If the proffit margin of a company, any company, gets too big there is a lot of incentive for new companies to enter the marketplace and take market share. I.e. Intel and AMD. Granted there were some technology issues, but hardware has never been so cheap and the price has never dropped faster.
That ultimately will benefit consumers in the long run. I should have clarified that earlier.
ALL OF MY ANALYSIS IS FOR THE LONG TERM
There, That said you are exactally right about the short term, it will increase a companies bottom line. No change comes instantaineous and benefits sometime take a couple of years to filter down to the consumer. Humans are too impatient, they want everything NOW! not later.
Note To: NecroPuppy Nothing said was personal, sometimes it seems that way. Sorry if it did.
Consumers are also "dying" to maximize the value of their dollar, or pound, or whatever. They can't do that if there is a massive labor shortage in the technology sector.
Think about it. Your salary drops $5000 a year due to the influx of labor. Yet you can now purchase $6000 more a year in Goods and Services (G&S) due to the lower costs that the companies pass on to the consumer. So you have benefited from the cheaper products. Same applies if you move to a new area and take a salary cut. You may actually be better off because G&S are significantly cheaper.
Most Supply and demands curves are very elasic to price changes. Decreasing the price 1% could result in a 2% increase in sales, not only does that offset the expense of the lower sale cost, but the company makes significantly more revenue from the additional sale. Only a few items (Drugs, medical treatment) have inelastic demand curves.
--A mind is like a paracute, it only functions when open.
If everyone in the world took this view, than we would be building a 50ft wall around each country, then each state, then each county, then each town, then each home. You get the point. If the labor market brings thousands of jobs over here then you (as a consumer) will benefit from CHEAPER and BETTER products. Just because you aren't a good enough programer to hold a job against competition doesn't mean the other 270 MILLION americans in this country need to pay more just to keep you employed.
Competition brings out the best in all of us. and like you said, lets think about this critically. From an economic standpoint (which I have a degree in too, in addition to my computer science degree)If you don't allow the for the free movement of labor, than you will get the movement of goods and services into your country. everyone complains about the trade deficit, but it is caused by us (as a nation) not producing the goods here in america, but overseas because it is too expensive here (due to the tight labor market). This is not a good or bad thing, it is just a natural economic process.
So, in conclusion, if you don't open the boarders to overseas workers, you will lose your job to them anyway because they will start exporting their goods and services into the U.S. effectively putting YOU out of a job and your company out of business. Then you will have to move to another country to find work and compete. Who would your rather have move? Them or us?
Have a nice day!
---A mind is like a parachute, it only functions when opened.
I object to a number of points.
First what does unchristian have to do with anything? Is the author blaming Christians for creating copyrights? I'm a Christian and what I was taught was that we should share not hord. I don't see any link between Christianity and pattents. Could someone elaborate who has a different point of view?
Say what you want about IP and pattents, but without them we would not be where we are today economically. Business would have little ensentive to innovate, medical breakthroughs would rarely happen (why would you put up millions of $$ in R&D if you can't recoup any of the cost) While I think the DMCA was to extreme and a bunch of politians who have no technical experience had no idea what they were writting, that happens with just about all the bills that are passed by congress. Health care, gun control, social security, etc.
Lets see, how many congresspeople have been doctors? Served on a police force? Most make too much money in retirement that they don't even get a social security check! Yet they pass regulations on it. They are not our best and brightest. You can't expect perfection. The best and brightest normally go elsewhere and do other things.
Back to the article. It's easy to print gloom and doom. Americans love it. Just look at all the Y2K books! I picked up one and it claimed that there are over 15,000 embeded computer chips in every oil rig in the world, and they will all shut down on Jan 1, 2000. What bull. Lets spend our time and energy fighting and educating people about the shortcomings of these laws (which most of us are doing) instead of trying to gain publicity for personal gain.
Please elaborate how 'developing a process and getting a pattent for it' is related to 'the effort that you put into driving a car'. Last time I checked, you had to purchase a car from a dealership (or another owner). When you did that you got the right/privillage to put that effort into driving the car. Your driving ability, like playing basketball, is not pattentable. there is no relationship. You also spent thousands of hours learning to walk. Should be pay you royalties too?
Do you not agree with intelectual property rights? Do you have a better solution? If so please enlighten all of us. I'd like to think I have an open mind.
What does the oil blockage and Seattle Riots have to do with DeCSS? I support DeCSS 100%, but the oil blockage of France did not do the country any good and the riots of Seattle did little for the people stuck in sweatshops working 18 hour days.
