This patent was applied for in 2009. I'm assuming Apple's engineers were working on the tech for some time prior to the patent being filed. The article you linked to is from 2011. So, in this case, it's not prior art.
Cable TV is still worth it if your household includes someone who is a fan of audiovisually presented national news (e.g. MSNBC, Fox News, HLN)
It's called NPR (npr.org) and you can stream it for free... if you feel guilty you can even make an annual donation that is a FRACTION of what Comcast charges.
or those live sports that are not on the farmer five but still blacked out online (e.g. ESPN, Versus).
It's called a sports bar. Most neighborhoods have them. They usually have AC, big TVs, a few good looking waitresses, and hot wings. No dishes, no cooking, and you might actually make some new friends.
Sure, you actually have to put some pants on in order to watch the big game. But, seriously, do you really watch a lot of sports in your underwear?
Oh, and getting live sports through sports bar is still cheaper than getting them at home via Comcast.
Got kids? Remember: Hooters is a family restaurant... (j/k)
You're supposed to FAILOVER between them, not load balance between them.
You can't hold amazon accountable for your own stupidity.
Beyond that, you have to ask yourself the question: how many outages would you have had with your own facility in the past year compared to this outage? Did you apply the same approach to your use of EC2 as you would to your own facility?
I know where the employees who work for me live. I know what car they drive. I know where they like to go to lunch. I have their social security number and a copy of their driver's license.
I also know a guy named Tony. Tony likes to break things. And ever since some pencil-neck computer nerd posted pictures of Tony's girlfriend on-line, Tony really likes to break computer nerds.
With Google, these things are much less transparent.
This is exactly why Apple doesn't want third-party UI systems on the iPad. They make their own business decision to improve their UI (something Google has needed for some time and something Google needs in order to survive against the likes of Bing) and now they are getting bad press because some lazy programmer can't figure out how to scrape their search results.
Intermediation is not a right. Businesses should have the right to engage with their customers without third-parties trying to intervene.
Actually, when he uses "proprietary" he means what he says: controlled by a private entity.
Jobs makes the point that Apple has plenty of proprietary technologies as well. However, HTML5, CSS and JavaScript are not proprietary. Even Adobe themselves are a part of the HTML5 spec process. You can join in that process today by either getting involved in the standards process or by writing code (as Apple has done) to support those standards. In fact, not only has Apple been a part of supporting those standards, they've also made their code open source and it is now being used by a wide range of their competitors in their competitors devices.
Go back and watch the iAd demo. Those ads were all created in HTML5, JavaScript, CSS and h.264 video. Compare those ads to most apps in the app store and then ask yourself why so many of those app developers didn't go the HTML5-route in writing their code considering that their Apps would then be cross-platform enabled (since Android uses WebKit as well).
The only reason to build a device-specific App is to take advantage of device-specific features. If you're building something akin to what is being delivered in the iAd demos, why are you bothering?
The iPhone supported sending pictures taken on the phone using the built-in email client from the very beginning. The best part: this feature was basically free (you'd already paid for the data service regardless).
By contrast, MMS messages require an additional charge (either an additional data plan or a per-message fee).
The only reason Apple ever decided to support MMS was because US-based customers wanted this feature to send pics to non-email capable phone users.
The iPhone also has no serial port sticking off of it. That's how it goes with old, outdated technology.
Does the company have an existing dress code? Do the IT guys follow that dress code well?
Let's be honest: IT guys have a reputation for being a bit sloppy. If that's the case here, perhaps the right approach would be for the team to do a better job of looking professional.
But if the team is already meeting the same expectations as the other employees, this just sounds like a giant waste of time. Money, energy and resources wasted on this would probably be better spent on something worthwhile that would actually have an impact on the team's ability to provide quality service.
Ok, honestly... how hard would it really be to put together a SIMPLE consumer OS?
Basically you need a browser, a media player and library and a file browser.
From there you *might* throw in a simple drawing program, text editor, calculator and a few other widgets.
The key is to simplify everything. Throw out all the extra bells and whistles, hire some good UI designers.
