...even if they would only be using Firefox, Thunderbird and LibreOffice...
I just finished installing Debian Wheezy with XFCE4 on the laptop of a friend whose usage pretty much fits this description, and she loves it. (She *hated* Win 7 but quite liked WinXP). Personally I stay away from Ubuntu because, as I understand it, an upgrade is somewhat more painful than it is for Debian. So if you're interested in Linux Mint, you might want to try Linux Mint Debian Edition, (LMDE), as it has the slickness of Mint but maintains rolling releases.
The supply of money is completely independent of the economics of trading.
If a cow is worth 4 goats, changing the monetary price of a cow to 3 dollars or 300,000 dollars or 25 bazillion lira changes nothing about the trading situation. A goat is still worth one-fourth of a cow. If cows die off and become scarcer and more valuable, then they might end up being worth 10 goats but notice that is COMPLETELY INDEPENDENT of the "value" of our money.
Money is merely a tracking device.
Money is also a storage device. If I trade my cow for 4 goats today when I could have gotten 5 goats for it next week, I've lost out. But if I trade my cow for money today and hold the money, then I can buy 4 goats next week, have money left over to buy something else, and have the savings that come from not having had to feed and care for the cow for a week. Of course it could also go the other way - I could lose on the transaction. And this is how stock markets are supposed to work, for better or worse.
But that storage medium makes room for all kinds of middle men, and ultimately gives rise to all sorts of ways to game the system. And because so much money is paid to people who have added little or no value to the system, or who in fact have taken value out of the sytem, a large percentage of 'legal' tender might as well be counterfeit.
Money makes assets and liabilities more fluid, more portable, and easier to hide. It introduces both efficiencies and inefficiencies, and it causes different market sectors to be much more interdependent on each other than they otherwise would. So, no, money is not "merely a tracking device".
About 40 years ago Radio Shack was actually a place worth going to for electronic components and tools. As a fledgling electronics hobbyist I was grateful to have somewhere to buy parts, especially after the local TV repair supply store closed, and the nearest alternative was 70 miles away and I didn't drive. Back then Radio Shack's selection was decent, and the prices were high but not terrible. Even their audio equipment was often pretty good too. The stores were popular, and the staff were actually somewhat knowledgeable. (Back then an "electronics store" was a place to buy electronic parts, not TV's and stereos).
Here in Canada, Rat Shack stores became The Sores by Circuit City some time around 2005, but long before that they had become annoying places to shop at, with a poor selection of crappy over-priced components, and arrogant staff who knew far less than they thought they did. On the one hand I'm happy to see the beast put out of its misery, but on the other hand I'm sad to see a company that was so important to me and to my eventual career die such an ignominious death.
Maybe you're trolling here and I'm taking the bait, but in case you really believe what you wrote, here goes...
"The Government", carriers and the manufacture can shut them down right now. They don't because that would be terrible for a number of reasons.
Although carriers can effectively turn off your phone service, and can possibly even brick your phone if you haven't rooted it and disabled automatic OTA updates, they can't currently wipe it clean remotely. The proposed new 'service' would allow them to do that. And where there's some advertised protection against that happening, there's probably a backdoor, or at least an exploit, that can get around it.
And why shouldn't people who have not been paying there bill have their service turned off*?
Um, maybe they shouldn't be allowed to do that because they have a history of abusing their position to overcharge, automatically opting you in to services which they then charge you for, adding 'mistaken' line items that increase your bill, having really shitty dispute resolution mechanisms, etc. Not only giving carriers the ability to wipe your phone, but having customers actually sign up for and potentially pay for this 'service', further tilts the already unlevel playing field in the carriers' favour.
The media companies is a strawman or fear mongering, I can't tell which.
How is it either of these? Major content providers are on record as being in favour of, (for example), disconnecting subscribers' Internet service for even the suspicion of unauthorized copying.
"And this, ultimately, is the problem with those who keep repeating that we should just trust Bruce Schneier. It implies we should also disengage our brains."
Actually, by pointing out potential problems, asking pointed questions, and challenging the status quo, I think Bruce Schneier is encouraging us to engage our brains.
But other automakers are dragging their feet, both because they're worried about security and because they might face resistance from dealers.
Given that the level of security on OBD2 ports has been utter crap for about two decades now, I doubt the automakers' major concern is security. Even with well-publicized stories about car hacking, auto companies seem to persist in the belief that it will never be a major, widespread threat. It's probably dealer pushback that has them concerned - having a car dealership is a license to steal, and I imagine dealers are very resistant to any change that threatens their ability to charge $500 for 15 minutes' worth of work.
DavidHumus notes "Maybe the bigger question is why is CEO pay so entirely disconnected from company performance?"
No, the bigger question is "Why is CEO pay so entirely disconnected from the value of said CEOs to society as a whole?"
Really, do these people contribute 200, 500, or 1,000 times more to society, (or even to their companies), than the average employee? I'd be willing to bet that, in many cases, CEOs make lesser contributions on all fronts than do regular workers making WAY less money. Sure, CEOs often have greater responsibilities, as well as significant skills and talents. But are they really worth that much in the grand scheme of things?
...that the money for this transaction ultimately comes from all of us. We bought the products and services of the companies whose marketing and advertising rely on Facebook. And those of us who have FB accounts, (along with those of us who don't do our best to stop FB tracking us all over the Web), have made Facebook at least look like it's worth the money those companies hand over to it. That's how Facebook can pay almost a thousand years' of WhatApp's current revenue for the fledgling company.
Thanks - I think that's a good idea. I meta-modded it up - unfortunately I have no mod points right now. In any case, I fear Dice is so unamenable to reason that your proposal will fall on deaf ears. I'd love to be wrong though.
Forgive me if I'm repeating something that's already been said in the 2,000+ comments made so far; but doesn't this whole affair sound a lot like Gnome3, Unity, and, to a lesser extent, Windows 8?
