Definitely not a troll question. It is difficult to explain in easy terms why we have such admiration for men who were obviously so different from one another in many ways, but held a rebellious desire that was much needed in the world at the time.
Our founding fathers had some ideas that were taken from many different leaders and intelligent individuals of the past, but they had put them together in a way that no one else had ever done, successfully.
Read this for more information on an eloquent article by a wonderful politician:
Yes! Part of the solution to this problem is to eliminate any and all federal programs for which the federal government has no power to pay for or collect for! Funding for the arts, funding for education of any kind. Great first step. Keep rolling them!
Eliminate the FBI, CIA, FCC, FDA, EPA, IRS, FRB, FDIC, SEC, CFTC, NLRB, FAA, NRC, FERC, INS, OSHA, NHTSA, EEOC, BATF, DEA, CPSC, NIH, NASA, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, federal college aid grants and loans, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and more! None of these programs are Constitutionally acceptable, and the only way we'll return to a truly booming country is to make sure that our duly elected officials abide by their oath to uphold the Constitution. There is only one that I know of who truly does that. Dr. Ron Paul has shown that he believes in the Constitution, and I believe he has never voted for an unconstitutional bill or legislative measure.
I would love to see a federal government that will never believe in interventionism again!
Actually, if you want to get on the clue train, here are the directions to the tracks:
First, our Constitution gave the States a great deal of power to battle the federal government. Our country grew in a rate never seen before 1914. In 1914, the country found its first failures, which have been compounded since then. In 1914, we passed the 17th amendment, which ripped the rights of the States out and put them directly into the hands of those our founding fathers knew were not smart enough to wield such powers.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/tucker7.html
Since 1914, our country has moved directly into inflation (devaluation of the dollar through the Federal Reserve). Since 1914, our country has had few years of actual growth (compared to the true rate of inflation based on new dollars printed). Since 1914, our country has slipped from a strong State-oriented Republic into a Democracy of fools. Since 1914, our once strong web of States has become a Nation (a word never used by the founding fathers).
That's the beginning of the clue many need to realize why we're in this mess.
Big business doesn't screw peoples' rights. Big businesses uses the power of government to screw peoples' rights. Our government is supposed to be restrained by the Constitution so that they can NOT take away our "God-given" rights. It is not capitalism. Capitalism is not bad nor good, all it really does is describe a means of two people or entities in trade. True capitalism doesn't hurt anyone -- it offers everyone the best price for the product they are selling (labor, goods, information).
We don't have true capitalism. At mises.org, they explain how true capitalism works. It works best when government regulates the least. No one entity would ever monopolize in a truly capitalist society -- competition would never allow it. If a large company had too much power and raised prices too much, in an unregulated economy, another competitor would come in with a better service at a better price.
In our economy, government mandates that only one company or cartel can offer a product (cable, local phone service, taxi cabs, milk producers, drug companies, etc) to you. This is the only way a monopoly can be created -- by government.
Capitalists only exploit every hole because we allow those holes to be added. If Congress would keep to their oath, there would be no holes. There would only be provisions: services to provide, products to provide, and information to provide. Whoever can provide the best provision at a price a person can afford in a quality level that is acceptable will be the strongest provider. But anyone who can provide the same level of quality at a lower price can easily wipe out that strong provider.
It is a simple fact that socialism fails because no one really wants to help the other guy out. Capitalism helps everyone -- even the little guy, by providing an avenue for everyone to produce the best product they can.
If you're disabled, maybe you'll find a way to produce a product at a cheaper price than someone who is fully abled (phone support, typing skills, engineering, etc). This doesn't hurt you, what it does is allow your customers to spend less money on one facet of their business so they can invest in another facet -- which helps the economy. If government came in and said "you have to pay the disabled as much as the abled" guess what? The abled will be hired, and the disabled will be frowned upon, although ever openly.
The same is true with minimum wage laws. When you set a minimum wage, you basically state that anyone worth less than $5 an hour won't be hired. If I am a restaurant owner, and I can afford $6 an hour for table cleaning, I either hire one guy at $5 an hour, or I hire 2 guys at $3 an hour. Those 2 guys are now employed, and will not stay at that level long, because they will gain skills and be worth more. If I won't pay them more, my competitors surely will!
Socialist idealogy is bunk. Capitalism must either be true, or it is a failure.
As for the ad hominems, I used to try hard not to use them, but I've realized that we use ad hominems every day here on slashdot, without them being obvious. The terms used against the RIAA and Microsoft alone go to show you that the people making those claims ARE idiots. The terms used against Senators and Congressman show you that the people ARE communists. These are not ad hominems, these are FACTS. Just because you feel your public education made you smart does not mean you have a clue. You're only indoctrinated.
Exactly. The reason the Democrats, Republicans, and Greens ignore this portion of the Constitution is that their public "education" indoctrination camps would rather teach them to be touchy feely and learn the arts instead of learning to read and understand the rebellious document that was supposd to keep my rights protected against the wishes of the average slashdotter.
The outcome of this proposal is directly related to everyone here who wants more regulation of business, more control of business, and more taxation of business. It has nothing to do with business but with the federal power that is granted to certain individual organizations -- and that can only be enforced at the point of a gun.
The only monopoly here is big government. It is time to downsize, downsize, downsize.
Fortunately, you prove yourself wrong in forgetting that the only one with ultimate power is the government, not big business.
America was to be different from communists such as yourself because we were to have a federal government with very strict enumerated powers -- so that they could not trample on the rights of individuals by helping their friends.