I personally don't think this is rocket science and most of these components are out there already just waiting to be put together. You could probably pull this off with a team of 100-200 programmers.
As for the hardware... these guys are already hardware manufacturers and know how to put together a machine. So, factor that part out.
The problem with Linux, to be honest, is that people want it to support whatever crappy computer they already own. Dell, HP or whoever could easily produce standardized systems that they have optimizied drivers for and that are fully tested. No need to support 800 different wifi cards, video drivers, disk controllers and other nonsense.
Let's be clear: Dell and HP could put this in motion of they had vision and balls. This wouldn't even have to be that significant of an investment on their part to get started. Look at how quickly Apple took BSD and whipped up OS X.
I own a mac and use OS X every day as my main computer. Let me tell you, it's buggy, single threaded and sometimes just annoying to use. Apple does a lot of things that are either just backwards or braindead. Everything else is just eyecandy.
Dell and HP DO have access to such an advantage... It's called Linux. They could make an investment in improving the Linux desktop and utilize Linux as their custom operating system.
Why don't they do this? Because they completely lack vision and they are sellers of commodity, crap electronics and not high-value systems integrators.
I personally think the MPAA and RIAA are behind this. They are the only ones who are really actively trying to find ways to identify Apple as a monopoly. If they can maintain that Apple has a monopoly here then the next step would be to sue them for having a monopoly on sales of digital content to OS X.
Remember... it first had to be proven that MS had a monopoly on the PC operating system before it could be proven they were using that monopoly power to compete unfairly in the browser business.
If Psystar shows that Apple has a monopoly on OS X and Apple computers, the MPAA and RIAA could then sue Apple over claims they are abusing that monopoly power to control digital content sales.
Why hide behind Psystar? Because if it doesn't work they would have a lot of egg on their face and much weaker negotiating position with Apple. This way they can pursue the claims secretly while they separately try and negotiate better deals with Apple as well as develop competitive products and channels. And, at a later date could probably bring the claims back under slightly different circumstances through a different shell.
It's also possible that MS is behind this. Forcing Apple to have to support general hardware would put them on a level playing field with MS. It could force Apple to publish their APIs and other system hooks. In addition it would create room for a serious low-cost competition for Apple and thus damage their hefty margins.
MS wouldn't do this in order to promote OS X adoption, but rather to hinder and hobble Apple and create new competitive threats for Apple that they are ill equipped to handle at present.
You're absolutely right that someone can buy it off the shelf and take it home and do whatever they want with those bits... and if they aren't doing what Apple says they will support then Apple doesn't have to support them.
But that's not what's going on here.
What's going on here is that Psystar is RESELLING the product claiming that the user is getting Apple OS X on compatible hardware. That's a far cry from "I go home and hack it onto my toaster". Now they are using Apple's brand name and Apple's marketing investment to push an inferior product to customers. How is it inferior? Becuase it's not running on the same hardware for which it was designed. They are making a lot of claims about their hardware's capabilities and compatability with Apple's software.
They are exploiting Apple's trademarks and copyrights.
There is a huge difference between Apple and Microsoft from a monopoly perspective.
Microsoft was using strong-arm, anti-competitive tactics to ensure that all desktop PC systems were using their operating system.
Remember how hard it was for people to try and get these companies to ship Linux on a PC? Remember how MS had them all tied up in licensing agreements that said that they couldn't ship a different OS?
And then, because Microsoft had all the desktop PC vendors locked up it was able to force them to ship it's web browser and have it set as the default?
That's completely different than Apple. Apple makes their own desktop PCs and they make the OS that runs on it. They aren't forcing Dell to adopt OSX. They aren't forcing HP to adopt OSX. They're saying... you guys use whatever OS you want, we are using our own, home-grown OS on our own hardware. We're selling an integrated system. You're selling a composite of mostly off-the-shelf parts bundled with support.
