They could do it in a way that wouldn't hurt small businesses (that don't have privacy breaches) but you are probably right in that the proposed implementation will be overbearing regulations that punishes all of the honest businesses out there in an attempt to catch/punish the few that are negligent.
The 24 hour security breach notification and stiff fines sound like a good idea. Punishing abuses, fraud, and negligence are one of a governments primary responsibilities. I'm also for forcing companies to disclose more information that potentially involves harming people (loss of private data, pollution, etc.). I'm not such a big fan of the mandatory officers and inspections. If you make the penalties big enough and force them to own up to their failures companies will determine how to achieve adequate levels of protection on their own. As always, companies/people will follow the incentives/disincentives.
If women want to participate and are good contributors then more power to them. If they aren't interested, who cares? Equal opportunity is what matters, not equal outcome. For whatever reason (genetic, cultural, etc.), women aren't as interested and that is fine. If a woman is interested and capable but is blocked by something outside of her control, then you have me interested.
All true. However, they were the first to bring all of those technologies together into a relatively polished smartphone and provide the market with something it wanted but did not previously have. Fanboyism certainly plays a large part in their sales and I hate many of their business practices but they do innovate. Constant litigation limits many of the incentives for companies like Apple, Google, Samsung, etc. to innovate.
Are you really asking how holding back sales and limiting competition could affect innovation? What exactly do you think drives people to innovate? Apple doesn't innovate just because they like making neat things or because they love puppies and flowers. They innovate because it allows them to sell products and gives them an edge over their competition.
You are confusing "holding back innovation" with "completely preventing any innovation". Seeing new phones at CES is only evidence that innovation is not being completely halted. Just look at the incentives. Constant litigation makes releasing products more expensive which reduces profits and thus removes some of the incentives to make and release new products.
Generally agree. However, there are a few exceptions. It should be mandatory in "published", rarely changing interfaces so people don't have to look at the implementation behind the interface. Documentation is nice for utility classes that get used all the time and across projects (like some fancy list). Documentation is also good for code that is dense and difficult to understand by its very nature (large equations are a good example). Generally, code should be made less dense and difficult to understand instead of documenting it but that cannot always be avoided.
You and Schmidt are both right and wrong. Fragmentation and innovation are both side effects of a more open approach. It isn't a question of "which one is happening." Both are happening. There is crap in Android but the crap will die out as people choose the better options. TouchWiz isn't the innovation, it is a failed attempt at innovation. There will be many other failures but there will also be successes if things are allowed to continue. In the long run, approaches like Androids should win out over relying on one mans vision(s).
Yes, the US forced those countries to spend significantly more than they take in and forced their banks to make bad investments. Not saying the US didn't do those things too, just saying the US isn't the only one.
You are often paying more for the land than you are for the house. You are also paying more than the cost of the house because you are borrowing a huge chunk of money for a long period of time. You are also not putting 100% of your productivity into paying off the house. It takes 25 years to pay for the house PLUS 25 years of kids, food, fun, retirement, medical expenses, car, fuel, and on and on. Also, think back 100 years and about what their standard of living was. Most families have washing machines, refrigerators, televisions, cell phones, automobiles, and on and on. We chose to get more instead of working less.
No, the problem is that the government wields enough power to justify things like Super-PACs. All the welfare cases and gimmie gimmies elect politicians that give handouts and kickbacks because they like "free" stuff. Then, they get upset when businesses also say "gimmie gimmie" and the politicians give them "free" stuff as well. Said another way, the problem isn't money in politics, the problem is power in politics.
Yeah, America should learn to be fiscally responsible and not cause financial melt downs like Greece, Ireland, Italy, and Spain. They should be free and open like China. They should have a compassionate government that respects individual freedom like governments in the Middle East. They should not worry about natural resources so much like Russia. Oh wait, every country in the world does this shit, the US just has more power so it can get away with doing more of it. Give the US power/wealth to any other country in the world and they will be just as bad or worse. I'm not justifying anything the US is doing but they aren't much different than 99% of the other countries in the world. This "holier than thou" attitude you have is exactly what you are condemning in the US.
You missed two major points. The first is that being "open" and allowing "choice" does not guarantee a better product at first but it does make it pretty much inevitable. iOS will slowly join the ranks of AOL in terms of active use while Android continues to evolve. The second point is that you somehow think that browsing the web is what makes something a smart phone. There are plenty of phones most people would not consider smart that can browse the web. The applications as a whole are what make it a smart phone.