What we have today is more socialist than it is capitalist. But I can understand how those with smaller brains would rather blame it on big business rather than on a Congress that has bordered treason for not upholding their oath to the Constitution that should keep them from passing laws that are clearly not within their powers.
Wrong. Our Constitution was designed so that you, me, the Communists, the Iraqis, whoever wanted to give money to government officials could. But it would have no effect, because that government official would have their hands tied by the Constitution. Each official has certain enumerated power -- if the Constitution doesn't allot for it, they can't do it.
Of course, the average joe (yourself included it seems) believes that the money is evil! Not the act of law created by someone who is not following their oath to uphold the Constitution.
Thanks for voting. Democrat? Republican? All the same. The Constitution limits our Congress to certain enumerated rights. Copyright and anti-trust regulation ARE within those enumerated rights, but we've given them so many other rights (health care, FBI, FDA, FCC, etc) that they can now pass any law, any time, even if the laws are obviously pork for their friends.
This is the problem with democracy. If 49 people disagree with 51, the 49 people lose. Everyone's a loser. Stop voting for authoritarian parties (Democrats, Republicans, Greens) and start voting for parties who actually want to downsize DC.
The children in poverished neighborhoods in the U.S. ALREADY get a worse education than the children in rich neighborhoods. It is not because of spending -- in the Chicago area, poor neighborhoods in Chicago spend way more per student than rich neighborhoods do, for a worse education. Why? It is because the family at home doesn't support the child's education. Don't throw "parity" at me -- it doesn't work with public dollars.
Right now, education in the U.S. is free day care and that's about it. I know, I own a store that is centered around kids, and I see even the bright ones can't spell or read or communicate well. If you privatize education (and we should), you'll see an INCREASE in the talents of kids whose families can afford to send them to education. Those who can't afford it will most likely send their kids to religious schools, or will send their kids to work early. Of course, your minimum wage detracts from that ability, but its more government intervention.
You bring up a debate that has already been won by many others. Go to http://www.lewrockwell.com and read many of the articles refuting public educations "victories" and showing its common failures. Slashdot is a bad forum for this debate -- its clouded by the mythos of the many socialist geeks who come here to fight "big business." Send me a private e-mail, let's discuss this there:)
The reality is that public education in Finland is actually very different than public education in the U.S. In Finland, almost all the dollars for the education system is paid for by the local town. In the U.S., we share money from other cities, counties, and even States. It is unfortunate that I have to subsidize the education of people in States hundreds of miles away. If the money comes from only the local people, there is definitely more control over spending and waste! Finland's "success" to me is still a bit of a failure, as the local system definitely has moved more towards indoctrination than education in recent years.
As for the private companies not wanting to offer the service, it is more an aspect of over-regulation by the local, State, and federal governments trying to control communication rather than a lack of desire by private corporations to get involved. If the city provides the service, it can get around many aspects of regulations that it imposes on private corporations.
Unipuma: It is very hard to see how much money you're really paying for a government provided pathway, even if private companies provide the next level of service on that public pathway. Taxes at so many different levels mask the true cost of the public provision.
Slycrel:
Are you sure it is profitable? How many ISPs provided bad service because their regulations required them merely to provide a certain level of expected service? When government regulates (such as airline security), private corporations can say they've met the level of expected service as regulated, and then point the blame on the government's minimal desires. When any government agency sets a mandated monopoly, that corporation is surely in bed with the bureaucrats. When you remove the regulations, and allow true competition, then competitors work hard to provide better service. Look at the PC industry. If Dell was mandated as the only provider of PCs in your area, and the government said that Dell had to sell at least a Pentium 2 with Windows 98, do you really think Dell has any incentive to provide P4s with Linux? Of course not.
Anonymous Cowards:
The Interstate Highway IS a waste. Look how many we pay in hidden taxes (gas taxes, amongst others) to pave the highways. Complete overspending.
The Internet started out as a government project, where it didn't go anywhere until private corporations provided their own "Internet." I think AOL and Prodigy were the head of the game when they created their own nationwide network. Look at the realities. How many years did the government provision do anything? It wasn't until private companies created a proprietary structure that it bloomed. Then, the market dictated that they preferred a compatible model between the big ISPs, and the Internet REALLY boomed. I see little reason to applaud the government for the growth.
As for the big telcos needing to lobby to tilt the playing field, they can only lobby because it is a government regulated system. If it was true competition, lobbying would accomplish NOTHING. The money could be better spent on improving each competitors' system, so they could win out in the long run.
Leave this to the free market of competition -- any time the government enacts these "wonderful projects" it ends up costing bigger bucks than if it was done for profit. How many non-users will pay higher taxes so that the actual users can get a service they way? How many ISP jobs will be lost? How many useless government jobs will be added?
Is this what you want? The same bureaucrats who have ruined education, who have done nothing but porked their budgets out of control -- you want these guys serving your high speed data?
Many online and offline business rental companies will let you rent a projector. This is HIGHLY recommended. The $50-$100 more you'll spend will give you a big chance to see if the projector is for you.
Lumens, contrast ratio, and even resolution is NOT comparitive between brands. Some people see "rainbows" with DLP projectors. Some people see excess screen door with LCD projectors.
Before I bought my (CHEAP) Sanyo PLV-Z1 projector, I scoured the AVS Forums for information, and it was the best help I could find.