It'd be like saying Ford is exploiting their monopoly on Ford engine's because GM starts selling GM cars with Ford engines and labeling them as "Ford Clones". Because GM is using sub-standard parts or parts for which the Ford engine was never designed to support people are going to start buying the GM "Ford clone" and having problems... and will possibly blame Ford for incompatabilities, thus tarnishing Ford's brand.
I don't understand how people are confused about this. If Psystar wins this will pretty much destroy a lot more than the computer industry.
And it's besides the point, Apple has invested a huge amount of effort on top of what it inherited from BSD... as did most of the other OS's we use today... including Linux.
We do not have transparency...There is no power I can exercise over the Fed. There is no power congress can exercise over the Fed, aside from undoing it. It is not Federal. It is private. Yes, the Fed is required to report to congress, but what the Fed does is up to the Fed.
First off, you are contradicting yourself here. If the Fed reports to congress... that's transparency. The congress has the full authority to investigate the Federal Reserve at any time. That's transparency.
Second, there is a power that every US citizen can exercise over the fed: free speech. If you disagree with the Fed you have every right talk about it. You have every right to organize with other people who want to discuss similar criticisms and then openly protest the actions of the Fed. OH! And what's more is that you have the right to vote for congressional representation that can take full action to either control the Fed's action or to, as you put it, undo the Fed.
The Fed is not a reserve. It holds nothing. It used to hold gold, but no one knows where it whet...
Actually... you are wrong on both counts. It sold off the gold and did so with public knowledge. You can find various accounts of this in a number of books. Second, the Fed primarily holds US Government Debt amongst various other types of assets (though in much smaller amounts). For all intents and purposes, the Fed acts as a Market Maker for US Bonds and Treasury Bills.
It was quite secretive until recently as well.
To a certain extent the Fed needs to operate in a relatively opaque manner. If one were able to fully predict Fed actions and Fed operations then one could game the system. This would not only undermine the Fed's ability to control markets but it would also probably ruin those markets. The same thing goes for advance copies of Business Week. They are quite popular amongst people trying to game the market. The market is a function of information and if you can get that information early then you can take inappropriate advantage of it.
That said, the Fed's activities are audited and monitored according to standards set by the US Congress and Treasury. It's also subject to the legal rulings of the Judiciary branch.
Fundamentally, the market exists on its own, without the government. It is also more powerful than the government. Government reacts to the market first, then the government reacts back.
I more or less agree with you here. But it's besides the point. For a market to grow and scale over time it needs some organizing mechanism. You need a mechanism to enforce and promote some kind of standards. Without it we simply have a market amongst bullies and bullied.
I completely disagree with your view that gold is either predictable or harder to manipulate than the US dollar.
You should really read up on your history about commodities markets and international exchange markets.
For one, there is a very real and growing concern (especially amongst the largest institutional bond holders) that the Fed has almost zero ability to effect its market regulations in real terms at this point due to the size and breadth of alternative financial markets (the legal kind) as well as the volume of currency held in foreign banks over which the fed has no real authority. Banks have found new and interesting ways to conduct lending operations that don't necessarily rely on their own capital reserves.
Second, you should really read up about what happened to British Sterling in the past. This sort of thing goes on all the time in commodities markets. Have you ever heard of OPEC? Does it require vast sums of money? Yes. Does it happen. Definitely. Does it happen in currency markets as well? Yes. That's why we have regulators for both and why one isn't inherently "harder to manipulate" than the other.
If gold prices were predictable then there would be no market in gold futures contracts because there would be no associated risk. You would know exactly what the price is going to be. Clearly, the existence of gold futures indicates that there is an absence of predictability in the value of gold.
Why do you hate the government so much? Would you rather that commodities barons who answer to no one be in control of the value of your assets, or would you rather that a body of publicly accountable politicians be in control?
No matter what, I can assure you, someone will always be in control. At least with the case of a democratic government you have transparency and accountability on your side. You also have a venue for participating in the decision making process.
Not providing the passwords to gain control of a municipal system that is used by first responders is a criminal issue.
He's potentially putting people's lives and property at risk. In addition, he is basically destroying taxpayer property by denying them access to the system.
