I thought Microsoft was a monopoly? How could raising prices drive their customers to the competition? Isn't that impossible in a monopoly situation? Wasn't the whole reason for the trial based on the fact that Microsoft is a monopoly and customers can't go to other competitors?
can't? or don't want to?
I can find various version of linux and open office (and pretty much a competing product to any microsoft product) in almost any major computer store in the U.S. I hardly consider this a "monopoly situation".
I know exactly how you feel. As an IT equipment addict, I've spent a fortune on new hard drives, new monitors, CPUs' RAM etc. in the past year alone. When they've finished with gambling hopefullt they'll ban IT sales next. Oh, and then everything else. Won't someone please think of the consumers?
I am all for legalizing gambling..as long as people don't expect the government to bail them out...this is the problem..if it is legalized..tons of people will ruin their lives..and we, the tax payers will end up footing the bill..thanks..but no thanks.
And as someone else pointed out..states that currently have legalized gambling also have the highest rate of gambling addicts.
This statement does not make sense. Unless you count the Windows desktop, Windows XP has no standardised GUI either. We do have standardised "GUIs" (you even mentioned two of them!) Personally, I think that the competition between the desktop enviroments is probably beneficial to the overall standard of desktop enviroments on Free Unix. I don't use anything that could be called a "desktop enviroment", though (neither GNOME or KDE).
XP does have a standardized GUI. Every windows development environment utilizes it. There is a set of APIs that you can use to create windows, track mouse movements,etc.
GUI development doesn't actually increase the speed of development any more than a GUI increases speed of file management. I can promise you that a skilled vim or emacs user is probably far more productive in their inviroment that you could ever be in theirs. It's not the bitmapped display which makes the difference - it's the design of the software.
I can visualize and create programs at least 2 or 3 times faster with a GUI based development studio than VI,pico, or emacs.
They do require up-front licencing costs, but it's isn't quite the costs themselves are immoral. Due to Red Hat and MySQL's business structure, no one is forced to pay those licencing costs (thought there are good reasons to do so, including high quality support). Red Hat is GPL, and so Free copies of the system are distributed (see CentOS). MySQL only charge licences for non-GPL usage. Microsoft do not provide source code, and they also force people to pay licence fees if they want to use the software. This is the immoral behavior that I refer to (Microsoft should provision source code to their customers, and allow free use, alteration and improvement).
I want a ferrari...but it requires an "up-front cost". Is this immoral too? They aren't "forcing" anything. They are offering a product for sale. You have a choice to buy it or not.
It is understandable if you disagree with the point, but if you don't actually know the reasons for modularity, then you really need to read up more
That's such a back-handed and arrogent comment..I don't even know why I am responding to the rest of your posts.
They do require up-front licencing costs, but it's isn't quite the costs themselves are immoral. Due to Red Hat and MySQL's business structure, no one is forced to pay those licencing costs (thought there are good reasons to do so, including high quality support). Red Hat is GPL, and so Free copies of the system are distributed (see CentOS). MySQL only charge licences for non-GPL usage. Microsoft do not provide source code, and they also force people to pay licence fees if they want to use the software. This is the immoral behavior that I refer to (Microsoft should provision source code to their customers, and allow free use, alteration and improvement)
Microsoft and other proprietary application companies have a business to run..with their biggest asset being the source-code. They don't want to give it out because it would basically create direct competition to them (and they would lose money).
It is not an issue with morality (why do zealots like you continue to turn software into some kind of religious or political movement). Micrsoft sells a product..some people buy it..others do not. You have a choice to buy it or use one of the countless other alternatives on the market today.
I have no objection to either Red Hat or MySQL charging fees for purchases; Free Software doesn't mean zero cost (though it normally does; and in effect ensures that the software is free beer from someone). When you buy a copy of RHEL, you get source code, ensuring yourself, and your community, Freedom
It doesn't really give you much. 99% of the population do not even utilize these "freedoms"..which is probably why the majority of people don't really get upset when they don't have the source code to a new application.
I like having the freedom to create and sell proprietary applications.
Being an undergraduate, I'm wondering - how does one afford to go to Graduate school and quiting their job? Do they go to Graduate School while working? how does this work?
many people get their schooling paid for by their current employer. Others get student loans+work some kind of job while working.