Now I have a 110" projector on my living room wall, the room feels twice as big (the TV took up so much space), and my projector looks great during the day, the night, and in HDTV (thanks Comcast for doing something right!).
dada
Only 1996 to the Present
on
Video Card History
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
I was excited to load this article up and hope to see my first VGA card by Paradise. I believe it was called Paradise 256K or something like that. I had a Sony VGA monitor, and my friends and I were blown away by some 320x200 x 256 color graphic of a parrot. Then we found a nude GIF. Whoa. I think I had that card about 2 years before any game really supported it, although Police Quest in EGA mode was nothing like we could imagine.
I'd love to see a history of all video cards for the PC platform...
I'm not going to spew a free market response to this like "911 doesn't respond quick" or "there should be privatized 911." In all honesty, I've used 911 2 or 3 times, and the cops were quick to respond so I know the service works well. But their presence was really not needed in my case. I've been in emergencies when I could have called a cop or an ambulance, but I did not have the time to hesitate (not because I was afraid they'd take forever). I had good enough "luck" calling a neighbor or friend who lived close, or handling the emergency as best as I can.
In the case of a fire, or a heart attack, or another emergency, our 911 service usually does a pretty good job -- but in all reality the cost to provide the service IS high. Why have systems like OnStar gotten so popular? There are many "needs" that 911 will not handle (flat tires), but that same service (OnStar) does a damn good job responding to me because I pay, not because they are required by law.
FYI, I have two consultant friends who work on the Chicago 911 system, and they said the majority of 911 calls there are not for fires or heart attacks, but for domestic violence calls that end up with the cops leaving with no one arrested or even harmed. Lovely waste of my money!
It won't be competition that drives a market away, it is excessive regulation, government mandated monopolies, or a lack of desire for that service or product by the purchasing public.
I doubt that people will lose the desire to use VoIP, so that third occurence is unlikely. But government overregulating, or enforcing a company's "right" to be the sole provider of the service, both could happen (and probably will). I see ads on TV all the time for "$40 a month unlimited phone service!" but I know the last time I had such a deal, I paid $50 for the service, and $35 or more for all the government taxes and fees on top of it.
It is ridiculous.
I dumped my wired phone service because of these fees, and I am about to dump my cell phone service for the same reason. I have enough IP connectivity wherever I am that that I will happily switch to a VoIP company that allows me to transport my Wi-Fi based phone to any network and immediately get connectivity. But when they start getting taxed heavily, I'll move on to the next format.
Honestly, 80% of my communications have moved to instant messaging of some kind. Its loggable, it takes thought to write messages, and I can communicate with 5 seperate conversations at once. I used to use almost 3000 minutes a month on my cell phone, now I am down to 1000 minutes, but I send probably 10,000 text messages to various people.
I'm betting many of you will eventually drop the over-taxed, over-regulated services for ones that get the work done faster, cheaper, and with fewer government intrusions.
Probably by sheer luck and bad timing, I had 3 monitors all fail on the same day while I was at a customers. Couldn't explain the failure (it was definitely an anomoly) but maybe it had something to do with bad power that may have been caused by fluctuations in the power grid?
Governments can save us by BUTTING OUT.
on
The End of the Oil Age
·
· Score: 1, Insightful
Governments need to promote NOTHING. That is the problem: we have given up the most powerful feature an individual has: the power to vote with one's dollar.
Oil is big not because of "big business" but because of big subsidies and big tariffs and big embargoes and big regulations and big requirements: all government interventions that prevent other technologies from being promoted or even discovered.
Big business never lasts -- look at what happened to the kerosene industry: it fell apart before the government could call it a monopoly.
Articles such as this refuse to show the real cause for monopolies and technologies that refuse to die even though they are outdated: government.
Continuing to vote Democrat or Republican or Green will only lead us down the trail of more tyrannical choices made for us under the guise of "democracy." We are not a democracy, we are a union of States where the individual should never be trumped by the masses -- unless that individual is harming another in visible and provable ways.
Don't blame the gas companies, they are only taking advantage of what you and your ancestors did: allow government to reach its evil hand into my life.
Many people here are angry that our Congress can enact legislation such as this when it is completely outside of its power to do so. They are angry that "big business" is controlling politics, but what these slashdotters don't see is that they are just as responsible for this tilt in the balance of power as "big business."
First of all, when you ask government to intervene in any issue, you will have to expect unintended consequences of that action. Most of the time those consequences happen years if not decades later. Why are you against the DMCA, but for government intervention of Microsoft? Why are you against the lengthening of copyright owners protection, but for unconstitutional policies such as the Civil Right acts and the Americans with Disabilities Act? Government doesn't protect any individual -- all of these policies are to do one of two things: to restrict the rights of certain individuals at great expense (in order to gain votes from certain fewer individuals), or to compensate a small group at the financial expense of a larger group.
No law that either liberal or conservative slashdotters tend to support will really help the country as a whole -- it will only support those who have their hands in politics. Even the McCain-Feingold laws that restrict campaign financing only go to hurt the independent parties, and help the duocracy that exists today in our two party system.
Both parties hate you. Both parties will never help you. Both parties cater to huge political groups of people who care about one issue alone, even if the much larger population cares little about that one issue.
Stop voting Democrat or Republican! They're both trying to control you by taxation, restricting what you can do, and by increasing the costs of goods you buy. They both are inflating our currency to the point of devaluation (our dollar is worth 98% less than it was 80 years ago). They are both eating more and more of our income in hidden ways so that we're poorer than our parents were at the same age.