Yes, the system is still up and running, but if anything happens to physically disrupt the system (again, this is SF we are talking about, an earthquake prone area) then what's the story?
Also, nobody is advocating slavery. When you leave the employee of a company you are obligated to return any and all property... that would generally include access to their critical network systems.
Lastly... this isn't a company, this is the government. Most importantly, it's the network system used by critical first responders (among others). That changes a lot of things.
The important part is not that it is Au, it is that the supply of Au cannot be manipulated by the government.
What planet are you from? Of course the government can manipulate the supply of gold, just like any other market participant.
It's called hoarding and dumping. I can either hoard your currency or I can dump. Hoarding it raises the price (and in the case of a useful commodity like gold cause all sorts of problems--no more monster cables!). Dumping diminishes the price.
Don't all you wacko gold standard people always complain about how the government made gold ownership illegal at one point? Isn't that... the government controlling the supply of Au?
Controlling the supply of Au is something that governments with gold currencies did for centuries. They owned the mines, the mints, everything.
However, you shouldn't be hoarding your currency under your bed anyway. You should be making use of the banking system to
a) perform an inventorying function for you b) provide physical security for your funds (in the US this is even backed up by a pretty conservative insurance scheme--not too bad) c) ensure that the money supply isn't constricted during periods of crisis because everybody's hiding their cash d) facilitate the secure and efficient transfer of funds (imagine trying to buy a house in another city using gold, you'd have to hire an armored car to do it along with guards, etc.).
You should seriously get out more often and visit countries that have poorly run banking systems.
For example, in Argentina it's almost impossible to get your hands on coins--you know, the kind that are made with real metals. Why? Because they can't make the stuff fast enough in that country partly because of serious mismanagement but also partly because of a lack of resources.
Personally, I don't find anything attractive about the world of the MadMax movies. Would you really want to live there? I mean... *that's* anarchy.
Slashdot Mirror
This patent was applied for in 2009. I'm assuming Apple's engineers were working on the tech for some time prior to the patent being filed. The article you linked to is from 2011. So, in this case, it's not prior art.
Cable TV is still worth it if your household includes someone who is a fan of audiovisually presented national news (e.g. MSNBC, Fox News, HLN)
It's called NPR (npr.org) and you can stream it for free... if you feel guilty you can even make an annual donation that is a FRACTION of what Comcast charges.
or those live sports that are not on the farmer five but still blacked out online (e.g. ESPN, Versus).
It's called a sports bar. Most neighborhoods have them. They usually have AC, big TVs, a few good looking waitresses, and hot wings. No dishes, no cooking, and you might actually make some new friends.
Sure, you actually have to put some pants on in order to watch the big game. But, seriously, do you really watch a lot of sports in your underwear?
Oh, and getting live sports through sports bar is still cheaper than getting them at home via Comcast.
Got kids? Remember: Hooters is a family restaurant... (j/k)
You're supposed to FAILOVER between them, not load balance between them.
You can't hold amazon accountable for your own stupidity.
Beyond that, you have to ask yourself the question: how many outages would you have had with your own facility in the past year compared to this outage? Did you apply the same approach to your use of EC2 as you would to your own facility?
I know where the employees who work for me live. I know what car they drive. I know where they like to go to lunch. I have their social security number and a copy of their driver's license.
I also know a guy named Tony. Tony likes to break things. And ever since some pencil-neck computer nerd posted pictures of Tony's girlfriend on-line, Tony really likes to break computer nerds.
With Google, these things are much less transparent.
Any time you hear a project manager say "God Willing" about a deliverable or date you know they are flat out lying.
This is exactly why Apple doesn't want third-party UI systems on the iPad. They make their own business decision to improve their UI (something Google has needed for some time and something Google needs in order to survive against the likes of Bing) and now they are getting bad press because some lazy programmer can't figure out how to scrape their search results.
Intermediation is not a right. Businesses should have the right to engage with their customers without third-parties trying to intervene.
Actually, when he uses "proprietary" he means what he says: controlled by a private entity.