Exactly. As long as someone has something valuable to offer, people will try to get it by offering valuable things in exchange. You aren't going to change that. If the government has nothing valuable to offer corporations/special interests then that completely resolves the issue. Trying to take money (in one form or another) out of politics without taking out the power is an exercise in futility.
are more what I am worried about. I don't think we should abandon the idea by any stretch but I do think we need to be extremely cautious when we are mucking with things we don't fully understand that are vitally important (aka our food supply). We have done all sorts of stupid things that sounded good such as introducing species to areas to control pests that ended in disaster (see Mongoose in Maui). Well ok...that does sound stupid...but it obviously sounded like a good idea to someone. We still don't fully understand nutrient absorption and all their interactions within our bodies (ask around about whether multi-vitamins are good for you) so I don't see how we could stamp GM foods as truly "nutritionally equivalent."
Perhaps they would switch to focusing on power distribution instead of generation. Solar panels might not provide enough power for spikes in a homes energy usage. Homes that are currently generating more power than they need could help power homes that are currently in a spike. The power companies could facilitate, monitor, and compensate homes (while taking a cut off the top) for their deficit/surplus power. Power companies also may need to help provide power throughout the night. I realize this is basically what power companies already do...just saying this might be their new focus.
The means were about the same so that contradicts the greater male variability theory? The authors clearly didn't understand what "greater male variability" means. Greater male variability addresses why there are more males at the tops of industries, it says little to nothing about the average male. How about this, we encourage people to do what they are interested in and are good at (often correlated) instead of trying to steer men or women into fields? If it ends up 60/40, 30/70, or whatever doesn't matter. Equal opportunity is important, equal outcome is not.
How about if someone wants something, they pay for it? I know it is a crazy, radical, outlandish, insane idea but we may want to give it a go. If you want to donate your money to the infant staged private space industry then more power to you. Why do you have to put a gun to my head and force me to give to it?
I agree that corporate heads are currently not held adequately accountable for the repercussions of their decisions, particularly where there is negligence. That is the governments job and they are failing miserably at it. When a corporation fails or does something wrong the government typically gives them money and writes regulations to punish all of that corporations competitors who were actually doing the right thing. As to your illness point, I would gladly accept treatments risen from the innovations of a free market place and regulated by customers want for effective treatments with minimized side effects. What the government mainly does (via the FDA) is to ensure that only expensive, patent-able treatments are legal and smaller firms and innovators can't contribute to the progression of modern medicine.
Monopolies aren't something the American people "try". Monopolies can only exist in the presence of government blocking competition through regulation, propping up the company through subsidies, and not enforcing basic laws (such as "don't break the legs of competitors"). Monopolies and big government go hand in hand, they are not opposites. The main point you don't understand is that these faceless bureaucrats are drawn from the same crowd of helpless people you think they protect. The helpless, short sighted, ignorant people you want protected become bureaucrats! I'm not saying all federal agencies are useless, many of them do make positive contributions. The question is, how much more effective, efficient, and useful could they be if they actually faced competition?
That is true as long as their customers don't care about it. If their customers don't care about it then why should the government step in and decide what is important for customers? I know what I want, why do you think the government knows what I want better than I do? This of course assumes there isn't a government supported monopoly/oligopolies running an industry. In that case you have two choices, stop supporting and protecting monopolies/oligopolies so there is actually competition or create another probably useless and hard to get rid of government agency. I know which one I would pick.
I'm trying to decide if that post is sarcastic or not...I hope it is because I can't imagine you actually believe anything you just typed. I'll try my hand at some sarcasm. Yes, the government is run on rainbows and gumdrops and people who love their fellow man and are not power hungry, greedy, or self serving. Have you ever heard of a rich politician? Don't think so! That's because they are only interested in saving people money and protecting the environment! Creating huge bureaucracies helps protect business and consumers from themselves cause businesses and consumers are made up of flawed humans whereas politicians aren't humans and see the truth and know what is best for everyone!:D
Why does this need to involve government? Let the industries and individuals interested help fund and found the organization. If the organization works well and is beneficial then it will likely stick around. If it is useless then companies/supporters will lose interest and it will go away. If the concept was useful but the implementation was terrible then alternatives will spring up. If the government founds it/runs it/supports it then it will never go away no matter how useless or poorly run it may turn out to be. There would obviously be no problem with the government itself using the organization (aka being a customer) but that is all it should potentially do.
