If you are stupid enough to follow his advice you deserve what you get.
Correct. True wealth without initiating force against anyone else.
not having investments for your future beyond retirement is idiotic.
I have investments and I recommend everyone invest in their own businesses or the businesses of those they know and trust. My investments make between 20% and 50% a year on average -- as a profit payment (dividend). I still have growing equity above and beyond.
If you don't trust stocks, invest your 401k's in bonds (and lose out on returns... but have the warm fuzzies knowing you didn't take a risk).
Bonds have never kept up with the true cost of living increase. Prices go up because of currency inflation by the central banks -- in a free market prices go down because the money supply is fixed. I would never invest in bonds, they're the true suckers' investment.
I have my finances worked out such that I will be able to retire early and live off the interest, minus inflation - leaving an estate to donate as I see fit and money to pass on to my children when I feel they are ready upon my death.
If you trust the government to keep the dollar solid. I don't. If I'm wrong, the worst that happens is what? My gold is worthless? I don't see that happening, as gold has been relatively stable for thousands of years. If you're wrong, what can happen? Massive debt, worthless stocks and no savings.
I profited well off of my 401k's and stocks. The lifetime trend of the stock market is about 9% a year.
No, you don't. You profit off of buying a stock at a sucker's price, never earning a dividend (which is true profit of the company) and hoping you can sell it off to some sucker at a higher sucker's price. Even factoring in the money you're "profiting" in, you're barely keeping up with true consumer inflation! 9% annually? The Federal Reserve is currently printing 10-15% inflationary dollars annually, which will eventually cause prices to rise by that figure once the dollars return to the common market. My investments in local businesses offer me a TRUE profit plus the increase in share prices. Your investments offer you no dividend, right?
You can't do much better than that. Small companies are hit and miss. Hit and do a lot better, miss and lose it all. (Not to mention harder to get your money out if an emergency comes up)
I lose on 1 out of 10 companies, usually my entire investment. On the 9 out of 10 that don't fail, I make 20-50% annually. I double my money as a profit in 2-4 years, and I still own the company. Even factoring in the 100% loss on the failed investments, I double my money in approximately 5.5 years and I still retain control. Anyone can do this, and it doesn't require a stock broker who is making money on you if you win or if you lose.
On top of all that, the stock market is experiencing what the Austrians have been talking about for 2 decades: an increased valuation due to the easy credit and currency counterfeiting of the central bank. Greenspan prints new money and sends it out at 1-4% interest. The lemmings get this money as increased wages and easy loans. The lemming sees this money at 4% can make him 9% in the market, so he invests there. Millions of other lemmings do the same, causing a supply shortage based on the increased demand that the Federal Reserve created -- causing the stock prices to go up. Artificial price increase.
Then the market crashes, so the Board drops interest rates lower and counterfeits more new money (legally). This gives the lemmings even more money at a lower interest rate, and what do they see now? Houses are going up 10% annually! Said lemmings then invest in the housing markets, hoping to be the "flip it!" millionaire by 40. Except houses are depreciating assets, just like cars and clothes and food. Houses need maintenance, new houses replace old ones -- houses go down in price in a free market. Why did our hous
Actually, I agree with you based on principal: anyone who takes advantage of bad laws is evil -- but that still doesn't end the debate of those who support the "will of the majority." Remember, it is the majority who is OK with Congress and their all-encompassing powers.
When 3 people give up rights to 1 person, it is pretty easy control. When we have just 800 nationally elected officials handling the rights of 300 million, what do you expect? That is 375,000:1 ratio or so (counting underage too).
Here's the root of the problem: abuse of Constitutional authorized power combined with what is NOT voter apathy but citizen time value. A billion dollars is only $1 per day per citizen: you and I are not going to fight tooth and nail to get rid of a billion dollar contract. Yet a small group of 5 CxO's from Unisys will. Money is not the problem, the corrupt political structure of the federal government is.
Voting is not going to change the structure: those 5 CxO's will happily work with whoever is in power. We've already given UP those powers, there is no taken them back.
If you want to see changes, do it with your life as I did. Take your money out of the stock market and 401Ks and put it into your own business or local businesses you have control of (and actually profit from!). Take your money out of the bank and pay off all your debt -- whatever is left over is perfectly safe in gold or silver. Talk to your employer and see if you can become a contractor and find ways to write-off as much as possible under the tax code. Don't take loans, don't have a credit card, don't be concerned with social security and medicare. You can do it on your own, and you can stop supporting the monsters in office.
Unisys is not the bad guy here: they are taking advantage of the system the voters put in place.
Why is Congress and the FCC even bothering with what is obviously not within their powers as delegated to them by the Constitution? The 9th and 10th Amendments apply here.
First, setting a regulatory standard for television broadcasts and forcing the industry to adhere to them is no longer necessary -- when TV was new, I can understand government enforcing a standard. With technology changing monthly, letting the market figure out what is needed is the best solution.
To me, this seems to be simple cronyism by the State. By creating these standards, they're creating a high cost to entry in the video broadcast market. The quicker we see broadband hit the homes, the more I realize that broadcast television is a complete waste of space. Deregulating ALL broadcast television and letting the frequencies be used by wireless broadcasters would make much more sense to me. Can you imagine how cheap and how fast wireless would be if we gave up all those megahertz?
Broadcasting isn't even important: people want video on demand (whether by cable, satellite, ThePirateBay, or PVR). Broadcasting isn't even efficient anymore: advertisers prefer knowing exact numbers rather than "we think we hit 700,000 with this show." In the long run, Congress and the FCC are applying ideas from 1970 to technology that could change 20 times in the next 20 years. Why restrict it?
I say it is time to just ignore these guys -- if big TV broadcasters want to continue to make a mess and force the little guy out of the business, let them. We'll counter it with rebroadcaster their garbage over BitTorrent and through the sharing of information as it was meant to be: free. Take the infinite supply of data versus the finite demand and you end up with a cost of zero.
Which, in the case of Ethiopians, for example, seems to be... well... dying.
Myth. I visited both Ethiopia and Eritrea -- I saw none of the poverty and suffering I saw on the TV for 2 decades. The people "dying" of "starvation" are generally people who were the children of monsters who committed vile wars against one another for nothing but desert holy land. I've spoken with so many Ethiopians over the web the past few years who hate that they're labeled poor when the cities have blossoming businesses and fruitful farming. The Ethiopian problem boils down to the government getting involved in the wars and making things worse.
The problem with a truly global economy is that it assumes a pretext of certain conditions (workers' representation, basic resources, market oversight, etc.), while selecting for the exact opposite. The inevitable result of this is consumers do save a few cents on products--achieving the academic ideal of efficiency--but at the expense of the health and well-being of a faraway people and land.