Instead of the consumer paying for gas as they use it (IMO, the fair way), the government pays for it. Last time I checked, the government get's its revenue from taxes, which a citizen pays whether or not they drive a car. Add the additional burocracy to implement the program and you end up paying more per gallon in the end. Not to mention that cheaper gas promotes more pollution and does not give us an incentive to find, develop, or use alternative energy resources.
While I'm off topic I'll mention Seattle. Those rioters were not concerned about the welfare of third world countries, they were concerned about their own hourly wage. By closing America to cheaper foreign imports, they have less competition (this is labor competition, not product competition) so they can charge hire wages, ultimately making our companies less competitive.
Before you say sweatshops are evil/bad/whatever, I agree completely, but America had sweatshops and other poor working conditions from approximately 1820-1920. 100 years of exploting the poor. Yet without this period of hard work, the economy could not have developed to the next level. In the 19th century, no one knew what factories would do to society. Now we do. Now we have money to speed up the process. This is not a step that a developing nation can skip in the economic process, but the pain and suffering of 100 years that our culture experience can be drastically reduced to hopefully 30-40 years. We have money. We have experience. The fastest/best way to share that is with free trade with the 3rd world economies. Any anyone for the free distribution of information must understand that the free distribution of goods & services is equally important.
You forget the expiration date on the card. No transaction is complete with out that. It adds an extra 4 digits and would allow reuse of numbers.
Monopolies are not illegal in the U.S. contrary to public opinion. ABUSE of monopoly power is illegal in the U.S. Electric companies have had monopoly power for years. The counter force is strict government regulation. While I don't favor government regulation and intervention, in some circumstances it is warranted.
In certain circumstances monopolies are desired but you are right, most of the time they are not. There is no incentive to develop better products (Intel! but they now have some serious comptetion from AMD) Why give companies the ability/temptation to break/abuse the consumer? Being held accountable is a great deterrant.(sp?)
What did the author mean by the "one-click-shopping patent" ? Are you trying to tell me that Amazon.com is attempting to patent the single click? Let me guess, they will attempt to extract royalties from any other company that sells or has sold a good or service on the internet, correct?
I hate to get off subject but I've never heard of this. Does anyone have a website, article, or proof? (I do believe you, I just want to learn more)
Do they honestly think they can get that through the patent office?
I DO work at LM. While I don't work on the Tomahawk missle (what horrible spelling I had the first time, no excuse for that) I'm not ignorant of the fact that the Air Force launches them from B-52's and the Navy launches them from surface ships and Los Angeles Class Submarines.
This story was not about multiple versions. They were comparing apples to apples.
As to valuing human life, I do value it, but I would work on the Tomahawk or any other weapons systems. It sounds like you don't understand the value of a strong military, and that by having a strong military as a deteriant you save lives.
You must know about M.A.D. and Nuclear weapons. While the thought of nuclear war is crazy, if we had not had such a large array of weapons, who knows what the U.S.S.R. might have done.You can't "uninvent" nuclear weapons or nuclear power.
One of the reasons Hitler killed so many people and caused so much destructions is because we were unwilling to act sooner! Jews were being killed and we ignored evidence. Even after Perl Harbor was bombed, we were caught with our pants around our ankles jerking off. And a large number of passifists did not want to declare war.
The sad thing is in human history, Barbarians and chaos have always eventually won. We think the U.S. is so powerful, but it's not even 225 years old. Rome was around for almost 700 YEARS! before it fell to the barbairans. Lets see where we are 500 years from now before we start claiming a great society. And the reason that Rome fell was that they lost their political will to fight (and the Rhine froze over the winter of 406 allowing the barbairans to cross in large numbers which had never happened before.)
We all know that space travel is dangerous an costly. When the two probes crashed last December, CBS news reported that out of 16 missions to mars (between the U.S. and former Soviet Union) only 9 were successful.
I can think of a lot of places that the government wastes our money with NO benefit to us. Take the military for example. How many Billions of "pork" are added to the militaries budget for equipment they don't want or need?
Last fall (can't remember) the two senators from Utah added to a bill a multi-million dollar contract to build old Tomahock cruise missles.(can't remember the exact number, want to say 320 but that could be way off) Ironically the "old" facility was located in their state, the new facility for "new" Tomahock cruise missles was located elsewhere.
Cost of one Old Missle $1,100,000
Cost of one New Missle $600,000
(prices approximate)
Now, why would the military want the old missles when the new ones were cheaper, more accurate, and could travel farther with updated guidance systems and engines.