Well, even if it was all ColdFusion it would hardly be a great case study. Myspace is notorious for slowness and downtime. Just today I got several random timeout errors browsing around it
I second this. I have had so many search timeouts that I had to just stop using myspace for awhile. This may not be specifically because of CF, but it definitly doesn't give it any extra bonus points.
I'm not aware of that many "development studios" for Unix. There's a couple, like eclipse and such, but many Unix writers tend to work a different way. In line with the Unix philosophy (rules 1, 3, 4, 5, 7 and 8 if you're interested) there's a lot of people who keep the editor, compiler, linker etc all seperate. If you're looking for a "development studio" for Unix, I think you're looking for the wrong thing. We don't have a Start Menu either.:)
mostly because there are no standardized guis for unix (unless you count KDE/GNOME). GUI development with an actual development studio (delphi,cbuilder,Visual Studio) can reduce the time to complete a project considerably.
Also, what is the point in keeping the compiler, linker, and editor separate?
up-front licences payments (which are immoral, in my opinion) normally end up being a far less weildy solution than Free Unix is) And in my, and the grandparents opinion, it's an unjustified cost.
up-front licensing costs are immoral? Redhat, Mysql, and many other companies based on open source projects require up-front licensing costs.
Passion also ensures that you will work long hours for little reward, while the CEO takes home all the company profits
This is the truth. When I read that they were looking for passionate individuals, this is exactly what came to mind. What other incentive would a businees have for wanting people "passionate" about their work?
People that are really passionate about their work should have their own business so assholes like this can't take advantage of them.
I buy my clothes used from the thrift store at a very low price compared to the retail stores. Its almost cheaper to throw them away than to wash them. My car is used, I paid cash, so I don't have to give the title to the loan place _AND_ pay higher taxes and higher insurance rates for full coverage that costs more than a cheap car does like mine. My computer I bought new from Apple with a discount, no hidden fees, in fact they gave me a deal on some software that I wanted as well.
That's good for you. Apple is no different than other companies. They sell expensive shit and people buy it. I'm surprised you bought an apple. They are pricey. But I guess since you aren't spending money on new clothes or hotel rooms, you have exra to spend on expensive computer equipment.
The moral here is that to escape the bait and switching, hidden fees, fees on returning defective equipment from manufacturers that failed to ship working versions of their products for the past _2_ revisions of their product (true story!), and all of this crap, I do have to "drop out" to some degree and find more unconventional and more honest and upfront means of doing commerce
There is no bait and switching. I know when I go to a store to get a harddrive with an advertised mail-in-rebate that It's not instant. If you aren't lazy, you can get your money back from these rebates (i've all of them back from office max and staples).
Beyond that, most stores have fliers telling you prices.
It sounds like you are just bitter. Bitter that you had to deal with a shitty company (which happens from time to time) and bitter that you don't have a lot of money. I have had many good and bad experiences with companies. You just need to stay informed and make good judgement calls before doing business.
Extra taxes and fees at hotels? Gone, I will pay a flat, upfront fee at a campground that is lower and more honest and upfront, and well, at least a different experience than the luxury of having the ability to pay an exorbitant fee for room service. In fact, most campgrounds will just take cash put in an envelope (about $10/night). They don't also ask your life history and sell it to someone either. Why they need life history to rent a room for one night is only benefiting someone I don't know, and hurting my right to privacy
Unless you've been under a rock for the past 10 years, these fees aren't hidden. I always assume the cost will be $10-$12 on top of the regular fee they advertise. it's just a part of doing business with hotels. I would rather pay extra to stay in a nice, air-conditioned hotel room for the night than a campground (don't get me wrong, I do enjoy camping).
Its also common for me to get tickets to sold out rock concerts from people _minus_ the Tickemaster tax for the privilege of them selling a ticket. They typically get 30+% of the face value of the ticket and have the balls to charge the buyer _EXTRA_ to print the ticket on their own paper with their own ink vs mailing it to the customer for only the included extortion fees.
it's called good business. If a ticket was too expensive, people wouldn't be buying them and they would lower the price. It shouldn't be against the law to charge $1000 for a concert ticket. This would never happen because people wouldn't be able to afford it and they would lose all kinds of money, but that is what economics is all about.
Legitimate businesses are making the mafia look like pussies. Any inquiry at the local "Payday loan" place will convince you that loan sharking by the mafia is a better deal. (No refund on your kneecaps though:)
If a business is over-charging for a service, go somewhere else.