Jobs makes the point that Apple has plenty of proprietary technologies as well. However, HTML5, CSS and JavaScript are not proprietary. Even Adobe themselves are a part of the HTML5 spec process. You can join in that process today by either getting involved in the standards process or by writing code (as Apple has done) to support those standards. In fact, not only has Apple been a part of supporting those standards, they've also made their code open source and it is now being used by a wide range of their competitors in their competitors devices.
Go back and watch the iAd demo. Those ads were all created in HTML5, JavaScript, CSS and h.264 video. Compare those ads to most apps in the app store and then ask yourself why so many of those app developers didn't go the HTML5-route in writing their code considering that their Apps would then be cross-platform enabled (since Android uses WebKit as well).
The only reason to build a device-specific App is to take advantage of device-specific features. If you're building something akin to what is being delivered in the iAd demos, why are you bothering?
The iPhone supported sending pictures taken on the phone using the built-in email client from the very beginning. The best part: this feature was basically free (you'd already paid for the data service regardless).
By contrast, MMS messages require an additional charge (either an additional data plan or a per-message fee).
The only reason Apple ever decided to support MMS was because US-based customers wanted this feature to send pics to non-email capable phone users.
The iPhone also has no serial port sticking off of it. That's how it goes with old, outdated technology.
Does the company have an existing dress code? Do the IT guys follow that dress code well?
Let's be honest: IT guys have a reputation for being a bit sloppy. If that's the case here, perhaps the right approach would be for the team to do a better job of looking professional.
But if the team is already meeting the same expectations as the other employees, this just sounds like a giant waste of time. Money, energy and resources wasted on this would probably be better spent on something worthwhile that would actually have an impact on the team's ability to provide quality service.
Yes. Kinda like IBM does.
Oh no you diint!
What's even crazy is the FISH.
Get this: the fish breathe the water, they poop AND pee in the water, they drink the water and they eat other things that also live in the water.
I mean, they basically live their entire lives in the water they crap in.
Yeast are like that, too.
Anyhow, I'm gonna go grab me a tall, frosty mug of yeast shit infested water.... I mean beer...
Ahhh... the birth of a meme...
You're probably a bot.
Umm... I don't know if the editor noticed, but this article was published over a year ago.
How is this news?
Ok, honestly... how hard would it really be to put together a SIMPLE consumer OS?
Basically you need a browser, a media player and library and a file browser.
From there you *might* throw in a simple drawing program, text editor, calculator and a few other widgets.
The key is to simplify everything. Throw out all the extra bells and whistles, hire some good UI designers.
I personally don't think this is rocket science and most of these components are out there already just waiting to be put together. You could probably pull this off with a team of 100-200 programmers.
As for the hardware... these guys are already hardware manufacturers and know how to put together a machine. So, factor that part out.
The problem with Linux, to be honest, is that people want it to support whatever crappy computer they already own. Dell, HP or whoever could easily produce standardized systems that they have optimizied drivers for and that are fully tested. No need to support 800 different wifi cards, video drivers, disk controllers and other nonsense.
Let's be clear: Dell and HP could put this in motion of they had vision and balls. This wouldn't even have to be that significant of an investment on their part to get started. Look at how quickly Apple took BSD and whipped up OS X.
I own a mac and use OS X every day as my main computer. Let me tell you, it's buggy, single threaded and sometimes just annoying to use. Apple does a lot of things that are either just backwards or braindead. Everything else is just eyecandy.
Dell and HP DO have access to such an advantage... It's called Linux. They could make an investment in improving the Linux desktop and utilize Linux as their custom operating system.
Why don't they do this? Because they completely lack vision and they are sellers of commodity, crap electronics and not high-value systems integrators.
I personally think the MPAA and RIAA are behind this. They are the only ones who are really actively trying to find ways to identify Apple as a monopoly. If they can maintain that Apple has a monopoly here then the next step would be to sue them for having a monopoly on sales of digital content to OS X.
