I bootlegged a copy of AV Cataloger and liked it so much that I bought it. I recommend it to all, but it is a Windows-based program.
I'm sure you can write your own, but AV Cataloger hits all the sites to gain information -- even Amazon for books. It also helps to keep track of what you loan to people (my mother is the worst thief my latest report shows!).
I know/. readers don't like closed-source Windows-only software, so I'd welcome an F/OSS solution just like this. Until then, this is a worthy purchase.
The Supreme Court has taken about 500 steps backward in destroying the shackles of the federal government -- it has allowed so many unconstitutional programs, laws and taxes to stay on the books. This is a step forward.
The Constitution never intended to allow the federal government to regulate commerce (except in true imports and exports). The federal government was given the power to regulate the states -- to prevent them from tariffs, embargoing or taxing imports and exports between states. The interstate commerce clause is very clear when you review what the framers debated -- they wanted freedom in trade within the Republic.
Obscenity is and should always be defined by the community -- preferably by the household. What disgusts me should have no effect on what you like -- true freedom means allowing (if not accepting) others to do what they want as long as they don't harm your body or your property. Porn doesn't harm me, so I can not speak out against it. I am free to tell people on my property to leave if they decide they want to look at porn or talk about it on my land.
The community and the state (and the people!) are given the power to define all of the following:
I just re-read the original Thrawn/Zahn trilogy (one of my favorite canned sci-fi series actually) about 3 weeks ago and had a dream a few weeks back about Star Wars coming to TV. Very freaky.
My better half and I were debating how much we would hate to see an Ender's Game movie but how much we'd prefer to see Star Wars come to the small screen format -- especially a darker Star Wars a la Episode IV. Star Wars was better when it was made in an older film format and everything was "dirty" so hopefully they can find a way to scrub the digital feel of the last 3 movies (which I won't bother owning) and bring us something similar to maybe Firefly. I know that us "Brown Coats" are beginning to get hated for the show we loved, but I have to admit I'd rather see Firefly come back than Star Wars if it is made like Eps I-III.
I'm assuming there could not be a Solo in this TV show, and Star Wars isn't Star Wars without Solo.
I just noticed that Samsung released a cellphone with both Bluetooth and WiFi. I'd love to see a phone that lets me use it as a VoIP handset (or even allows me to transition a cell-based call to a VoIP one "somehow").
For me, that's going to be the big factor in the next phone upgrade -- multiple protocols beyond the cell network.
Of course, for most people this is going to start off as being a useless application, but I can see huge things ahead for the first phones that have this ability (and the software to make the handoff).
Thats nothing, my local city gave a grant intended to help a small buisness with tech training to the local comcast to train their employees in installing their new digital services.......
Or, better put, "My local city stole money from current and future taxpayers in order to give the money to someone else."
I think we'll start seeing more convergence between the various standards -- today I watch more "television" on my PDA than I do on my actual television screen. I probably watch more on my t809 Samsung cell phone than on my TV, too.
AT&T re-merging means nothing to me as AT&T (and Comcast and T-Mobile and the Chicago Tribune and WGN radio) mean nothing to me at all -- they're all dated mechanisms that came about because of the FCC allowing them what no individual had a right to anymore: the airwaves. The local communities were colluding with the cartels as well, giving right of way to only a few select companies in exchange for a nice chunk of change over the decades. I constantly bring grief to my village council meetings when I decry the few dollars Comcast continues to pay the village for every bill they collect.
I see such a great waste in available bandwidth due to excessive (and in my mind unconstitutional) FCC regulation of frequencies. For me, data is data and I just want to get at it faster and in more areas. To think that we're still going to send data over the UHF and VHS frequencies 50,000 watts at a time in a "one size fits all" broadcast is unthinkable. Those same frequencies could be better used to let people get what they want, when they want, in the form they want, at the price they want. Imagine how much more bandwidth would be available if the frequencies were available for the NEXT wireless standards.
The typical replies to a proposal such as this are "someone will broadcast on every frequency so no one can communicate" or "without regulation we'd get interference all over the place." I can not see someone broadcasting 50,000 watts on every frequency as the power needed to run a transmittor at that power on every frequency would quickly bankrupt the transmitter. A brigand could send random bursts on random frequencies, but a good software radio can frequency hop fast enough to not make this a problem. The idea of interference is also reduced by the software radio idea -- plus the fact that transmitters want to get the signal out more than they want to block the signal gives me the belief that we won't see these problems. An advertiser in today's market COULD by every advertisement spot on every media format, but no one has. Why is that?
We have to stop thinking in terms of television, radio, cell phone, WiFi, narrowband, broadband, etc. Those terms can be filed next to telegraph. For me, I want real convergence: manufacturers finding ways to frequency hop faster, incorporating software radios that can adjust to what the receiver and the sender need rather than be shoehorned into a narrow band of frequencies and amplifier power.
Yet we all know -- or should know -- that the frequencies aren't regulated for the people, they're regulated to keep control of the system in the hands of the elite -- the distribution cartels. Nothing will change over time, in fact I believe we'll see our beloved Internet regulated "to protect the people" but in reality it'll be regulated to protect the content cartels. The RIAAs, the MPAAs, the publisher's associations and all the various collusive elements that controlled information yesterday are looking to control information tomorrow, and most people will not mind.
I mind because I see the power of data -- a small packet of information that isn't important until it is used. To think that we have gigahertz of bandwidth being used to try to give everyone the same thing is beyond me, and part of the reason I hate the FCC and want to see it disbanded completely so that society has a chance to meet our own needs in the future -- one IP connection at at time.
That's mostly how geeks operate, though. Most don't run adblock to block the bikini-girls, just all ads in general. I don't have a problem with people browsing my blogs and sites blocking ads as they aren't going to click any of the ads anyway. I'm also very specific about what AdSense ads I let show -- if I see an advertiser that has nothing to do with my topic, I'll block that advertiser. Google is very good about showing ads that are VERY relevant to the page you're viewing, though, which is why my AdSense (and affiliate link) income tends to cover my hosting costs quite well.
I'll never get rich by it, but that isn't my intention, either. In the long run, I'd rather have built a great wealth of information from the e-mails, comments and forum posts I read, which is worth MUCH more than the money I'd make:)
My lady and I discussed this recently -- we are both AdSense users and have debated the need to advertiser (I don't like it, but it does cover the cost of hosting and a little of my time).
The worst websites are eyesores, but generate a lot of income (not in our case, although our sites are ugly). The reason many websites make money on AdSense right now is because a user finds the site via a search engine, sees nothing they like and just wants to get away. Yet these eyesore sites sometimes don't offer a lot of exit links -- except for the ads. The user clicks the ad just to get out (instead of closing the browser window), which earns the site money.
Google AdSense is incorporating a new way of paying the sites called "Smart Pricing" -- it attempts to figure out if your site is truly generating a customer for the advertiser or if your site is looking to capitalize on stupid users. Thousands of "Made for AdSense" site operators are complaining that their recent incomes have dropped 80% or more. I can appriciate Google looking for sites that are merely click harvesters.