You sound like you have your tin-foil hat on a little too tight.
So, please explain how have far fewer computers would be a bad thing. Especially if the remaining ones would be run by people who actually give a shit?
for starters, the Internet would probably still be an experiment in a University. The fact that we have so many people using it may be shitty because of spam, but it has also brought it to new levels of information, which is a great thing.
It is also perfectly possible to have an OS that is easy to administer and reasonably secure. I have friends who no absolutely nothing about computers who have no problems with Macs
The problem is that there are people that have trouble using an operating system that is "easy to administer". Unless the OS administers itself, we will always have a problem with people and securty. It is the weakest link in the chain.
I don't think any OS is secure (windows,OSX, or linux). Take a look at this recent article about macs (The article is from March of this year):
The internet, cheap computers, much software and music, etc, has it's roots _despite_ intellectual monopolies. Almost _everything_ in your list took off and became cheap and plentiful because it was _not_ protected.
The copyright (and patent) system is still around and there is still competition. This was my point (The system works).
If we need a specific incentive for creativity, we should pay for it outright; monopoly control damages the market and flow of creativity far too much.
Copyrights were created for protection. Many people think that if we rid the world of copyright, it will automagically create this utopoia of free music, sex, and software.
With no protections, a small company could develop a product (spending lots of time and money) and have it taken over by a larger company with more money. We would end up with many large companies poaching new ideas and products from smaller companies and little room for new competition.
"While the situation is better for software than for many other areas of destructive IP legislation, that's mostly due to the nature of software as interchangable and modularized and thus partly cross-competetive. But while that ameliorates the damage caused by monopoly rights in the pricing and resource allocation aspects, it does not reach anywhere near the unprotected (do note, this does not mean 'unpaid') best solution equilibrium"
We have so much competition with software right now (look at linux. It's available in almost any major computer store in the US).
Remember, folks, racism is A-OK if it's trying to prevent terrorism or 419 scams
if a black, asian, hispanic, or white person has committed a serious crime, people should be aware of it. Race can narrow down suspects and I don't see it as "racial profiling" or any other kind of PC bullshit.
when a large portion of scams are coming out of nigeria or a large amount of terrorist groups are of a certain race, people should be aware.
Check out http://www.419eater.com/ and look through their gallery. Tell me how many of them are of african descent.
Um, no, actually it's exactly the opposite. The effect of intellectual monopolies like copyright is the same as burning real money (or actually, destroying goods to keep prices up).
If we had no copyrights, the people with the most money and power would have even more of a control over the market. What you don't understand is that money and business both drive technology and innovation. The Internet, cheap computers, software, music, DVDs...all wouldn't be here without business. Computers would still be as large as rooms and still only in big corporations and universities.
The Internet would also still be just an experiment at Stanford. Even Slashdot needes money for funding (advertisements and a buyout some years back).
Some of the copyright laws need to be changed, but they still need to be in place.
The supply is intentionally kept below what a free market would generate, thus creating an artificial scarcity and a higher per-unit margin, while causing a loss of wealth for the economy as a whole, as compared to the optimal outcome.
There is still a free market. Take a look at almost any Microsoft product and there are probably around 5 or 10 alternatives (OSS and proprietary). If this isn't a free market, I don't know what is.
Many game, movie and music companies need nothing more then to be known. Piracy allows them this with little overhead (compare the free word of mouth generated by piracy to the million dollar advertising used by large companies). In the later 2 cases, there is almost always going to be demand for legit copies, regardless of how many people pirate it (music tends to be low-fi and movies tend to be over compressed). In the case of games, more reason to bump up the multi-player. I have pirated games to find I liked them, then bought them to play online.
The number of people playing their game is not the same as the number of people buying it. Human nature doesn't change. If something is free and easily available..most people aren't going to pay for it. What you are talking about is called a donation, which does not work for a business.
The thing about digital copies is that you can make them with almost no loss of quality. Full DVDs, games, apps, and music (ripped directly from a CD) are what people are sharing on peer-to-peer networks and "pirate" sites which makes it pointless to buy it.
Piracy levels the playing field, allowing what is better to make more money, where what is overrated and over adverted crap loses. I see no problem.
what the fuck are you talking about? it levels the playing field? I call bullshit on your statements. The playing field is leveled by the free market. If it's crap, it won't sell. Piracy is just an excuse for people to get free shit. It has been for a long time. If you don't like a game, app, or movie, don't fucking buy or pirate it.
