Sounds like you're describing just about every component framework ever created--at least in theory. Making it work in practice and not royally suck appears to be hard.
Read my lips: You will always have to create a package for each distribution, app bundles do not solve this problem.
Unless your application is a fully self contained virtual machine AND the program that knows how to run it, depending on nothing but bog standard libc and POSIX, then this will be true. If you want anything remotely complicated you *will* have to deal with distribution inconsistencies.
"But apple..."
You still have to be careful because every version of OS X isn't always the same. Even so it's still only a small handful of 'distributions' with a small set of changes.
"But on windows..."
You forget that some apps don't work with XP, only Vista, or vice versa. Some apps requite a C runtime DLL that isn't always there. You mostly forget that all Windows plus all service packs for the last 15 years amounts to a fraction of the number of 'current' Linux distributions and has a lot less variance.
If all the Linux world were Red Hat then there would be no problem.
If all the Linux world were Debian then there would be no problem.
I didn't program it myself, I used one the numerous ones available around the web. I think it was like 8K or something. And no, it didn't have all the animation gimmicks the JQuery one did, but it did what I needed it do -- er, popup a calendar, and input a date in a functional, attractive way.
A few extra kb is a small price to pay for having a well tested and robust calendar, IMO. Being hard to break and not having bugs are both important to me. And, once I've loaded the 80k or whatever anyway, I find it's seductively easy to sprinkle little bits of jQuery here and there to great effect.
Most pure JS calendar code out there is really horrible, really incomplete or both. jQuery's animations and whatnot don't add a huge overhead in the codebase and you can (and should) turn them off.
It may be more readable but it's a lot more verbose, meaning more typing and less code on the screen at once. Both of these things can be worse than losing a little descriptiveness.
It is better to split out into named functions in some cases, but not every time (and often not for short bits of code). Maybe it's the Perl hacker in me talking, but sometimes the "less readable" version is easier to understand.
We already have that browser, it's called Firefox. And we all ready have a desktop-style-GUI-builder markup language, it's called XUL.
If you assume you're writing for an XUL-aware browser then 90% of what you need is there and has been for years. Not to say that XUL couldn't use some work. In the real world it would never be adopted cross browser as is but it could serve as the basis for a proposal for a standard markup language intended for this purpose.
Home owner's associates would tend to claim that being an eyesore is disturbing the peace of others.
That's your problem - we don't have "home-owners associations" up here. Maybe you should pass a law to ban them.
I agree, and I'd love to. Some people seem to want them, though I've never met one who will admit to it. FYI, your municipal laws are acting a lot like home owner's association rules in that one is not permitted to opt out (except by being told "don't live there") and the rules themselves are arbitrary and draconian.
There is NO reason to be dropping notes off in people's mailboxes at 3am.
I already outlined a scenario in which someone might without having any evil intent.
If that person doesn't have a dog, the neighbours across the street, or next door, do. Plus, you're trespassing, same as the local public security guy can't go into the driveway after dark to check for up-to-date car registrations or other issues
It's certainly not trespassing. What's the mailbox there for if no one is permitted to access it? The whole point is that it's an invitation to receive messages.
In no way should someone be arrested or fined for inadvertently causing all of the dogs in a neighborhood to bark, no matter what the hour!
It's not inadvertent. When you hear them starting, that should be a clue to leave. You don't, then you're an asshole. Plus, you ARE trespassing, in the dark. Sounds like a formula to get yourself paint-balled to death.
It is inadvertent if I set them off while dropping off a message quietly, as opposed to deliberately provoking them. Once they start the damage has been done even if I do leave right away. If I am on the street and the dogs start barking I am not trespassing. Mailboxes are frequently street (or sidewalk) accessible. You are suggesting that it should be a crime to walk down a street at 3am and put something in a box because dogs might start barking and because the mailbox is your property and accessing it is therefore trespassing. This is crazy.
You "excuse" fails in the face of the facts. The reality is the law has worked. It keeps our doorsteps junk-free after 8pm and before 7am. It keeps people from hammering away at all hours of the night. It keeps people from skulking around claiming they have a legitimate purpose when they're up to no good. It keeps people from dumping stuff in the mailbox at 3am. It keeps people who try to dump stuff in my mailbox at 3 am from getting body parts removed by normally-very-friendly dogs (and no, since trespassing is a criminal act, you have no civil recourse here, unlike the U.S., where crooks can sue if they get hurt)
I'm sure that's all true, but I'm equally sure that there are better ways to get the same effect without having horrible laws that do horrible things to people who are not malicious. An effective way to prevent crime is to punish every crime with death, but it's still not a good solution. An effective way to prevent traffic jams is to severely limit who is permitted to drive a car, but it's also not a good solution. You could get the same benefits by simply imposing a curfew banning any sort of travel after dark, but it would not be a good solution. Arguing that because the desired result is achieved the laws are justified is not sufficient.