Remember... it first had to be proven that MS had a monopoly on the PC operating system before it could be proven they were using that monopoly power to compete unfairly in the browser business.
If Psystar shows that Apple has a monopoly on OS X and Apple computers, the MPAA and RIAA could then sue Apple over claims they are abusing that monopoly power to control digital content sales.
Why hide behind Psystar? Because if it doesn't work they would have a lot of egg on their face and much weaker negotiating position with Apple. This way they can pursue the claims secretly while they separately try and negotiate better deals with Apple as well as develop competitive products and channels. And, at a later date could probably bring the claims back under slightly different circumstances through a different shell.
It's also possible that MS is behind this. Forcing Apple to have to support general hardware would put them on a level playing field with MS. It could force Apple to publish their APIs and other system hooks. In addition it would create room for a serious low-cost competition for Apple and thus damage their hefty margins.
MS wouldn't do this in order to promote OS X adoption, but rather to hinder and hobble Apple and create new competitive threats for Apple that they are ill equipped to handle at present.
You're absolutely right that someone can buy it off the shelf and take it home and do whatever they want with those bits... and if they aren't doing what Apple says they will support then Apple doesn't have to support them.
But that's not what's going on here.
What's going on here is that Psystar is RESELLING the product claiming that the user is getting Apple OS X on compatible hardware. That's a far cry from "I go home and hack it onto my toaster". Now they are using Apple's brand name and Apple's marketing investment to push an inferior product to customers. How is it inferior? Becuase it's not running on the same hardware for which it was designed. They are making a lot of claims about their hardware's capabilities and compatability with Apple's software.
They are exploiting Apple's trademarks and copyrights.
There is a huge difference between Apple and Microsoft from a monopoly perspective.
Microsoft was using strong-arm, anti-competitive tactics to ensure that all desktop PC systems were using their operating system.
Remember how hard it was for people to try and get these companies to ship Linux on a PC? Remember how MS had them all tied up in licensing agreements that said that they couldn't ship a different OS?
And then, because Microsoft had all the desktop PC vendors locked up it was able to force them to ship it's web browser and have it set as the default?
That's completely different than Apple. Apple makes their own desktop PCs and they make the OS that runs on it. They aren't forcing Dell to adopt OSX. They aren't forcing HP to adopt OSX. They're saying... you guys use whatever OS you want, we are using our own, home-grown OS on our own hardware. We're selling an integrated system. You're selling a composite of mostly off-the-shelf parts bundled with support.
It'd be like saying Ford is exploiting their monopoly on Ford engine's because GM starts selling GM cars with Ford engines and labeling them as "Ford Clones". Because GM is using sub-standard parts or parts for which the Ford engine was never designed to support people are going to start buying the GM "Ford clone" and having problems... and will possibly blame Ford for incompatabilities, thus tarnishing Ford's brand.
I don't understand how people are confused about this. If Psystar wins this will pretty much destroy a lot more than the computer industry.
Yes. Ever read the license?
And it's besides the point, Apple has invested a huge amount of effort on top of what it inherited from BSD... as did most of the other OS's we use today... including Linux.
First off, you are contradicting yourself here. If the Fed reports to congress... that's transparency. The congress has the full authority to investigate the Federal Reserve at any time. That's transparency.
Second, there is a power that every US citizen can exercise over the fed: free speech. If you disagree with the Fed you have every right talk about it. You have every right to organize with other people who want to discuss similar criticisms and then openly protest the actions of the Fed. OH! And what's more is that you have the right to vote for congressional representation that can take full action to either control the Fed's action or to, as you put it, undo the Fed.
Actually... you are wrong on both counts. It sold off the gold and did so with public knowledge. You can find various accounts of this in a number of books. Second, the Fed primarily holds US Government Debt amongst various other types of assets (though in much smaller amounts). For all intents and purposes, the Fed acts as a Market Maker for US Bonds and Treasury Bills.