You don't see a problem because you are just a consumer.
eBay doesn't have a monopoly on payments. It has a monopoly on auctions
This may be true, but I would consider it a natural monoploly. Someone else could start their own auction site (which has been done many times), but since most people trust ebay, and it has a critical mass, it's difficult to compete.
I don't think we can seriously say Linux is noticeably more mature now than it was in 2000.
I don't think linux has really matured in the server department (beyond bug fixes), but its gui (KDE and gnome) and driver support have gotten much better in the last 6 years. It still does need a lot of work, however.
Both KDE and Gnome always seem like they were created by a developer rather than a GUI designer.
Actually, according to the US Supreme Court, piracy is NOT theft. They clearly distinguished between copyright infringement and theft in a 1985 case, where they said, "(copyright infringement) does not easily equate with theft, conversion, or fraud... The infringer invades a statutorily defined province guaranteed to the copyright holder alone. But he does not assume physical control over copyright; nor does he wholly deprive its owner of its use."
it's not theft, but it has the same effect as counterfeiting money. Over time, when enough people feel the value is less, they won't want to purchase it anymore and the copyright holder will start to lose money.
Piracy may help the big companies in some ways. Some programs can become a standard and in turn provide more sales to a company..but this doesn't happen very often. Small companies get hurt by this the most, but most people don't talk about this fact.
If you have a product that's popular enough (no matter what the price is), it will get pirated at some point.
There's an organization here that takes about 30% of my income, and there's nothing I can do about it. The locals call this organization, "the government". Instead of calling it a fee, they call it "taxes".
Unfortunately we can't arrest them, they hold all the arresting powers and they aren't likely to use it against themselves.
there are these things called roads and we need this other thing called money to repair them on an annual basis. We can get rid of taxes if you can find an easy way to pay for roads and other expensis that would otherwise have $0 funding.
Your friend needs to market to the right people. There are a lot of people who arent penny pinchers and will pay to get the thing fixed. We dont just run up the bill though. If the fix looks like it will take longer than the cost of a new computer we always suggest it to them. Some want a new system, some just want the old familiar one to work again.
I think you are right. It really has to do with the area he is marketing. It's a lower income area, but he also tried marketing in a better area and didn't really get a good response rate (almost no customers).
I was watching stories being submitted through the digg-spy tool on digg.com and someone (probably tbe owners of this site) was spamming the links to this story over and over for at least a couple of hours. It was getting rejected. It boggles my mind that it would actually make it to the front page of slashdot.
The sad thing is, after two repairs, you've lost the entire cost of the system.
You can get a brand new computer for cheaper than it costs to repair the broken one. At a certain point it's so cheap to buy a new one that they should just switch the harddrive over and upgrade them. I mean, if they misconfigured windows, so it stopped booting then they need a new harddrive with a new install.
Im surprised people even pay it. I know a guy doing the exact same thing and he can barely get his customers to pay $40/Hour. Most of the time, he doesn't take more than an hour.
Who cares? I, as a consumer, care. If I take my computer to Geek Squad (I wouldn't, but speaking hypothetically) I don't want to be paying $150 just so they can take it to someone else whom they pay $75 to fix the problem. I'd rather take my computer straight to the guy who only charges $75
Im sorry but this happens every day. It's called business. Almost every retail company does this in some form. Sure, it would be better if you could buy a product straight from a vendor/wholesaler, but most of the time, you get it from someone who buys it from someone else.
Moreover, if I were the guy who submitted the ask/., I'd care because I could, theoretically, market directly to Geek Squad's customers and raise my prices, but only to a level where my company would be undercutting Geek Squad.
The issues with geek squad will be fixed in time. People will know not to bring their computers to them, and other business will take its place. Most people I know already refuse to bring their computers there after a really bad experience.
Slashdot Mirror
I thought Microsoft was a monopoly? How could raising prices drive their customers to the competition? Isn't that impossible in a monopoly situation? Wasn't the whole reason for the trial based on the fact that Microsoft is a monopoly and customers can't go to other competitors?
can't? or don't want to?