Home owner's associates would tend to claim that being an eyesore is disturbing the peace of others.
I'm willing to believe that there was a serious issue which was solved by passing these laws, but I don't think it could possibly be the right solution to the problem. There's nothing inherently harmful in dropping off a note at 3AM, given that not everybody has dogs. Punishing people for acting in good faith is never a good idea. Fining people for behaving in an average way is not a good idea. I'm sure your community had some real problem that is now gone, but I am equally sure that incalculable harm is being done as a result. In no way should someone be arrested or fined for inadvertently causing all of the dogs in a neighborhood to bark, no matter what the hour!
It seems like a system begging to be abused. What if I file a complaint just to harass someone? I could always make a flier myself and claim they dropped it off, or take one that was delivered during regular hours and claim it was delivered after. If it can be abused it will be abused; the application of the law is likely to be at least as much of a nuisance as whatever it was designed to prevent!
The email jab notwithstanding, chances are that for most people a call would be less appreciated than a silent drop-off of a note.
I'm all for stopping bad actors, but someone disturbing you with power tools is just insensitive and need not have the law thrown at him.I bet you're a member of a home-owner's association, too, and like to make sure your neighbor's lawn is a regulation height! Behavior should be at least grossly overbearing before the law is involved. Passing broad laws to target specific sorts of bad behavior is also a recipe for disaster.
You're not sure if Android is a word, but you're sure about Droid? Droid as a short form for Android was used in Star Wars. Doesn't that suggest that Android predates Droid?
And it's not a patent, it's a trademark. There's a large difference.
If you're trying to hand-deliver a letter at 3 in the morning, you'd better call ahead of time.
What? And wake people up? Isn't it much more polite to just leave the letter in their box so that they can get to it when they're ready?
It's not for "no reason" any more than not allowing people to run circular saws at 5am is "no reason." People have a right to live in peace, and that means no circulars or other crap dumped in their mailbox or on their porch after 8pm in most municipalities - we demanded the laws be passed in city council specifically to deal with the mountain of useless crap advertisers want us to pay to recycle.
Whoa whoa whoa! For a second there I thought you said there was a law against using a circular saw at 5AM. If true, that's ridiculously outrageous.
As for the rest, I am not talking about delivering a package or receiving junk mail. I am talking about me, let's say a love sick young man, hand delivering a note to a young lady's mailbox at an ungodly hour (because that's when I finished writing it, of course, and I simply cannot wait for the regular post!) If that's illegal, then that's insane. I am hoping you're speaking loosely and simply didn't realize you were implying "any message" and that we were not specifically talking about junk mail.
Regardless, it sounds like I never want to live where you live. Quebec you say? I'll keep right out.
We also have a program where you put a "no fliers" sticker on your mailbox, and even the post office won't deliver junk mail unless it's addressed to the individual occupant. Again backed up with fines of $300.00 to $1,000.00
Since we're being lawyers I will argue that the book is not titled "Android" and that a "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?" model, or brand, of phone would be sufficiently different to the average consumer that no confusion would result.
It's still a homage. Not having a trademark on the name of a consumer electronics device is just plain stupid, business-wise. I don't think that sales of the book will be harmed by this, nor do I expect that there will be any confusion over which is which. In a good society with good laws there's no way the Dick estate would be able to get a dime or force any change based on this. Nobody asks for permission from Karel apek or his estate before calling something a robot, even though it's a clear reference, and I don't see why this should be any different.
The case of Droid is very different in that there really was an existing trademark and, though it would likely be legal use the name in another field, it's always (legally) safer to get permission.
What if the person was a delivery agent but it's 3 in the morning?
He'd be arrested. The city bans ALL junk mail like fliers and crap between 8pm and 7am. ANY delivery at 3am is going to get you a conversation with the cops over here.
What city?
What happens if I'm hand-delivering a letter that isn't a flier and isn't junk mail? Do I still get harassed for no reason?
It is my assumption that certs are required for two purposes: Providing a unique, unambiguous identifier and to allow for revocation in case of malware. Self signed certs are OK for the former, but what about the latter?