Any group that supports government internvention in ANY issue is guilty of destroying the power of individuals to make choices. The Democrats, the Republicans, the Greens. Whether its social issues, moral issues, or just sound-bite issues, you're losing more and more of your ability to vote with your buying power, and gaining more and more responsibilities for other people who you have no reason to support.
Why can't we just start voting NO to each and every politician who wants to solve some problem? Vote for a politician who wants to downsize government. Programs such as Downsize DC are great ways to start.
You've made your bed, and you've made my bed. You chose to sleep in it, but why do I have to? You sowed your seeds of responsibility-for-others, why do I have to reap what I don't want?
How am I not being libertarian even WITH my money? I invested in a town that had no real resources for music. I provide better service at $15 than if I charged $12 (and its proved because another record store opened up a year after mine did, a much larger chain, and they're not attracting consistent return business like we are).
Please will pay for good service! The Internet may give you good "service" but the personal feel is not there. And my customers know that when they spend money in my store, I spend money locally as well, which helps everyone. I'm not altruistic in that thought, I just know that libertarian doesn't mean you can't keep the money local -- it doesn't mean you HAVE to buy at the cheapest price. Price also means more than just getting a product; you're voting to support a store you like, you're supporting the policies and service from that store.
Ahh, I see. So you want to ship your money to some anonymous, probably mostly off-shore run mega warehouse online and save $2 a CD.
Or, you could spend a few bucks more, shop your local market, keep some jobs there, get GREAT service, know who you are buying from, be remembered by name by both the staff and management.
When you see how many people I have coming to my store every day, begging for a job, and I have to tell them to go get a job where they buy their CDs (mostly the Internet or the mega stores), they slowly start to realize that saving $2 but not getting the service and stability they desire isn't all that grand.
Yes, and that's even a comment you won't normally hear from a libertarian, as everyone thinks we're pro-huge corporation and pro-Internet. I believe they have a constitutional right to exist, but I'd rather support my local shops, even at a 20% surcharge, if it means I'll get better service and keep the money local.
I own an independent record store, my margins are in the vicinity of 100%, and I've been increasing my product line by nearly double every 2-3 weeks just by buying two CDs for every one I sell.
Of course, I don't sell Sting or Britney Spears or any of that garbage. I send those customers to Circuit City or Borders.
I move product that you can't find in stores, and you can't even get easily on the Internet. My two big Internet competitors are Interpunk and Angry, Young, and Poor. They sell the CDs for $12-$13. I sell them for $15. We both buy them for $6-$8.
I also sell T-shirts, punk pins, patches, and hats. About a 100% margin there. I move music the same way the big labels do: I play a new CD over and over and over again in my store. I carry peripheral items as well, to attract a crowd. I offer compensation for customers who bring in their friends.
I sponsor events at local shows with local bands, and sell my merch there. I give a percentage to the local band, usually more than what the venue offers them for playing. I sell the bands' music directly on consignment, and keep just 15-20%.
And guess what? I make a profit. A pretty good one. Sure, you never heard of 99% of the bands, but does it matter when I am turning over my inventory every 45-90 days? I don't sit on a CD for more than 90 days, and if I do, I move it at cost and replace it with a different one.
Let the big guys control the big bands -- there's no profit in those guys for an independent store like me. I don't have any MP3s in the store. I don't have any CD-Rs. I don't even have a CD-Recorder in my PC at the store. I block Kazaa and other apps so my employees can't get me trapped.
This is a huge conspiracy that the RIAA is walking all over guys like me -- they're not. I find a market and I dominate it and I make money.
Would I make more if I sold Sting and Bush and Avril Lavigne? Maybe. But then I'd have to work by their rules, and I won't. So I accept the fact that I can't make 7 figures a year, but I'm on track to make 6. And if I open a few more stores (with great customer service, an awesome ability to promote new bands, and a friendly atmosphere that never feels like the mall) I'll only multiply my take.
Face it -- if you think you're in a bind, controlled by a monopoly, you don't realize the big issue: you have choice on what you carry.
This is an idea that has been thought of before, but currently there isn't enough CPU horsepower to really enable it to work well. First of all, the encoding software would need at least 3 different fuzzy logic/artificial intelligence type systems to properly encode your voice. It has to be able to train itself to your vocal cadences over a period of time (say, by using an introduction paragraph that you read and it knows the words from). Secondly, it has to be 100% certain what words you are saying. Thirdly, it has to properly encode into the text possible codes that allow your voice to appear similiar at the decoding end when it is re-speeched.
The third system is already being developed, AFAIK, as I've seen numerous text-to-speech implements that allow you to enter vocal peculiarties into the initial text in order to get the speech portion to sound individual and tailored to the application (accents, lisps, etc).
Should the system be developed and the CPU horsepower be available, you can bet that we'll be seeing tons of interesting applications, especially reduced bandwidth communications over satellite and other wireless implementations. How about 10,000 talk-radio channels instead of 100, over AM radio. Or books-on-CD with maybe 200 books on one CD instead of just 1?
Actually, you really don't have a right to privacy, not Constitutionally anyway. The government has no right to inspect you without cause and a search warrant -- but your contact between you and whatever transport companies carry your data are not covered by any Constitutional protections.
Just like it is my right to restrict your speech on my property, they have the same rights to inspect your data in their system, unless they agree not to.
Slashdot Mirror
Definitely not a troll question. It is difficult to explain in easy terms why we have such admiration for men who were obviously so different from one another in many ways, but held a rebellious desire that was much needed in the world at the time.
Our founding fathers had some ideas that were taken from many different leaders and intelligent individuals of the past, but they had put them together in a way that no one else had ever done, successfully.
