(As for the rest of your blather...in your opinion, everything that's good about the iPod and iTunes is really bad, and everything that's bad about the competition is really good. I'm starting to suspect that you're just trolling.)
Nope. Just like the Karma better. But it's nice to see that I can't have a different opinion without being a troll.
Not quite how I want it to work, but _extremely_ useful in any case. Thanks much for the tip!
I especially like that I can add a couple songs to my on-the-go playlist and begin playing it. Then circle back and add more songs. (I used to do this all the time on the Karma so it was the first thing I tried just now)
I think people are more informed than you give them credit for
You are entitled to your opinion. Heck, I even said that mine was from personal experience. It could be that nearly everyone has tried both the iPod and the Karma. All I can base my opinion on is that 5:1 people I know haven't heard of the Karma and 20:1 they haven't tried it.
This is disingenuous
Excuse me? That's either the wrong word or you are being an ass.
I'm sure you realize you're comparing philosophies and not features.
I have no idea what you are talking about. Is philosophy another word for not giving the user the menu options he wants? The fact remains that I like the Karma better. If you want to say that I like the karma philosophy better and not the karma options then whatever. I don't have the first clue what value that distinction makes.
In general you don't browse your library with an iPod, you use your iTunes organizations to control that.
In my case, which is all I've ever argued, this is simply not true. I very, very rarely use iTunes. I use iTunes to rip cds and put them on my iPod. I've also created a few smart lists.
Since it's so easy to dock and control the iPod, and iTunes makes it so simple to control, the iPod deliberately does not go to great lengths to sort through large libraries.
Right. And this is my complaint.
I don't find the iPod easy to doc and control because I am not often near my dock and often when I am I don't have the time nor inclination to boot up my laptop, make the usb connection and screw around with iTunes. I want these features on my iPod. This is one reason I liked the Karma better. I could do these things either from their software or from their device. I wasn't forced into what they thought the way I should use their gadget was.
The iPod is, conceptually anyways, for playing, not creating lists.
Exactly. This is one thing I don't like about it.
The "silly wheel metaphor" is pretty much hands-down superior
Dude, how can you make a statement like that. I said that *I* didn't like it. I don't claim that everyone should be like me.
you can do it continuously. For the Zen and the Karma, you have to keep lifting your hand over and over again, stroking the interface to get where you want.
Bullocks. If I want to simulate the weaker iPod interface on a Karma I can pull up a list of everything and just hold down the joystick until I get where I'm going. No continuous lifting required. Just sit there and wait and wait, just like the iPod.
OTOH, if I instead want to get where I'm going more quickly, I can choose the letter I'm looking for and reduce the option set by a factor of 10-15.
As for the sensitivity, maybe you failed to notice that the speed at which you move your hand directly corresponds to the speed at which you move (with a maximum acceleration curve).
Yes. I've had an iPod for four months and I've never noticed that.
(for the sake of the mods, that was sarcasm).
You're right, I guess. It doesn't speak vorbis. But I like how people complain that they can't get the "better sounding files of vorbis" on the iPod, but the machines they use to play MP3s have a demonstrably lower sound output quality than the iPod.
1) the iPod sound isn't any better than the Karma.
2) there are several reasons to choose vorbis other than sound quality
Don't be so defensive dude. I'm not saying you have to switch to Karma. Just that *I* like it better.
You're welcome to your own opinion, but keep in mind that the market seems to disagree, in general.
Not that I particularly care what "the market" thinks, but in this instance I seriously doubt that it has made any vote. I know very few people who have used anything other than the iPod and thus have no basis for comparison. This is fine from a market perspective, apple was an early mover who came out with a smooth unit and people thought it was "good enough". More power to them. But I've used a couple units now and they aren't my favorite.
Err, I find the karma's interface is nearly useless compared to the iPod system.
Heh. I guess we don't see things the same way!
One thing I miss from my old Karma (may it RIP after its accident) was being able to see all the details associated with a song. Apple seems to have decided that only the artist, title and album are worth viewing.
Also, I *strongly* prefer the karma browse idiom of picking a letter of the alphabet to narrow the scope instead of spinning through thousands of songs or hundreds of artists to get to the right point in a list of everything.