If we deregulated trade and dissolved every tariff and embargo, people all over the world would become more efficient and wealthier. Everyone would have the ability to produce what they're best at and the economies of every country would prosper. The problem is that the world player in ruining trade is the global currency situation: every country's elite has the power to inflate their currency bases differently, making it very hard for producers and consumers to trade equally. No one knows how much their currency is worth against another currency, as it takes 6-24 months for price inflation to catch up with central banking inflation.
What really ruins international trade (from a human condition standpoint) is the vastly skewed distribution of resources and power throughout the world. Think about it: patents, for instance, wouldn't be quite so exploitative if third world countries were producing them at the same rate per capita as their western counterparts. But this isn't the case.
If someone produces slower than another person, they have to sell the goods at a higher price. In the local market this is a plus, in the international market this is a negative. Yet EVERY land has the ability to create SOMETHING, even if it is merely a service.
The Internet allows everyone to become more efficient through education -- not public education but self education. Once people realize it is their government holding them hostage and ruining their economies and their opportunities, maybe we'll see a better world through voluntary cooperation -- the definition of capitalism. We live in a mercantilist world, but everyone thinks we're capitalists. We're not, we're big government supporters who think we need a nanny state. It is the nanny state that destroys hope, opportunity and eventually wealth.
Re:the recommended changes require MORE laws?
on
The Patent Epidemic
·
· Score: 1
Re:The issue is concentration of influence.
on
The Patent Epidemic
·
· Score: 1
Our choices in elections are simple: Choose the representative of the corporate rights party versus the representative of the radical corporate rights party. They have the support (money) of the corporations.
I agree with your first paragraphs, I disagree heavily on your answer.
Congress is not corrupt because they can accept unlimited money -- they are corrupt because they were given unlimited power. Federal Campaign laws all violate the 1st Amendment completely. If you want to see third parties succeed, you need to dismantle the FEC and let the voices be heard financially and verbally.
Yet I don't think the FEC is the only problem -- the unlimited power of government must be stopped.
I did my part the best way possible:
I refuse to use the US banking cartel system -- the central bank gets nearly zero of my labor.
I refuse to use the electronic dollar -- no debit, no credit, no virtual money.
I refuse to use the loaning system -- any time I need money, I either save it myself or get a private loan from non-banks.
I refuse to use the corrupt stock market -- any time I have money, I either loan it privately or invest in a business I own or co-own.
My money is in gold, silver, my businesses, my property (no loan), my car (no loan) and the businesses of others that reaps a profit for me. All my currency is converted to gold and silver -- the ultimate store of wealth.
By backing out of the financial engine that is, in my opinion, the key to collapsing "their" power, I've taken myself out of their system. Sure, they still tax me, but the power to tax is stronger through the power to inflate the currency base. 2006 will be known as the year that the dollar died as the standard form of payment internationally. I believe the Middle East and South American oil companies will standardize on gold as a form of payment, the Euro, and the dollar. With the Euro and the US dollar both becoming devalued from excessive inflation by the central banks, you'll see oil prices skyrocket -- which is what I want to see. US$6 gallons of gas is no worry to me if I don't trade in US dollars.
Do your part and exit the politics: don't vote, don't use their currency, don't accept their loans and don't put your labor into their stock market. You'll be glad that you did, and you'll feel free from day one.
I would hate to see the Libertarians align with any authoritarian party -- the Greens are ultraauthoritarians. My solution for the libertarian debate is to exit politics and become a prime example to voluntary cooperation.
Show people that you don't need coercion to help the poor, educate the young and be a benefit to society. This can only happen by volunteering your time and your money, but be vocal about your desire for freedom, not socialism.
That's what they tell us- but in practice it's not that easy to retrain for a different job-
Really? I've changed markets with 1 year of retraining. Many people learn a career after being duped into believing the market exists -- all that exists in some markets is temporary preferential treatment by local governments. I can't believe how many people keep entering some markets that are on the verge of collapse because the government can't prop them up any more (after 20-30 years of help).
But since it's only a small minority in both with these talents, what we're really doing is throwing huge numbers of people onto the welfare rolls of both countries- and those welfare rolls are collapsing and people are literally suffering from malnutrition when they can't afford food at US prices and can't afford to grow their own.
This is a myth. The farming industry has been destroyed by both the IMF and by currency manipulation that have made prices rise when in fact they should have fallen in many areas. Land values have gone up due to the fed manipulation of the currency base, causing farm land to be worth more to developers than would normally be true. This is a VERY complex problem, though, much more so than can be handled in a simple post.
Sometimes efficiency is the *worst* thing to make economic descisions on.
That is completely unfounded in reality -- efficiency is the basis for price and performance, period. Steel workers were duped by the governments (local and federal) into thinking there was demand for them. We paid for that fake demand in higher prices that could have allowed money to flow to where jobs would be needed. Those steel workers are getting what was coming to the industry 2 decades ago, it is unfortunate. Yet in my area we had approximately 10,000 open positions paying over $12 per hour within 30 minutes of my home. Don't tell me jobs aren't available -- they're readily available. The fact that people planted their lives in an area (Michigan) because they were duped by government is not MY fault. I know better than that, I would never trust a politician to secure my job. They did, they stole from me, they're not getting another cent out of me (check out my blog from today regarding Michigan and welfare).
They could also form a group to "sell" token items to each other giving them good feedback, and then use that to defraud people on larger items.
Huh? Is that really going to be more efficient than just providing a good service? It seems that every socialist on slashdot wants to use the same old trite responses rather than look at what is really happening. Amazon and eBay performed tens of millions of transactions in the past 90 days -- the great majority of which went through with no problems. In every trade there is risk, but when the risk is less than 0.001%, to me it is a success.
And in the mean time, the anarchy comes home when you force your next door neighbor who used to make that item for you to break into your house in search of food.
My church offers food kitchens for the poor -- in exchange for helping them get off of drugs and into work. I don't have any starving neighbors. The few who are starving are addicts unwilling to make changes, and I have no desire to give them money if they aren't making changes.
Does that include the right of somebody else to steal your market?
You can't steal a market -- you can only be as competitive as possible. If someone provides a better product/service at a lower price and at a higher quality than you, you're in the wrong business.
And you're also impovershing your neighbors. Who will eventually revolt at that impoverishment- because it removes their freedom.
How? By providing people with a better service? If they're trying to hold onto old ways, they're not efficient. They won't starve, they'll just change jobs. In every mar
I see politics as a two sided coin: you have authoritarians on one side, and libertarians on the other.
The authoritarian side has a left (socialism), a right (fascism) and a center (moderate). The libertarian side has a top (anarchocapitalism) and a bottom (anarchosyndicates).
I don't really believe there is much "mixing" from either side into one-another.