Plenty of Fish is an oddity -- he's actually providing an interesting service. The users are not geeks like you and me (we likely will rarely click an ad). The best market to focus AdSense on is the teenagers and the housewives who are unaware of the advertising potential. In the short run, the sites that focus on the layman rather than the geeks will be the ones who will make the most money -- until Google finds ways to qualify if the clicker really becomes a consumer.
How many geeks here have every clicked a relevant ad on slashdot?
Consumers don't need trademarks to help them decide if a product is good -- the just need honest retailers. Would your local major chain grocery store sell a knock off Coca Cola with the same logo? I doubt it -- especially if Coca Cola said they'd stop selling to them. I buy generic diet cola because it is just fine for me -- and I have no desire to help Coca Cola stay on top just because of their marketing. The same is true of Dell or Ford.
The retailers are the ones picking the products to sell, and they make their profits on the most marketed items. Trademark is not really helping or harming in this situation. The fact that a word such as Superhero can be trademarked is ridiculous -- and it shows the harm that trademarking performs.
In the long run, you the consumer decide which products are worthy of purchasing, and the retailers listen and provide those products. If some retailers decide they'll buy the lower quality Coca Cola knock off, noting prevents Coca Cola from making new ways to prove you're buying the real thing (holograms, higher quality packing, etc).
I'm anti-copyright and anti-patent as I believe they destroy the desire to invent -- the legal hassles of trying to make sure your creation is unique leaves the power of invention to the distribution cartels.
I believe the market would provide many ways to profit without the force of government backing up the inventors, and I think trademarks are no different.
Copyright and patents and trademarks were intended to protect for a very short period of time so the creator and only the creator can make enough profit to keep food on the table. Today, that government force is only profitable for those powerful enough to control all the distribution cycles.
This is a tragedy that a real artist loses to the content cartels -- proof yet again that these avenues of force do not protect the common man, and should be abolished. All trademark really means is a legal structure that utilizes government force to protect residual value. Most jobs have zero residual value, and I believe that's the way it should be. Get paid for the work you do, not future uses of the products you made and then sold to another.
I ran OS/2 and DesqView -- in fact I ran DesqView for years longer than Windows 3.x (BBS days required a DOS-style multitasker). Both systems were amazing, but none ran as worthy as Windows 3.x did. In my first years using a scanner, the Windows OS was nearly flawless (I remember my old HP ScanJet Plus). The Windows OS gave me a solid X.25 connection that I could never get working properly under OS/2 or DOS. Windows also gave me that "standard" hardware interface that let me juggle my work better than under OS/2, which had many driver flaws.
Maybe saying we'd be stuck in the 80s is a bit shortsighted, but I know that Windows did a lot for the PC world -- without it who knows how long it would have taken for a PC to be under $300 as it can be had today. I recall paying $3000 for a 286 back in the DOS days! I haven't bought a $3000 PC since Windows 95, and will likely never have to again.
I'm not a MS fanboy, but I do have very good experiences with Microsoft over my lifetime. I've had some terrible problems, too, but nothing that has affected me in a bad way. I believe Microsoft's Windows has been a big reason why PCs are so cheap -- a common operating system that was easy to use has helped to bring more people to computers. I think we'd be in the 80s still if it wasn't for Windows 3.0 -- Apple had no chance given their closed hardware.
My experience with MS in handhelds is terrible. I've owned about 30 PDAs in my life (I tend to use them for 3-4 months and then sell them to friends or family or give them away). All my Newtons were my favorite (from the original MessagePad through the 2100). I feel terrible that I sold all my Newtons years ago -- I think I'd still be using the beasts today.
Microsoft doesn't know how to downsize anything. The big complaints about Windows from the geek crowd is more appropriate for Microsoft in the small-PC crowd. I had a Microsoft car radio once -- Worst. Thing. Ever. My current PDA is Microsoft based and it works very well wirelessly -- yet I have to reboot it about 10 times a day to get it to run fast.
I have no faith in Microsoft in terms of an iPod killer. The X-Box is mostly a fluke to me -- a lot of money spent, very little profit made -- which means the item is NOT a success in terms of market viability. For me, the best products are those that make a profit, giving the manufacturer real reason to keep upgrading and supporting it.
If the Microsoft 'iPod' killer is another spend-a-ton-and-earn-none fluke, it won't last. Microsoft needs a happy customer, and a happy customer pays a happy profit. Without that incentive, Microsoft will be fighting battles on too many fronts, and we know what happens to the imperialists that have done that in the past.
I appreciate your reply to my original diatribe, but I don't feel the same way. I'm a pure capitalist, and I believe in the idea of pure capitalism: voluntary cooperation between two individuals with both mutually profiting. My idea of a corporation in a anarcho-capitalist "utopia" would basically just be individuals grouping together under a mutual contract.
Corporations may be considered partially responsible for the excessive growth of government, but I believe the people to blame in the end are the voters: current and past. Everyone says that their vote counts, but no one is held responsible for their voting record. This is the problem with democracy: past choices have a terrible effect on future citizens who never had a say in the law. I am no fan of democracy as I can see in history how often democracy has led to fascism.
For me, the only solution to restraining government would be a single-law+sunset clause or a zero-sum voting structure. I would prefer to see a sunset clause on every law combined with a requirement to limit that law to one subject. This would limit government to having to resurrect every law sunsetting by debating each unique law. Bureaucracy for the bureaucrats. For the second idea (zero-sum voting structure), I'd love to see past representative votes canceled upon the removal or retirement of that representative. If someone votes for the Income Tax to become law and then retires or is voted out, their previous +1 vote is subtracted. This would require the next representative replacing them to step up and accept the old law as their own, or the vote is removed. Imagine the hell a new representative would have to go through to re-vote for every past law that all previous representatives had voted for. Again, more bureaucracy for the bureaucrats on top of making the new representative responsible for every law on the books.
I'd still prefer a tiny federal government with most of the power of the law focused on the community rather than on the entire nation.
Google's last line in their blog is really frustrating to me:
When a party resists an overbroad subpoena, our legal process can be an effective check on such demands and be a protector of our users.
The checks and balances system has failed us completely. To resist an overbroad subpoena, one must have both incredible financial strength as well as incredible legal strength. Companies much smaller than Google don't have either -- and the courts seem to accept any growth in government strength as a new standard whenever a smaller company just gives in to government requests.
This country was founded on an idea that the Federal government was to be set up to promote the general welfare of the people -- not by making a police state nor a welfare state. The Federal government was here to protect the rights of the people by making sure that the individual states didn't trample on these rights. Beyond that, the Federal government was given a few BASIC powers over the people and the state -- very very basic powers.
National security was a power for the government in its ability to defend the borders and call up the militia to keep out intruders. National security was NOT about policing the citizens of the country, this was left to the individual states to decide what is criminal and what is acceptable.