In any event, however kool-aid it may be, a lot of people (read: companies and governments) like verifiable certs with known CAs. Adding an option to require this would make them happy.
I worked at a place where they had us do this. Basically, it's an idea that the management like but nobody else cares for. After 6 months the "mandatory" thing had stopped being enforced and after a year almost nobody wore the department shirt. Deal with it, at least they aren't telling you how to do you job.
Sure it has a phone app and can make calls, but it was clearly not designed to be a phone (or a camera, or a music player, or...)
What I mean is that it is not good at being a phone, even a smart phone; there are a lot of clunky UI issues to deal with. Fortunately the apps are starting to pour in, so that problem is going away.
I don't mean to be critical or anything. I bought an n900 and I like it, but the unwary consumer might not. It is not supposed to be a phone for someone who wants a phone. It's a handheld computer for someone who wants a handheld computer that also can make calls.
For example, the right to life imposes an obligation on others not to deprive you of that - in other words, not to kill you. But even though there are things that you need in order to remain alive (e.g., food, shelter), those are not natural rights because that would require an obligation on someone else to provide you with food and shelter.
I do not recognize property as being something that is yours, and thus not something of which you can be deprived. Your time, your life, your free will... these are all yours because they are physically a part of you and inseparable by any known science (not even death! This does not separate components so much as destroy the whole.)
I think that natural rights impose an obligation on others to not unduly take from you one thing or another.
[snip]
When you consider natural rights in this way, the right to property kind of makes sense - it obliges people to not unduly deprive you of property, but it makes no obligations on others to provide you that property in the first place.
Property cannot be taken from you since you do not own it to begin with. Any property you have has been granted to you by the government along with any rights to it. It is therefore a problem if another citizen takes your property in violation of your franchise, but not if the government takes it back. Property, which is effectively land and things descended from land, is the exclusive domain of the government. Private ownership is merely a kind of temporary grant that the government permits, like a patent, to inspire industriousness.
Any other view of property, however popular, is perverse and unrealistic. The fact that other views are so popular is a large contributing factor to social and economic problems.
Note that the GP didn't say it will put disproportionally fewer innocent people - only that there will be fewer innocent people.
Fixed it for you. You and the OP made the same mistake. It's like nails on a chalk board, honestly!
You can have fewer innocent people or you can have less innocent people, but it means different things. Less innocent people are not as innocent, fewer innocent people are of a smaller number.
The FDA works fine for years until a Republican congress and presidency drastically underfund it, slash investigators, etc. and promote industry self-policing, all in the name of smaller government. Do you see how you defeat yourself? Smaller government and corporate self regulation leads to a large public negative! And you have the balls to blame the FDA for this?
The internet, yeah it was partially developed by DOD and then properly turned over to the private sector when the commercial uses become apparent. You think we would have seen the rush of online innovation if the government was still in charge?
Do you realize that 90% of the protocols and technologies we use on the internet today are the same as, or very slightly modified forms of, the ones developed with government funding? What I mean is... what innovation? If you mean all of the things built on top of the government-funded work, then I've got news for you! It's not capitalism being successful it's simply a numbers game. Innovation exploded on the internet when anyone was permitted to build on top of it. To compare apples to apples you have to compare the internet to commercially-developed computer networks or you have to only look at innovations that improve upon the stuff the government actually funded, not the stuff they hadn't gotten to yet.
I have and have known many who have been very successful. I don't think it's the capitalist society that is the problem so much as the societal mindset in the inner-cities.
The problem is that capitalism only supports a few successful people, everyone else has to be poor. I do not doubt that the best, brightest and most motivated inner city kids can succeed but that does not forgive a system which condemns 99 out of every 100 to misery without recourse. That's not each individual having the ability, that's each individual having a chance at getting lucky. Each has a different chance until 1 of each group of 100 succeeds, then the rest are screwed.
Slashdot Mirror
Sounds like you're describing just about every component framework ever created--at least in theory. Making it work in practice and not royally suck appears to be hard.
Read my lips: You will always have to create a package for each distribution, app bundles do not solve this problem.
Unless your application is a fully self contained virtual machine AND the program that knows how to run it, depending on nothing but bog standard libc and POSIX, then this will be true. If you want anything remotely complicated you *will* have to deal with distribution inconsistencies.
"But apple..."
You still have to be careful because every version of OS X isn't always the same. Even so it's still only a small handful of 'distributions' with a small set of changes.
"But on windows..."