Slashdot Mirror
They could do it in a way that wouldn't hurt small businesses (that don't have privacy breaches) but you are probably right in that the proposed implementation will be overbearing regulations that punishes all of the honest businesses out there in an attempt to catch/punish the few that are negligent.
The 24 hour security breach notification and stiff fines sound like a good idea. Punishing abuses, fraud, and negligence are one of a governments primary responsibilities. I'm also for forcing companies to disclose more information that potentially involves harming people (loss of private data, pollution, etc.). I'm not such a big fan of the mandatory officers and inspections. If you make the penalties big enough and force them to own up to their failures companies will determine how to achieve adequate levels of protection on their own. As always, companies/people will follow the incentives/disincentives.
If women want to participate and are good contributors then more power to them. If they aren't interested, who cares? Equal opportunity is what matters, not equal outcome. For whatever reason (genetic, cultural, etc.), women aren't as interested and that is fine. If a woman is interested and capable but is blocked by something outside of her control, then you have me interested.
All true. However, they were the first to bring all of those technologies together into a relatively polished smartphone and provide the market with something it wanted but did not previously have. Fanboyism certainly plays a large part in their sales and I hate many of their business practices but they do innovate. Constant litigation limits many of the incentives for companies like Apple, Google, Samsung, etc. to innovate.
Are you really asking how holding back sales and limiting competition could affect innovation? What exactly do you think drives people to innovate? Apple doesn't innovate just because they like making neat things or because they love puppies and flowers. They innovate because it allows them to sell products and gives them an edge over their competition.
You are confusing "holding back innovation" with "completely preventing any innovation". Seeing new phones at CES is only evidence that innovation is not being completely halted. Just look at the incentives. Constant litigation makes releasing products more expensive which reduces profits and thus removes some of the incentives to make and release new products.
Generally agree. However, there are a few exceptions. It should be mandatory in "published", rarely changing interfaces so people don't have to look at the implementation behind the interface. Documentation is nice for utility classes that get used all the time and across projects (like some fancy list). Documentation is also good for code that is dense and difficult to understand by its very nature (large equations are a good example). Generally, code should be made less dense and difficult to understand instead of documenting it but that cannot always be avoided.
You and Schmidt are both right and wrong. Fragmentation and innovation are both side effects of a more open approach. It isn't a question of "which one is happening." Both are happening. There is crap in Android but the crap will die out as people choose the better options. TouchWiz isn't the innovation, it is a failed attempt at innovation. There will be many other failures but there will also be successes if things are allowed to continue. In the long run, approaches like Androids should win out over relying on one mans vision(s).
Yes, the US forced those countries to spend significantly more than they take in and forced their banks to make bad investments. Not saying the US didn't do those things too, just saying the US isn't the only one.
You are often paying more for the land than you are for the house. You are also paying more than the cost of the house because you are borrowing a huge chunk of money for a long period of time. You are also not putting 100% of your productivity into paying off the house. It takes 25 years to pay for the house PLUS 25 years of kids, food, fun, retirement, medical expenses, car, fuel, and on and on. Also, think back 100 years and about what their standard of living was. Most families have washing machines, refrigerators, televisions, cell phones, automobiles, and on and on. We chose to get more instead of working less.
No, the problem is that the government wields enough power to justify things like Super-PACs. All the welfare cases and gimmie gimmies elect politicians that give handouts and kickbacks because they like "free" stuff. Then, they get upset when businesses also say "gimmie gimmie" and the politicians give them "free" stuff as well. Said another way, the problem isn't money in politics, the problem is power in politics.
Yeah, America should learn to be fiscally responsible and not cause financial melt downs like Greece, Ireland, Italy, and Spain. They should be free and open like China. They should have a compassionate government that respects individual freedom like governments in the Middle East. They should not worry about natural resources so much like Russia. Oh wait, every country in the world does this shit, the US just has more power so it can get away with doing more of it. Give the US power/wealth to any other country in the world and they will be just as bad or worse. I'm not justifying anything the US is doing but they aren't much different than 99% of the other countries in the world. This "holier than thou" attitude you have is exactly what you are condemning in the US.
You missed two major points. The first is that being "open" and allowing "choice" does not guarantee a better product at first but it does make it pretty much inevitable. iOS will slowly join the ranks of AOL in terms of active use while Android continues to evolve. The second point is that you somehow think that browsing the web is what makes something a smart phone. There are plenty of phones most people would not consider smart that can browse the web. The applications as a whole are what make it a smart phone.