Read this for more information on an eloquent article by a wonderful politician:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul109.html
Yes! Part of the solution to this problem is to eliminate any and all federal programs for which the federal government has no power to pay for or collect for! Funding for the arts, funding for education of any kind. Great first step. Keep rolling them!
Eliminate the FBI, CIA, FCC, FDA, EPA, IRS, FRB, FDIC, SEC, CFTC, NLRB, FAA, NRC, FERC, INS, OSHA, NHTSA, EEOC, BATF, DEA, CPSC, NIH, NASA, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, federal college aid grants and loans, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and more! None of these programs are Constitutionally acceptable, and the only way we'll return to a truly booming country is to make sure that our duly elected officials abide by their oath to uphold the Constitution. There is only one that I know of who truly does that. Dr. Ron Paul has shown that he believes in the Constitution, and I believe he has never voted for an unconstitutional bill or legislative measure.
I would love to see a federal government that will never believe in interventionism again!
Please show me where the FCC is given these rights by the Constitution.
m l
3 &i d=62
Here are some articles that may help:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/kantor/kantor59.html
http://www.lewrockwell.com/archives/fm/09-90.ht
http://www.mises.org/fullarticle.asp?control=31
http://www.mises.org/fullstory.asp?control=1297
http://www.fff.org/freedom/0598d.asp
http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd0203f.asp
There are some great articles there with proof that the FCC really hasn't done anything but mandate monopolies where no monopolies were necessary.
Actually, if you want to get on the clue train, here are the directions to the tracks:
First, our Constitution gave the States a great deal of power to battle the federal government. Our country grew in a rate never seen before 1914. In 1914, the country found its first failures, which have been compounded since then. In 1914, we passed the 17th amendment, which ripped the rights of the States out and put them directly into the hands of those our founding fathers knew were not smart enough to wield such powers.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/tucker7.html
Since 1914, our country has moved directly into inflation (devaluation of the dollar through the Federal Reserve). Since 1914, our country has had few years of actual growth (compared to the true rate of inflation based on new dollars printed). Since 1914, our country has slipped from a strong State-oriented Republic into a Democracy of fools. Since 1914, our once strong web of States has become a Nation (a word never used by the founding fathers).
That's the beginning of the clue many need to realize why we're in this mess.
Big business doesn't screw peoples' rights. Big businesses uses the power of government to screw peoples' rights. Our government is supposed to be restrained by the Constitution so that they can NOT take away our "God-given" rights. It is not capitalism. Capitalism is not bad nor good, all it really does is describe a means of two people or entities in trade. True capitalism doesn't hurt anyone -- it offers everyone the best price for the product they are selling (labor, goods, information).
We don't have true capitalism. At mises.org, they explain how true capitalism works. It works best when government regulates the least. No one entity would ever monopolize in a truly capitalist society -- competition would never allow it. If a large company had too much power and raised prices too much, in an unregulated economy, another competitor would come in with a better service at a better price.
In our economy, government mandates that only one company or cartel can offer a product (cable, local phone service, taxi cabs, milk producers, drug companies, etc) to you. This is the only way a monopoly can be created -- by government.
Capitalists only exploit every hole because we allow those holes to be added. If Congress would keep to their oath, there would be no holes. There would only be provisions: services to provide, products to provide, and information to provide. Whoever can provide the best provision at a price a person can afford in a quality level that is acceptable will be the strongest provider. But anyone who can provide the same level of quality at a lower price can easily wipe out that strong provider.
It is a simple fact that socialism fails because no one really wants to help the other guy out. Capitalism helps everyone -- even the little guy, by providing an avenue for everyone to produce the best product they can.
If you're disabled, maybe you'll find a way to produce a product at a cheaper price than someone who is fully abled (phone support, typing skills, engineering, etc). This doesn't hurt you, what it does is allow your customers to spend less money on one facet of their business so they can invest in another facet -- which helps the economy. If government came in and said "you have to pay the disabled as much as the abled" guess what? The abled will be hired, and the disabled will be frowned upon, although ever openly.
The same is true with minimum wage laws. When you set a minimum wage, you basically state that anyone worth less than $5 an hour won't be hired. If I am a restaurant owner, and I can afford $6 an hour for table cleaning, I either hire one guy at $5 an hour, or I hire 2 guys at $3 an hour. Those 2 guys are now employed, and will not stay at that level long, because they will gain skills and be worth more. If I won't pay them more, my competitors surely will!
Socialist idealogy is bunk. Capitalism must either be true, or it is a failure.
As for the ad hominems, I used to try hard not to use them, but I've realized that we use ad hominems every day here on slashdot, without them being obvious. The terms used against the RIAA and Microsoft alone go to show you that the people making those claims ARE idiots. The terms used against Senators and Congressman show you that the people ARE communists. These are not ad hominems, these are FACTS. Just because you feel your public education made you smart does not mean you have a clue. You're only indoctrinated.
Exactly. The reason the Democrats, Republicans, and Greens ignore this portion of the Constitution is that their public "education" indoctrination camps would rather teach them to be touchy feely and learn the arts instead of learning to read and understand the rebellious document that was supposd to keep my rights protected against the wishes of the average slashdotter.
The outcome of this proposal is directly related to everyone here who wants more regulation of business, more control of business, and more taxation of business. It has nothing to do with business but with the federal power that is granted to certain individual organizations -- and that can only be enforced at the point of a gun.
