It dictates that food prices will skyrocket, and non-food goods will plummet.
Those food prices are going to skyrocket for people in the food-producing regions just as much as for anyone else. And who will own most of the farms? Not the people working on them, certainly. Why not a corporation based in China?
Someone else here commented that capital is now completely mobile across national boundaries, but labor is not. That's the essence of the situation with which we're now faced.
If capital is free to move about the globe but labor isn't
Good point. Most of us here seem to be focusing what happens within national boundaries, but those have become invisible to capital. You could almost say that their only important economic function is to immobilize labor. The principal players on this stage, the multinational corporations, are no longer allegiant to any particular nation, regardless of where they make their headquarters. They are free to pit each country - and its workforce - against the others in much the same way that local governments are forced to yield tax breaks (and worse) to businesses promising jobs. National sovereignty is increasingly irrelevant as governments become little more than levers through which the multinationals exercise control.
I think what offends the "geeks" you're arguing with is that patentability implies that an idea has some novelty and is not obvious to anyone "skilled in the art" to which it pertains. Yet, patents are often granted that violate these principles, sometimes to an absurd extent.
patents are not about incentives, they're about outright survival in a competitive market place.
The purpose it to promote innovation, not to grant monopolies simply for the asking. The government does not owe you success. Success in a competitive marketplace comes from competing successfully.
By doing so, your freedom is costing someone else their freedom. In order to increase your choices, you are restricting the choices available to others.
Maybe you can elaborate on that statement a little? Whose freedom is being restricted, and how?
If you like that better than "not ready" that's up to you.
I think I do, actually, thanks. Maturity really isn't the issue anymore. But I've lived on both sides of the track, made my choice, and never once had a single regret. Could be like the "zealotry" of a reformed smoker, but that's not a bad thing if it helps you quit...
Only because the "not ready for the {laptop|desktop}" banner gets raised every time someone experiences a glitch using Linux, when in reality these problems rarely have anything to do with the OS itself. When I bought mine, it came with Windows ME pre-installed. That of course was a piece of crap and was duly wiped from the disk, but I would never have thought to say that WinME was "not ready for the laptop" (only that it was a "piece of crap").
Of course I don't doubt others run into difficulties through no fault of their own. As many others have pointed out here, there is a need for better cooperation - or at least less obstruction - from hardware vendors.
More than anything else, even more than Microsoft, closed drivers will be the downfall of Linux and open source.
Which Microsoft realizes as well, I'm sure. I wonder if there is any pressure from Redmond - explicit or otherwise - on manufacturers not to release OSS drivers? Or maybe just extra candy for those that don't? Just speculating, but there's little doubt that they would do just that if they thought they could get away with it legally...
If it's laptop ready, it should work. If it doesn't work, then it isn't ready.
These posts always surprise me, because I've been running Linux on an old IBM TP-600E for years, with never a problem at all. I guess I didn't know that it wasn't "ready", or surely I wouldn't have dared such a thing. Should I have been experiencing difficulties? Is there something wrong with me or my laptop? My desktop was running Linux long before it was "ready" for that, too...
It seems to me that privacy only matters if there is a threat of sanction for the private behavior.
Or merely the possibility of a future threat (which possibility is, of course, a threat itself). What if some Red State government decided to start a registry of all gay residents, to no avowed purpose or intent? Should gays then not feel threatened? How about registering Jews in Germany in the 1930s? The real issue is not that information of this sort should (or can) be kept secret from everybody (i.e., absolute privacy). The problem is that government has become increasingly interested in keeping lists and databases, all thoroughly cross-referenced and ready for mining for any future purpose they see fit, in the heat of any moment. Their propaganda promises us that it will not be abused, but in government there is a name for real promises: they are called laws. And right now, the laws are headed in the other direction.
Here's a clue, folks... most Congressmen do listen. If you call them, if you write them, your opinion is taken into consideration.
The irony is that this is true exactly to the extent that we believe it to be true, and are willing to act on our beliefs. Cynical helplessness always plays into the hands of established power.