After getting off topic, producing these missles is just one of thousands of examples of wasted money. I'm not sure how scientific research is wasted money. And as a percentage of our GDP the probes were just a drop in an ocean. You take the good and the bad, I just don't see why someone has to be blamed for every project that turn out perfect. (exception, whoever screwed up the inches/meters measurement on the first Mars probe DID waste our money! )
Oh, besides those two mars probes, can someone list other recent NASA failures? Now list thier successes.
Tell me again how a nuclear power plant produces greenhouse gases? Oh, that's right It doesn't!, unless you start counting the cars that the workers drive to work in and the polution emited from the construction crew. There is no combustion involved therefor to the best of my knowledge you can't emit C20 or H20, the byproducts of combustion.
Nuclear power is the future, more specifically Nuclear Fussion.
FYI, the approximate population of Great Britian is 60 million.
The approximate pop. of the U.S. is 270 million. So it's about 22% of the U.S. population, crammed into a state the size of Virginia? Probably closer to Virginia and West Virginia combined.
And they have many more government sponsered programs which require tax dollars (gas taxes!) I don't agree with many of their socialist programs, but that is my personal opinion.....
Okay, so guns protect 2 million people each year. I've never heard about that stat. It still doesn't explain why other 1st world countries in Europe, who have very strick gun control laws, have so few homicides. I think Great Britian was under or near 100 gun related deaths a year in the late 90's. With a population of approximately 60 million? that would be the equivalent of 500 deaths a year in the U.S.
As a counterpoint to myself, G.B. also has much higher rates for rape, assaults, and robbery than the U.S. does.
Think we got off topic a little? *laugh*
Okay, lets talk about those 35,000 gun deaths. I'm guessing that only 1% are justified (self-defense) and warranted. But lets assume that 10% are justified. Even so you then have 31,500 people that shouldn't have died. (of course outlawing guns will not solve the problem.)
For the record: The ACLU holds the 2nd Amendment is not an individual right.
This may be true, but what an organization says and what it does can be two different things.
I wasn't trying to claim that a product would be put to bad ends, I just was stating that everyone jumps on the bad and rarely focuses on the good a device like this could cause.
What is worse, having your civil liberities being violated or being critically injured?
False dilemma. Those aren't our only choices
This is not a false dilemma, it's an example of how people priorities fall. Just an example. Nothing more. I see it as misplaced priorities. Sorry if I offended you.
All the company has to do is refuse to sell a policy to anyone who doesn't consent to be scanned. If every insurance company does it, what's your recourse?
You naturally assume that all insurance companies are going to install them and the government and the people will just stand by silently while our civil liberties are being violated. To quote you from earlier, "False dilemma". We both know that people will not stand by and just watch, and we both know that the government will probably do something (Remember doing something and doing the right thing are completely different.)
I know this is flaimbait, but most of you who post on /. are the most pessimistic people in the world! I also feel that you have your priorities backwards.
Just becuase a product MIGHT be abused doesn't mean that it will. Why don't all of you start a campain against Guns in the U.S. because that is a product that kills about 35,000 each year! (Approximate # of deaths due to gunshot wounds).
What is worse, having your civil liberities being violated or being critically injured? Don't worry, the ACLU will fight for you concerning this device, but they won't fight for gun control (or at least I've never seen them, maybe they do)
It sounds like the benefits of this device could far outweigh the potential negative misuses. Yet you concentrate on the misuses. Insurance companies installing them? My guess is running an illegal scan of your body without written concent would probably subject them to being sued.
--the person who wrote this has now been sacked.
While I partially agree with most of what you said, I really don't think the FBI is going to use their Carnivore boxes for "illegal" network programs like Napster (unless ordered by a judge then that is a whole different issue with different implications.)
Even they would probably consider it a waste of resources, and last I checked Congress did not give them an infinate budget to track down every illegal file transfer in the U.S.
--If Pro is opposite of Con, then is Congress the opposite of Progress?
Trying to find one but no luck.
I got a B.A. degree in Economics (to go along with my Comp. Sci degree, strange I know) and it's in one of my old Econ books(one of those facts you don't forget. FYI, Australia became part of the British Empire in 1901) Before that they were just british criminals. I thought the same think that you did when I first read that, but it was proven to me to be correct.
If I was home and not at work I could give you the book, page #, etc. I have not found published World GDP data on the web, but it's probably there somewhere. I'm not trying to pull your chain or anything like that (I prefer written facts too)
I'll get back to you.
Okay, by definition, the largest economy is the one with the highest GDP (Gross Domestic Product). In 1900, Argentina had the Highest GDP of any nation in the world.