You forget that some apps don't work with XP, only Vista, or vice versa. Some apps requite a C runtime DLL that isn't always there. You mostly forget that all Windows plus all service packs for the last 15 years amounts to a fraction of the number of 'current' Linux distributions and has a lot less variance.
If all the Linux world were Red Hat then there would be no problem.
If all the Linux world were Debian then there would be no problem.
It isn't true. It won't ever be true.
You will always need per-distribution packages.
Deal with it.
ZeroInstall (aka 0install) (http://0install.net/howitworks.html)
rox filer/rox desktop (http://roscidus.com/desktop/)
nixOS (http://nixos.org/nixos/)
GoboLinux (http://www.gobolinux.org/)
If it were a *good* idea one or more of these things would be dominating by now.
I didn't program it myself, I used one the numerous ones available around the web. I think it was like 8K or something. And no, it didn't have all the animation gimmicks the JQuery one did, but it did what I needed it do -- er, popup a calendar, and input a date in a functional, attractive way.
A few extra kb is a small price to pay for having a well tested and robust calendar, IMO. Being hard to break and not having bugs are both important to me. And, once I've loaded the 80k or whatever anyway, I find it's seductively easy to sprinkle little bits of jQuery here and there to great effect.
Most pure JS calendar code out there is really horrible, really incomplete or both. jQuery's animations and whatnot don't add a huge overhead in the codebase and you can (and should) turn them off.
It may be more readable but it's a lot more verbose, meaning more typing and less code on the screen at once. Both of these things can be worse than losing a little descriptiveness.
It is better to split out into named functions in some cases, but not every time (and often not for short bits of code). Maybe it's the Perl hacker in me talking, but sometimes the "less readable" version is easier to understand.
We already have that browser, it's called Firefox. And we all ready have a desktop-style-GUI-builder markup language, it's called XUL.
If you assume you're writing for an XUL-aware browser then 90% of what you need is there and has been for years. Not to say that XUL couldn't use some work. In the real world it would never be adopted cross browser as is but it could serve as the basis for a proposal for a standard markup language intended for this purpose.
Home owner's associates would tend to claim that being an eyesore is disturbing the peace of others.
That's your problem - we don't have "home-owners associations" up here. Maybe you should pass a law to ban them.
I agree, and I'd love to. Some people seem to want them, though I've never met one who will admit to it. FYI, your municipal laws are acting a lot like home owner's association rules in that one is not permitted to opt out (except by being told "don't live there") and the rules themselves are arbitrary and draconian.
There is NO reason to be dropping notes off in people's mailboxes at 3am.
I already outlined a scenario in which someone might without having any evil intent.
If that person doesn't have a dog, the neighbours across the street, or next door, do. Plus, you're trespassing, same as the local public security guy can't go into the driveway after dark to check for up-to-date car registrations or other issues
It's certainly not trespassing. What's the mailbox there for if no one is permitted to access it? The whole point is that it's an invitation to receive messages.
In no way should someone be arrested or fined for inadvertently causing all of the dogs in a neighborhood to bark, no matter what the hour!
It's not inadvertent. When you hear them starting, that should be a clue to leave. You don't, then you're an asshole. Plus, you ARE trespassing, in the dark. Sounds like a formula to get yourself paint-balled to death.
It is inadvertent if I set them off while dropping off a message quietly, as opposed to deliberately provoking them. Once they start the damage has been done even if I do leave right away. If I am on the street and the dogs start barking I am not trespassing. Mailboxes are frequently street (or sidewalk) accessible. You are suggesting that it should be a crime to walk down a street at 3am and put something in a box because dogs might start barking and because the mailbox is your property and accessing it is therefore trespassing. This is crazy.
You "excuse" fails in the face of the facts. The reality is the law has worked. It keeps our doorsteps junk-free after 8pm and before 7am. It keeps people from hammering away at all hours of the night. It keeps people from skulking around claiming they have a legitimate purpose when they're up to no good. It keeps people from dumping stuff in the mailbox at 3am. It keeps people who try to dump stuff in my mailbox at 3 am from getting body parts removed by normally-very-friendly dogs (and no, since trespassing is a criminal act, you have no civil recourse here, unlike the U.S., where crooks can sue if they get hurt)
I'm sure that's all true, but I'm equally sure that there are better ways to get the same effect without having horrible laws that do horrible things to people who are not malicious. An effective way to prevent crime is to punish every crime with death, but it's still not a good solution. An effective way to prevent traffic jams is to severely limit who is permitted to drive a car, but it's also not a good solution. You could get the same benefits by simply imposing a curfew banning any sort of travel after dark, but it would not be a good solution. Arguing that because the desired result is achieved the laws are justified is not sufficient.