I can find various version of linux and open office (and pretty much a competing product to any microsoft product) in almost any major computer store in the U.S. I hardly consider this a "monopoly situation".
an interesting article about this can be found here:
e cting-your-php-code/
http://www.whenpenguinsattack.com/2006/07/15/prot
it talks about obfuscation as a method (rather than pure encoding).
I know exactly how you feel. As an IT equipment addict, I've spent a fortune on new hard drives, new monitors, CPUs' RAM etc. in the past year alone. When they've finished with gambling hopefullt they'll ban IT sales next. Oh, and then everything else. Won't someone please think of the consumers?
I am all for legalizing gambling..as long as people don't expect the government to bail them out...this is the problem..if it is legalized..tons of people will ruin their lives..and we, the tax payers will end up footing the bill..thanks..but no thanks.
And as someone else pointed out..states that currently have legalized gambling also have the highest rate of gambling addicts.
This statement does not make sense. Unless you count the Windows desktop, Windows XP has no standardised GUI either. We do have standardised "GUIs" (you even mentioned two of them!) Personally, I think that the competition between the desktop enviroments is probably beneficial to the overall standard of desktop enviroments on Free Unix. I don't use anything that could be called a "desktop enviroment", though (neither GNOME or KDE).
XP does have a standardized GUI. Every windows development environment utilizes it. There is a set of APIs that you can use to create windows, track mouse movements,etc.
GUI development doesn't actually increase the speed of development any more than a GUI increases speed of file management. I can promise you that a skilled vim or emacs user is probably far more productive in their inviroment that you could ever be in theirs. It's not the bitmapped display which makes the difference - it's the design of the software.
I can visualize and create programs at least 2 or 3 times faster with a GUI based development studio than VI,pico, or emacs.
They do require up-front licencing costs, but it's isn't quite the costs themselves are immoral. Due to Red Hat and MySQL's business structure, no one is forced to pay those licencing costs (thought there are good reasons to do so, including high quality support). Red Hat is GPL, and so Free copies of the system are distributed (see CentOS). MySQL only charge licences for non-GPL usage. Microsoft do not provide source code, and they also force people to pay licence fees if they want to use the software. This is the immoral behavior that I refer to (Microsoft should provision source code to their customers, and allow free use, alteration and improvement).
I want a ferrari...but it requires an "up-front cost". Is this immoral too? They aren't "forcing" anything. They are offering a product for sale. You have a choice to buy it or not.
It is understandable if you disagree with the point, but if you don't actually know the reasons for modularity, then you really need to read up more
That's such a back-handed and arrogent comment..I don't even know why I am responding to the rest of your posts.
They do require up-front licencing costs, but it's isn't quite the costs themselves are immoral. Due to Red Hat and MySQL's business structure, no one is forced to pay those licencing costs (thought there are good reasons to do so, including high quality support). Red Hat is GPL, and so Free copies of the system are distributed (see CentOS). MySQL only charge licences for non-GPL usage. Microsoft do not provide source code, and they also force people to pay licence fees if they want to use the software. This is the immoral behavior that I refer to (Microsoft should provision source code to their customers, and allow free use, alteration and improvement)
Microsoft and other proprietary application companies have a business to run..with their biggest asset being the source-code. They don't want to give it out because it would
basically create direct competition to them (and they would lose money).
It is not an issue with morality (why do zealots like you continue to turn software into some kind of religious or political movement). Micrsoft sells a product..some people buy it..others do not. You have a choice to buy it or use one of the countless other alternatives on the market today.
I have no objection to either Red Hat or MySQL charging fees for purchases; Free Software doesn't mean zero cost (though it normally does; and in effect ensures that the software is free beer from someone). When you buy a copy of RHEL, you get source code, ensuring yourself, and your community, Freedom
It doesn't really give you much. 99% of the population do not even utilize these "freedoms"..which is probably why the majority of people don't really get upset when they don't have the source code to a new application.
I like having the freedom to create and sell proprietary applications.
Being an undergraduate, I'm wondering - how does one afford to go to Graduate school and quiting their job? Do they go to Graduate School while working? how does this work?
many people get their schooling paid for by their current employer. Others get student loans+work some kind of job while working.
Well, even if it was all ColdFusion it would hardly be a great case study. Myspace is notorious for slowness and downtime. Just today I got several random timeout errors browsing around it
I second this. I have had so many search timeouts that I had to just stop using myspace for awhile. This may not be specifically because of CF, but it definitly doesn't give it any extra bonus points.