The fact that this kind of thing happens over and over and over again, in spite of very well-entrenched and eloquent communities that make their profound opposition abundantly and repeatedly clear, suggests some larger cultural, sociological, and/or psychological element at work. In an immediate sense we need to try to protect Slashdot from those who would turn it into an inferior version of the new Yahoo. (Hard work, that...). But over the longer term, shouldn't we try to figure out what's missing in this kind of equation? Clearly, massive user communities such as those represented by Slashdot, Gnome, Ubuntu, etc, aren't managing to hang their considerable weight on the right levers to steer the leaders/stewards/managers/head honchos of those communities in a mutually beneficial direction.
In short, what are we missing here? Let's figure that out so the next time we go through this we can get a better result, sooner in the process, without all the energy lost to (seemingly ineffective) hand-wringing and breast-beating.
This would be VERY problematic - imagine editing your already-submitted post while somebody else is in the process of commenting on it. There could be a total disconnect between your comment and the reply - very confusing and very uncool.
...my first reply got a reply to which I replied....But none of that seems to be visible when I reload this story....Wondering exactly what's going on.
I had the same thoughts about an hour ago. I'm not sure if you're experiencing the same thing I did - it's hard to believe that someone with such a low User ID has never come across this before - but FWIW I had to go the bottom of the page and click on "Get xxxx More Comments" to find the comment I posted less than 10 hours ago.
It seems to me that this one topic may just result in the Slashdotting of Slashdot. Quite a feat, actually.
>Precisely which audience is having problems reading slashdot, on precisely which platform?
The kind of audience that loves the new Yahoo. You know, the people used to web sites designed for those with no discernible attention span. The folks for whom conformity is a comfortable and entirely unconscious reflex. In other words, people who would have no interest in what Slashdot has always been, but who might be enticed to visit a 'lowest common denominator' site and bump up Dice's ad revenue.
Corporations tend to like pliable, compliant audiences who don't cause them any trouble. I'm sure a company like Dice is really uncomfortable dealing with smart people who have strong opinions and can defend them intelligently, logically, and rationally. As long as they believe they can replace existing users as we leave, and add new ones to increase readership, it's entirely possible they don't give a rat's ass about the current community.
Yup, me too. It kinda felt like it was about to jump the shark even before Dice took over, but after that point the writing was on the wall in great big letters and it was clearly only a matter of time. Fonzie is lining up for the jump right now, and as soon as Classic is no longer available I'm so outta here.
I tried posting this comment on Beta, and I couldn't even preview it, much less post it, so I'm back on Classic; this interface is SO much better. But even before I found out that Beta SIMPLY DOESN'T WORK, I realized that there's no pressure there anyway, 'cause it sucks as hard as it blows. Tiny text box, no 'quote parent' button - they're obviously trying to manipulate us into posting shorter comments. Well, Dice, guess what? When Classic disappears, my comments will be VERY short. Zero words - is that short enough for ya?
So long Slashdot, and thanks for all the fish - except for the fucking shark. No thanks at all for that.
And as the US discovers very quickly, it happened due to intentional inefficiencies and silo-ization of intelligence.
No, that is not why it happened but framing it that way is seductively authoritarian and one of the main reasons for the creation of the modern surveillance state. Having spent billions to stop more attacks, what do we have to show for it? The Boston bombers plus a whole host of "white" attacks like mass shootings and the NSA's official record of having stopped precisely zero attacks on USA soil.
The reason these things happen is because the real world is an immensely complex system
Yes, the real world IS an immensely complex system, and terrorism will always be a part of life. And inevitably, some terrorist acts will be committed BECAUSE of the invasive and overbearing 'security' appartus we've allowed to be built because we foolishly think it's going to make us safer.
That said, what about taking responsibility for our own contributions to the mess we're in? If we build a society that actively promotes increasing poverty, inequality, disenfranchisement, and personal powerlessness, then we're building a society in which some of our members will respond senselessly and violently. And when we poke our noses into other countries' business, overthrowing their governments, propping up their dictators, and forcing our culture and our standards down their throats, we should expect some serious blowback. Yes, it may be necessary to get the bastards who broke into our house and fucked with our family - but at some point, shouldn't we ask why they're so pissed with us that they'll sacrifice their lives in order to fly planes into tall buildings and kill us? And shouldn't we consider conducting ourselves and our international affairs with more integrity, and with less arrogance and greed?
Terrorism will probably never be elimintated; but honestly, a lot of what we label 'terrorism' is retribution that we've brought upon ourselves, and it looks very much like what we would do, (and have done), if the roles were reversed.
LED is the only technology with any real promise, but the cost has to come down to 1/10th what it is today before they will be accepted by people on a budget.
I agree that LED bulbs are priced beyond the means of people with limited resources. But as they become more popular the price will come down, just as it has with CFLs.
Until very recently I was one of those who swore my government would pry my incandescent light bulbs out of my cold dead hands. I love the light that incandescents give off, and I hate the flicker, noise, and unreliability I've experienced from those tools of the devil called CFLs. (Not to mention the mercury...)
Then just a couple of months I discovered the Philips dimmable soft white LED lights - 15 bucks at Home Despot here in Canada, but currently being sold for 10 dollars, courtesy of in-store 5 dollar coupons with the discount applied at the checkout. Obviously I have no read yet on their longevity and reliability, but I can attest to the fact that they have no visible flicker. (I have nystagmus, and am bothered by flicker that others can't even perceive, so I tend to be a good judge of flicker in light sources such as car LED tail lights). I only hear a very faint buzzing when I put my ear close to the bulb, and I am unable to distinguish between the light given off by these LED bulbs and the cheap incandescent bulbs I've always used. Still a lot more expensive than an incandescent bulb, but it has a 6 year warranty that makes me feel a little better about the price, and at less than 1/5 the power consumption of an equivalent incandescent, so far I'm pretty happy with them. These are the best alternatives to 'tungsten in a jar' that I've come across.
The truth is, we're better if we go with the flow and take control of the situation. Live more in the open. That's what we ARE going to do, but if we do it RIGHT then we put at least SOME controls on things. We need to insure that whatever the government knows, we know.
Quite correct - stick a fork in privacy and turn it over, 'cause it's done. But to ensure that "whatever the government knows, we know", means that the NSA, TSA, and all those other TLA's need to pretty much drop their drawers as well. Snowden, Manning, and others of good conscience have been working on that - their lives are hell right now, and they are pariahs to millions of people, the majority of whom stand to have their lot made better and safer by the whistle blowers they condemn. Making sure that John Q. Public knows what goes on in its own government is a hell of a thankless battle.