Re:the recommended changes require MORE laws?
on
The Patent Epidemic
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
I don't need to propose anything, really, because my "dream" utopia is coming to fruition with almost NO need for me. I look at the Internet and see anarchy at work. Sure, many governments are trying to find ways to control the web, and megacorporations are, as well, but in the end the individual is finding just as much strength as everyone else. Do I fear Google or MS or Yahoo could take over at any minute? No, because anyone else can come up with a better product and get it in motion if the market wants it.
eBay is a great example of anarchy in motion -- it isn't chaotic or nihilistic at all, it is two people with needs trading with one another and both parties profiting from the trade. Sure, eBay may rely still on some legal procedures, but they're connecting people in different countries with different laws and the process mostly works. The same is true of the blogs out there: how many bloggers include copyright symbols on their blogs? Quoting, sharing, linking -- it all works to get information out there in a controlled anarchy -- controlled by the market, not by the government.
The only way I see anything falling apart is if the Internet gets regulated more, or if central authorities find a way to control it. I don't see that happening, especially with the anarchy of BitTorrent and AIM and other systems that provide for competitors to come in and give them a run for their money.
But allowing people from outside to own land or invade the market- that's the bad part. Multinational corporations would not be allowed unless they provide something that can't be made locally- the whole idea is to make manufacturers and consumers LOCAL to each other, so that business decisions such as pricing and wages can be made with full knowledge of the individual human beings involved and their situations, instead of canibalistically profiting off of strangers. The rest, would happen organically.
This is where I disagree -- when you allow international trade, you open yourself to finding people who are more efficient at a given task than people local to you. This frees up the local people to find what they're most efficient at doing.
What ruins international trade is all the treaties, agreements and tariffs: they screw up the market and screw up the ability for people to find their best marketable talents. For decades we supported steel workers in the US even though other countries could get us steel cheaper (even after considering shipping costs). This made our cars more expensive -- taking money out of the households that could have been better spent elsewhere.
I would say that 30% of my Internet income comes from overseas. Your arguments would have convinced me up until 1990 or so -- once the Internet took hold, we saw the power of anarchy. Look at eBay. eBay could exist without the law, as the moderation system allows you to trust your seller. If a seller decides to defraud people, they COULD start all over with 0 moderation points -- but people are less likely to trust someone with 0 feedback.
For me, I want completely open trade and complete access to use my property as I see fit. If someone wants to take the time to copy my old books or songs or videos, go ahead and sell it. I'm working on NEW items, and those who support my work will support me financially. It has worked in my life and it has worked in the lives of millions without them knowing it. Patents are no different -- inventions are only as good as your ability to not only sell them but to convince your customers that your item is better than your competitors. If a patent is your only advantage, you're not providing the market with what it needs: quality, cost and efficiency.
Re:No conspiracy to see here [OT?]
on
The Patent Epidemic
·
· Score: 1, Insightful
I have many Marxist friends -- many more than my AnarCap friends in number. I understand the Marxist philosophy, but it confuses me how a Marxist can't see that their end game can't come out of laws and regulations.
AnarCaps (and libertarians) believe in the household is first ideals, too. We believe in the idea of unanimous democracy -- no law shall be passed unless everyone in the group agrees.
Let's boil that down:
If every single US citizen doesn't agree unanimously with a law, send it to the state. If every single Illinois citizen doesn't agree unanimously with a law, send it to the county. If every single Lake County citizen doesn't agree unanimously with a law, send it to the village. If every single Gurnee citizen doesn't agree unanimously with a law, send it to the neighborhood. If every single Brookstone Place citizen doesn't agree unanimously with a law, sent it to the household. If every single person in my household agrees with the law, set it into motion.
That's the basis for freedom -- the ability for every household to choose what is good for them and what isn't. You might decide to live with 100 other families with similar beliefs: you'd see your "laws" acted out voluntarily, not through force and coercion against those who disagree with your beliefs.
I hate corporation and government, but they're one and the same. We gave government the ultimate authority in our lives, and now we're suffering because we don't have authority over our lives anymore. I see no problem with the outcome -- we wanted it, I guess.
Re:the recommended changes require MORE laws?
on
The Patent Epidemic
·
· Score: 4, Informative
So are you suggesting no change at all, or are you suggesting we get rid of the patent system altogether?
The latter would be great. The current system of patents was completely broken from the start. Even if the US had the best patent law in the world, what stops other countries from ignoring it? I don't want to see the military going overseas to protect patents, and I don't like ANY trade deals as they are all forms of favoritism.
If you are sympathetic to the idea of abolishing patents and you live on this planet, the best you can hope for is gradual change towards weakening the power of patent monopolies.
How? There is no chance of things getting gradually better -- laws that protect 10 cartels worth billions are not going to get changed by 200 million individuals who might save $10 a year each because of the monopolies created. 10 people chasing $2 billion will work harder than 200 million people chasing $2 billion.
Only by performing the experiment of reducing patent force can our society begin to see the benefits of less government interference in essential human rights, such as the right to build stuff and the right to create new things -- rights that patent monopolies prevent you from doing.
I agree, but my argument from the previous paragraph stands: you won't see things becoming "kinder and better" as long as we allow Congress and the federal branches such abusive powers.
Unless, of course, you are advocating sitting on our hands and letting the IP-maximalists continue to increase and concentrate their power.
Their power that We the People granted them by ignoring the Constitution. We gave our federal branches the ultimate powers that they were never allowed, and we're surprised that they give those powers to the highest bidders?
The solution is no more laws and more control/regulation. The solution is to remove those powers from the federal politicians, and return them to the People.
No conspiracy to see here [OT?]
on
The Patent Epidemic
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
A few weeks ago I received an e-mail from a slashdot reader asking me if I'm behind a "libertarian" conspiracy on slashdot. I brought it up at an anarchocapitalist meeting I had at my place in the middle of December, and the AnarCaps generally laughed -- none of them have the time or the drive to back up my posts with positive moderation.
Now I'm seeing similar "libertarian" pushes at various newspapers and even noted on my local TV morning news (Chicago's WGN9 news team, hilarious people) a more freedom-loving perspective on some of their opinion pieces.
It confuses me -- as a freedom lover, I'm known to promote my views heavily one very blog and forum I'm on. For years I was beaten down for my odd views, but now it seems like I'm just one amongst many, even in the mass media. What the hell is going on here?
On topic: all the links provide interesting viewpoints on the problems with patents (and copyright and trademark and all that). The downside to the articles is that the recommended changes require MORE laws and MORE government intrusion rather than less. Does anyone really think that the same coercive laws can really be fixed with more coercive laws? Will we see laws "protecting" freedoms by taking them away?
Why are you anti copyright? The things you want to do can be done with copyrights the way they are now, just pick a license that allows redistribution (and what ever you want).
I believe VERY strongly in private property rights -- the right to do on your land what you want to do with your property, body and time. I think the Constitution originally was prepared to protect property rights, but over time things have changed.
I do not see any right to items that are no longer in your control. Once you sell, give away or barter an item to someone else, that item is that person's. If it is a book, they own the book -- what they do with the book is their inherent right. They can copy it, modify it, burn it, it doesn't matter, you reliquished control.