I am very mad that the average citizen doesn't see what has happened. Instead of having a federal government with very limited powers -- which can't be controlled by any amount of money -- we have a federal government with unlimited powers controllable by the highest bidder. If the highest bidder has any reason to restrain government, they can do so with the right legal aid. Yet the common man (the minority of 1) -- the most important facet of a free system -- has no power to do anything but fall victim to the wants of the masses. If the masses are ignorant, the minority of 1 will find themselves without any rights because no one came to their aid.
This has nothing to do with money, mind you. This only has to do with a federal government that is no longer a servant but a master, and the belief of the citizens that they're still able to stop Leviathan through voting.
I'm no fan of click-thru licenses, or any license that doesn't have a signed contract. For those who know my usual opinion, I'm also against copyright laws of any kind.
I do think there can be an acceptable way to agree, through contract, to tell a person what they can and can't do with a product you sell them. I'm not sure how we can facilitate Internet purchases (and licensing) without a signature, though. For me, I am not comfortable with the idea that a simple click or download is the equivalent of accepting a license or signing a contract.
What are the options out there for a real contract to be signed in terms of accepting it? Will we see third party contract companies that we sign a deal once with who then are used by others to work as a third party on our behalf (sort of like a power of attorney deal)? Does anyone have any thoughts to how we can facilitate contract acceptance for transactions where we can't sign it?
I'm assuming most geeks are against the click-thru license agreement. What will it take for competitive businesses to attack the current licensing standards and bring a real amount of change to the licensing structure?
Funny that you quotes Alex Hamilton's Federalist writings. Hamilton was a believer in his mentor's cause: Clay's American System of Mercantilism. Hamilton's greatest accomplishment was passing on his "madness" to Lincoln, who succeeded in bringing many of Clay's desires into the Republic. I believe Lincoln destroyed the Republic in order to bring about his mercantilist desires.
Clay/Hamilton wanted the following:
1. A central bank -- they knew the best way to take care of their cronies was control of the currency, the abolishment of a 100% reserve system. Lincoln created a central bank which destroyed the value of the dollar until after his war, when they returned to a 100% reserve system.
2. Corporate welfare -- Lincoln called this "internal improvements." The foundation of the CSA was based on Lincoln wanted to create a tax/tariff in the South to perform these "internal improvements" in the North -- taking care of his cronies and friends.
3. Imperialism. Lincoln was a believer in spreading "democracy" to the rest of the world, but he really knew that "War is the Healt of the State" (Bismarck).
As we see today, the Republican Party is definitely the party of Lincoln. The entire platform of Clay and Hamilton (the Whigs) has been continued in the Republican endgame -- imperialism, corporate welfare and fiat currency.
You could not be more wrong. I am no libertarian, I am a true capitalist -- the definition my true capitalism is the voluntary cooperation of two people with both mutually profitting from the exchange.
I do not believe money can save any problem -- NONE. I do believe that money is time (not the opposite cliche). When you have money, you have a store of time to be redeemed to save you time in the future. We buy a toaster because it costs us less of our stored time than building our own would. We pay someone to mow the lawn because we have a store of time saved so we don't have to mow it ourself.
I used to own a big house, a big condo and a vacation home. I earned 6 figures. I gave money to charity and paid a lot in taxes. Guess what? I had mortgaged my future so I could continue doing harm through taxes and blanket charity checks. It was not until I downsized my life, got rid of my clutter and was able to focus on meeting the needs of others -- one person at a time -- that I realized what happiness and wealth is.
There is no such thing as "group need" -- the idea is completely wrong. Everyone has needs -- some people need food, some people need their lawn mowed, some people need an outlet for their opinions. Nearly everyone has the chance to meet someone else's need, too. Yet in many parts of the world, people don't have this chance to meet the needs of others because some other elite group destroys their opportunities.
I believe the only way we can help others outside of our community is to help our community first -- person by person. The only way I can help a person is by holding them accountable for the time I give them (or the money I spend to help them). If I can't hold them accountable, then my time and my money is wasted. It would be better spent elsewhere.
This is why I am a fan of Love INC. Even if you're not a Christian, it is an amazing organization -- it has the sole purpose of finding people with needs and finding people able to meet those needs. It helps reduce the chance of vultures who just want to abuse the charitable giving of others. In the long run, the worst abuser of charity is government, and the UN is no different.
I think they'll play with the computer for a minute, see that it doesnt dispense food or water and it'll end up in the corner or sold somewhere.
I agree, but it still boils down to accountability along the entire program. Governments buy these things, will there be accountability in the taxing to afford it? As typical in taxation, I'm sure it won't. Companies will be paid to ship and distribute these, will there be competitiveness and accountability there? Is the cost of distribution included in the $100? I doubt it -- a horrific loophole. Someone will be in charge of setting up the networks and maintaining that infrastructure. I doubt that cost is in the $100 cost, and I'm sure this is also a glaring loophole.
I've given money to efforts to bring water and food to other countries, and I know the charities wasted a good portion of the money. I stopped giving, because I found in my own community (the next town over, Zion, Illinois) there were people who didn't have a healthy source of nutrition or even electricity in their homes. I now work with an organization called Love, INC that interviews poor people and connects them with people willing to give charity (money, time, food, clothing, shelter, work). First of all this makes sure that the people are not the regular abusers of the system (going from church to church and welfare organization to welfare organization with the same lies)). Second of all it makes sure that each and every person who is willing to help in some way will be able to help people and make sure the people receiving the charity are not using drugs or beating their children. This is separate from the government waste. Lastly, the number of people in that community alone that need help is in the thousands -- this is in a town just 10 miles away from where I live. How can I ignore helping people whose growth I can see when I've seen time and again how my money is badly spent when I ship it elsewhere?
I'm not saying don't help others, I'm saying make sure your time and money is spent wisely. If you're creating more problems because you can't hold anyone in the system accountable for their actions, you might not be really helping.
1. This is not private citizens electing to fund a private charity. This is the United Nations, an organization who has not proven its worth to me nor to millions of people throughout the world. The UN has had its own share of scandals and wasted money, and it has made promises for decades that have rarely been met in any way that can be called successful.
2. There is too much favoritism in terms of corporate subsidies here. Since governments of the world will be paying for these devices, there is likely going to be some concern for cronyism. On top of that, we're not looking at a competitive product being made -- Negroponte has said he hopes to see a commercial version that will subsidize the $100 version, but have we actually seen this happening? We're looking at a device bought by governments that is being built by single companies without a thought for ongoing competitive price drops.
3. The majority of users of this laptop will NOT be in ultrapoor countries. I've heard China and Massachusetts.
4. We're not being told exactly what support hardware, technology and support will be needed to make sure these devices work. I can sell US$0.10 razor blades to the world, but if the world governments also need to buy US$100 razor handles, we need to know the entire budget and where the hidden money goes.