And as long as we're talking about levelling the privacy playing field, we'd better extend it to corporations as well. There again, whistle blowers are getting royally screwed, and enforcement of the laws that ostensibly protect them is a joke.
I wonder how long it will take before new releases of Android close that oh-so-dangerous third-party app loophole. Because of course users who take all the time and effort to research how to root their devices and install CM are going to be SO surprised and pissed off that Google didn't stop them from 'voiding their warranties'. Yeah, right.
Any bets on how soon Google will start censoring, (sorry, 'lowering the page rank'), of sites that facilitate sideloading of Android apps, CM, and the like?
Android seems well on its way to becoming the next Walled Garden (TM).
Not another device to get hacked or add another point to be constantly monitored. I'll pass. Couple reasons why:
1: That temperature of water can be turned scalding quite quickly if someone manages to hack the device, and with a camera, there will be YouTube vids galore of people getting scalded. 2: I really don't want ads in my bathroom, nor cameras. No viewer or lackey in any intel organization or LEO deserves that punishment. 3: I also don't want another camera for some potential burglar to have access to via wardriving. 4: Technology for technology's sake is pointless. I want stuff in a bathroom to be simple and elegant. It is one of the few places in a building where I can get away from it. 5: I don't need another electronic item to break or need power.
I agree, and I think I can sum up all of these points in one phrase: Form follows function.
As far as cartels go, there is indeed no difference between a merger and a cartel so long as the cartel continues to exist. Empirically, though, we know that cartels tend to be short lived; market forces have a tendency of breaking them up. It ultimately all goes back to competition: those members of the cartel who are more efficient get frustrated with essentially propping up the less-efficient and break from the cartel. Even if the balance is even enough, if real price gouging is going on, the same exact thing happens as in a monopoly: new competition enters the market. I realize this is a fundamental point on which we disagree on, though.
I believe that a free market can correct such conditions, although I don't believe that it necessarily will do so. And again, I don't believe that it can ever correct them fast enough to prevent an unacceptable level of damage and dislocation. In a small market with relatively small players, customers rule, because the corrective feedback is fast and effective, sometimes shockingly so. But this behaviour does not scale. As the market gets bigger, the number of individuals that represent a company's customer base increases much faster than the number of individuals comprising that company. Paradoxically, this gives the customers less power; their geographic dispersion, and the almost impossible task of co-ordinating any actions they might take in response to some policy or behaviour, pretty much guarantee that their disgruntlement will have little or no effect on the company. The company, on the other hand, can pretty effectively enforce common goals, directions, and behaviours among its employees, and they have efficient and well co-ordinated internal communications and established hierarchies. That makes them much more monolithic, and it makes their ability to promote their own self interest much greater, often at the expense of their customers' satisfaction and well-being. Maybe those customers can find a friendlier competitor, but often they can't. If those customers have to wait years, or even decades, for a viable alternative, all the while putting up with poor products and services from an unresponsive company, then to me that is simply unacceptable. In rare instances the advent of the Internet has put some power back into the hands of consumers, but not nearly enough.
I share your wariness of regulation, simply because governments have a tendency to become aligned with, corrupted by, and sometimes co-opted by, business interests. But I think the answer is better government, (which requires better electoral systems as a necessary but not sufficient condition), not less regulation.
I recognize many of your references and your recommended reading from my days, (thirty years and more ago), as a Libertarian, an Objectivist, and a follower of Ayn Rand. I think any further discussion we might manage to have will probably be cicular, because we're starting from two different and in may ways diametrically opposed premises. I no longer believe that there is any absolute, objective truth - if I were a minor character in Atlas Shrugged, Rand might have dubbed me "Non-absolute".;-)
First of all, let me state that I have very much enjoyed our exchange. It's refreshing to talk to someone who disagrees in an intelligent manner.
Thanks - I've enjoyed it too. There needs to be more reasoned dialog and less breast beating and flag waving in such discussions
As for what an unregulated cellular market goes, I do not know exactly what that would look like. But empirically, even fields that naturally have high barriers to entry still have a tendency of being more competitive than when the government grants "natural monopoly" status. One thing that I've speculated about in the free market, is that there may be corporations that own land specifically for the use by utilities. They would then regulate its use as it sees fit, renting out portions of it to other corporations such as cellular companies.
That's an interesting idea. It reminds me of something I've been advocating for a while, although my take is consistent with the regulation-centric approach to business and economics that I favour. Basically, for anything that looks as though it will become, (or is starting to become), societal infrastructure, the government initially grants corporations natural monopoly status, as they did with land-line telephones, cable companies, cellular service, etc. The twist is that there is a time limit, after which control and ownership gradually shift to the government. I have no problem with companies and investors making an absolute killing off of the risk they take in developing and implementing new technologies and services. But I have a huge problem with them milking it forever - as soon as something becomes, (like roads), a necessity for everyone, I feel that it no longer belongs in private hands.
This would, of course, lower barriers to entry greatly; but of course, there's no way to be sure something like this would happen. Regardless, though, even if an exceedingly high barrier to entry prevented more than just a handful of competitors, I'm confused why that would lead to higher prices? Do we not already have very high prices already?
Too often "just a handful of competitors" don't engage in pure competition; they engage in 'co-opetition', which in its extreme is collusion. Classic oligopoly stuff - they help each other keep prices high, and they work together to keep out new competitors.
At some point, in the free market, profits in one area drive in other competition, as you've mentioned; high barriers to entry or not, competition will inevitably come. I'm confused as to how our current system does a better job of this?
As you pointed out earlier, our current system does a very poor job of this. What we disagree on is the remedy - I believe wiser, more consistent, less corrupt regulation is the answer, and you believe little or no regulation is the answer. I'd be happy to have both approaches tried out - God knows we can't do a whole lot worse than we are now.
One final thought on this: if the first to enter a given market keeps their prices low enough as to not provide opportunity for competition to come in, and their services adequately meet the need of the consumers (in other words, there is not really a successful business model in trying to compete), might I ask, what is the problem, exactly?