To a certain extent the Fed needs to operate in a relatively opaque manner. If one were able to fully predict Fed actions and Fed operations then one could game the system. This would not only undermine the Fed's ability to control markets but it would also probably ruin those markets. The same thing goes for advance copies of Business Week. They are quite popular amongst people trying to game the market. The market is a function of information and if you can get that information early then you can take inappropriate advantage of it.
That said, the Fed's activities are audited and monitored according to standards set by the US Congress and Treasury. It's also subject to the legal rulings of the Judiciary branch.
I more or less agree with you here. But it's besides the point. For a market to grow and scale over time it needs some organizing mechanism. You need a mechanism to enforce and promote some kind of standards. Without it we simply have a market amongst bullies and bullied.
I completely disagree with your view that gold is either predictable or harder to manipulate than the US dollar.
You should really read up on your history about commodities markets and international exchange markets.
For one, there is a very real and growing concern (especially amongst the largest institutional bond holders) that the Fed has almost zero ability to effect its market regulations in real terms at this point due to the size and breadth of alternative financial markets (the legal kind) as well as the volume of currency held in foreign banks over which the fed has no real authority. Banks have found new and interesting ways to conduct lending operations that don't necessarily rely on their own capital reserves.
Second, you should really read up about what happened to British Sterling in the past. This sort of thing goes on all the time in commodities markets. Have you ever heard of OPEC? Does it require vast sums of money? Yes. Does it happen. Definitely. Does it happen in currency markets as well? Yes. That's why we have regulators for both and why one isn't inherently "harder to manipulate" than the other.
If gold prices were predictable then there would be no market in gold futures contracts because there would be no associated risk. You would know exactly what the price is going to be. Clearly, the existence of gold futures indicates that there is an absence of predictability in the value of gold.
Why do you hate the government so much? Would you rather that commodities barons who answer to no one be in control of the value of your assets, or would you rather that a body of publicly accountable politicians be in control?
No matter what, I can assure you, someone will always be in control. At least with the case of a democratic government you have transparency and accountability on your side. You also have a venue for participating in the decision making process.
Not providing the passwords to gain control of a municipal system that is used by first responders is a criminal issue.
He's potentially putting people's lives and property at risk. In addition, he is basically destroying taxpayer property by denying them access to the system.
Yes, the system is still up and running, but if anything happens to physically disrupt the system (again, this is SF we are talking about, an earthquake prone area) then what's the story?
Also, nobody is advocating slavery. When you leave the employee of a company you are obligated to return any and all property... that would generally include access to their critical network systems.
Lastly... this isn't a company, this is the government. Most importantly, it's the network system used by critical first responders (among others). That changes a lot of things.
What planet are you from? Of course the government can manipulate the supply of gold, just like any other market participant.
It's called hoarding and dumping. I can either hoard your currency or I can dump. Hoarding it raises the price (and in the case of a useful commodity like gold cause all sorts of problems--no more monster cables!). Dumping diminishes the price.
Don't all you wacko gold standard people always complain about how the government made gold ownership illegal at one point? Isn't that... the government controlling the supply of Au?
Controlling the supply of Au is something that governments with gold currencies did for centuries. They owned the mines, the mints, everything.
Oh.. and right now $1 equals a lot of things:
Wendy's Super Value Menu
A valid point.
However, you shouldn't be hoarding your currency under your bed anyway. You should be making use of the banking system to
a) perform an inventorying function for you
b) provide physical security for your funds (in the US this is even backed up by a pretty conservative insurance scheme--not too bad)
c) ensure that the money supply isn't constricted during periods of crisis because everybody's hiding their cash
d) facilitate the secure and efficient transfer of funds (imagine trying to buy a house in another city using gold, you'd have to hire an armored car to do it along with guards, etc.).
You should seriously get out more often and visit countries that have poorly run banking systems.
For example, in Argentina it's almost impossible to get your hands on coins--you know, the kind that are made with real metals. Why? Because they can't make the stuff fast enough in that country partly because of serious mismanagement but also partly because of a lack of resources.
Personally, I don't find anything attractive about the world of the MadMax movies. Would you really want to live there? I mean... *that's* anarchy.