The grass always looks greener, as they say. I think a lot of us in the U.S. have a strong sense that the inmates have taken charge of the asylum over here, and there's a great deal of trepidation about where things are headed, economically, politically, and socially. It seems that every day there's another outrage, another insolent repudiation of the principles not only upon which this country was founded, but of reason itself. So some of us fantasize about New Zealand, or Canada, as places where just maybe there is a little more sanity, even if not everything is tulips and roses.
But here's what I say: I was born here, and I've lived here all my life. This is my country as much as anyone else's, and no home-grown Taliban or Stasi is going to take it away without a fight. If enough people feel that way, we'll be alright.
ROFL. I suppose you mean "borders completely shut" except for the giant flood of illegal aliens coming across.
Isn't that interesting; you've hit on one of those inner conflicts that the Repubs are grappling with. On the one hand, their socially conservative, xenophobic base wants to keep all of those dirty brown people on the other side of the wall. On the other, their conservative corporate base wants a big flood of Cheap Surplus Labor to keep the domestic brand from getting too uppity. One side supplies the foot soldiers, and the other supplies the cold, hard cash, and they need both. So, they'll make noise and give speeches about the problem, while actually doing as little about it as they can get away with. Wisdom of Solomon, that's what it's going to take...
The Bush administration, I'm afraid, is more interested in perpetuating the fear of terrorism for their own Machiavellian purposes than in achieving any real "security". These people may be evil, but they're not stupid. They are well aware that they are trying to dismantle the New Deal and drive down wages of working Americans at a time of great economic uncertainty. They are equally aware that this kind of "renegotiation" of the social contract is likely to lead to significant civil unrest as the noose starts to tighten. In the Long View, the Patriot Act is really more about preparing for this period than it is about preventing terrorism (except that the neocons will equate civil unrest with terrorism, of course). 9/11 was manna from Heaven for them, because it provided just the smokescreen they needed to get it done.
Just because you don't like the rules doesn't give you the right to break the rules, and that is basically what is wrong with all you FOSS zealots.
Developing an alternative, even through reverse engineering, is far from "IP theft". Thinking that you have a perpetual right to monopoly and ownership of your customers is basically what's wrong with all you anti-FOSS zealots.
Another good cannonball in the open-vs-closed source debate. Not only can proprietary software turn around and screw you, it can actually single you out for screwing!
The sad thing is that most computer users dont give a shit. They have been trained out of it.
People seem to decide in advance what they will and will not be capable of understanding. It's kind of a learned helplessness. It amazes me that most people are able to operate an automobile - which is really quite a complex activity, if you stop to think about it - but will immediately throw up a stone wall against learning even simple concepts in an area that they've already decided is beyond them.
Slashdot Mirror
But I'd be willing to live where the Italians are the chefs, too...
Those food prices are going to skyrocket for people in the food-producing regions just as much as for anyone else. And who will own most of the farms? Not the people working on them, certainly. Why not a corporation based in China?
Someone else here commented that capital is now completely mobile across national boundaries, but labor is not. That's the essence of the situation with which we're now faced.
Good point. Most of us here seem to be focusing what happens within national boundaries, but those have become invisible to capital. You could almost say that their only important economic function is to immobilize labor. The principal players on this stage, the multinational corporations, are no longer allegiant to any particular nation, regardless of where they make their headquarters. They are free to pit each country - and its workforce - against the others in much the same way that local governments are forced to yield tax breaks (and worse) to businesses promising jobs. National sovereignty is increasingly irrelevant as governments become little more than levers through which the multinationals exercise control.
I think what offends the "geeks" you're arguing with is that patentability implies that an idea has some novelty and is not obvious to anyone "skilled in the art" to which it pertains. Yet, patents are often granted that violate these principles, sometimes to an absurd extent.
patents are not about incentives, they're about outright survival in a competitive market place.
The purpose it to promote innovation, not to grant monopolies simply for the asking. The government does not owe you success. Success in a competitive marketplace comes from competing successfully.
didio_video... It's as fun to say as it is to watch!
Maybe you can elaborate on that statement a little? Whose freedom is being restricted, and how?
No, it's the opposite. That's why you don't like it.
I think I do, actually, thanks. Maturity really isn't the issue anymore. But I've lived on both sides of the track, made my choice, and never once had a single regret. Could be like the "zealotry" of a reformed smoker, but that's not a bad thing if it helps you quit...