The danger I see is that incumbents temporarily lower their prices and/or improve their service in order to starve out new competitors, then go back to their old 'screw the customer' ways until the next threat comes along. I feel this is the Achilles heel of free markets - at some point they become no longer free, but by that time companies become so entrenched and so relied-upon that they are much harder to control. Getting back to cellular service, cell phones are pretty much a necessity now for the majority of people, especially since pay phones are virtually non-existent. People simply can't afford to stop using
Points taken - I now understand your point of view better. I agree with many of your points, but I still question a few.
The problem though, is that the system enables corporations to leverage their resources to create inequality of opportunity through monopoly grants, regulations, barrier to entry, and other legislation of privilege.
You may be right about our current regulatory regime making it easier to raise barriers to entry and create inequality. However, I remain unconvinced that 'no regulation' is a workable solution. Let's talk about cellular infrastructure as an example. If we took away all of the government grants to public rights of way, and all of the incentives meant to minimize initial risk and encourage initial investment, would we even have a continent-wide cellular network? But let's assume that a truly free market worked its magic - investors and companies cooperated on the R&D, land purchases, hardware installations, etc. Then what? I think we would have an oligopoly, (as we do now), except there would be no regulation to curb its worst excesses, and no precedent for government intervention. And I think those companies would be providing poorer service at higher prices, because they could, and because it maximizes shareholder value. Typically, at this point the argument goes, "But that would be an opportunity for new companies to enter the market". The problem with that is that the existing companies' entrenchment represents a VERY high barrier to entry. Not only is it hard to get people to switch to a new company, (the 'better the devil you know' philosophy), at some point the plethora of antennae on tall buildings, and finding more land to purchase to lay cables, and reduction of available spectrum, becomes first expensive, then totally untenable. Would-be new competitors are faced with higher costs to procure a smaller market share than the original players had access to. Also, the incumbents can afford to lower their prices in the short term to protect their control of the market in the long term.
'First to market' is, in and of itself, a high barrier to entry for competitors; sometimes it's so high that beyond that point, a 'free market' isn't possible. I think that, paradoxically, the only way to get what we imagine a free market might provide for us, is to have some regulation. Yes, I'm aware of the philosophical implications of that; I've long since disabused myself of the notion that there is a) any such thing as absolute moral rightness, and b) any way for us to know what it might be should it exist. These days I take a more pragmatic approach, and do my best to figure out what will work best for the greatest number of people over the longest period of time. It seems to me that any other approach is severely limited in its adaptibility by its inherently ideological nature.
My study of economics has taught me that efforts to limit the disparity causes more problems than it solves.
A study of economics might teach that efforts made to limit disparity up to this point in time have arguably caused more problems than they have solved. I doubt that it can convincingly state, categorically, that no regulatory regime can ever solve more problems than it causes. Besides, isn't economics pretty famous for the failure of its predictions?
Equality can only ever be objectively defined as equality of opportunity, not equality of distribution.
The problem with this argument is that it assumes opportunity can remain equal even as distribution moves toward a Pareto-law curve. In reality, even when opportunity is equal at some arbitrary point in time, several years or decades later, those who have amassed wealth also have additional power and opportunity, (which tends to further wealth concentration - lather, rinse, repeat), while those who missed the boat end up with less opportunity than they started with. Even if we assume that the concentration of wealth is primarily a result of skill, intelligence, talent, and hard work, (and I don't - I believe luck is a much, much greater factor than most people realize), shouldn't we take care to limit the size of that disparity? Isn't making sure the disadvantaged don't get left too far behind, one of the major tenets of a civilized society? Also, isn't that how revolutions are prevented?
Furthermore, what exactly is the problem with a CEO making 500x the rate of the lowest (or even median) paid worker? Inherently, nothing. What matters is the wealth and progression of the middle class and the freedom to move freely through the classes, based on ones' abilities and desires.
20:1 was average in the 60's, when we had a strong middle class. Today it's more like 200:1, (perhaps higher), and the middle class is disappearing. Perhaps the current lack of "wealth and progression" of the middle class, and the lack of mobility among classes, are by-products of the concentration of wealth. I'm fully aware that correlation isn't causation, but shouldn't we at least be questioning whether or not there's a causal relationship? (And by questioning I mean actively investigating, not resorting to economic theory and/or ideological dogma).
After all, the only way to achieve equality of distribution is via coercively taking from those who have accumulated their wealth via mutually-beneficial exchanges on the free market.
This argument suggests to me that you believe the free market to be somehow morally right and unquestionably good in an absolute sense. Do you really believe that, in the absence of regulation and limits, free market principles won't lead to gross injustice, rampant abuse, and vast economic disparity?
Forbidding people from signing contracts that both parties deem as mutually beneficial is wrong and destructive to the economy.
As for "wrong", again, if this is a moral issue, what is the evidence that a free market is morally right? As for "destructive", wasn't the recent financial crisis caused by contracts that "both parties" deemed "mutually beneficial'? Home buyers signed contracts with lending institutions; the loan values were higher than the equity in the homes and the buyers didn't have enough income to keep up the payments. Lending institutions repackaged that debt as derivatives and sold it. Presumably, in both cases the parties thought the agreements were "mutually beneficial"; otherwise, why did they sign? Those mutually beneficial contracts damned-near caused a worldwide depression. How's that for "destructive to the economy"?
...if you forward to the FTC it will show up as your number originating, and if you forward to a 900 service you will get the bill.
I'm not sure what happens when calling 800 or 900 numbers, but when calling a regular area code, the caller ID that gets displayed on the receiving end is that of the originating number, not the forwarding number. At least that's what happens here in Ontario, Canada. I've tested the behaviour on cell-to-landline forwarding, and on landline-to-cell forwarding. I have no reason to believe it works differently for landline-to-landline or cell-to-cell forwarding, nor would I expect Canada to be different from the US in this regard.
Slashdot Mirror
...even if they would only be using Firefox, Thunderbird and LibreOffice...
I just finished installing Debian Wheezy with XFCE4 on the laptop of a friend whose usage pretty much fits this description, and she loves it. (She *hated* Win 7 but quite liked WinXP). Personally I stay away from Ubuntu because, as I understand it, an upgrade is somewhat more painful than it is for Debian. So if you're interested in Linux Mint, you might want to try Linux Mint Debian Edition, (LMDE), as it has the slickness of Mint but maintains rolling releases.