On the iPod side I do love being able to rate songs and use that as criteria for playlist creation.
Speaking of playlists. Is it possible to create one on the iPod? On the karma one can create playlists on the karma itself.
Also, the silly wheel metaphor is OK I suppose, but at least on the 4g is way too sensitive on some menus and not sensative enough in others. Tuning is required here.
How is it weak at all? It seems that everyone else copied it nearly verbatim.
Not the Karma.;-)
Also, on the non-interface side, I prefer vorbis and the iPod of course doesn't speak it. This wasn't a deal breaker for me though as my wife had an mp3 only player so we were ripping to that anyway.
What Apple came up with was a high-capacity affordable music player with an interface that no one has betterted, to date
I disagree. This is a subjective area, but I've owned both an iPod click wheel and a Rio Karma and overall I prefer the Karma. If I could have the karma menuing system with the iPod form-factor *that* would be the machine I would most like to own.
Because the iPod menuing system is so weak I have a hard time understanding the cult of iPod except as, well, a cult.
Can you please tell me how to rigorously apply scientific theory to evolution?
It has predictive qualities and those can be tested. Examples are intermediate forms and the prediction of a DNA like mechanism for allowing and propogating change.
Point to one person that saw it happen.
Both species change from the standpoint of groups no longer able to breed and the standpoint of changes in gene counts have been observed in the lab. It has also been observed by every farmer on the planet.
Point to a solid piece of evidence demonstrating an intermediate form (one tooth or leg bone does not count).
The Okapi.
Point to a dating method that is provable in the laboratory without circular arguments or gross assumptions that things have always been the way they are now.
There is not a single dated method which makes those assumptions. All are cross checked using completely orthogonal mechanisms.
First, he vastly over values network cost. If one uses more rational numbers the tables turn.
Second, he only thinks of Grid technology as cluster management. This is *grossly* wrong. The Grid is about access to resources. A node with CPU to run a job is only one kind of resource. The network itself is a resource, schedulers on clusters are a resource, data movement managers are a resource, scientific instruments are resources, the list goes on and on.
With networked computing, there is a similar burden, and I suspect this burden is a lot more significant in the case of computing power. Network bandwidth is always a relatively limited, expensive resource, compared to computing power that you can install locally (and Moore's law is still going strong).
Two things:
1) Moore's law won't keep going forever.
2) Networking is currently going faster than Moore's law.
It is true that the relative amounts of CPU and networking available at any given moment do matter in making a determination where to run a job. Sometimes it makes sense to move the data to the job, sometimes the job to the data. Sometimes a little of both.
1) coordinates resources that are not subject to centralized control & (A Grid integrates and coordinates resources and users that live within different control domains for example, the user s desktop vs. central computing; different administrative units of the same company; or different companies; and addresses the issues of security, policy, payment, membership, and so forth that arise in these settings. Otherwise, we are dealing with a local management system.)
2) & using standard, open, general-purpose protocols and interfaces & (A Grid is built from multi-purpose protocols and interfaces that address such fundamental issues as authentication, authorization, resource discovery, and resource access. As I discuss further below, it is important that these protocols and interfaces be standard and open. Otherwise, we are dealing with an applicationspecific system.)
3) & to deliver nontrivial qualities of service. (A Grid allows its constituent resources to be used in a coordinated fashion to deliver various qualities of service, relating for example to response time, throughput, availability, and security, and/or co-allocation of multiple resource types to meet complex user demands, so that the utility of the combined system is significantly greater than that of the sum of its parts.)
At least that's what the guys who invented Grid technology claim.
The same goes for software - Linux is great for futzing around, but I'd rather work for a few hours and buy software that *just works*, than spend even more time recompiling drivers and getting the damn thing to run properly.
We have three windows boxes and three linux boxes at my house. I worked with (and continue to work with) windows for far longer than I have thus far with linux.
I spend *far* more time on windows issues than I do on linux ones. With linux it often takes a bit longer to get drivers installed and working, but windows is a near constant struggle for stability.
I'll take linux any day of the work based on my experience if time spent on "wasted time" is the measure.
Which SS decision agrees that it is a collective right?
When did *I* argue that it was a collective right?