I'm not aware of that many "development studios" for Unix. There's a couple, like eclipse and such, but many Unix writers tend to work a different way. In line with the Unix philosophy (rules 1, 3, 4, 5, 7 and 8 if you're interested) there's a lot of people who keep the editor, compiler, linker etc all seperate. If you're looking for a "development studio" for Unix, I think you're looking for the wrong thing. We don't have a Start Menu either. :)
mostly because there are no standardized guis for unix (unless you count KDE/GNOME). GUI development with an actual development studio (delphi,cbuilder,Visual Studio) can reduce the time to complete a project considerably.
Also, what is the point in keeping the compiler, linker, and editor separate?
up-front licences payments (which are immoral, in my opinion) normally end up being a far less weildy solution than Free Unix is) And in my, and the grandparents opinion, it's an unjustified cost.
up-front licensing costs are immoral? Redhat, Mysql, and many other companies based on open source projects require up-front licensing costs.
Passion also ensures that you will work long hours for little reward, while the CEO takes home all the company profits
This is the truth. When I read that they were looking for passionate individuals, this is exactly what came to mind. What other incentive would a businees have for wanting people "passionate" about their work?
People that are really passionate about their work should have their own business so assholes like this can't take advantage of them.
Oh?
"Free stuff on the internet: Traysaver.com"
Foed by me!
okay. The site is not selling anything and in does in fact have free things from the Internet. Try again.
Linux. (although the success is debateable)
Linux has a community of zealouts that market to the clueless all the time (even grandma can use ubantu).
everything that is now popular needs some kind of marketing (grass-roots or commerical). I see no problem with it.
I buy my clothes used from the thrift store at a very low price compared to the retail stores. Its almost cheaper to throw them away than to wash them. My car is used, I paid cash, so I don't have to give the title to the loan place _AND_ pay higher taxes and higher insurance rates for full coverage that costs more than a cheap car does like mine. My computer I bought new from Apple with a discount, no hidden fees, in fact they gave me a deal on some software that I wanted as well.
:)
That's good for you. Apple is no different than other companies. They sell expensive shit and people buy it. I'm surprised you bought an apple. They are pricey. But I guess since you aren't spending money on new clothes or hotel rooms, you have exra to spend on expensive computer equipment.
The moral here is that to escape the bait and switching, hidden fees, fees on returning defective equipment from manufacturers that failed to ship working versions of their products for the past _2_ revisions of their product (true story!), and all of this crap, I do have to "drop out" to some degree and find more unconventional and more honest and upfront means of doing commerce
There is no bait and switching. I know when I go to a store to get a harddrive with an advertised mail-in-rebate that It's not instant. If you aren't lazy, you can get your money back from these rebates (i've all of them back from office max and staples).
Beyond that, most stores have fliers telling you prices.
It sounds like you are just bitter. Bitter that you had to deal with a shitty company (which happens from time to time) and bitter that you don't have a lot of money. I have had many good and bad experiences with companies. You just need to stay informed and make good judgement calls before doing business.
Extra taxes and fees at hotels? Gone, I will pay a flat, upfront fee at a campground that is lower and more honest and upfront, and well, at least a different experience than the luxury of having the ability to pay an exorbitant fee for room service. In fact, most campgrounds will just take cash put in an envelope (about $10/night). They don't also ask your life history and sell it to someone either. Why they need life history to rent a room for one night is only benefiting someone I don't know, and hurting my right to privacy
Unless you've been under a rock for the past 10 years, these fees aren't hidden. I always assume the cost will be $10-$12 on top of the regular fee they advertise. it's just a part of doing business with hotels. I would rather pay extra to stay in a nice, air-conditioned hotel room for the night than a campground (don't get me wrong, I do enjoy camping).
Its also common for me to get tickets to sold out rock concerts from people _minus_ the Tickemaster tax for the privilege of them selling a ticket. They typically get 30+% of the face value of the ticket and have the balls to charge the buyer _EXTRA_ to print the ticket on their own paper with their own ink vs mailing it to the customer for only the included extortion fees.
it's called good business. If a ticket was too expensive, people wouldn't be buying them and they would lower the price. It shouldn't be against the law to charge $1000 for a concert ticket. This would never happen because people wouldn't be able to afford it and they would lose all kinds of money, but that is what economics is all about.