Actually I've spent a lot of time on Acts lately, and I agree. I have no problem with sending money abroad (I actually do help 2 missionaries who are educators in Korea), but I want to make sure that money is spent with accountability. I am sick of giving money to the UN only to see it taking care of people who don't need help. I also am sick of giving money locally to charities who spend more on their own needs than the needs of the poor.
When poverty is vanquished in my community, I will spend more on other communities. Until then, I have to focus on the people I can help the most and also hold accountable in their growth to become responsible and self-reliant.
I'm sure you're patronizing me, but that isn't what I was saying.
When we want to help others, we should. I believe it is required of all people to help those less fortunate. The problem comes in the accountability situation -- when we give money to charity, we are giving money to a charity, not to the poor. We're avoiding the responsibility of seeing with our own eyes that people are being helped, and we don't hold the charity accountable.
Sure, very few of us can go to Africa and help the less fortunate. But it might just be our own policies that are keeping them there. I know that is a certainty in Cuba -- the people continue to allow themselves to be controlled by a dictator, but they do so because they have no hope for the future. Yet we continue to see people trying to better themselves by escaping to the US, only to be forced to go back.
I help those in my community that are in need -- by helping them and holding the accountable, I do make the world better by helping a person at a time. I don't think you can help groups of people ever -- there is no way to see that what you're doing is productive and beneficial. We might see a news clip of 100 people getting vaccines, but the entire path of your money to the final vaccine is a very complicated one with a lot of problems created in that path. In the end, the small help you're giving is not as effective as giving that same help locally in your community. The only way to help people is to help them IF they are ready to take advantage of it. If others are taking advantage of you along the way, you're causing more harm than good.
While I think Gates is right to mock these laptops, I don't think he understands the realities of the problems of helping others around the world. The only thing that helps others is letting them find or create their own opportunities to better their futures. Taking care of people today is counter-productive and can destroy opportunities in the future.
Computers don't make opportunities. Teachers don't make opportunities. Public funding of projects, businesses and markets doesn't make opportunities. Opportunities come when a given community finds that is can accomplish something that others in a market want.
The Internet won't help here -- it isn't here to educate, it is here to help people meet each other's needs. The people using the Internet to better themselves are already living in an economy that enables them to find opportunities to better themselves. That realization is enough to give the average person the desire to make their lives better.
Gates is right -- the $100 laptop is useless. The people it is being built for do not understand opportunity because their community leaders have robbed them of any chance to better themselves. Many of the world's poor live under the thumb of a small group of elitists who think they can help the poor through force. They attempt to provide what their poor needs today, without realizing that just giving someone something doesn't offer any hope for the future. This is especially true if what you're giving them today doesn't really help them enough.
The Bible offers the old fish cliche -- give a man a fish and he'll eat today, teach a man to fish and he'll eat forever. This is very important when making a consideration towards helping another person. I hate helping others through tax-and-spend wealth redistribution: there is no accountability in how the money is spent. I give all my charitable dollars (in the past few months, over 50% of my income) only to those I can hold accountable. This sounds like a "quid pro quo" situation, but it would be no different if it was my own brother or child or best friend. If the person I am helping is not making attempts to support themselves, then my help is wasted -- time, money, love or support. There are others who want to help themselves but are in a position (for whatever reason) that they just can't. These are the people I help.
I would never fund anyone in another country, never again. When I was younger I funded some Ehtiopian charity group, and a few years later had the opportunity to visit Ethiopia. The charity group's office was luxurious and the people working for it lived a very nice life. They found an opportunity: take advantage of idiots in other countries who can't hold the charity accountable. The people the charity was meant to help received very little of the finance and support promised, and what little they did receive did not give them any hope for the future.
It is this hope that creates opporunities. I've seen poor people climb out of poverty with no help from anyone, just because a simple opportunity opened up near them. I just visited Europe and Asia, and I saw thousands of very poor people taking advantage of opportunities that we in the U.S. would never consider doing. Many of these people realized their time investment could offer them the chance to save for the future, to give their children a better chance, to even save some money so they can better their own lives -- in the future. I would never give a homeless person a home, a car and a credit card. I would never give an uneducated person a computer or an education. I would never give a hungry person money to buy food. I would never fund health care of people who don't care about their lives or the lives of their children.
But I would open my home to the homeless person, if they were willing to make steps to find how they can house themselves in the future. I would (and do) spend time with poor families to give their children a chance to learn in some way so that they could take on
The welfare clause of the Constitution was not meant to actually take care of people, but to make sure that no government blocked anyone's ability to provide for themselves.
Let's look at Federal guarantees that we received in the past:
1. The guarantee that no old person who is unable to work will be able to live at a bare means level (Social Security). Now all of us pay 15% or so of our salaries to pay for our retired parents who had every chance to save their own money.
2. The guarantee that no child will go to school without lunch. Now everyone, even the wealthy, qualify for subpar school lunch programs that do nothing but fatten the children up, cause them to carb-crash after lunch, and pander to the large food farming cartels that backdoor sponsor the law's expansion.
3. The guarantee that no child will be left behind. Every child is now brought down to the level of the child least able to learn. Instead of promoting the brightest, we're just equalizing everyone out so everyone can get a C. A C grade is enough to say they need more money, but not bad enough to complain about.
4. The guarantee that college tuitions will be available to those who need them. This caused an excess amount of money to enter the college system -- more money within any limited supply market means that all money is worth less, so prices will go up.
5. The guarantee that all employees have an opportunity to have managed health care. If you take 19 friends to dinner and ask everyone to pay themselves, they'll generally buy burgers. If you agree to all pay an equal share of the bill, some will buy steaks. In the long run, everyone eats steak, except in our situation the steaks are paid for by our children as the group needs to borrow against future wealth to pay for steaks on a burger budget.
6. The guarantee that medicines and drugs will be safe. Instead of supporting medical safety research alone, the FDA has become a complete pawn of the drug companies used to keep new drugs out at high cost to the citizen base. Rather than rely on your doctor's advise for what is best for you, we have to wait for bureaucrats to accept a drug as safe. Even worse, many drugs are released for political reasons that end up not being safe, but still pad the pockets of those who made them.
I have no desire for the Federal government to keep expanding way beyond what they're allowed to. Broadband and communications has NO allocation in the Constitution -- none at all. The Interstate Commerce Clause was written specifically to use the power of Federal government to PREVENT individual states from harming open and free trade. The Welfare clause was written to give people the chance for equal opportunity by preventing governments from harming their ability to provide for themselves.
The Democrats are going to tax me well more than I already pay for broadband so that we can all have it. I already provide a few of my neighbors with free WiFi (and charges others who can afford it). I support 6 families in my church who homeschool by paying for their broadband. I don't need your help, and I don't want to help you if I don't know you and I can't hold you accountable for your actions with my money..
Slashdot Mirror
Unfortunately "people taking control and not asking government to act for them" is nowhere on the radar screen at this point in time.
That is not true. Check these articles out:
Why I Vote
Realize All Politicians' Evilness
Sidenote: Self-serving links.