There are hundreds of thousands of slashdot readers who refute me -- but none of them seem to have every written a book, played music for an album or created a movie. In my experience, freeing your information for copying is the best way to get public speaking engagements, get people to come to your concert and get people to visit your theatre production. I find it ridiculous to think that someone should have a right to have a monopoly over words or actions -- they're not really protectable in a free market.
Copyright laws are strongest for the content distribution companies: I call them the content cartels. The RIAA, MPAA, the two book author associations and the other cartels that distribute content. Popular musicians make no money on their content, they usually make money at their shows. At many shows you can buy a T-shirt for $20 from the band or for $5 from the guy outside: many people buy from the band. How many times have you seen "popular" actors end up on Broadway or smaller theatre groups?
In the end, I prefer to see people making money for performing an action: putting someone on paper or CD or DVD form and hoping to make money by forcing others to disregard their private property rights is wrong to me. I will never use force against another person offensively: copyright is force.
Thanks:) I'm working on a free e-book right now refuting copyright as the protector of content creators. I'll be blogging chapters of the book for others to openly comment (and help make changes). If you're interested, hit me up with an e-mail.
I'm one of the few anti-copyright "advocates" on slashdot, FWIW. In 2006, I am starting a record label with my brother and a few friends (we already have studio space, equipment and some cash for distribution) that focuses solely on copyright-free music. Bands will get a larger percentage of touring cash, but the music will be considered public domain from the start.
I am a strong believer that copyright laws create monsters like the RIAA -- whenever you have a law that offers an individual or a group the ability to use force (a government monopoly) over another individual or group, you'll have VERY bad abuses. I'm an author (blogger, book writer and I perform some private speaking engagements) and all my works are public domain. I used to own a software company (now strictly IT consulting) that produced numerous public domain products for my customer base.
The great part of removing myself from copyright protections is that I can now sell to my customers what I am capable of doing: face-to-face productions of my works. As a newsletter writer, I made more money on speaking engagements than on actually selling the newsletter. With copyright, I would need to use the force of government to force my readers to control their thoughts regarding my writings.
Sure, some big company can go and "steal" content, but they still need money to distribute it, and in the long run, those who can create content aren't really protected either. Have you seen how many actors, musicians and painters actually profit from their work? They don't, but the distribution cartels sure do.
Copyright does not protect anyone but those who control the copying: the distributors.
That's crazy to hear. I don't see how SMS costs the network any money at all -- I was under the impression that SMS messages were transmitted when the network wasn't in use. Do SMS messages take priority over phone calls? Somehow I doubt this.
Maybe the networks have a concern that SMS replaces actual phone calls. I'll have to do some more research!
I wish I was Swedish! In the US a few years ago, I tried to convince some local Libertarians to run strictly on the "right to copy" platform. It seems most of those guys wanted to run on the "Smoke Pot" platform, which will generally get you nowhere except with stoners.
The big news here, to me, is that Sweden seems to allow minority opinions into their parliament (similar to Costa Rica and other countries). In the US it is near impossible to get a minority opinion into even a state legislature -- democracy and gerrymandering prevent the minority opinion from ever seeing the light of day.
225,000 votes is a LOT of votes. Does anyone know what the 18-30 male voting record is in terms of actually making it to the ballot box to vote? In recent local elections that I've witnessed (I like to watch), I haven't seen anything but blue haired ladies with walkers hitting the booths. I don't think I saw one person under the age of 40 at my booth (and I witnessed the voters for over 3 hours). I'm not sure how well this would work even if our voting system did allow for minority parties with minority positions to get elected.
My text based communications have moved more to SMS and IM than e-mail, especially in the last 6 months or so. I've even seen many of my non-geek friends and family moving to SMS and IM over e-mail, there is definitely a much high signal-to-noise ratio over the spam cluttered e-mail Inboxes that many people have.
I moved from my own server (which we ran for almost 9 years) to gmail recently, and couldn't be happier -- I wouldn't doubt that my tiny company is saving thousands per year of maintenance and upgrades, and having our own domain name isn't a big deal anymore. It also offers transportability if one of my employees moves on or if we bring someone on for a contract gig.
The downside to e-mail is still the signal-to-noise ratio. Spam filters are helping, but lately gmail has been losing the battle (but hey, my gmail address is publicly listed on slashdot and other forums, so I can't complain). I also have to wade through what is important right now and what isn't, and marking people with a star hasn't helped much.
I don't know if I trust Microsoft to design and build the necessary algorithms and heuristics to sort e-mails in an effective way. This is the same company that has one of the worst letter writing analyzers in word, and we all remember Clippy, who probably still exists. Sure, Microsoft has an intense amount of data they can sort from Hotmail and MSN accounts, but I'm not sure if it will be enough. E-mails, in my opinion, are incredibly unfriendly for PCs to analyze -- it's like the game Go. Humans can wade through e-mails in microseconds, but AI programs have never shown me to be intelligent enough to get mistakes to number close to zero. Microsoft's other problem is I wonder how many people still use Outlook for the desktop? Most of my Exchange customers -- nearly all of them -- use Outlook Web Access. I doubt you can install a SNARF MSI somewhere in the chain to support OWA, right?
Google might have a step up against Microsoft (especially now with AOL and gmail), but even their server AI isn't ready for primetime.
From what I can tell, though, the person who makes the best e-mail sorting AI will definitely come out on top and they could also save e-mail as the prime communication method. I prefer SMS and IM for the instantaneous communication, high signal-to-noise ratio and ability to truly limit who contacts me. Maybe the solution is some odd combo of IM, SMS and e-mail?
I use Samsung's t809 with T-Mobile's EDGE to get about 150kbps (on the WAP browser as well as via Bluetooth tether to my laptop or PDA). 150kbps is more than enough on the road, and I actually find myself using it at home (even though I have a massive broadband pipe). The latency is very low, web browsing is very snappy, and most of my posts to slashdot come from that combo.
7mbps is useless for a wireless connection, and I think it can be debated to being useless for even a landline connection. It is my opinon that what we need is snappier (lower latency) connections, not huge pipes.
The big concern about 7mbps is battery life, too. My previous PDA phone (HP iPAQ h6315) had WiFi and Bluetooth and the WiFi connection killed the battery life. My current phone with my PDA using just Bluetooth offers me hours and hours of high speed-ish access without the battery hit.
The other killer is upload speed. From what I can tell, FCC safety regulations prevent more than a few upload/transmission channels for cell phone users -- we may not be able to get much past the maximums we have now. I get about a 44kbps upload speed, which is fine for most portable processes. In order to double this speed, we'd need a higher transmit power, which could be dangerous (or maybe it's an unfounded danger, I'm not sure).
Either way, I'd rather see manufacturers spending money on better user interfaces, better power management and reducing the need to lock features out of the phones released. My t809 is an awesome phone, but it still has enough locked and proprietary features as to make it less useful, especially for the power users. I'd happily stay at 100kbps-150kbps and get a few more features on the interface than get 7mbps and lose a few.
Slashdot Mirror
If you are stupid enough to follow his advice you deserve what you get.