Home owner's associates would tend to claim that being an eyesore is disturbing the peace of others.
I'm willing to believe that there was a serious issue which was solved by passing these laws, but I don't think it could possibly be the right solution to the problem. There's nothing inherently harmful in dropping off a note at 3AM, given that not everybody has dogs. Punishing people for acting in good faith is never a good idea. Fining people for behaving in an average way is not a good idea. I'm sure your community had some real problem that is now gone, but I am equally sure that incalculable harm is being done as a result. In no way should someone be arrested or fined for inadvertently causing all of the dogs in a neighborhood to bark, no matter what the hour!
It seems like a system begging to be abused. What if I file a complaint just to harass someone? I could always make a flier myself and claim they dropped it off, or take one that was delivered during regular hours and claim it was delivered after. If it can be abused it will be abused; the application of the law is likely to be at least as much of a nuisance as whatever it was designed to prevent!
The email jab notwithstanding, chances are that for most people a call would be less appreciated than a silent drop-off of a note.
I'm all for stopping bad actors, but someone disturbing you with power tools is just insensitive and need not have the law thrown at him.I bet you're a member of a home-owner's association, too, and like to make sure your neighbor's lawn is a regulation height! Behavior should be at least grossly overbearing before the law is involved. Passing broad laws to target specific sorts of bad behavior is also a recipe for disaster.
I reiterate that I find this all to be loony.
You're not sure if Android is a word, but you're sure about Droid? Droid as a short form for Android was used in Star Wars. Doesn't that suggest that Android predates Droid?
And it's not a patent, it's a trademark. There's a large difference.
If you're trying to hand-deliver a letter at 3 in the morning, you'd better call ahead of time.
What? And wake people up? Isn't it much more polite to just leave the letter in their box so that they can get to it when they're ready?
It's not for "no reason" any more than not allowing people to run circular saws at 5am is "no reason." People have a right to live in peace, and that means no circulars or other crap dumped in their mailbox or on their porch after 8pm in most municipalities - we demanded the laws be passed in city council specifically to deal with the mountain of useless crap advertisers want us to pay to recycle.
Whoa whoa whoa! For a second there I thought you said there was a law against using a circular saw at 5AM. If true, that's ridiculously outrageous.
As for the rest, I am not talking about delivering a package or receiving junk mail. I am talking about me, let's say a love sick young man, hand delivering a note to a young lady's mailbox at an ungodly hour (because that's when I finished writing it, of course, and I simply cannot wait for the regular post!) If that's illegal, then that's insane. I am hoping you're speaking loosely and simply didn't realize you were implying "any message" and that we were not specifically talking about junk mail.
Regardless, it sounds like I never want to live where you live. Quebec you say? I'll keep right out.
We also have a program where you put a "no fliers" sticker on your mailbox, and even the post office won't deliver junk mail unless it's addressed to the individual occupant. Again backed up with fines of $300.00 to $1,000.00
I see no problem with that.
Nobody asks for permission from Karel apek or his estate before calling something a robot
And nobody asks Isaac Asimov's widow if they can use the word "robotics". I agree, this is stupid.
Stupid slashdot ate my carefully-prepared, properly-accented character. I guess I should have just said Capek.
Since we're being lawyers I will argue that the book is not titled "Android" and that a "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?" model, or brand, of phone would be sufficiently different to the average consumer that no confusion would result.
Is Google really profiting or abusing Dick's IP
Insert howls of juvenile laughter here.
This topic is awesome.
It's still a homage. Not having a trademark on the name of a consumer electronics device is just plain stupid, business-wise. I don't think that sales of the book will be harmed by this, nor do I expect that there will be any confusion over which is which. In a good society with good laws there's no way the Dick estate would be able to get a dime or force any change based on this. Nobody asks for permission from Karel apek or his estate before calling something a robot, even though it's a clear reference, and I don't see why this should be any different.
The case of Droid is very different in that there really was an existing trademark and, though it would likely be legal use the name in another field, it's always (legally) safer to get permission.
What if the person was a delivery agent but it's 3 in the morning?
He'd be arrested. The city bans ALL junk mail like fliers and crap between 8pm and 7am. ANY delivery at 3am is going to get you a conversation with the cops over here.