I bootlegged a copy of AV Cataloger and liked it so much that I bought it. I recommend it to all, but it is a Windows-based program.
/. readers don't like closed-source Windows-only software, so I'd welcome an F/OSS solution just like this. Until then, this is a worthy purchase.
I'm sure you can write your own, but AV Cataloger hits all the sites to gain information -- even Amazon for books. It also helps to keep track of what you loan to people (my mother is the worst thief my latest report shows!).
I know
The Supreme Court has taken about 500 steps backward in destroying the shackles of the federal government -- it has allowed so many unconstitutional programs, laws and taxes to stay on the books. This is a step forward.
The Constitution never intended to allow the federal government to regulate commerce (except in true imports and exports). The federal government was given the power to regulate the states -- to prevent them from tariffs, embargoing or taxing imports and exports between states. The interstate commerce clause is very clear when you review what the framers debated -- they wanted freedom in trade within the Republic.
Obscenity is and should always be defined by the community -- preferably by the household. What disgusts me should have no effect on what you like -- true freedom means allowing (if not accepting) others to do what they want as long as they don't harm your body or your property. Porn doesn't harm me, so I can not speak out against it. I am free to tell people on my property to leave if they decide they want to look at porn or talk about it on my land.
The community and the state (and the people!) are given the power to define all of the following:
1. Murder
2. Obscenity
3. Wealth Distribution (taxes)
4. Theft
5. Rape
None of these are to be controlled by the Federal government. None of them should.
Supreme Court +1
I just re-read the original Thrawn/Zahn trilogy (one of my favorite canned sci-fi series actually) about 3 weeks ago and had a dream a few weeks back about Star Wars coming to TV. Very freaky.
My better half and I were debating how much we would hate to see an Ender's Game movie but how much we'd prefer to see Star Wars come to the small screen format -- especially a darker Star Wars a la Episode IV. Star Wars was better when it was made in an older film format and everything was "dirty" so hopefully they can find a way to scrub the digital feel of the last 3 movies (which I won't bother owning) and bring us something similar to maybe Firefly. I know that us "Brown Coats" are beginning to get hated for the show we loved, but I have to admit I'd rather see Firefly come back than Star Wars if it is made like Eps I-III.
I'm assuming there could not be a Solo in this TV show, and Star Wars isn't Star Wars without Solo.
I just noticed that Samsung released a cellphone with both Bluetooth and WiFi. I'd love to see a phone that lets me use it as a VoIP handset (or even allows me to transition a cell-based call to a VoIP one "somehow").
For me, that's going to be the big factor in the next phone upgrade -- multiple protocols beyond the cell network.
Of course, for most people this is going to start off as being a useless application, but I can see huge things ahead for the first phones that have this ability (and the software to make the handoff).
Thats nothing, my local city gave a grant intended to help a small buisness with tech training to the local comcast to train their employees in installing their new digital services.......
Or, better put, "My local city stole money from current and future taxpayers in order to give the money to someone else."
Very sad.
I think we'll start seeing more convergence between the various standards -- today I watch more "television" on my PDA than I do on my actual television screen. I probably watch more on my t809 Samsung cell phone than on my TV, too.
AT&T re-merging means nothing to me as AT&T (and Comcast and T-Mobile and the Chicago Tribune and WGN radio) mean nothing to me at all -- they're all dated mechanisms that came about because of the FCC allowing them what no individual had a right to anymore: the airwaves. The local communities were colluding with the cartels as well, giving right of way to only a few select companies in exchange for a nice chunk of change over the decades. I constantly bring grief to my village council meetings when I decry the few dollars Comcast continues to pay the village for every bill they collect.
I see such a great waste in available bandwidth due to excessive (and in my mind unconstitutional) FCC regulation of frequencies. For me, data is data and I just want to get at it faster and in more areas. To think that we're still going to send data over the UHF and VHS frequencies 50,000 watts at a time in a "one size fits all" broadcast is unthinkable. Those same frequencies could be better used to let people get what they want, when they want, in the form they want, at the price they want. Imagine how much more bandwidth would be available if the frequencies were available for the NEXT wireless standards.
The typical replies to a proposal such as this are "someone will broadcast on every frequency so no one can communicate" or "without regulation we'd get interference all over the place." I can not see someone broadcasting 50,000 watts on every frequency as the power needed to run a transmittor at that power on every frequency would quickly bankrupt the transmitter. A brigand could send random bursts on random frequencies, but a good software radio can frequency hop fast enough to not make this a problem. The idea of interference is also reduced by the software radio idea -- plus the fact that transmitters want to get the signal out more than they want to block the signal gives me the belief that we won't see these problems. An advertiser in today's market COULD by every advertisement spot on every media format, but no one has. Why is that?
We have to stop thinking in terms of television, radio, cell phone, WiFi, narrowband, broadband, etc. Those terms can be filed next to telegraph. For me, I want real convergence: manufacturers finding ways to frequency hop faster, incorporating software radios that can adjust to what the receiver and the sender need rather than be shoehorned into a narrow band of frequencies and amplifier power.
Yet we all know -- or should know -- that the frequencies aren't regulated for the people, they're regulated to keep control of the system in the hands of the elite -- the distribution cartels. Nothing will change over time, in fact I believe we'll see our beloved Internet regulated "to protect the people" but in reality it'll be regulated to protect the content cartels. The RIAAs, the MPAAs, the publisher's associations and all the various collusive elements that controlled information yesterday are looking to control information tomorrow, and most people will not mind.
I mind because I see the power of data -- a small packet of information that isn't important until it is used. To think that we have gigahertz of bandwidth being used to try to give everyone the same thing is beyond me, and part of the reason I hate the FCC and want to see it disbanded completely so that society has a chance to meet our own needs in the future -- one IP connection at at time.
That's mostly how geeks operate, though. Most don't run adblock to block the bikini-girls, just all ads in general. I don't have a problem with people browsing my blogs and sites blocking ads as they aren't going to click any of the ads anyway. I'm also very specific about what AdSense ads I let show -- if I see an advertiser that has nothing to do with my topic, I'll block that advertiser. Google is very good about showing ads that are VERY relevant to the page you're viewing, though, which is why my AdSense (and affiliate link) income tends to cover my hosting costs quite well.
:)
I'll never get rich by it, but that isn't my intention, either. In the long run, I'd rather have built a great wealth of information from the e-mails, comments and forum posts I read, which is worth MUCH more than the money I'd make
My lady and I discussed this recently -- we are both AdSense users and have debated the need to advertiser (I don't like it, but it does cover the cost of hosting and a little of my time).
The worst websites are eyesores, but generate a lot of income (not in our case, although our sites are ugly). The reason many websites make money on AdSense right now is because a user finds the site via a search engine, sees nothing they like and just wants to get away. Yet these eyesore sites sometimes don't offer a lot of exit links -- except for the ads. The user clicks the ad just to get out (instead of closing the browser window), which earns the site money.