The supply of money is completely independent of the economics of trading.
If a cow is worth 4 goats, changing the monetary price of a cow to 3 dollars or 300,000 dollars or 25 bazillion lira changes nothing about the trading situation. A goat is still worth one-fourth of a cow. If cows die off and become scarcer and more valuable, then they might end up being worth 10 goats but notice that is COMPLETELY INDEPENDENT of the "value" of our money.
Money is merely a tracking device.
Money is also a storage device. If I trade my cow for 4 goats today when I could have gotten 5 goats for it next week, I've lost out. But if I trade my cow for money today and hold the money, then I can buy 4 goats next week, have money left over to buy something else, and have the savings that come from not having had to feed and care for the cow for a week. Of course it could also go the other way - I could lose on the transaction. And this is how stock markets are supposed to work, for better or worse.
But that storage medium makes room for all kinds of middle men, and ultimately gives rise to all sorts of ways to game the system. And because so much money is paid to people who have added little or no value to the system, or who in fact have taken value out of the sytem, a large percentage of 'legal' tender might as well be counterfeit.
Money makes assets and liabilities more fluid, more portable, and easier to hide. It introduces both efficiencies and inefficiencies, and it causes different market sectors to be much more interdependent on each other than they otherwise would. So, no, money is not "merely a tracking device".
About 40 years ago Radio Shack was actually a place worth going to for electronic components and tools. As a fledgling electronics hobbyist I was grateful to have somewhere to buy parts, especially after the local TV repair supply store closed, and the nearest alternative was 70 miles away and I didn't drive. Back then Radio Shack's selection was decent, and the prices were high but not terrible. Even their audio equipment was often pretty good too. The stores were popular, and the staff were actually somewhat knowledgeable. (Back then an "electronics store" was a place to buy electronic parts, not TV's and stereos).
Here in Canada, Rat Shack stores became The Sores by Circuit City some time around 2005, but long before that they had become annoying places to shop at, with a poor selection of crappy over-priced components, and arrogant staff who knew far less than they thought they did. On the one hand I'm happy to see the beast put out of its misery, but on the other hand I'm sad to see a company that was so important to me and to my eventual career die such an ignominious death.
Requiescat In Pace, Radio Shack.
Maybe you're trolling here and I'm taking the bait, but in case you really believe what you wrote, here goes...
"The Government", carriers and the manufacture can shut them down right now. They don't because that would be terrible for a number of reasons.
Although carriers can effectively turn off your phone service, and can possibly even brick your phone if you haven't rooted it and disabled automatic OTA updates, they can't currently wipe it clean remotely. The proposed new 'service' would allow them to do that. And where there's some advertised protection against that happening, there's probably a backdoor, or at least an exploit, that can get around it.
And why shouldn't people who have not been paying there bill have their service turned off*?
Um, maybe they shouldn't be allowed to do that because they have a history of abusing their position to overcharge, automatically opting you in to services which they then charge you for, adding 'mistaken' line items that increase your bill, having really shitty dispute resolution mechanisms, etc. Not only giving carriers the ability to wipe your phone, but having customers actually sign up for and potentially pay for this 'service', further tilts the already unlevel playing field in the carriers' favour.
The media companies is a strawman or fear mongering, I can't tell which.
How is it either of these? Major content providers are on record as being in favour of, (for example), disconnecting subscribers' Internet service for even the suspicion of unauthorized copying.
"And this, ultimately, is the problem with those who keep repeating that we should just trust Bruce Schneier. It implies we should also disengage our brains."
Actually, by pointing out potential problems, asking pointed questions, and challenging the status quo, I think Bruce Schneier is encouraging us to engage our brains.
But other automakers are dragging their feet, both because they're worried about security and because they might face resistance from dealers.
Given that the level of security on OBD2 ports has been utter crap for about two decades now, I doubt the automakers' major concern is security. Even with well-publicized stories about car hacking, auto companies seem to persist in the belief that it will never be a major, widespread threat. It's probably dealer pushback that has them concerned - having a car dealership is a license to steal, and I imagine dealers are very resistant to any change that threatens their ability to charge $500 for 15 minutes' worth of work.
DavidHumus notes "Maybe the bigger question is why is CEO pay so entirely disconnected from company performance?"
No, the bigger question is "Why is CEO pay so entirely disconnected from the value of said CEOs to society as a whole?"
Really, do these people contribute 200, 500, or 1,000 times more to society, (or even to their companies), than the average employee? I'd be willing to bet that, in many cases, CEOs make lesser contributions on all fronts than do regular workers making WAY less money. Sure, CEOs often have greater responsibilities, as well as significant skills and talents. But are they really worth that much in the grand scheme of things?
...that the money for this transaction ultimately comes from all of us. We bought the products and services of the companies whose marketing and advertising rely on Facebook. And those of us who have FB accounts, (along with those of us who don't do our best to stop FB tracking us all over the Web), have made Facebook at least look like it's worth the money those companies hand over to it. That's how Facebook can pay almost a thousand years' of WhatApp's current revenue for the fledgling company.
Allow me to recommend for your reading pleasure this particular squirt from the firehose:
A Modest Proposal, re: Beta vs. Classic
Thanks - I think that's a good idea. I meta-modded it up - unfortunately I have no mod points right now. In any case, I fear Dice is so unamenable to reason that your proposal will fall on deaf ears. I'd love to be wrong though.
Forgive me if I'm repeating something that's already been said in the 2,000+ comments made so far; but doesn't this whole affair sound a lot like Gnome3, Unity, and, to a lesser extent, Windows 8?
The fact that this kind of thing happens over and over and over again, in spite of very well-entrenched and eloquent communities that make their profound opposition abundantly and repeatedly clear, suggests some larger cultural, sociological, and/or psychological element at work. In an immediate sense we need to try to protect Slashdot from those who would turn it into an inferior version of the new Yahoo. (Hard work, that...). But over the longer term, shouldn't we try to figure out what's missing in this kind of equation? Clearly, massive user communities such as those represented by Slashdot, Gnome, Ubuntu, etc, aren't managing to hang their considerable weight on the right levers to steer the leaders/stewards/managers/head honchos of those communities in a mutually beneficial direction.