What city?
What happens if I'm hand-delivering a letter that isn't a flier and isn't junk mail? Do I still get harassed for no reason?
It is my assumption that certs are required for two purposes: Providing a unique, unambiguous identifier and to allow for revocation in case of malware. Self signed certs are OK for the former, but what about the latter?
In any event, however kool-aid it may be, a lot of people (read: companies and governments) like verifiable certs with known CAs. Adding an option to require this would make them happy.
What the lockdown reduces is data leakage through sheer bloody stupidity.
Which is why it makes good sense to exempt the IT people from the lockdown. I know *I'm* not stupid, I have to enforce the rules to begin with!
I worked at a place where they had us do this. Basically, it's an idea that the management like but nobody else cares for. After 6 months the "mandatory" thing had stopped being enforced and after a year almost nobody wore the department shirt. Deal with it, at least they aren't telling you how to do you job.
The only problem is that the n900 is not a phone.
Sure it has a phone app and can make calls, but it was clearly not designed to be a phone (or a camera, or a music player, or...)
What I mean is that it is not good at being a phone, even a smart phone; there are a lot of clunky UI issues to deal with. Fortunately the apps are starting to pour in, so that problem is going away.
I don't mean to be critical or anything. I bought an n900 and I like it, but the unwary consumer might not. It is not supposed to be a phone for someone who wants a phone. It's a handheld computer for someone who wants a handheld computer that also can make calls.
For example, the right to life imposes an obligation on others not to deprive you of that - in other words, not to kill you. But even though there are things that you need in order to remain alive (e.g., food, shelter), those are not natural rights because that would require an obligation on someone else to provide you with food and shelter.
I do not recognize property as being something that is yours, and thus not something of which you can be deprived. Your time, your life, your free will... these are all yours because they are physically a part of you and inseparable by any known science (not even death! This does not separate components so much as destroy the whole.)
I think that natural rights impose an obligation on others to not unduly take from you one thing or another.
[snip]
When you consider natural rights in this way, the right to property kind of makes sense - it obliges people to not unduly deprive you of property, but it makes no obligations on others to provide you that property in the first place.
Property cannot be taken from you since you do not own it to begin with. Any property you have has been granted to you by the government along with any rights to it. It is therefore a problem if another citizen takes your property in violation of your franchise, but not if the government takes it back. Property, which is effectively land and things descended from land, is the exclusive domain of the government. Private ownership is merely a kind of temporary grant that the government permits, like a patent, to inspire industriousness.
Any other view of property, however popular, is perverse and unrealistic. The fact that other views are so popular is a large contributing factor to social and economic problems.
Note that the GP didn't say it will put disproportionally fewer innocent people - only that there will be fewer innocent people.
Fixed it for you. You and the OP made the same mistake. It's like nails on a chalk board, honestly!
You can have fewer innocent people or you can have less innocent people, but it means different things. Less innocent people are not as innocent, fewer innocent people are of a smaller number.
Not paying is an act of force, paying isn't.
FDA = Yeah, that's worked out real well.
The FDA works fine for years until a Republican congress and presidency drastically underfund it, slash investigators, etc. and promote industry self-policing, all in the name of smaller government. Do you see how you defeat yourself? Smaller government and corporate self regulation leads to a large public negative! And you have the balls to blame the FDA for this?
The internet, yeah it was partially developed by DOD and then properly turned over to the private sector when the commercial uses become apparent. You think we would have seen the rush of online innovation if the government was still in charge?
Do you realize that 90% of the protocols and technologies we use on the internet today are the same as, or very slightly modified forms of, the ones developed with government funding? What I mean is... what innovation? If you mean all of the things built on top of the government-funded work, then I've got news for you! It's not capitalism being successful it's simply a numbers game. Innovation exploded on the internet when anyone was permitted to build on top of it. To compare apples to apples you have to compare the internet to commercially-developed computer networks or you have to only look at innovations that improve upon the stuff the government actually funded, not the stuff they hadn't gotten to yet.
I have and have known many who have been very successful. I don't think it's the capitalist society that is the problem so much as the societal mindset in the inner-cities.
The problem is that capitalism only supports a few successful people, everyone else has to be poor. I do not doubt that the best, brightest and most motivated inner city kids can succeed but that does not forgive a system which condemns 99 out of every 100 to misery without recourse. That's not each individual having the ability, that's each individual having a chance at getting lucky. Each has a different chance until 1 of each group of 100 succeeds, then the rest are screwed.