Correct. True wealth without initiating force against anyone else.
not having investments for your future beyond retirement is idiotic.
I have investments and I recommend everyone invest in their own businesses or the businesses of those they know and trust. My investments make between 20% and 50% a year on average -- as a profit payment (dividend). I still have growing equity above and beyond.
If you don't trust stocks, invest your 401k's in bonds (and lose out on returns... but have the warm fuzzies knowing you didn't take a risk).
Bonds have never kept up with the true cost of living increase. Prices go up because of currency inflation by the central banks -- in a free market prices go down because the money supply is fixed. I would never invest in bonds, they're the true suckers' investment.
I have my finances worked out such that I will be able to retire early and live off the interest, minus inflation - leaving an estate to donate as I see fit and money to pass on to my children when I feel they are ready upon my death.
If you trust the government to keep the dollar solid. I don't. If I'm wrong, the worst that happens is what? My gold is worthless? I don't see that happening, as gold has been relatively stable for thousands of years. If you're wrong, what can happen? Massive debt, worthless stocks and no savings.
I profited well off of my 401k's and stocks. The lifetime trend of the stock market is about 9% a year.
No, you don't. You profit off of buying a stock at a sucker's price, never earning a dividend (which is true profit of the company) and hoping you can sell it off to some sucker at a higher sucker's price. Even factoring in the money you're "profiting" in, you're barely keeping up with true consumer inflation! 9% annually? The Federal Reserve is currently printing 10-15% inflationary dollars annually, which will eventually cause prices to rise by that figure once the dollars return to the common market. My investments in local businesses offer me a TRUE profit plus the increase in share prices. Your investments offer you no dividend, right?
You can't do much better than that. Small companies are hit and miss. Hit and do a lot better, miss and lose it all. (Not to mention harder to get your money out if an emergency comes up)
I lose on 1 out of 10 companies, usually my entire investment. On the 9 out of 10 that don't fail, I make 20-50% annually. I double my money as a profit in 2-4 years, and I still own the company. Even factoring in the 100% loss on the failed investments, I double my money in approximately 5.5 years and I still retain control. Anyone can do this, and it doesn't require a stock broker who is making money on you if you win or if you lose.
On top of all that, the stock market is experiencing what the Austrians have been talking about for 2 decades: an increased valuation due to the easy credit and currency counterfeiting of the central bank. Greenspan prints new money and sends it out at 1-4% interest. The lemmings get this money as increased wages and easy loans. The lemming sees this money at 4% can make him 9% in the market, so he invests there. Millions of other lemmings do the same, causing a supply shortage based on the increased demand that the Federal Reserve created -- causing the stock prices to go up. Artificial price increase.
Then the market crashes, so the Board drops interest rates lower and counterfeits more new money (legally). This gives the lemmings even more money at a lower interest rate, and what do they see now? Houses are going up 10% annually! Said lemmings then invest in the housing markets, hoping to be the "flip it!" millionaire by 40. Except houses are depreciating assets, just like cars and clothes and food. Houses need maintenance, new houses replace old ones -- houses go down in price in a free market. Why did our hous
Actually, I agree with you based on principal: anyone who takes advantage of bad laws is evil -- but that still doesn't end the debate of those who support the "will of the majority." Remember, it is the majority who is OK with Congress and their all-encompassing powers.
When 3 people give up rights to 1 person, it is pretty easy control. When we have just 800 nationally elected officials handling the rights of 300 million, what do you expect? That is 375,000:1 ratio or so (counting underage too).
Here's the root of the problem: abuse of Constitutional authorized power combined with what is NOT voter apathy but citizen time value. A billion dollars is only $1 per day per citizen: you and I are not going to fight tooth and nail to get rid of a billion dollar contract. Yet a small group of 5 CxO's from Unisys will. Money is not the problem, the corrupt political structure of the federal government is.
Voting is not going to change the structure: those 5 CxO's will happily work with whoever is in power. We've already given UP those powers, there is no taken them back.
If you want to see changes, do it with your life as I did. Take your money out of the stock market and 401Ks and put it into your own business or local businesses you have control of (and actually profit from!). Take your money out of the bank and pay off all your debt -- whatever is left over is perfectly safe in gold or silver. Talk to your employer and see if you can become a contractor and find ways to write-off as much as possible under the tax code. Don't take loans, don't have a credit card, don't be concerned with social security and medicare. You can do it on your own, and you can stop supporting the monsters in office.
Unisys is not the bad guy here: they are taking advantage of the system the voters put in place.
Why is Congress and the FCC even bothering with what is obviously not within their powers as delegated to them by the Constitution? The 9th and 10th Amendments apply here.
First, setting a regulatory standard for television broadcasts and forcing the industry to adhere to them is no longer necessary -- when TV was new, I can understand government enforcing a standard. With technology changing monthly, letting the market figure out what is needed is the best solution.
To me, this seems to be simple cronyism by the State. By creating these standards, they're creating a high cost to entry in the video broadcast market. The quicker we see broadband hit the homes, the more I realize that broadcast television is a complete waste of space. Deregulating ALL broadcast television and letting the frequencies be used by wireless broadcasters would make much more sense to me. Can you imagine how cheap and how fast wireless would be if we gave up all those megahertz?
Broadcasting isn't even important: people want video on demand (whether by cable, satellite, ThePirateBay, or PVR). Broadcasting isn't even efficient anymore: advertisers prefer knowing exact numbers rather than "we think we hit 700,000 with this show." In the long run, Congress and the FCC are applying ideas from 1970 to technology that could change 20 times in the next 20 years. Why restrict it?
I say it is time to just ignore these guys -- if big TV broadcasters want to continue to make a mess and force the little guy out of the business, let them. We'll counter it with rebroadcaster their garbage over BitTorrent and through the sharing of information as it was meant to be: free. Take the infinite supply of data versus the finite demand and you end up with a cost of zero.
Which, in the case of Ethiopians, for example, seems to be... well... dying.
Myth. I visited both Ethiopia and Eritrea -- I saw none of the poverty and suffering I saw on the TV for 2 decades. The people "dying" of "starvation" are generally people who were the children of monsters who committed vile wars against one another for nothing but desert holy land. I've spoken with so many Ethiopians over the web the past few years who hate that they're labeled poor when the cities have blossoming businesses and fruitful farming. The Ethiopian problem boils down to the government getting involved in the wars and making things worse.
The problem with a truly global economy is that it assumes a pretext of certain conditions (workers' representation, basic resources, market oversight, etc.), while selecting for the exact opposite. The inevitable result of this is consumers do save a few cents on products--achieving the academic ideal of efficiency--but at the expense of the health and well-being of a faraway people and land.
If we deregulated trade and dissolved every tariff and embargo, people all over the world would become more efficient and wealthier. Everyone would have the ability to produce what they're best at and the economies of every country would prosper. The problem is that the world player in ruining trade is the global currency situation: every country's elite has the power to inflate their currency bases differently, making it very hard for producers and consumers to trade equally. No one knows how much their currency is worth against another currency, as it takes 6-24 months for price inflation to catch up with central banking inflation.