I said that the supreme court has said that the purpose of the 2nd was to support the states ability to form a militia, not that a person has a right to own anything and everything he chooses. The state, as the operator of the millitia is (probably) the ultimate authority on what weapons pass muster.
(probably because I'm not aware of this being tested legally, but it is easy to argue that is what the supreme court was saying)
No, the 2nd amendment is to DISALLOW the government from making ANY legislation that prevents the PEOPLE from owning/carrying firearms. It says people, not state, in the amendment
Take it up with the supreme court. They share my reading./. probably isn't the right forum. I'm sure you will have no trouble finding lawyers wanting to argue this case pro bono if the law is as clear as what you are representing (in capital letters).
Other munitions aside, it must be shocking the fuck out of you when another day goes by and Iraq still isn't "taken" by the American military from Iraqi "insurgents". The American military is heavily superior in armaments... yet they are still losing.
They aren't losing, but no matter. The point originally stated is still valid. What success the terrorists are having is not with side arms, but with suicide bombs. Heck of a difference there.
And you haven't read the second amendment or other documentation from the time it was written well enough if you think it has anything to do with the states forming militias.
Maybe. I've read the document, biographies from the time *and* have the supreme court on my side (my reading is their reading also). And I think my tag line still links to a poliical blog I've been running for four years or so, so I keep current.
But I suppose it's possible that we're all wrong.
The military would see a lot of mutinees if they were ordered to turn the Blackhawks on large number of US citizens on American soil.
Probably. Hopefully even. But the threat that the state militias are meant to counter is not a threat that exists today. It's a threat that *could* exist tomorrow. That's what the point is, to be prepared for the unthinkable, not to expect it to happen.
England, where it's all but impossible to legally own a gun.
So, according to my buddy in England who I just IMed he says that's not true. He says to my question "how hard is it to get a gun license", "not so hard as long as you are clean, paperwork mostly"
Further, I notice on the page you link that England has a high rate of muggings and such. The US is still spanks them at homicide.
And in Australia, where guns are also almost impossible to legally own, criminals that can't get guns have been resorting to swords (which some Aussies want banned now) or crossbows (as per the story about a man's life being saved by his cell phone).
I'll take my chances against someone with a sword versus someone surprising me with a pistol. In any case, it is also false that it is anything like virtually impossible to get a gun in.au
The rules there are that the prospective owner be over 18, complete a safety course and demonstrate himself to be "fit and proper". Fit an proper is defined as not mentally ill, not a recently released (i.e. ten years) felon and that he's able to properly secure his weapons.
As to a fight against an oppressive government
This is a red herring and I wish gun rights folks (as I myself am) would stop using it. There is no way a pistol is going to take back the country from armored humvees, balckhawk helicopters and laser guided munitions. It simply will not happen.
The second ammendment is designed to allow the states to form militias and that is still the only way that people would ever be able to beat the federal government. And if they do, it won't be with the junk they have laying in their basements (hopefully in a safe bolted to the floor).
Since I do management consulting for a living I can say that Microsoft is in a very enviable position in terms of reducing average employee costs. They are at $300K now, but they also have many billions in the bank. Next year they should just double their staff size by hiring the nations poor for $6/hr. Not only will their per-staff costs plummit, but they won't generate any debt and they'll be providing a great service to the nation.
(Since this is/. I suppose I should point out that I'm joking, but I really am a management consultant)
Hey, I was only talking about my "surrounding environment".
1) Things which happen far away from you effect you.
2) What happens when 50K consumers in Florida chose to ignore the quality of life for the people living next to the factory in Wisconsin where you live? What happens if you cannot afford to move or there is no place left to move to?
I don't care for things I can not control.
Which is precisely why a pure capitalistic system cannot succeed.
No, on the other hand, pure capitalism can only work where everyone is selfish and where everyone expects others to be selfish.
If as a customer, I expect companies to try to screw me over, I take full responsibility if a company successfully screws me over, and I don't usually let it happen again.
It's the same thing with my environment, if a company messes up my surrounding envrionment, I take full responsibility for chosing the location I live in and I take full responsibility for moving away and/or making them stop.
Yes, that's the principle. It doesn't scale though. No one has time to investigate all the companies they do business with to the extent required for pure capitalism to work.