Google AdSense is incorporating a new way of paying the sites called "Smart Pricing" -- it attempts to figure out if your site is truly generating a customer for the advertiser or if your site is looking to capitalize on stupid users. Thousands of "Made for AdSense" site operators are complaining that their recent incomes have dropped 80% or more. I can appriciate Google looking for sites that are merely click harvesters.
Plenty of Fish is an oddity -- he's actually providing an interesting service. The users are not geeks like you and me (we likely will rarely click an ad). The best market to focus AdSense on is the teenagers and the housewives who are unaware of the advertising potential. In the short run, the sites that focus on the layman rather than the geeks will be the ones who will make the most money -- until Google finds ways to qualify if the clicker really becomes a consumer.
How many geeks here have every clicked a relevant ad on slashdot?
Consumers don't need trademarks to help them decide if a product is good -- the just need honest retailers. Would your local major chain grocery store sell a knock off Coca Cola with the same logo? I doubt it -- especially if Coca Cola said they'd stop selling to them. I buy generic diet cola because it is just fine for me -- and I have no desire to help Coca Cola stay on top just because of their marketing. The same is true of Dell or Ford.
The retailers are the ones picking the products to sell, and they make their profits on the most marketed items. Trademark is not really helping or harming in this situation. The fact that a word such as Superhero can be trademarked is ridiculous -- and it shows the harm that trademarking performs.
In the long run, you the consumer decide which products are worthy of purchasing, and the retailers listen and provide those products. If some retailers decide they'll buy the lower quality Coca Cola knock off, noting prevents Coca Cola from making new ways to prove you're buying the real thing (holograms, higher quality packing, etc).
I'm anti-copyright and anti-patent as I believe they destroy the desire to invent -- the legal hassles of trying to make sure your creation is unique leaves the power of invention to the distribution cartels.
I believe the market would provide many ways to profit without the force of government backing up the inventors, and I think trademarks are no different.
Copyright and patents and trademarks were intended to protect for a very short period of time so the creator and only the creator can make enough profit to keep food on the table. Today, that government force is only profitable for those powerful enough to control all the distribution cycles.
This is a tragedy that a real artist loses to the content cartels -- proof yet again that these avenues of force do not protect the common man, and should be abolished. All trademark really means is a legal structure that utilizes government force to protect residual value. Most jobs have zero residual value, and I believe that's the way it should be. Get paid for the work you do, not future uses of the products you made and then sold to another.
I ran OS/2 and DesqView -- in fact I ran DesqView for years longer than Windows 3.x (BBS days required a DOS-style multitasker). Both systems were amazing, but none ran as worthy as Windows 3.x did. In my first years using a scanner, the Windows OS was nearly flawless (I remember my old HP ScanJet Plus). The Windows OS gave me a solid X.25 connection that I could never get working properly under OS/2 or DOS. Windows also gave me that "standard" hardware interface that let me juggle my work better than under OS/2, which had many driver flaws.
Maybe saying we'd be stuck in the 80s is a bit shortsighted, but I know that Windows did a lot for the PC world -- without it who knows how long it would have taken for a PC to be under $300 as it can be had today. I recall paying $3000 for a 286 back in the DOS days! I haven't bought a $3000 PC since Windows 95, and will likely never have to again.
I'm not a MS fanboy, but I do have very good experiences with Microsoft over my lifetime. I've had some terrible problems, too, but nothing that has affected me in a bad way. I believe Microsoft's Windows has been a big reason why PCs are so cheap -- a common operating system that was easy to use has helped to bring more people to computers. I think we'd be in the 80s still if it wasn't for Windows 3.0 -- Apple had no chance given their closed hardware.
My experience with MS in handhelds is terrible. I've owned about 30 PDAs in my life (I tend to use them for 3-4 months and then sell them to friends or family or give them away). All my Newtons were my favorite (from the original MessagePad through the 2100). I feel terrible that I sold all my Newtons years ago -- I think I'd still be using the beasts today.
Microsoft doesn't know how to downsize anything. The big complaints about Windows from the geek crowd is more appropriate for Microsoft in the small-PC crowd. I had a Microsoft car radio once -- Worst. Thing. Ever. My current PDA is Microsoft based and it works very well wirelessly -- yet I have to reboot it about 10 times a day to get it to run fast.
I have no faith in Microsoft in terms of an iPod killer. The X-Box is mostly a fluke to me -- a lot of money spent, very little profit made -- which means the item is NOT a success in terms of market viability. For me, the best products are those that make a profit, giving the manufacturer real reason to keep upgrading and supporting it.
If the Microsoft 'iPod' killer is another spend-a-ton-and-earn-none fluke, it won't last. Microsoft needs a happy customer, and a happy customer pays a happy profit. Without that incentive, Microsoft will be fighting battles on too many fronts, and we know what happens to the imperialists that have done that in the past.
I appreciate your reply to my original diatribe, but I don't feel the same way. I'm a pure capitalist, and I believe in the idea of pure capitalism: voluntary cooperation between two individuals with both mutually profiting. My idea of a corporation in a anarcho-capitalist "utopia" would basically just be individuals grouping together under a mutual contract.
Corporations may be considered partially responsible for the excessive growth of government, but I believe the people to blame in the end are the voters: current and past. Everyone says that their vote counts, but no one is held responsible for their voting record. This is the problem with democracy: past choices have a terrible effect on future citizens who never had a say in the law. I am no fan of democracy as I can see in history how often democracy has led to fascism.
For me, the only solution to restraining government would be a single-law+sunset clause or a zero-sum voting structure. I would prefer to see a sunset clause on every law combined with a requirement to limit that law to one subject. This would limit government to having to resurrect every law sunsetting by debating each unique law. Bureaucracy for the bureaucrats. For the second idea (zero-sum voting structure), I'd love to see past representative votes canceled upon the removal or retirement of that representative. If someone votes for the Income Tax to become law and then retires or is voted out, their previous +1 vote is subtracted. This would require the next representative replacing them to step up and accept the old law as their own, or the vote is removed. Imagine the hell a new representative would have to go through to re-vote for every past law that all previous representatives had voted for. Again, more bureaucracy for the bureaucrats on top of making the new representative responsible for every law on the books.
I'd still prefer a tiny federal government with most of the power of the law focused on the community rather than on the entire nation.
Google's last line in their blog is really frustrating to me:
When a party resists an overbroad subpoena, our legal process can be an effective check on such demands and be a protector of our users.
The checks and balances system has failed us completely. To resist an overbroad subpoena, one must have both incredible financial strength as well as incredible legal strength. Companies much smaller than Google don't have either -- and the courts seem to accept any growth in government strength as a new standard whenever a smaller company just gives in to government requests.
This country was founded on an idea that the Federal government was to be set up to promote the general welfare of the people -- not by making a police state nor a welfare state. The Federal government was here to protect the rights of the people by making sure that the individual states didn't trample on these rights. Beyond that, the Federal government was given a few BASIC powers over the people and the state -- very very basic powers.