At least they didn't beat a confession out of him...
I've heard of people from New Mexico who've had trouble convincing people elsewhere that yes, they are indeed citizens of the U.S....
Only because the "not ready for the {laptop|desktop}" banner gets raised every time someone experiences a glitch using Linux, when in reality these problems rarely have anything to do with the OS itself. When I bought mine, it came with Windows ME pre-installed. That of course was a piece of crap and was duly wiped from the disk, but I would never have thought to say that WinME was "not ready for the laptop" (only that it was a "piece of crap").
Of course I don't doubt others run into difficulties through no fault of their own. As many others have pointed out here, there is a need for better cooperation - or at least less obstruction - from hardware vendors.
Which Microsoft realizes as well, I'm sure. I wonder if there is any pressure from Redmond - explicit or otherwise - on manufacturers not to release OSS drivers? Or maybe just extra candy for those that don't? Just speculating, but there's little doubt that they would do just that if they thought they could get away with it legally...
Must be some CS department...
These posts always surprise me, because I've been running Linux on an old IBM TP-600E for years, with never a problem at all. I guess I didn't know that it wasn't "ready", or surely I wouldn't have dared such a thing. Should I have been experiencing difficulties? Is there something wrong with me or my laptop? My desktop was running Linux long before it was "ready" for that, too...
Or merely the possibility of a future threat (which possibility is, of course, a threat itself). What if some Red State government decided to start a registry of all gay residents, to no avowed purpose or intent? Should gays then not feel threatened? How about registering Jews in Germany in the 1930s? The real issue is not that information of this sort should (or can) be kept secret from everybody (i.e., absolute privacy). The problem is that government has become increasingly interested in keeping lists and databases, all thoroughly cross-referenced and ready for mining for any future purpose they see fit, in the heat of any moment. Their propaganda promises us that it will not be abused, but in government there is a name for real promises: they are called laws. And right now, the laws are headed in the other direction.
The irony is that this is true exactly to the extent that we believe it to be true, and are willing to act on our beliefs. Cynical helplessness always plays into the hands of established power.
Or, maybe the real problem is that in our Orwellian (near-) future, the people won't be given the bread?
But here's what I say: I was born here, and I've lived here all my life. This is my country as much as anyone else's, and no home-grown Taliban or Stasi is going to take it away without a fight. If enough people feel that way, we'll be alright.
Isn't that interesting; you've hit on one of those inner conflicts that the Repubs are grappling with. On the one hand, their socially conservative, xenophobic base wants to keep all of those dirty brown people on the other side of the wall. On the other, their conservative corporate base wants a big flood of Cheap Surplus Labor to keep the domestic brand from getting too uppity. One side supplies the foot soldiers, and the other supplies the cold, hard cash, and they need both. So, they'll make noise and give speeches about the problem, while actually doing as little about it as they can get away with. Wisdom of Solomon, that's what it's going to take...
The Bush administration, I'm afraid, is more interested in perpetuating the fear of terrorism for their own Machiavellian purposes than in achieving any real "security". These people may be evil, but they're not stupid. They are well aware that they are trying to dismantle the New Deal and drive down wages of working Americans at a time of great economic uncertainty. They are equally aware that this kind of "renegotiation" of the social contract is likely to lead to significant civil unrest as the noose starts to tighten. In the Long View, the Patriot Act is really more about preparing for this period than it is about preventing terrorism (except that the neocons will equate civil unrest with terrorism, of course). 9/11 was manna from Heaven for them, because it provided just the smokescreen they needed to get it done.
...and you can't spell "you're"!
Developing an alternative, even through reverse engineering, is far from "IP theft". Thinking that you have a perpetual right to monopoly and ownership of your customers is basically what's wrong with all you anti-FOSS zealots.
Another good cannonball in the open-vs-closed source debate. Not only can proprietary software turn around and screw you, it can actually single you out for screwing!
Works a lot like politics, doesn't it?
People seem to decide in advance what they will and will not be capable of understanding. It's kind of a learned helplessness. It amazes me that most people are able to operate an automobile - which is really quite a complex activity, if you stop to think about it - but will immediately throw up a stone wall against learning even simple concepts in an area that they've already decided is beyond them.