Let's see, I've done very little today from a consumption standpoint, what would my list be:
I had two slices of toast and some peanut butter for breakfast. I took an ibuprofen for my knee. I took some vitamins for my other parts. I had a very simple lunch (roasted chicken). I bought a drip waterer for my garden. I played ultimate at lunch. I had a handful of peanuts from the snack cube. I drank some bottled water.
It seems unlikely that even I, someone who cares, would be able to investigate that many purchases, but it's actually worse than it first appears. Just take my breakfast.
That two slices of toast breaks down to: A bread company. The suppliers to the bread company (we'll assume they are all producers and not middlemen for the sake of the simplicity of this example).
the company which supplied the wheat
the company which supplied the butter
the company which supplied the eggs
the company which supplied the yeast
the company which supplied the water
the company which supplied the machinery (ovens, mixers...) The peanut butter company. The supplier to the peanut butter company. The supermarket.
The common lore is that market economies are supposed to be efficient. What is more effecient about every single person doing that kind of leg work than having a legal system which says you must pay a minimum of $n/hr, you must adhere to osha rules, you must not dump your junk in the public's rivers?
Pure capitalism is every bit a nightmare that pure socialism is. I care and I don't think I could keep up with the research necessary to live in that world. What about the 95% that don't care? Consumer Reports, for example, is a fairly reliable organization, but how many people bother to check what they have to say before making a major purchase that effects them directly? Why should we believe that these same people who don't do the homework necessary to protect *themselves* would suddenly, in a pure capitalistic system, do the homework necessary to protect themselves, the workers they do business with and the environment?
We shouldn't.
We built things like osha, epa, fda and others because the business community showed themselves willing to maim, pollute, sell snake oil and a myriad of other reprehensable things if left to their own devices.
We shouldn't go back to that. We tried it, it didn't work.
Slashdot Mirror
Yikes, either the parent was a clever troll or Slashdot group think is even worse than I thought it was.
But with group think you never have to decide anything yourself!
Or, possibly, reading the fucking manual.
...in your opinion, everything that's good about the iPod and iTunes is really bad, and everything that's bad about the competition is really good. I'm starting to suspect that you're just trolling.)
Thanks.
(As for the rest of your blather
Nope. Just like the Karma better. But it's nice to see that I can't have a different opinion without being a troll.
Not quite how I want it to work, but _extremely_ useful in any case. Thanks much for the tip!
I especially like that I can add a couple songs to my on-the-go playlist and begin playing it. Then circle back and add more songs. (I used to do this all the time on the Karma so it was the first thing I tried just now)
1) I didn't say people were stupid.
2) I didn't say the iPod was hard to use.
Period.
I think people are more informed than you give them credit for
You are entitled to your opinion. Heck, I even said that mine was from personal experience. It could be that nearly everyone has tried both the iPod and the Karma. All I can base my opinion on is that 5:1 people I know haven't heard of the Karma and 20:1 they haven't tried it.
This is disingenuous
Excuse me? That's either the wrong word or you are being an ass.
I'm sure you realize you're comparing philosophies and not features.
I have no idea what you are talking about. Is philosophy another word for not giving the user the menu options he wants? The fact remains that I like the Karma better. If you want to say that I like the karma philosophy better and not the karma options then whatever. I don't have the first clue what value that distinction makes.
In general you don't browse your library with an iPod, you use your iTunes organizations to control that.
In my case, which is all I've ever argued, this is simply not true. I very, very rarely use iTunes. I use iTunes to rip cds and put them on my iPod. I've also created a few smart lists.
Since it's so easy to dock and control the iPod, and iTunes makes it so simple to control, the iPod deliberately does not go to great lengths to sort through large libraries.
Right. And this is my complaint.
I don't find the iPod easy to doc and control because I am not often near my dock and often when I am I don't have the time nor inclination to boot up my laptop, make the usb connection and screw around with iTunes. I want these features on my iPod. This is one reason I liked the Karma better. I could do these things either from their software or from their device. I wasn't forced into what they thought the way I should use their gadget was.
The iPod is, conceptually anyways, for playing, not creating lists.