The only monopoly here is big government. It is time to downsize, downsize, downsize.
Fortunately, you prove yourself wrong in forgetting that the only one with ultimate power is the government, not big business.
America was to be different from communists such as yourself because we were to have a federal government with very strict enumerated powers -- so that they could not trample on the rights of individuals by helping their friends.
What we have today is more socialist than it is capitalist. But I can understand how those with smaller brains would rather blame it on big business rather than on a Congress that has bordered treason for not upholding their oath to the Constitution that should keep them from passing laws that are clearly not within their powers.
Wrong. Our Constitution was designed so that you, me, the Communists, the Iraqis, whoever wanted to give money to government officials could. But it would have no effect, because that government official would have their hands tied by the Constitution. Each official has certain enumerated power -- if the Constitution doesn't allot for it, they can't do it.
Of course, the average joe (yourself included it seems) believes that the money is evil! Not the act of law created by someone who is not following their oath to uphold the Constitution.
For more information:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/paul13.html
Thanks for voting. Democrat? Republican? All the same. The Constitution limits our Congress to certain enumerated rights. Copyright and anti-trust regulation ARE within those enumerated rights, but we've given them so many other rights (health care, FBI, FDA, FCC, etc) that they can now pass any law, any time, even if the laws are obviously pork for their friends.
This is the problem with democracy. If 49 people disagree with 51, the 49 people lose. Everyone's a loser. Stop voting for authoritarian parties (Democrats, Republicans, Greens) and start voting for parties who actually want to downsize DC.
Can you back up your facts, hetaroi?
:)
The children in poverished neighborhoods in the U.S. ALREADY get a worse education than the children in rich neighborhoods. It is not because of spending -- in the Chicago area, poor neighborhoods in Chicago spend way more per student than rich neighborhoods do, for a worse education. Why? It is because the family at home doesn't support the child's education. Don't throw "parity" at me -- it doesn't work with public dollars.
Right now, education in the U.S. is free day care and that's about it. I know, I own a store that is centered around kids, and I see even the bright ones can't spell or read or communicate well. If you privatize education (and we should), you'll see an INCREASE in the talents of kids whose families can afford to send them to education. Those who can't afford it will most likely send their kids to religious schools, or will send their kids to work early. Of course, your minimum wage detracts from that ability, but its more government intervention.
You bring up a debate that has already been won by many others. Go to http://www.lewrockwell.com and read many of the articles refuting public educations "victories" and showing its common failures. Slashdot is a bad forum for this debate -- its clouded by the mythos of the many socialist geeks who come here to fight "big business." Send me a private e-mail, let's discuss this there
gl4ss:
The reality is that public education in Finland is actually very different than public education in the U.S. In Finland, almost all the dollars for the education system is paid for by the local town. In the U.S., we share money from other cities, counties, and even States. It is unfortunate that I have to subsidize the education of people in States hundreds of miles away. If the money comes from only the local people, there is definitely more control over spending and waste! Finland's "success" to me is still a bit of a failure, as the local system definitely has moved more towards indoctrination than education in recent years.
As for the private companies not wanting to offer the service, it is more an aspect of over-regulation by the local, State, and federal governments trying to control communication rather than a lack of desire by private corporations to get involved. If the city provides the service, it can get around many aspects of regulations that it imposes on private corporations.
Unipuma: It is very hard to see how much money you're really paying for a government provided pathway, even if private companies provide the next level of service on that public pathway. Taxes at so many different levels mask the true cost of the public provision.
Slycrel:
Are you sure it is profitable? How many ISPs provided bad service because their regulations required them merely to provide a certain level of expected service? When government regulates (such as airline security), private corporations can say they've met the level of expected service as regulated, and then point the blame on the government's minimal desires. When any government agency sets a mandated monopoly, that corporation is surely in bed with the bureaucrats. When you remove the regulations, and allow true competition, then competitors work hard to provide better service. Look at the PC industry. If Dell was mandated as the only provider of PCs in your area, and the government said that Dell had to sell at least a Pentium 2 with Windows 98, do you really think Dell has any incentive to provide P4s with Linux? Of course not.
Anonymous Cowards:
The Interstate Highway IS a waste. Look how many we pay in hidden taxes (gas taxes, amongst others) to pave the highways. Complete overspending.
The Internet started out as a government project, where it didn't go anywhere until private corporations provided their own "Internet." I think AOL and Prodigy were the head of the game when they created their own nationwide network. Look at the realities. How many years did the government provision do anything? It wasn't until private companies created a proprietary structure that it bloomed. Then, the market dictated that they preferred a compatible model between the big ISPs, and the Internet REALLY boomed. I see little reason to applaud the government for the growth.
As for the big telcos needing to lobby to tilt the playing field, they can only lobby because it is a government regulated system. If it was true competition, lobbying would accomplish NOTHING. The money could be better spent on improving each competitors' system, so they could win out in the long run.
Leave this to the free market of competition -- any time the government enacts these "wonderful projects" it ends up costing bigger bucks than if it was done for profit. How many non-users will pay higher taxes so that the actual users can get a service they way? How many ISP jobs will be lost? How many useless government jobs will be added?
Is this what you want? The same bureaucrats who have ruined education, who have done nothing but porked their budgets out of control -- you want these guys serving your high speed data?
Many online and offline business rental companies will let you rent a projector. This is HIGHLY recommended. The $50-$100 more you'll spend will give you a big chance to see if the projector is for you.
Lumens, contrast ratio, and even resolution is NOT comparitive between brands. Some people see "rainbows" with DLP projectors. Some people see excess screen door with LCD projectors.