In short, what are we missing here? Let's figure that out so the next time we go through this we can get a better result, sooner in the process, without all the energy lost to (seemingly ineffective) hand-wringing and breast-beating.
This would be VERY problematic - imagine editing your already-submitted post while somebody else is in the process of commenting on it. There could be a total disconnect between your comment and the reply - very confusing and very uncool.
...my first reply got a reply to which I replied. ...But none of that seems to be visible when I reload this story. ...Wondering exactly what's going on.
I had the same thoughts about an hour ago. I'm not sure if you're experiencing the same thing I did - it's hard to believe that someone with such a low User ID has never come across this before - but FWIW I had to go the bottom of the page and click on "Get xxxx More Comments" to find the comment I posted less than 10 hours ago.
It seems to me that this one topic may just result in the Slashdotting of Slashdot. Quite a feat, actually.
>Precisely which audience is having problems reading slashdot, on precisely which platform?
The kind of audience that loves the new Yahoo. You know, the people used to web sites designed for those with no discernible attention span. The folks for whom conformity is a comfortable and entirely unconscious reflex. In other words, people who would have no interest in what Slashdot has always been, but who might be enticed to visit a 'lowest common denominator' site and bump up Dice's ad revenue.
Corporations tend to like pliable, compliant audiences who don't cause them any trouble. I'm sure a company like Dice is really uncomfortable dealing with smart people who have strong opinions and can defend them intelligently, logically, and rationally. As long as they believe they can replace existing users as we leave, and add new ones to increase readership, it's entirely possible they don't give a rat's ass about the current community.
It's atrocious. Filled out the survey it's so bad, I never voluntarily fill out surveys!
http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/sdredesign
Yes, it IS atrocious - I was unable to even post a comment in Beta. Had to go back to Classic for posting to work.
Thanks for the survey link - I didn't really want to email the bastards, so a few minutes ago I gave 'em hell on the survey instead.
I'll miss slashdot.
Yup, me too. It kinda felt like it was about to jump the shark even before Dice took over, but after that point the writing was on the wall in great big letters and it was clearly only a matter of time. Fonzie is lining up for the jump right now, and as soon as Classic is no longer available I'm so outta here.
I tried posting this comment on Beta, and I couldn't even preview it, much less post it, so I'm back on Classic; this interface is SO much better. But even before I found out that Beta SIMPLY DOESN'T WORK, I realized that there's no pressure there anyway, 'cause it sucks as hard as it blows. Tiny text box, no 'quote parent' button - they're obviously trying to manipulate us into posting shorter comments. Well, Dice, guess what? When Classic disappears, my comments will be VERY short. Zero words - is that short enough for ya?
So long Slashdot, and thanks for all the fish - except for the fucking shark. No thanks at all for that.
And as the US discovers very quickly, it happened due to intentional inefficiencies and silo-ization of intelligence.
No, that is not why it happened but framing it that way is seductively authoritarian and one of the main reasons for the creation of the modern surveillance state. Having spent billions to stop more attacks, what do we have to show for it? The Boston bombers plus a whole host of "white" attacks like mass shootings and the NSA's official record of having stopped precisely zero attacks on USA soil.
The reason these things happen is because the real world is an immensely complex system
Yes, the real world IS an immensely complex system, and terrorism will always be a part of life. And inevitably, some terrorist acts will be committed BECAUSE of the invasive and overbearing 'security' appartus we've allowed to be built because we foolishly think it's going to make us safer.
That said, what about taking responsibility for our own contributions to the mess we're in? If we build a society that actively promotes increasing poverty, inequality, disenfranchisement, and personal powerlessness, then we're building a society in which some of our members will respond senselessly and violently. And when we poke our noses into other countries' business, overthrowing their governments, propping up their dictators, and forcing our culture and our standards down their throats, we should expect some serious blowback. Yes, it may be necessary to get the bastards who broke into our house and fucked with our family - but at some point, shouldn't we ask why they're so pissed with us that they'll sacrifice their lives in order to fly planes into tall buildings and kill us? And shouldn't we consider conducting ourselves and our international affairs with more integrity, and with less arrogance and greed?
Terrorism will probably never be elimintated; but honestly, a lot of what we label 'terrorism' is retribution that we've brought upon ourselves, and it looks very much like what we would do, (and have done), if the roles were reversed.
LED is the only technology with any real promise, but the cost has to come down to 1/10th what it is today before they will be accepted by people on a budget.
I agree that LED bulbs are priced beyond the means of people with limited resources. But as they become more popular the price will come down, just as it has with CFLs.
Until very recently I was one of those who swore my government would pry my incandescent light bulbs out of my cold dead hands. I love the light that incandescents give off, and I hate the flicker, noise, and unreliability I've experienced from those tools of the devil called CFLs. (Not to mention the mercury...)
Then just a couple of months I discovered the Philips dimmable soft white LED lights - 15 bucks at Home Despot here in Canada, but currently being sold for 10 dollars, courtesy of in-store 5 dollar coupons with the discount applied at the checkout. Obviously I have no read yet on their longevity and reliability, but I can attest to the fact that they have no visible flicker. (I have nystagmus, and am bothered by flicker that others can't even perceive, so I tend to be a good judge of flicker in light sources such as car LED tail lights). I only hear a very faint buzzing when I put my ear close to the bulb, and I am unable to distinguish between the light given off by these LED bulbs and the cheap incandescent bulbs I've always used. Still a lot more expensive than an incandescent bulb, but it has a 6 year warranty that makes me feel a little better about the price, and at less than 1/5 the power consumption of an equivalent incandescent, so far I'm pretty happy with them. These are the best alternatives to 'tungsten in a jar' that I've come across.
The truth is, we're better if we go with the flow and take control of the situation. Live more in the open. That's what we ARE going to do, but if we do it RIGHT then we put at least SOME controls on things. We need to insure that whatever the government knows, we know.