Legitimate businesses are making the mafia look like pussies. Any inquiry at the local "Payday loan" place will convince you that loan sharking by the mafia is a better deal. (No refund on your kneecaps though
If a business is over-charging for a service, go somewhere else.
You sound like you have your tin-foil hat on a little too tight.
So, please explain how have far fewer computers would be a bad thing. Especially if the remaining ones would be run by people who actually give a shit?
for starters, the Internet would probably still be an experiment in a University. The fact that we have so many people using it may be shitty because of spam, but it has also brought it to new levels of information, which is a great thing.
It is also perfectly possible to have an OS that is easy to administer and reasonably secure. I have friends who no absolutely nothing about computers who have no problems with Macs
X _hacked_under_30_minutes/0,2000061744,39241748,00. htm
The problem is that there are people that have trouble using an operating system that is "easy to administer". Unless the OS administers itself, we will always have a problem with people and securty. It is the weakest link in the chain.
I don't think any OS is secure (windows,OSX, or linux). Take a look at this recent article about macs (The article is from March of this year):
http://www.zdnet.com.au/news/security/soa/Mac_OS_
There are also similar claims with various distros of linux and windows.
The internet, cheap computers, much software and music, etc, has it's roots _despite_ intellectual monopolies. Almost _everything_ in your list took off and became cheap and plentiful because it was _not_ protected.
The copyright (and patent) system is still around and there is still competition. This was my point (The system works).
If we need a specific incentive for creativity, we should pay for it outright; monopoly control damages the market and flow of creativity far too much.
Copyrights were created for protection. Many people think that if we rid the world of copyright, it will automagically create this utopoia of free music, sex, and software.
With no protections, a small company could develop a product (spending lots of time and money) and have it taken over by a larger company with more money. We would end up with many large companies poaching new ideas and products from smaller companies and little room for new competition.
"While the situation is better for software than for many other areas of destructive IP legislation, that's mostly due to the nature of software as interchangable and modularized and thus partly cross-competetive. But while that ameliorates the damage caused by monopoly rights in the pricing and resource allocation aspects, it does not reach anywhere near the unprotected (do note, this does not mean 'unpaid') best solution equilibrium"
We have so much competition with software right now (look at linux. It's available in almost any major computer store in the US).
Remember, folks, racism is A-OK if it's trying to prevent terrorism or 419 scams
if a black, asian, hispanic, or white person has committed a serious crime, people should be aware of it. Race can narrow down suspects and I don't see it as "racial profiling" or any other kind of PC bullshit.
when a large portion of scams are coming out of nigeria or a large amount of terrorist groups are of a certain race, people should be aware.
Check out http://www.419eater.com/ and look through their gallery. Tell me how many of them are of african descent.
Um, no, actually it's exactly the opposite. The effect of intellectual monopolies like copyright is the same as burning real money (or actually, destroying goods to keep prices up).
If we had no copyrights, the people with the most money and power would have even more of a control over the market. What you don't understand is that money and business both drive technology and innovation. The Internet, cheap computers, software, music, DVDs...all wouldn't be here without business. Computers would still be as large as rooms and still only in big corporations and universities.
The Internet would also still be just an experiment at Stanford. Even Slashdot needes money for funding (advertisements and a buyout some years back).
Some of the copyright laws need to be changed, but they still need to be in place.
The supply is intentionally kept below what a free market would generate, thus creating an artificial scarcity and a higher per-unit margin, while causing a loss of wealth for the economy as a whole, as compared to the optimal outcome.
There is still a free market. Take a look at almost any Microsoft product and there are probably around 5 or 10 alternatives (OSS and proprietary). If this isn't a free market, I don't know what is.
Many game, movie and music companies need nothing more then to be known. Piracy allows them this with little overhead (compare the free word of mouth generated by piracy to the million dollar advertising used by large companies). In the later 2 cases, there is almost always going to be demand for legit copies, regardless of how many people pirate it (music tends to be low-fi and movies tend to be over compressed). In the case of games, more reason to bump up the multi-player. I have pirated games to find I liked them, then bought them to play online.
The number of people playing their game is not the same as the number of people buying it. Human nature doesn't change. If something is free and easily available..most people aren't going to pay for it. What you are talking about is called a donation, which does not work for a business.