Exactly. This is one thing I don't like about it.
The "silly wheel metaphor" is pretty much hands-down superior
Dude, how can you make a statement like that. I said that *I* didn't like it. I don't claim that everyone should be like me.
you can do it continuously. For the Zen and the Karma, you have to keep lifting your hand over and over again, stroking the interface to get where you want.
Bullocks. If I want to simulate the weaker iPod interface on a Karma I can pull up a list of everything and just hold down the joystick until I get where I'm going. No continuous lifting required. Just sit there and wait and wait, just like the iPod.
OTOH, if I instead want to get where I'm going more quickly, I can choose the letter I'm looking for and reduce the option set by a factor of 10-15.
As for the sensitivity, maybe you failed to notice that the speed at which you move your hand directly corresponds to the speed at which you move (with a maximum acceleration curve).
Yes. I've had an iPod for four months and I've never noticed that.
(for the sake of the mods, that was sarcasm).
You're right, I guess. It doesn't speak vorbis. But I like how people complain that they can't get the "better sounding files of vorbis" on the iPod, but the machines they use to play MP3s have a demonstrably lower sound output quality than the iPod.
1) the iPod sound isn't any better than the Karma.
2) there are several reasons to choose vorbis other than sound quality
Don't be so defensive dude. I'm not saying you have to switch to Karma. Just that *I* like it better.
You're welcome to your own opinion, but keep in mind that the market seems to disagree, in general.
;-)
Not that I particularly care what "the market" thinks, but in this instance I seriously doubt that it has made any vote. I know very few people who have used anything other than the iPod and thus have no basis for comparison. This is fine from a market perspective, apple was an early mover who came out with a smooth unit and people thought it was "good enough". More power to them. But I've used a couple units now and they aren't my favorite.
Err, I find the karma's interface is nearly useless compared to the iPod system.
Heh. I guess we don't see things the same way!
One thing I miss from my old Karma (may it RIP after its accident) was being able to see all the details associated with a song. Apple seems to have decided that only the artist, title and album are worth viewing.
Also, I *strongly* prefer the karma browse idiom of picking a letter of the alphabet to narrow the scope instead of spinning through thousands of songs or hundreds of artists to get to the right point in a list of everything.
On the iPod side I do love being able to rate songs and use that as criteria for playlist creation.
Speaking of playlists. Is it possible to create one on the iPod? On the karma one can create playlists on the karma itself.
Also, the silly wheel metaphor is OK I suppose, but at least on the 4g is way too sensitive on some menus and not sensative enough in others. Tuning is required here.
How is it weak at all? It seems that everyone else copied it nearly verbatim.
Not the Karma.
Also, on the non-interface side, I prefer vorbis and the iPod of course doesn't speak it. This wasn't a deal breaker for me though as my wife had an mp3 only player so we were ripping to that anyway.
It is great because of how easy it is to use
I've owned both a iPod click wheel and a Rio Karma and I find the Karma easier to use. I think advertising indeed has a lot to do with it.
What Apple came up with was a high-capacity affordable music player with an interface that no one has betterted, to date
I disagree. This is a subjective area, but I've owned both an iPod click wheel and a Rio Karma and overall I prefer the Karma. If I could have the karma menuing system with the iPod form-factor *that* would be the machine I would most like to own.
Because the iPod menuing system is so weak I have a hard time understanding the cult of iPod except as, well, a cult.
Can you please tell me how to rigorously apply scientific theory to evolution?
It has predictive qualities and those can be tested. Examples are intermediate forms and the prediction of a DNA like mechanism for allowing and propogating change.
Point to one person that saw it happen.
Both species change from the standpoint of groups no longer able to breed and the standpoint of changes in gene counts have been observed in the lab. It has also been observed by every farmer on the planet.
Point to a solid piece of evidence demonstrating an intermediate form (one tooth or leg bone does not count).
The Okapi.
Point to a dating method that is provable in the laboratory without circular arguments or gross assumptions that things have always been the way they are now.
There is not a single dated method which makes those assumptions. All are cross checked using completely orthogonal mechanisms.
Jim is wrong on at least two counts.
First, he vastly over values network cost. If one uses more rational numbers the tables turn.