Quite correct - stick a fork in privacy and turn it over, 'cause it's done. But to ensure that "whatever the government knows, we know", means that the NSA, TSA, and all those other TLA's need to pretty much drop their drawers as well. Snowden, Manning, and others of good conscience have been working on that - their lives are hell right now, and they are pariahs to millions of people, the majority of whom stand to have their lot made better and safer by the whistle blowers they condemn. Making sure that John Q. Public knows what goes on in its own government is a hell of a thankless battle.
And as long as we're talking about levelling the privacy playing field, we'd better extend it to corporations as well. There again, whistle blowers are getting royally screwed, and enforcement of the laws that ostensibly protect them is a joke.
I wonder how long it will take before new releases of Android close that oh-so-dangerous third-party app loophole. Because of course users who take all the time and effort to research how to root their devices and install CM are going to be SO surprised and pissed off that Google didn't stop them from 'voiding their warranties'. Yeah, right.
Any bets on how soon Google will start censoring, (sorry, 'lowering the page rank'), of sites that facilitate sideloading of Android apps, CM, and the like?
Android seems well on its way to becoming the next Walled Garden (TM).
Not another device to get hacked or add another point to be constantly monitored. I'll pass. Couple reasons why:
1: That temperature of water can be turned scalding quite quickly if someone manages to hack the device, and with a camera, there will be YouTube vids galore of people getting scalded.
2: I really don't want ads in my bathroom, nor cameras. No viewer or lackey in any intel organization or LEO deserves that punishment.
3: I also don't want another camera for some potential burglar to have access to via wardriving.
4: Technology for technology's sake is pointless. I want stuff in a bathroom to be simple and elegant. It is one of the few places in a building where I can get away from it.
5: I don't need another electronic item to break or need power.
I agree, and I think I can sum up all of these points in one phrase: Form follows function.
I can't get my computers to supend or hibernate properly either... ;-)
As far as cartels go, there is indeed no difference between a merger and a cartel so long as the cartel continues to exist. Empirically, though, we know that cartels tend to be short lived; market forces have a tendency of breaking them up. It ultimately all goes back to competition: those members of the cartel who are more efficient get frustrated with essentially propping up the less-efficient and break from the cartel. Even if the balance is even enough, if real price gouging is going on, the same exact thing happens as in a monopoly: new competition enters the market. I realize this is a fundamental point on which we disagree on, though.
I believe that a free market can correct such conditions, although I don't believe that it necessarily will do so. And again, I don't believe that it can ever correct them fast enough to prevent an unacceptable level of damage and dislocation. In a small market with relatively small players, customers rule, because the corrective feedback is fast and effective, sometimes shockingly so. But this behaviour does not scale. As the market gets bigger, the number of individuals that represent a company's customer base increases much faster than the number of individuals comprising that company. Paradoxically, this gives the customers less power; their geographic dispersion, and the almost impossible task of co-ordinating any actions they might take in response to some policy or behaviour, pretty much guarantee that their disgruntlement will have little or no effect on the company. The company, on the other hand, can pretty effectively enforce common goals, directions, and behaviours among its employees, and they have efficient and well co-ordinated internal communications and established hierarchies. That makes them much more monolithic, and it makes their ability to promote their own self interest much greater, often at the expense of their customers' satisfaction and well-being. Maybe those customers can find a friendlier competitor, but often they can't. If those customers have to wait years, or even decades, for a viable alternative, all the while putting up with poor products and services from an unresponsive company, then to me that is simply unacceptable. In rare instances the advent of the Internet has put some power back into the hands of consumers, but not nearly enough.
I share your wariness of regulation, simply because governments have a tendency to become aligned with, corrupted by, and sometimes co-opted by, business interests. But I think the answer is better government, (which requires better electoral systems as a necessary but not sufficient condition), not less regulation.
I recognize many of your references and your recommended reading from my days, (thirty years and more ago), as a Libertarian, an Objectivist, and a follower of Ayn Rand. I think any further discussion we might manage to have will probably be cicular, because we're starting from two different and in may ways diametrically opposed premises. I no longer believe that there is any absolute, objective truth - if I were a minor character in Atlas Shrugged, Rand might have dubbed me "Non-absolute". ;-)
First of all, let me state that I have very much enjoyed our exchange. It's refreshing to talk to someone who disagrees in an intelligent manner.
Thanks - I've enjoyed it too. There needs to be more reasoned dialog and less breast beating and flag waving in such discussions
As for what an unregulated cellular market goes, I do not know exactly what that would look like. But empirically, even fields that naturally have high barriers to entry still have a tendency of being more competitive than when the government grants "natural monopoly" status. One thing that I've speculated about in the free market, is that there may be corporations that own land specifically for the use by utilities. They would then regulate its use as it sees fit, renting out portions of it to other corporations such as cellular companies.
That's an interesting idea. It reminds me of something I've been advocating for a while, although my take is consistent with the regulation-centric approach to business and economics that I favour. Basically, for anything that looks as though it will become, (or is starting to become), societal infrastructure, the government initially grants corporations natural monopoly status, as they did with land-line telephones, cable companies, cellular service, etc. The twist is that there is a time limit, after which control and ownership gradually shift to the government. I have no problem with companies and investors making an absolute killing off of the risk they take in developing and implementing new technologies and services. But I have a huge problem with them milking it forever - as soon as something becomes, (like roads), a necessity for everyone, I feel that it no longer belongs in private hands.
This would, of course, lower barriers to entry greatly; but of course, there's no way to be sure something like this would happen. Regardless, though, even if an exceedingly high barrier to entry prevented more than just a handful of competitors, I'm confused why that would lead to higher prices? Do we not already have very high prices already?
Too often "just a handful of competitors" don't engage in pure competition; they engage in 'co-opetition', which in its extreme is collusion. Classic oligopoly stuff - they help each other keep prices high, and they work together to keep out new competitors.
At some point, in the free market, profits in one area drive in other competition, as you've mentioned; high barriers to entry or not, competition will inevitably come. I'm confused as to how our current system does a better job of this?
As you pointed out earlier, our current system does a very poor job of this. What we disagree on is the remedy - I believe wiser, more consistent, less corrupt regulation is the answer, and you believe little or no regulation is the answer. I'd be happy to have both approaches tried out - God knows we can't do a whole lot worse than we are now.