Exactly. As long as someone has something valuable to offer, people will try to get it by offering valuable things in exchange. You aren't going to change that. If the government has nothing valuable to offer corporations/special interests then that completely resolves the issue. Trying to take money (in one form or another) out of politics without taking out the power is an exercise in futility.
are more what I am worried about. I don't think we should abandon the idea by any stretch but I do think we need to be extremely cautious when we are mucking with things we don't fully understand that are vitally important (aka our food supply). We have done all sorts of stupid things that sounded good such as introducing species to areas to control pests that ended in disaster (see Mongoose in Maui). Well ok...that does sound stupid...but it obviously sounded like a good idea to someone. We still don't fully understand nutrient absorption and all their interactions within our bodies (ask around about whether multi-vitamins are good for you) so I don't see how we could stamp GM foods as truly "nutritionally equivalent."
Perhaps they would switch to focusing on power distribution instead of generation. Solar panels might not provide enough power for spikes in a homes energy usage. Homes that are currently generating more power than they need could help power homes that are currently in a spike. The power companies could facilitate, monitor, and compensate homes (while taking a cut off the top) for their deficit/surplus power. Power companies also may need to help provide power throughout the night. I realize this is basically what power companies already do...just saying this might be their new focus.
The means were about the same so that contradicts the greater male variability theory? The authors clearly didn't understand what "greater male variability" means. Greater male variability addresses why there are more males at the tops of industries, it says little to nothing about the average male. How about this, we encourage people to do what they are interested in and are good at (often correlated) instead of trying to steer men or women into fields? If it ends up 60/40, 30/70, or whatever doesn't matter. Equal opportunity is important, equal outcome is not.
How about if someone wants something, they pay for it? I know it is a crazy, radical, outlandish, insane idea but we may want to give it a go. If you want to donate your money to the infant staged private space industry then more power to you. Why do you have to put a gun to my head and force me to give to it?
I agree that corporate heads are currently not held adequately accountable for the repercussions of their decisions, particularly where there is negligence. That is the governments job and they are failing miserably at it. When a corporation fails or does something wrong the government typically gives them money and writes regulations to punish all of that corporations competitors who were actually doing the right thing. As to your illness point, I would gladly accept treatments risen from the innovations of a free market place and regulated by customers want for effective treatments with minimized side effects. What the government mainly does (via the FDA) is to ensure that only expensive, patent-able treatments are legal and smaller firms and innovators can't contribute to the progression of modern medicine.
Monopolies aren't something the American people "try". Monopolies can only exist in the presence of government blocking competition through regulation, propping up the company through subsidies, and not enforcing basic laws (such as "don't break the legs of competitors"). Monopolies and big government go hand in hand, they are not opposites. The main point you don't understand is that these faceless bureaucrats are drawn from the same crowd of helpless people you think they protect. The helpless, short sighted, ignorant people you want protected become bureaucrats! I'm not saying all federal agencies are useless, many of them do make positive contributions. The question is, how much more effective, efficient, and useful could they be if they actually faced competition?
That's the "How appropriate, you fight like a cow" to my "You fight like a dairy farmer" :(
We may need to take off the handcuffs, apply some burn cream, add some finger splints, and give it a pep talk first though.
That is true as long as their customers don't care about it. If their customers don't care about it then why should the government step in and decide what is important for customers? I know what I want, why do you think the government knows what I want better than I do? This of course assumes there isn't a government supported monopoly/oligopolies running an industry. In that case you have two choices, stop supporting and protecting monopolies/oligopolies so there is actually competition or create another probably useless and hard to get rid of government agency. I know which one I would pick.
I'm trying to decide if that post is sarcastic or not...I hope it is because I can't imagine you actually believe anything you just typed. I'll try my hand at some sarcasm. Yes, the government is run on rainbows and gumdrops and people who love their fellow man and are not power hungry, greedy, or self serving. Have you ever heard of a rich politician? Don't think so! That's because they are only interested in saving people money and protecting the environment! Creating huge bureaucracies helps protect business and consumers from themselves cause businesses and consumers are made up of flawed humans whereas politicians aren't humans and see the truth and know what is best for everyone! :D
Why does this need to involve government? Let the industries and individuals interested help fund and found the organization. If the organization works well and is beneficial then it will likely stick around. If it is useless then companies/supporters will lose interest and it will go away. If the concept was useful but the implementation was terrible then alternatives will spring up. If the government founds it/runs it/supports it then it will never go away no matter how useless or poorly run it may turn out to be. There would obviously be no problem with the government itself using the organization (aka being a customer) but that is all it should potentially do.