What really ruins international trade (from a human condition standpoint) is the vastly skewed distribution of resources and power throughout the world. Think about it: patents, for instance, wouldn't be quite so exploitative if third world countries were producing them at the same rate per capita as their western counterparts. But this isn't the case.
If someone produces slower than another person, they have to sell the goods at a higher price. In the local market this is a plus, in the international market this is a negative. Yet EVERY land has the ability to create SOMETHING, even if it is merely a service.
The Internet allows everyone to become more efficient through education -- not public education but self education. Once people realize it is their government holding them hostage and ruining their economies and their opportunities, maybe we'll see a better world through voluntary cooperation -- the definition of capitalism. We live in a mercantilist world, but everyone thinks we're capitalists. We're not, we're big government supporters who think we need a nanny state. It is the nanny state that destroys hope, opportunity and eventually wealth.
I agree with you. The comment I posted a few minutes ago ( http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=172857&cid=143 91891 ) points to the changes I made in my life to back out of the support of the initiation of force.
Drop me an e-mail.
Our choices in elections are simple: Choose the representative of the corporate rights party versus the representative of the radical corporate rights party. They have the support (money) of the corporations.
I agree with your first paragraphs, I disagree heavily on your answer.
Congress is not corrupt because they can accept unlimited money -- they are corrupt because they were given unlimited power. Federal Campaign laws all violate the 1st Amendment completely. If you want to see third parties succeed, you need to dismantle the FEC and let the voices be heard financially and verbally.
Yet I don't think the FEC is the only problem -- the unlimited power of government must be stopped.
I did my part the best way possible:
I refuse to use the US banking cartel system -- the central bank gets nearly zero of my labor.
I refuse to use the electronic dollar -- no debit, no credit, no virtual money.
I refuse to use the loaning system -- any time I need money, I either save it myself or get a private loan from non-banks.
I refuse to use the corrupt stock market -- any time I have money, I either loan it privately or invest in a business I own or co-own.
My money is in gold, silver, my businesses, my property (no loan), my car (no loan) and the businesses of others that reaps a profit for me. All my currency is converted to gold and silver -- the ultimate store of wealth.
By backing out of the financial engine that is, in my opinion, the key to collapsing "their" power, I've taken myself out of their system. Sure, they still tax me, but the power to tax is stronger through the power to inflate the currency base. 2006 will be known as the year that the dollar died as the standard form of payment internationally. I believe the Middle East and South American oil companies will standardize on gold as a form of payment, the Euro, and the dollar. With the Euro and the US dollar both becoming devalued from excessive inflation by the central banks, you'll see oil prices skyrocket -- which is what I want to see. US$6 gallons of gas is no worry to me if I don't trade in US dollars.
Do your part and exit the politics: don't vote, don't use their currency, don't accept their loans and don't put your labor into their stock market. You'll be glad that you did, and you'll feel free from day one.
I would hate to see the Libertarians align with any authoritarian party -- the Greens are ultraauthoritarians. My solution for the libertarian debate is to exit politics and become a prime example to voluntary cooperation.
Show people that you don't need coercion to help the poor, educate the young and be a benefit to society. This can only happen by volunteering your time and your money, but be vocal about your desire for freedom, not socialism.
That's what they tell us- but in practice it's not that easy to retrain for a different job-
Really? I've changed markets with 1 year of retraining. Many people learn a career after being duped into believing the market exists -- all that exists in some markets is temporary preferential treatment by local governments. I can't believe how many people keep entering some markets that are on the verge of collapse because the government can't prop them up any more (after 20-30 years of help).
But since it's only a small minority in both with these talents, what we're really doing is throwing huge numbers of people onto the welfare rolls of both countries- and those welfare rolls are collapsing and people are literally suffering from malnutrition when they can't afford food at US prices and can't afford to grow their own.
This is a myth. The farming industry has been destroyed by both the IMF and by currency manipulation that have made prices rise when in fact they should have fallen in many areas. Land values have gone up due to the fed manipulation of the currency base, causing farm land to be worth more to developers than would normally be true. This is a VERY complex problem, though, much more so than can be handled in a simple post.
Sometimes efficiency is the *worst* thing to make economic descisions on.
That is completely unfounded in reality -- efficiency is the basis for price and performance, period. Steel workers were duped by the governments (local and federal) into thinking there was demand for them. We paid for that fake demand in higher prices that could have allowed money to flow to where jobs would be needed. Those steel workers are getting what was coming to the industry 2 decades ago, it is unfortunate. Yet in my area we had approximately 10,000 open positions paying over $12 per hour within 30 minutes of my home. Don't tell me jobs aren't available -- they're readily available. The fact that people planted their lives in an area (Michigan) because they were duped by government is not MY fault. I know better than that, I would never trust a politician to secure my job. They did, they stole from me, they're not getting another cent out of me (check out my blog from today regarding Michigan and welfare).
They could also form a group to "sell" token items to each other giving them good feedback, and then use that to defraud people on larger items.
Huh? Is that really going to be more efficient than just providing a good service? It seems that every socialist on slashdot wants to use the same old trite responses rather than look at what is really happening. Amazon and eBay performed tens of millions of transactions in the past 90 days -- the great majority of which went through with no problems. In every trade there is risk, but when the risk is less than 0.001%, to me it is a success.
And in the mean time, the anarchy comes home when you force your next door neighbor who used to make that item for you to break into your house in search of food.
My church offers food kitchens for the poor -- in exchange for helping them get off of drugs and into work. I don't have any starving neighbors. The few who are starving are addicts unwilling to make changes, and I have no desire to give them money if they aren't making changes.
Does that include the right of somebody else to steal your market?
You can't steal a market -- you can only be as competitive as possible. If someone provides a better product/service at a lower price and at a higher quality than you, you're in the wrong business.
And you're also impovershing your neighbors. Who will eventually revolt at that impoverishment- because it removes their freedom.
How? By providing people with a better service? If they're trying to hold onto old ways, they're not efficient. They won't starve, they'll just change jobs. In every mar
I see politics as a two sided coin: you have authoritarians on one side, and libertarians on the other.
The authoritarian side has a left (socialism), a right (fascism) and a center (moderate). The libertarian side has a top (anarchocapitalism) and a bottom (anarchosyndicates).
I don't really believe there is much "mixing" from either side into one-another.
I don't need to propose anything, really, because my "dream" utopia is coming to fruition with almost NO need for me. I look at the Internet and see anarchy at work. Sure, many governments are trying to find ways to control the web, and megacorporations are, as well, but in the end the individual is finding just as much strength as everyone else. Do I fear Google or MS or Yahoo could take over at any minute? No, because anyone else can come up with a better product and get it in motion if the market wants it.
eBay is a great example of anarchy in motion -- it isn't chaotic or nihilistic at all, it is two people with needs trading with one another and both parties profiting from the trade. Sure, eBay may rely still on some legal procedures, but they're connecting people in different countries with different laws and the process mostly works. The same is true of the blogs out there: how many bloggers include copyright symbols on their blogs? Quoting, sharing, linking -- it all works to get information out there in a controlled anarchy -- controlled by the market, not by the government.