Before I bought my (CHEAP) Sanyo PLV-Z1 projector, I scoured the AVS Forums for information, and it was the best help I could find.
Now I have a 110" projector on my living room wall, the room feels twice as big (the TV took up so much space), and my projector looks great during the day, the night, and in HDTV (thanks Comcast for doing something right!).
dada
I was excited to load this article up and hope to see my first VGA card by Paradise. I believe it was called Paradise 256K or something like that. I had a Sony VGA monitor, and my friends and I were blown away by some 320x200 x 256 color graphic of a parrot. Then we found a nude GIF. Whoa. I think I had that card about 2 years before any game really supported it, although Police Quest in EGA mode was nothing like we could imagine.
I'd love to see a history of all video cards for the PC platform...
I'm not going to spew a free market response to this like "911 doesn't respond quick" or "there should be privatized 911." In all honesty, I've used 911 2 or 3 times, and the cops were quick to respond so I know the service works well. But their presence was really not needed in my case. I've been in emergencies when I could have called a cop or an ambulance, but I did not have the time to hesitate (not because I was afraid they'd take forever). I had good enough "luck" calling a neighbor or friend who lived close, or handling the emergency as best as I can.
In the case of a fire, or a heart attack, or another emergency, our 911 service usually does a pretty good job -- but in all reality the cost to provide the service IS high. Why have systems like OnStar gotten so popular? There are many "needs" that 911 will not handle (flat tires), but that same service (OnStar) does a damn good job responding to me because I pay, not because they are required by law.
FYI, I have two consultant friends who work on the Chicago 911 system, and they said the majority of 911 calls there are not for fires or heart attacks, but for domestic violence calls that end up with the cops leaving with no one arrested or even harmed. Lovely waste of my money!
It won't be competition that drives a market away, it is excessive regulation, government mandated monopolies, or a lack of desire for that service or product by the purchasing public.
I doubt that people will lose the desire to use VoIP, so that third occurence is unlikely. But government overregulating, or enforcing a company's "right" to be the sole provider of the service, both could happen (and probably will). I see ads on TV all the time for "$40 a month unlimited phone service!" but I know the last time I had such a deal, I paid $50 for the service, and $35 or more for all the government taxes and fees on top of it.
It is ridiculous.
I dumped my wired phone service because of these fees, and I am about to dump my cell phone service for the same reason. I have enough IP connectivity wherever I am that that I will happily switch to a VoIP company that allows me to transport my Wi-Fi based phone to any network and immediately get connectivity. But when they start getting taxed heavily, I'll move on to the next format.
Honestly, 80% of my communications have moved to instant messaging of some kind. Its loggable, it takes thought to write messages, and I can communicate with 5 seperate conversations at once. I used to use almost 3000 minutes a month on my cell phone, now I am down to 1000 minutes, but I send probably 10,000 text messages to various people.
I'm betting many of you will eventually drop the over-taxed, over-regulated services for ones that get the work done faster, cheaper, and with fewer government intrusions.
Check it! That's socialism for you... The government knows best!
Probably by sheer luck and bad timing, I had 3 monitors all fail on the same day while I was at a customers. Couldn't explain the failure (it was definitely an anomoly) but maybe it had something to do with bad power that may have been caused by fluctuations in the power grid?
Governments need to promote NOTHING. That is the problem: we have given up the most powerful feature an individual has: the power to vote with one's dollar.
Oil is big not because of "big business" but because of big subsidies and big tariffs and big embargoes and big regulations and big requirements: all government interventions that prevent other technologies from being promoted or even discovered.
Big business never lasts -- look at what happened to the kerosene industry: it fell apart before the government could call it a monopoly.
Articles such as this refuse to show the real cause for monopolies and technologies that refuse to die even though they are outdated: government.
Continuing to vote Democrat or Republican or Green will only lead us down the trail of more tyrannical choices made for us under the guise of "democracy." We are not a democracy, we are a union of States where the individual should never be trumped by the masses -- unless that individual is harming another in visible and provable ways.
Don't blame the gas companies, they are only taking advantage of what you and your ancestors did: allow government to reach its evil hand into my life.
Many people here are angry that our Congress can enact legislation such as this when it is completely outside of its power to do so. They are angry that "big business" is controlling politics, but what these slashdotters don't see is that they are just as responsible for this tilt in the balance of power as "big business."
First of all, when you ask government to intervene in any issue, you will have to expect unintended consequences of that action. Most of the time those consequences happen years if not decades later. Why are you against the DMCA, but for government intervention of Microsoft? Why are you against the lengthening of copyright owners protection, but for unconstitutional policies such as the Civil Right acts and the Americans with Disabilities Act? Government doesn't protect any individual -- all of these policies are to do one of two things: to restrict the rights of certain individuals at great expense (in order to gain votes from certain fewer individuals), or to compensate a small group at the financial expense of a larger group.
No law that either liberal or conservative slashdotters tend to support will really help the country as a whole -- it will only support those who have their hands in politics. Even the McCain-Feingold laws that restrict campaign financing only go to hurt the independent parties, and help the duocracy that exists today in our two party system.
Both parties hate you. Both parties will never help you. Both parties cater to huge political groups of people who care about one issue alone, even if the much larger population cares little about that one issue.
Stop voting Democrat or Republican! They're both trying to control you by taxation, restricting what you can do, and by increasing the costs of goods you buy. They both are inflating our currency to the point of devaluation (our dollar is worth 98% less than it was 80 years ago). They are both eating more and more of our income in hidden ways so that we're poorer than our parents were at the same age.