Second, he only thinks of Grid technology as cluster management. This is *grossly* wrong. The Grid is about access to resources. A node with CPU to run a job is only one kind of resource. The network itself is a resource, schedulers on clusters are a resource, data movement managers are a resource, scientific instruments are resources, the list goes on and on.
With networked computing, there is a similar burden, and I suspect this burden is a lot more significant in the case of computing power. Network bandwidth is always a relatively limited, expensive resource, compared to computing power that you can install locally (and Moore's law is still going strong).
Two things:
1) Moore's law won't keep going forever.
2) Networking is currently going faster than Moore's law.
It is true that the relative amounts of CPU and networking available at any given moment do matter in making a determination where to run a job. Sometimes it makes sense to move the data to the job, sometimes the job to the data. Sometimes a little of both.
At least that's what the guys who invented Grid technology claim.
The same goes for software - Linux is great for futzing around, but I'd rather work for a few hours and buy software that *just works*, than spend even more time recompiling drivers and getting the damn thing to run properly.
We have three windows boxes and three linux boxes at my house. I worked with (and continue to work with) windows for far longer than I have thus far with linux.
I spend *far* more time on windows issues than I do on linux ones. With linux it often takes a bit longer to get drivers installed and working, but windows is a near constant struggle for stability.
I'll take linux any day of the work based on my experience if time spent on "wasted time" is the measure.
Since apparently I must do *everything* for you here is a link. ;-)
(I don't have a link to the OED online except at my college, so you will have to trust that it's listed there also)
Um... you might want to learn to spell "proletariat" if you're going to include it in your sig, comrade...
;-)
Um... You might want to get a new dictionary before you make comments about other peoples spelling.
Both are acceptable spellings according to Websters and OED.
Is the Drudge Report really a blog? I see it more as a "new media" agent who tries to report raw news which major news outlets refuse to report on
I think it's mostly a blog. He has broken a couple stories, but he mostly is reporting other peoples stories mixed in with a few rumors.
(My vote for favorite blog is in my sig)
Which SS decision agrees that it is a collective right?
When did *I* argue that it was a collective right?
I said that the supreme court has said that the purpose of the 2nd was to support the states ability to form a militia, not that a person has a right to own anything and everything he chooses. The state, as the operator of the millitia is (probably) the ultimate authority on what weapons pass muster.
(probably because I'm not aware of this being tested legally, but it is easy to argue that is what the supreme court was saying)
No, the 2nd amendment is to DISALLOW the government from making ANY legislation that prevents the PEOPLE from owning/carrying firearms. It says people, not state, in the amendment
/. probably isn't the right forum. I'm sure you will have no trouble finding lawyers wanting to argue this case pro bono if the law is as clear as what you are representing (in capital letters).
Take it up with the supreme court. They share my reading.
Other munitions aside, it must be shocking the fuck out of you when another day goes by and Iraq still isn't "taken" by the American military from Iraqi "insurgents". The American military is heavily superior in armaments ... yet they are still losing.
They aren't losing, but no matter. The point originally stated is still valid. What success the terrorists are having is not with side arms, but with suicide bombs. Heck of a difference there.
And you haven't read the second amendment or other documentation from the time it was written well enough if you think it has anything to do with the states forming militias.
Maybe. I've read the document, biographies from the time *and* have the supreme court on my side (my reading is their reading also). And I think my tag line still links to a poliical blog I've been running for four years or so, so I keep current.
But I suppose it's possible that we're all wrong.
The military would see a lot of mutinees if they were ordered to turn the Blackhawks on large number of US citizens on American soil.
Probably. Hopefully even. But the threat that the state militias are meant to counter is not a threat that exists today. It's a threat that *could* exist tomorrow. That's what the point is, to be prepared for the unthinkable, not to expect it to happen.
England, where it's all but impossible to legally own a gun.
.au
So, according to my buddy in England who I just IMed he says that's not true. He says to my question "how hard is it to get a gun license", "not so hard as long as you are clean, paperwork mostly"
Further, I notice on the page you link that England has a high rate of muggings and such. The US is still spanks them at homicide.
And in Australia, where guns are also almost impossible to legally own, criminals that can't get guns have been resorting to swords (which some Aussies want banned now) or crossbows (as per the story about a man's life being saved by his cell phone).