The only way I see anything falling apart is if the Internet gets regulated more, or if central authorities find a way to control it. I don't see that happening, especially with the anarchy of BitTorrent and AIM and other systems that provide for competitors to come in and give them a run for their money.
But allowing people from outside to own land or invade the market- that's the bad part. Multinational corporations would not be allowed unless they provide something that can't be made locally- the whole idea is to make manufacturers and consumers LOCAL to each other, so that business decisions such as pricing and wages can be made with full knowledge of the individual human beings involved and their situations, instead of canibalistically profiting off of strangers. The rest, would happen organically.
This is where I disagree -- when you allow international trade, you open yourself to finding people who are more efficient at a given task than people local to you. This frees up the local people to find what they're most efficient at doing.
What ruins international trade is all the treaties, agreements and tariffs: they screw up the market and screw up the ability for people to find their best marketable talents. For decades we supported steel workers in the US even though other countries could get us steel cheaper (even after considering shipping costs). This made our cars more expensive -- taking money out of the households that could have been better spent elsewhere.
I would say that 30% of my Internet income comes from overseas. Your arguments would have convinced me up until 1990 or so -- once the Internet took hold, we saw the power of anarchy. Look at eBay. eBay could exist without the law, as the moderation system allows you to trust your seller. If a seller decides to defraud people, they COULD start all over with 0 moderation points -- but people are less likely to trust someone with 0 feedback.
For me, I want completely open trade and complete access to use my property as I see fit. If someone wants to take the time to copy my old books or songs or videos, go ahead and sell it. I'm working on NEW items, and those who support my work will support me financially. It has worked in my life and it has worked in the lives of millions without them knowing it. Patents are no different -- inventions are only as good as your ability to not only sell them but to convince your customers that your item is better than your competitors. If a patent is your only advantage, you're not providing the market with what it needs: quality, cost and efficiency.
I have many Marxist friends -- many more than my AnarCap friends in number. I understand the Marxist philosophy, but it confuses me how a Marxist can't see that their end game can't come out of laws and regulations.
AnarCaps (and libertarians) believe in the household is first ideals, too. We believe in the idea of unanimous democracy -- no law shall be passed unless everyone in the group agrees.
Let's boil that down:
If every single US citizen doesn't agree unanimously with a law, send it to the state.
If every single Illinois citizen doesn't agree unanimously with a law, send it to the county.
If every single Lake County citizen doesn't agree unanimously with a law, send it to the village.
If every single Gurnee citizen doesn't agree unanimously with a law, send it to the neighborhood.
If every single Brookstone Place citizen doesn't agree unanimously with a law, sent it to the household.
If every single person in my household agrees with the law, set it into motion.
That's the basis for freedom -- the ability for every household to choose what is good for them and what isn't. You might decide to live with 100 other families with similar beliefs: you'd see your "laws" acted out voluntarily, not through force and coercion against those who disagree with your beliefs.
I hate corporation and government, but they're one and the same. We gave government the ultimate authority in our lives, and now we're suffering because we don't have authority over our lives anymore. I see no problem with the outcome -- we wanted it, I guess.
So are you suggesting no change at all, or are you suggesting we get rid of the patent system altogether?
The latter would be great. The current system of patents was completely broken from the start. Even if the US had the best patent law in the world, what stops other countries from ignoring it? I don't want to see the military going overseas to protect patents, and I don't like ANY trade deals as they are all forms of favoritism.
If you are sympathetic to the idea of abolishing patents and you live on this planet, the best you can hope for is gradual change towards weakening the power of patent monopolies.
How? There is no chance of things getting gradually better -- laws that protect 10 cartels worth billions are not going to get changed by 200 million individuals who might save $10 a year each because of the monopolies created. 10 people chasing $2 billion will work harder than 200 million people chasing $2 billion.
Only by performing the experiment of reducing patent force can our society begin to see the benefits of less government interference in essential human rights, such as the right to build stuff and the right to create new things -- rights that patent monopolies prevent you from doing.
I agree, but my argument from the previous paragraph stands: you won't see things becoming "kinder and better" as long as we allow Congress and the federal branches such abusive powers.
Unless, of course, you are advocating sitting on our hands and letting the IP-maximalists continue to increase and concentrate their power.
Their power that We the People granted them by ignoring the Constitution. We gave our federal branches the ultimate powers that they were never allowed, and we're surprised that they give those powers to the highest bidders?
The solution is no more laws and more control/regulation. The solution is to remove those powers from the federal politicians, and return them to the People.
A few weeks ago I received an e-mail from a slashdot reader asking me if I'm behind a "libertarian" conspiracy on slashdot. I brought it up at an anarchocapitalist meeting I had at my place in the middle of December, and the AnarCaps generally laughed -- none of them have the time or the drive to back up my posts with positive moderation.
Now I'm seeing similar "libertarian" pushes at various newspapers and even noted on my local TV morning news (Chicago's WGN9 news team, hilarious people) a more freedom-loving perspective on some of their opinion pieces.
It confuses me -- as a freedom lover, I'm known to promote my views heavily one very blog and forum I'm on. For years I was beaten down for my odd views, but now it seems like I'm just one amongst many, even in the mass media. What the hell is going on here?
On topic: all the links provide interesting viewpoints on the problems with patents (and copyright and trademark and all that). The downside to the articles is that the recommended changes require MORE laws and MORE government intrusion rather than less. Does anyone really think that the same coercive laws can really be fixed with more coercive laws? Will we see laws "protecting" freedoms by taking them away?
Why are you anti copyright? The things you want to do can be done with copyrights the way they are now, just pick a license that allows redistribution (and what ever you want).
I believe VERY strongly in private property rights -- the right to do on your land what you want to do with your property, body and time. I think the Constitution originally was prepared to protect property rights, but over time things have changed.
I do not see any right to items that are no longer in your control. Once you sell, give away or barter an item to someone else, that item is that person's. If it is a book, they own the book -- what they do with the book is their inherent right. They can copy it, modify it, burn it, it doesn't matter, you reliquished control.
There are hundreds of thousands of slashdot readers who refute me -- but none of them seem to have every written a book, played music for an album or created a movie. In my experience, freeing your information for copying is the best way to get public speaking engagements, get people to come to your concert and get people to visit your theatre production. I find it ridiculous to think that someone should have a right to have a monopoly over words or actions -- they're not really protectable in a free market.
Copyright laws are strongest for the content distribution companies: I call them the content cartels. The RIAA, MPAA, the two book author associations and the other cartels that distribute content. Popular musicians make no money on their content, they usually make money at their shows. At many shows you can buy a T-shirt for $20 from the band or for $5 from the guy outside: many people buy from the band. How many times have you seen "popular" actors end up on Broadway or smaller theatre groups?