The thing about digital copies is that you can make them with almost no loss of quality. Full DVDs, games, apps, and music (ripped directly from a CD) are what people are sharing on peer-to-peer networks and "pirate" sites which makes it pointless to buy it.
Piracy levels the playing field, allowing what is better to make more money, where what is overrated and over adverted crap loses. I see no problem.
what the fuck are you talking about? it levels the playing field? I call bullshit on your statements. The playing field is leveled by the free market. If it's crap, it won't sell. Piracy is just an excuse for people to get free shit. It has been for a long time. If you don't like a game, app, or movie, don't fucking buy or pirate it.
You don't see a problem because you are just a consumer.
eBay doesn't have a monopoly on payments.
It has a monopoly on auctions
This may be true, but I would consider it a natural monoploly. Someone else could start their own auction site (which has been done many times), but since most people trust ebay, and it has a critical mass, it's difficult to compete.
I don't think we can seriously say Linux is noticeably more mature now than it was in 2000.
I don't think linux has really matured in the server department (beyond bug fixes), but its gui (KDE and gnome) and driver support have gotten much better in the last 6 years. It still does need a lot of work, however.
Both KDE and Gnome always seem like they were created by a developer rather than a GUI designer.
Actually, according to the US Supreme Court, piracy is NOT theft.
They clearly distinguished between copyright infringement and theft in a 1985 case, where they said, "(copyright infringement) does not easily equate with theft, conversion, or fraud... The infringer invades a statutorily defined province guaranteed to the copyright holder alone. But he does not assume physical control over copyright; nor does he wholly deprive its owner of its use."
it's not theft, but it has the same effect as counterfeiting money. Over time, when enough people feel the value is less, they won't want to purchase it anymore and the copyright holder will start to lose money.
Piracy may help the big companies in some ways. Some programs can become a standard and in turn provide more sales to a company..but this doesn't happen very often. Small companies get hurt by this the most, but most people don't talk about this fact.
If you have a product that's popular enough (no matter what the price is), it will get pirated at some point.
There's an organization here that takes about 30% of my income, and there's nothing I can do about it. The locals call this organization, "the government". Instead of calling it a fee, they call it "taxes".
Unfortunately we can't arrest them, they hold all the arresting powers and they aren't likely to use it against themselves.
there are these things called roads and we need this other thing called money to repair them on an annual basis. We can get rid of taxes if you can find an easy way to pay for roads and other expensis that would otherwise have $0 funding.
Your friend needs to market to the right people. There are a lot of people who arent penny pinchers and will pay to get the thing fixed. We dont just run up the bill though. If the fix looks like it will take longer than the cost of a new computer we always suggest it to them. Some want a new system, some just want the old familiar one to work again.
I think you are right. It really has to do with the area he is marketing. It's a lower income area, but he also tried marketing in a better area and didn't really get a good response rate (almost no customers).
I was watching stories being submitted through the digg-spy tool on digg.com and someone (probably tbe owners of this site) was spamming the links to this story over and over for at least a couple of hours. It was getting rejected. It boggles my mind that it would actually make it to the front page of slashdot.
The sad thing is, after two repairs, you've lost the entire cost of the system.
You can get a brand new computer for cheaper than it costs to repair the broken one. At a certain point it's so cheap to buy a new one that they should just switch the harddrive over and upgrade them. I mean, if they misconfigured windows, so it stopped booting then they need a new harddrive with a new install.
Im surprised people even pay it. I know a guy doing the exact same thing and he can barely get his customers to pay $40/Hour. Most of the time, he doesn't take more than an hour.
Who cares? I, as a consumer, care. If I take my computer to Geek Squad (I wouldn't, but speaking hypothetically) I don't want to be paying $150 just so they can take it to someone else whom they pay $75 to fix the problem. I'd rather take my computer straight to the guy who only charges $75
/., I'd care because I could, theoretically, market directly to Geek Squad's customers and raise my prices, but only to a level where my company would be undercutting Geek Squad.
Im sorry but this happens every day. It's called business. Almost every retail company does this in some form. Sure, it would be better if you could buy a product straight from a vendor/wholesaler, but most of the time, you get it from someone who buys it from someone else.
Moreover, if I were the guy who submitted the ask
The issues with geek squad will be fixed in time. People will know not to bring their computers to them, and other business will take its place. Most people I know already refuse to bring their computers there after a really bad experience.