National security was a power for the government in its ability to defend the borders and call up the militia to keep out intruders. National security was NOT about policing the citizens of the country, this was left to the individual states to decide what is criminal and what is acceptable.
I am very mad that the average citizen doesn't see what has happened. Instead of having a federal government with very limited powers -- which can't be controlled by any amount of money -- we have a federal government with unlimited powers controllable by the highest bidder. If the highest bidder has any reason to restrain government, they can do so with the right legal aid. Yet the common man (the minority of 1) -- the most important facet of a free system -- has no power to do anything but fall victim to the wants of the masses. If the masses are ignorant, the minority of 1 will find themselves without any rights because no one came to their aid.
This has nothing to do with money, mind you. This only has to do with a federal government that is no longer a servant but a master, and the belief of the citizens that they're still able to stop Leviathan through voting.
I'm no fan of click-thru licenses, or any license that doesn't have a signed contract. For those who know my usual opinion, I'm also against copyright laws of any kind.
I do think there can be an acceptable way to agree, through contract, to tell a person what they can and can't do with a product you sell them. I'm not sure how we can facilitate Internet purchases (and licensing) without a signature, though. For me, I am not comfortable with the idea that a simple click or download is the equivalent of accepting a license or signing a contract.
What are the options out there for a real contract to be signed in terms of accepting it? Will we see third party contract companies that we sign a deal once with who then are used by others to work as a third party on our behalf (sort of like a power of attorney deal)? Does anyone have any thoughts to how we can facilitate contract acceptance for transactions where we can't sign it?
I'm assuming most geeks are against the click-thru license agreement. What will it take for competitive businesses to attack the current licensing standards and bring a real amount of change to the licensing structure?
Funny that you quotes Alex Hamilton's Federalist writings. Hamilton was a believer in his mentor's cause: Clay's American System of Mercantilism. Hamilton's greatest accomplishment was passing on his "madness" to Lincoln, who succeeded in bringing many of Clay's desires into the Republic. I believe Lincoln destroyed the Republic in order to bring about his mercantilist desires.
Clay/Hamilton wanted the following:
1. A central bank -- they knew the best way to take care of their cronies was control of the currency, the abolishment of a 100% reserve system. Lincoln created a central bank which destroyed the value of the dollar until after his war, when they returned to a 100% reserve system.
2. Corporate welfare -- Lincoln called this "internal improvements." The foundation of the CSA was based on Lincoln wanted to create a tax/tariff in the South to perform these "internal improvements" in the North -- taking care of his cronies and friends.
3. Imperialism. Lincoln was a believer in spreading "democracy" to the rest of the world, but he really knew that "War is the Healt of the State" (Bismarck).
As we see today, the Republican Party is definitely the party of Lincoln. The entire platform of Clay and Hamilton (the Whigs) has been continued in the Republican endgame -- imperialism, corporate welfare and fiat currency.
Hamilton was no freedom lover.
You could not be more wrong. I am no libertarian, I am a true capitalist -- the definition my true capitalism is the voluntary cooperation of two people with both mutually profitting from the exchange.
I do not believe money can save any problem -- NONE. I do believe that money is time (not the opposite cliche). When you have money, you have a store of time to be redeemed to save you time in the future. We buy a toaster because it costs us less of our stored time than building our own would. We pay someone to mow the lawn because we have a store of time saved so we don't have to mow it ourself.
I used to own a big house, a big condo and a vacation home. I earned 6 figures. I gave money to charity and paid a lot in taxes. Guess what? I had mortgaged my future so I could continue doing harm through taxes and blanket charity checks. It was not until I downsized my life, got rid of my clutter and was able to focus on meeting the needs of others -- one person at a time -- that I realized what happiness and wealth is.
There is no such thing as "group need" -- the idea is completely wrong. Everyone has needs -- some people need food, some people need their lawn mowed, some people need an outlet for their opinions. Nearly everyone has the chance to meet someone else's need, too. Yet in many parts of the world, people don't have this chance to meet the needs of others because some other elite group destroys their opportunities.
I believe the only way we can help others outside of our community is to help our community first -- person by person. The only way I can help a person is by holding them accountable for the time I give them (or the money I spend to help them). If I can't hold them accountable, then my time and my money is wasted. It would be better spent elsewhere.
This is why I am a fan of Love INC. Even if you're not a Christian, it is an amazing organization -- it has the sole purpose of finding people with needs and finding people able to meet those needs. It helps reduce the chance of vultures who just want to abuse the charitable giving of others. In the long run, the worst abuser of charity is government, and the UN is no different.
I think they'll play with the computer for a minute, see that it doesnt dispense food or water and it'll end up in the corner or sold somewhere.
I agree, but it still boils down to accountability along the entire program. Governments buy these things, will there be accountability in the taxing to afford it? As typical in taxation, I'm sure it won't. Companies will be paid to ship and distribute these, will there be competitiveness and accountability there? Is the cost of distribution included in the $100? I doubt it -- a horrific loophole. Someone will be in charge of setting up the networks and maintaining that infrastructure. I doubt that cost is in the $100 cost, and I'm sure this is also a glaring loophole.
I've given money to efforts to bring water and food to other countries, and I know the charities wasted a good portion of the money. I stopped giving, because I found in my own community (the next town over, Zion, Illinois) there were people who didn't have a healthy source of nutrition or even electricity in their homes. I now work with an organization called Love, INC that interviews poor people and connects them with people willing to give charity (money, time, food, clothing, shelter, work). First of all this makes sure that the people are not the regular abusers of the system (going from church to church and welfare organization to welfare organization with the same lies)). Second of all it makes sure that each and every person who is willing to help in some way will be able to help people and make sure the people receiving the charity are not using drugs or beating their children. This is separate from the government waste. Lastly, the number of people in that community alone that need help is in the thousands -- this is in a town just 10 miles away from where I live. How can I ignore helping people whose growth I can see when I've seen time and again how my money is badly spent when I ship it elsewhere?
I'm not saying don't help others, I'm saying make sure your time and money is spent wisely. If you're creating more problems because you can't hold anyone in the system accountable for their actions, you might not be really helping.
Here are my concerns:
1. This is not private citizens electing to fund a private charity. This is the United Nations, an organization who has not proven its worth to me nor to millions of people throughout the world. The UN has had its own share of scandals and wasted money, and it has made promises for decades that have rarely been met in any way that can be called successful.
2. There is too much favoritism in terms of corporate subsidies here. Since governments of the world will be paying for these devices, there is likely going to be some concern for cronyism. On top of that, we're not looking at a competitive product being made -- Negroponte has said he hopes to see a commercial version that will subsidize the $100 version, but have we actually seen this happening? We're looking at a device bought by governments that is being built by single companies without a thought for ongoing competitive price drops.
3. The majority of users of this laptop will NOT be in ultrapoor countries. I've heard China and Massachusetts.
4. We're not being told exactly what support hardware, technology and support will be needed to make sure these devices work. I can sell US$0.10 razor blades to the world, but if the world governments also need to buy US$100 razor handles, we need to know the entire budget and where the hidden money goes.