I'll take my chances against someone with a sword versus someone surprising me with a pistol. In any case, it is also false that it is anything like virtually impossible to get a gun in
The rules there are that the prospective owner be over 18, complete a safety course and demonstrate himself to be "fit and proper". Fit an proper is defined as not mentally ill, not a recently released (i.e. ten years) felon and that he's able to properly secure his weapons.
As to a fight against an oppressive government
This is a red herring and I wish gun rights folks (as I myself am) would stop using it. There is no way a pistol is going to take back the country from armored humvees, balckhawk helicopters and laser guided munitions. It simply will not happen.
The second ammendment is designed to allow the states to form militias and that is still the only way that people would ever be able to beat the federal government. And if they do, it won't be with the junk they have laying in their basements (hopefully in a safe bolted to the floor).
Stallman is going to have to find a serious financial hook to lure companies with.
You mean just stomping his feet and demanding that the new machine be called a GNU/Dell won't be enough by itself to make the sale?
Since I do management consulting for a living I can say that Microsoft is in a very enviable position in terms of reducing average employee costs. They are at $300K now, but they also have many billions in the bank. Next year they should just double their staff size by hiring the nations poor for $6/hr. Not only will their per-staff costs plummit, but they won't generate any debt and they'll be providing a great service to the nation.
/. I suppose I should point out that I'm joking, but I really am a management consultant)
(Since this is
Hey, I was only talking about my "surrounding environment".
1) Things which happen far away from you effect you.
2) What happens when 50K consumers in Florida chose to ignore the quality of life for the people living next to the factory in Wisconsin where you live? What happens if you cannot afford to move or there is no place left to move to?
I don't care for things I can not control.
Which is precisely why a pure capitalistic system cannot succeed.
No, on the other hand, pure capitalism can only work where everyone is selfish and where everyone expects others to be selfish.
If as a customer, I expect companies to try to screw me over, I take full responsibility if a company successfully screws me over, and I don't usually let it happen again.
It's the same thing with my environment, if a company messes up my surrounding envrionment, I take full responsibility for chosing the location I live in and I take full responsibility for moving away and/or making them stop.
Yes, that's the principle. It doesn't scale though. No one has time to investigate all the companies they do business with to the extent required for pure capitalism to work.
Let's see, I've done very little today from a consumption standpoint, what would my list be:
I had two slices of toast and some peanut butter for breakfast.
I took an ibuprofen for my knee.
I took some vitamins for my other parts.
I had a very simple lunch (roasted chicken).
I bought a drip waterer for my garden.
I played ultimate at lunch.
I had a handful of peanuts from the snack cube.
I drank some bottled water.
It seems unlikely that even I, someone who cares, would be able to investigate that many purchases, but it's actually worse than it first appears. Just take my breakfast.
That two slices of toast breaks down to:
A bread company.
The suppliers to the bread company (we'll assume they are all producers and not middlemen for the sake of the simplicity of this example).
the company which supplied the wheat
the company which supplied the butter
the company which supplied the eggs
the company which supplied the yeast
the company which supplied the water
the company which supplied the machinery (ovens, mixers...)
The peanut butter company.
The supplier to the peanut butter company.
The supermarket.
The common lore is that market economies are supposed to be efficient. What is more effecient about every single person doing that kind of leg work than having a legal system which says you must pay a minimum of $n/hr, you must adhere to osha rules, you must not dump your junk in the public's rivers?
Pure capitalism is every bit a nightmare that pure socialism is. I care and I don't think I could keep up with the research necessary to live in that world. What about the 95% that don't care? Consumer Reports, for example, is a fairly reliable organization, but how many people bother to check what they have to say before making a major purchase that effects them directly? Why should we believe that these same people who don't do the homework necessary to protect *themselves* would suddenly, in a pure capitalistic system, do the homework necessary to protect themselves, the workers they do business with and the environment?
We shouldn't.
We built things like osha, epa, fda and others because the business community showed themselves willing to maim, pollute, sell snake oil and a myriad of other reprehensable things if left to their own devices.
We shouldn't go back to that. We tried it, it didn't work.