In the end, I prefer to see people making money for performing an action: putting someone on paper or CD or DVD form and hoping to make money by forcing others to disregard their private property rights is wrong to me. I will never use force against another person offensively: copyright is force.
Thanks :) I'm working on a free e-book right now refuting copyright as the protector of content creators. I'll be blogging chapters of the book for others to openly comment (and help make changes). If you're interested, hit me up with an e-mail.
I'm one of the few anti-copyright "advocates" on slashdot, FWIW. In 2006, I am starting a record label with my brother and a few friends (we already have studio space, equipment and some cash for distribution) that focuses solely on copyright-free music. Bands will get a larger percentage of touring cash, but the music will be considered public domain from the start.
I am a strong believer that copyright laws create monsters like the RIAA -- whenever you have a law that offers an individual or a group the ability to use force (a government monopoly) over another individual or group, you'll have VERY bad abuses. I'm an author (blogger, book writer and I perform some private speaking engagements) and all my works are public domain. I used to own a software company (now strictly IT consulting) that produced numerous public domain products for my customer base.
The great part of removing myself from copyright protections is that I can now sell to my customers what I am capable of doing: face-to-face productions of my works. As a newsletter writer, I made more money on speaking engagements than on actually selling the newsletter. With copyright, I would need to use the force of government to force my readers to control their thoughts regarding my writings.
Sure, some big company can go and "steal" content, but they still need money to distribute it, and in the long run, those who can create content aren't really protected either. Have you seen how many actors, musicians and painters actually profit from their work? They don't, but the distribution cartels sure do.
Copyright does not protect anyone but those who control the copying: the distributors.
I never said it was socialist :)
That's crazy to hear. I don't see how SMS costs the network any money at all -- I was under the impression that SMS messages were transmitted when the network wasn't in use. Do SMS messages take priority over phone calls? Somehow I doubt this.
Maybe the networks have a concern that SMS replaces actual phone calls. I'll have to do some more research!
I wish I was Swedish! In the US a few years ago, I tried to convince some local Libertarians to run strictly on the "right to copy" platform. It seems most of those guys wanted to run on the "Smoke Pot" platform, which will generally get you nowhere except with stoners.
The big news here, to me, is that Sweden seems to allow minority opinions into their parliament (similar to Costa Rica and other countries). In the US it is near impossible to get a minority opinion into even a state legislature -- democracy and gerrymandering prevent the minority opinion from ever seeing the light of day.
225,000 votes is a LOT of votes. Does anyone know what the 18-30 male voting record is in terms of actually making it to the ballot box to vote? In recent local elections that I've witnessed (I like to watch), I haven't seen anything but blue haired ladies with walkers hitting the booths. I don't think I saw one person under the age of 40 at my booth (and I witnessed the voters for over 3 hours). I'm not sure how well this would work even if our voting system did allow for minority parties with minority positions to get elected.
Does bork bork bork mean "freedom to copy" now?
Everywhere I look I see these damn strikes, and now the Meteors are picketing, too?
At least it's on the moon and shouldn't affect my daily travels like they did in New York a few days ago. Sheesh.
10p? Ouch. What is the reason behind that charge? In the States, I have unlimited SMS (in and out) for around US$5 or so a month.
(Insert emo Thundercat joke here)
My text based communications have moved more to SMS and IM than e-mail, especially in the last 6 months or so. I've even seen many of my non-geek friends and family moving to SMS and IM over e-mail, there is definitely a much high signal-to-noise ratio over the spam cluttered e-mail Inboxes that many people have.
I moved from my own server (which we ran for almost 9 years) to gmail recently, and couldn't be happier -- I wouldn't doubt that my tiny company is saving thousands per year of maintenance and upgrades, and having our own domain name isn't a big deal anymore. It also offers transportability if one of my employees moves on or if we bring someone on for a contract gig.
The downside to e-mail is still the signal-to-noise ratio. Spam filters are helping, but lately gmail has been losing the battle (but hey, my gmail address is publicly listed on slashdot and other forums, so I can't complain). I also have to wade through what is important right now and what isn't, and marking people with a star hasn't helped much.
I don't know if I trust Microsoft to design and build the necessary algorithms and heuristics to sort e-mails in an effective way. This is the same company that has one of the worst letter writing analyzers in word, and we all remember Clippy, who probably still exists. Sure, Microsoft has an intense amount of data they can sort from Hotmail and MSN accounts, but I'm not sure if it will be enough. E-mails, in my opinion, are incredibly unfriendly for PCs to analyze -- it's like the game Go. Humans can wade through e-mails in microseconds, but AI programs have never shown me to be intelligent enough to get mistakes to number close to zero. Microsoft's other problem is I wonder how many people still use Outlook for the desktop? Most of my Exchange customers -- nearly all of them -- use Outlook Web Access. I doubt you can install a SNARF MSI somewhere in the chain to support OWA, right?
Google might have a step up against Microsoft (especially now with AOL and gmail), but even their server AI isn't ready for primetime.
From what I can tell, though, the person who makes the best e-mail sorting AI will definitely come out on top and they could also save e-mail as the prime communication method. I prefer SMS and IM for the instantaneous communication, high signal-to-noise ratio and ability to truly limit who contacts me. Maybe the solution is some odd combo of IM, SMS and e-mail?
I use Samsung's t809 with T-Mobile's EDGE to get about 150kbps (on the WAP browser as well as via Bluetooth tether to my laptop or PDA). 150kbps is more than enough on the road, and I actually find myself using it at home (even though I have a massive broadband pipe). The latency is very low, web browsing is very snappy, and most of my posts to slashdot come from that combo.
7mbps is useless for a wireless connection, and I think it can be debated to being useless for even a landline connection. It is my opinon that what we need is snappier (lower latency) connections, not huge pipes.
The big concern about 7mbps is battery life, too. My previous PDA phone (HP iPAQ h6315) had WiFi and Bluetooth and the WiFi connection killed the battery life. My current phone with my PDA using just Bluetooth offers me hours and hours of high speed-ish access without the battery hit.
The other killer is upload speed. From what I can tell, FCC safety regulations prevent more than a few upload/transmission channels for cell phone users -- we may not be able to get much past the maximums we have now. I get about a 44kbps upload speed, which is fine for most portable processes. In order to double this speed, we'd need a higher transmit power, which could be dangerous (or maybe it's an unfounded danger, I'm not sure).
Either way, I'd rather see manufacturers spending money on better user interfaces, better power management and reducing the need to lock features out of the phones released. My t809 is an awesome phone, but it still has enough locked and proprietary features as to make it less useful, especially for the power users. I'd happily stay at 100kbps-150kbps and get a few more features on the interface than get 7mbps and lose a few.
Come play Action Quake 2 ;)
We eat snipers for breakfast.