One final thought on this: if the first to enter a given market keeps their prices low enough as to not provide opportunity for competition to come in, and their services adequately meet the need of the consumers (in other words, there is not really a successful business model in trying to compete), might I ask, what is the problem, exactly?
The danger I see is that incumbents temporarily lower their prices and/or improve their service in order to starve out new competitors, then go back to their old 'screw the customer' ways until the next threat comes along. I feel this is the Achilles heel of free markets - at some point they become no longer free, but by that time companies become so entrenched and so relied-upon that they are much harder to control. Getting back to cellular service, cell phones are pretty much a necessity now for the majority of people, especially since pay phones are virtually non-existent. People simply can't afford to stop using
Points taken - I now understand your point of view better. I agree with many of your points, but I still question a few.
The problem though, is that the system enables corporations to leverage their resources to create inequality of opportunity through monopoly grants, regulations, barrier to entry, and other legislation of privilege.
You may be right about our current regulatory regime making it easier to raise barriers to entry and create inequality. However, I remain unconvinced that 'no regulation' is a workable solution. Let's talk about cellular infrastructure as an example. If we took away all of the government grants to public rights of way, and all of the incentives meant to minimize initial risk and encourage initial investment, would we even have a continent-wide cellular network? But let's assume that a truly free market worked its magic - investors and companies cooperated on the R&D, land purchases, hardware installations, etc. Then what? I think we would have an oligopoly, (as we do now), except there would be no regulation to curb its worst excesses, and no precedent for government intervention. And I think those companies would be providing poorer service at higher prices, because they could, and because it maximizes shareholder value. Typically, at this point the argument goes, "But that would be an opportunity for new companies to enter the market". The problem with that is that the existing companies' entrenchment represents a VERY high barrier to entry. Not only is it hard to get people to switch to a new company, (the 'better the devil you know' philosophy), at some point the plethora of antennae on tall buildings, and finding more land to purchase to lay cables, and reduction of available spectrum, becomes first expensive, then totally untenable. Would-be new competitors are faced with higher costs to procure a smaller market share than the original players had access to. Also, the incumbents can afford to lower their prices in the short term to protect their control of the market in the long term.
'First to market' is, in and of itself, a high barrier to entry for competitors; sometimes it's so high that beyond that point, a 'free market' isn't possible. I think that, paradoxically, the only way to get what we imagine a free market might provide for us, is to have some regulation. Yes, I'm aware of the philosophical implications of that; I've long since disabused myself of the notion that there is a) any such thing as absolute moral rightness, and b) any way for us to know what it might be should it exist. These days I take a more pragmatic approach, and do my best to figure out what will work best for the greatest number of people over the longest period of time. It seems to me that any other approach is severely limited in its adaptibility by its inherently ideological nature.
My study of economics has taught me that efforts to limit the disparity causes more problems than it solves.
A study of economics might teach that efforts made to limit disparity up to this point in time have arguably caused more problems than they have solved. I doubt that it can convincingly state, categorically, that no regulatory regime can ever solve more problems than it causes. Besides, isn't economics pretty famous for the failure of its predictions?
Equality can only ever be objectively defined as equality of opportunity, not equality of distribution.
The problem with this argument is that it assumes opportunity can remain equal even as distribution moves toward a Pareto-law curve. In reality, even when opportunity is equal at some arbitrary point in time, several years or decades later, those who have amassed wealth also have additional power and opportunity, (which tends to further wealth concentration - lather, rinse, repeat), while those who missed the boat end up with less opportunity than they started with. Even if we assume that the concentration of wealth is primarily a result of skill, intelligence, talent, and hard work, (and I don't - I believe luck is a much, much greater factor than most people realize), shouldn't we take care to limit the size of that disparity? Isn't making sure the disadvantaged don't get left too far behind, one of the major tenets of a civilized society? Also, isn't that how revolutions are prevented?
Furthermore, what exactly is the problem with a CEO making 500x the rate of the lowest (or even median) paid worker? Inherently, nothing. What matters is the wealth and progression of the middle class and the freedom to move freely through the classes, based on ones' abilities and desires.
20:1 was average in the 60's, when we had a strong middle class. Today it's more like 200:1, (perhaps higher), and the middle class is disappearing. Perhaps the current lack of "wealth and progression" of the middle class, and the lack of mobility among classes, are by-products of the concentration of wealth. I'm fully aware that correlation isn't causation, but shouldn't we at least be questioning whether or not there's a causal relationship? (And by questioning I mean actively investigating, not resorting to economic theory and/or ideological dogma).
After all, the only way to achieve equality of distribution is via coercively taking from those who have accumulated their wealth via mutually-beneficial exchanges on the free market.
This argument suggests to me that you believe the free market to be somehow morally right and unquestionably good in an absolute sense. Do you really believe that, in the absence of regulation and limits, free market principles won't lead to gross injustice, rampant abuse, and vast economic disparity?
Forbidding people from signing contracts that both parties deem as mutually beneficial is wrong and destructive to the economy.
As for "wrong", again, if this is a moral issue, what is the evidence that a free market is morally right? As for "destructive", wasn't the recent financial crisis caused by contracts that "both parties" deemed "mutually beneficial'? Home buyers signed contracts with lending institutions; the loan values were higher than the equity in the homes and the buyers didn't have enough income to keep up the payments. Lending institutions repackaged that debt as derivatives and sold it. Presumably, in both cases the parties thought the agreements were "mutually beneficial"; otherwise, why did they sign? Those mutually beneficial contracts damned-near caused a worldwide depression. How's that for "destructive to the economy"?
...if you forward to the FTC it will show up as your number originating, and if you forward to a 900 service you will get the bill.
I'm not sure what happens when calling 800 or 900 numbers, but when calling a regular area code, the caller ID that gets displayed on the receiving end is that of the originating number, not the forwarding number. At least that's what happens here in Ontario, Canada. I've tested the behaviour on cell-to-landline forwarding, and on landline-to-cell forwarding. I have no reason to believe it works differently for landline-to-landline or cell-to-cell forwarding, nor would I expect Canada to be different from the US in this regard.