Actually I've spent a lot of time on Acts lately, and I agree. I have no problem with sending money abroad (I actually do help 2 missionaries who are educators in Korea), but I want to make sure that money is spent with accountability. I am sick of giving money to the UN only to see it taking care of people who don't need help. I also am sick of giving money locally to charities who spend more on their own needs than the needs of the poor.
When poverty is vanquished in my community, I will spend more on other communities. Until then, I have to focus on the people I can help the most and also hold accountable in their growth to become responsible and self-reliant.
I'm sure you're patronizing me, but that isn't what I was saying.
When we want to help others, we should. I believe it is required of all people to help those less fortunate. The problem comes in the accountability situation -- when we give money to charity, we are giving money to a charity, not to the poor. We're avoiding the responsibility of seeing with our own eyes that people are being helped, and we don't hold the charity accountable.
Sure, very few of us can go to Africa and help the less fortunate. But it might just be our own policies that are keeping them there. I know that is a certainty in Cuba -- the people continue to allow themselves to be controlled by a dictator, but they do so because they have no hope for the future. Yet we continue to see people trying to better themselves by escaping to the US, only to be forced to go back.
I help those in my community that are in need -- by helping them and holding the accountable, I do make the world better by helping a person at a time. I don't think you can help groups of people ever -- there is no way to see that what you're doing is productive and beneficial. We might see a news clip of 100 people getting vaccines, but the entire path of your money to the final vaccine is a very complicated one with a lot of problems created in that path. In the end, the small help you're giving is not as effective as giving that same help locally in your community. The only way to help people is to help them IF they are ready to take advantage of it. If others are taking advantage of you along the way, you're causing more harm than good.
You're right. Haven't had my first cup of Senseo, so you can go ahead and flog me until I do :)
While I think Gates is right to mock these laptops, I don't think he understands the realities of the problems of helping others around the world. The only thing that helps others is letting them find or create their own opportunities to better their futures. Taking care of people today is counter-productive and can destroy opportunities in the future.
Computers don't make opportunities. Teachers don't make opportunities. Public funding of projects, businesses and markets doesn't make opportunities. Opportunities come when a given community finds that is can accomplish something that others in a market want.
The Internet won't help here -- it isn't here to educate, it is here to help people meet each other's needs. The people using the Internet to better themselves are already living in an economy that enables them to find opportunities to better themselves. That realization is enough to give the average person the desire to make their lives better.
Gates is right -- the $100 laptop is useless. The people it is being built for do not understand opportunity because their community leaders have robbed them of any chance to better themselves. Many of the world's poor live under the thumb of a small group of elitists who think they can help the poor through force. They attempt to provide what their poor needs today, without realizing that just giving someone something doesn't offer any hope for the future. This is especially true if what you're giving them today doesn't really help them enough.
The Bible offers the old fish cliche -- give a man a fish and he'll eat today, teach a man to fish and he'll eat forever. This is very important when making a consideration towards helping another person. I hate helping others through tax-and-spend wealth redistribution: there is no accountability in how the money is spent. I give all my charitable dollars (in the past few months, over 50% of my income) only to those I can hold accountable. This sounds like a "quid pro quo" situation, but it would be no different if it was my own brother or child or best friend. If the person I am helping is not making attempts to support themselves, then my help is wasted -- time, money, love or support. There are others who want to help themselves but are in a position (for whatever reason) that they just can't. These are the people I help.
I would never fund anyone in another country, never again. When I was younger I funded some Ehtiopian charity group, and a few years later had the opportunity to visit Ethiopia. The charity group's office was luxurious and the people working for it lived a very nice life. They found an opportunity: take advantage of idiots in other countries who can't hold the charity accountable. The people the charity was meant to help received very little of the finance and support promised, and what little they did receive did not give them any hope for the future.
It is this hope that creates opporunities. I've seen poor people climb out of poverty with no help from anyone, just because a simple opportunity opened up near them. I just visited Europe and Asia, and I saw thousands of very poor people taking advantage of opportunities that we in the U.S. would never consider doing. Many of these people realized their time investment could offer them the chance to save for the future, to give their children a better chance, to even save some money so they can better their own lives -- in the future. I would never give a homeless person a home, a car and a credit card. I would never give an uneducated person a computer or an education. I would never give a hungry person money to buy food. I would never fund health care of people who don't care about their lives or the lives of their children.
But I would open my home to the homeless person, if they were willing to make steps to find how they can house themselves in the future. I would (and do) spend time with poor families to give their children a chance to learn in some way so that they could take on
The welfare clause of the Constitution was not meant to actually take care of people, but to make sure that no government blocked anyone's ability to provide for themselves.
Let's look at Federal guarantees that we received in the past:
1. The guarantee that no old person who is unable to work will be able to live at a bare means level (Social Security). Now all of us pay 15% or so of our salaries to pay for our retired parents who had every chance to save their own money.
2. The guarantee that no child will go to school without lunch. Now everyone, even the wealthy, qualify for subpar school lunch programs that do nothing but fatten the children up, cause them to carb-crash after lunch, and pander to the large food farming cartels that backdoor sponsor the law's expansion.
3. The guarantee that no child will be left behind. Every child is now brought down to the level of the child least able to learn. Instead of promoting the brightest, we're just equalizing everyone out so everyone can get a C. A C grade is enough to say they need more money, but not bad enough to complain about.
4. The guarantee that college tuitions will be available to those who need them. This caused an excess amount of money to enter the college system -- more money within any limited supply market means that all money is worth less, so prices will go up.
5. The guarantee that all employees have an opportunity to have managed health care. If you take 19 friends to dinner and ask everyone to pay themselves, they'll generally buy burgers. If you agree to all pay an equal share of the bill, some will buy steaks. In the long run, everyone eats steak, except in our situation the steaks are paid for by our children as the group needs to borrow against future wealth to pay for steaks on a burger budget.
6. The guarantee that medicines and drugs will be safe. Instead of supporting medical safety research alone, the FDA has become a complete pawn of the drug companies used to keep new drugs out at high cost to the citizen base. Rather than rely on your doctor's advise for what is best for you, we have to wait for bureaucrats to accept a drug as safe. Even worse, many drugs are released for political reasons that end up not being safe, but still pad the pockets of those who made them.
I have no desire for the Federal government to keep expanding way beyond what they're allowed to. Broadband and communications has NO allocation in the Constitution -- none at all. The Interstate Commerce Clause was written specifically to use the power of Federal government to PREVENT individual states from harming open and free trade. The Welfare clause was written to give people the chance for equal opportunity by preventing governments from harming their ability to provide for themselves.
The Democrats are going to tax me well more than I already pay for broadband so that we can all have it. I already provide a few of my neighbors with free WiFi (and charges others who can afford it). I support 6 families in my church who homeschool by paying for their broadband. I don't need your help, and I don't want to help you if I don't know you and I can't hold you accountable for your actions with my money..