Any group that supports government internvention in ANY issue is guilty of destroying the power of individuals to make choices. The Democrats, the Republicans, the Greens. Whether its social issues, moral issues, or just sound-bite issues, you're losing more and more of your ability to vote with your buying power, and gaining more and more responsibilities for other people who you have no reason to support.
Why can't we just start voting NO to each and every politician who wants to solve some problem? Vote for a politician who wants to downsize government. Programs such as Downsize DC are great ways to start.
You've made your bed, and you've made my bed. You chose to sleep in it, but why do I have to? You sowed your seeds of responsibility-for-others, why do I have to reap what I don't want?
How am I not being libertarian even WITH my money? I invested in a town that had no real resources for music. I provide better service at $15 than if I charged $12 (and its proved because another record store opened up a year after mine did, a much larger chain, and they're not attracting consistent return business like we are).
Please will pay for good service! The Internet may give you good "service" but the personal feel is not there. And my customers know that when they spend money in my store, I spend money locally as well, which helps everyone. I'm not altruistic in that thought, I just know that libertarian doesn't mean you can't keep the money local -- it doesn't mean you HAVE to buy at the cheapest price. Price also means more than just getting a product; you're voting to support a store you like, you're supporting the policies and service from that store.
Ahh, I see. So you want to ship your money to some anonymous, probably mostly off-shore run mega warehouse online and save $2 a CD.
Or, you could spend a few bucks more, shop your local market, keep some jobs there, get GREAT service, know who you are buying from, be remembered by name by both the staff and management.
When you see how many people I have coming to my store every day, begging for a job, and I have to tell them to go get a job where they buy their CDs (mostly the Internet or the mega stores), they slowly start to realize that saving $2 but not getting the service and stability they desire isn't all that grand.
Yes, and that's even a comment you won't normally hear from a libertarian, as everyone thinks we're pro-huge corporation and pro-Internet. I believe they have a constitutional right to exist, but I'd rather support my local shops, even at a 20% surcharge, if it means I'll get better service and keep the money local.
I own an independent record store, my margins are in the vicinity of 100%, and I've been increasing my product line by nearly double every 2-3 weeks just by buying two CDs for every one I sell.
Of course, I don't sell Sting or Britney Spears or any of that garbage. I send those customers to Circuit City or Borders.
I move product that you can't find in stores, and you can't even get easily on the Internet. My two big Internet competitors are Interpunk and Angry, Young, and Poor. They sell the CDs for $12-$13. I sell them for $15. We both buy them for $6-$8.
I also sell T-shirts, punk pins, patches, and hats. About a 100% margin there. I move music the same way the big labels do: I play a new CD over and over and over again in my store. I carry peripheral items as well, to attract a crowd. I offer compensation for customers who bring in their friends.
I sponsor events at local shows with local bands, and sell my merch there. I give a percentage to the local band, usually more than what the venue offers them for playing. I sell the bands' music directly on consignment, and keep just 15-20%.
And guess what? I make a profit. A pretty good one. Sure, you never heard of 99% of the bands, but does it matter when I am turning over my inventory every 45-90 days? I don't sit on a CD for more than 90 days, and if I do, I move it at cost and replace it with a different one.
Let the big guys control the big bands -- there's no profit in those guys for an independent store like me. I don't have any MP3s in the store. I don't have any CD-Rs. I don't even have a CD-Recorder in my PC at the store. I block Kazaa and other apps so my employees can't get me trapped.
This is a huge conspiracy that the RIAA is walking all over guys like me -- they're not. I find a market and I dominate it and I make money.
Would I make more if I sold Sting and Bush and Avril Lavigne? Maybe. But then I'd have to work by their rules, and I won't. So I accept the fact that I can't make 7 figures a year, but I'm on track to make 6. And if I open a few more stores (with great customer service, an awesome ability to promote new bands, and a friendly atmosphere that never feels like the mall) I'll only multiply my take.
Face it -- if you think you're in a bind, controlled by a monopoly, you don't realize the big issue: you have choice on what you carry.
I can make a buck. Go try it. You can, too.
This is an idea that has been thought of before, but currently there isn't enough CPU horsepower to really enable it to work well. First of all, the encoding software would need at least 3 different fuzzy logic/artificial intelligence type systems to properly encode your voice. It has to be able to train itself to your vocal cadences over a period of time (say, by using an introduction paragraph that you read and it knows the words from). Secondly, it has to be 100% certain what words you are saying. Thirdly, it has to properly encode into the text possible codes that allow your voice to appear similiar at the decoding end when it is re-speeched.
The third system is already being developed, AFAIK, as I've seen numerous text-to-speech implements that allow you to enter vocal peculiarties into the initial text in order to get the speech portion to sound individual and tailored to the application (accents, lisps, etc).
Should the system be developed and the CPU horsepower be available, you can bet that we'll be seeing tons of interesting applications, especially reduced bandwidth communications over satellite and other wireless implementations. How about 10,000 talk-radio channels instead of 100, over AM radio. Or books-on-CD with maybe 200 books on one CD instead of just 1?
Actually, you really don't have a right to privacy, not Constitutionally anyway. The government has no right to inspect you without cause and a search warrant -- but your contact between you and whatever transport companies carry your data are not covered by any Constitutional protections.
Just like it is my right to restrict your speech on my property, they have the same rights to inspect your data in their system, unless they agree not to.