Linux has had several years of declining growth? Where did you get those numbers? Every number I have seen shows that Linux has grown dramatically since 1999. Growth rates might be declining, but that's just part of the numbers game. Going from zero Linux installations to one Linux installation is infinite growth. It's all downhill from there.
If you clicked on my link that I provided you learned that last year Linux server sales were up 90% from the year before.
What the heck are you talking about. There is plenty of evidence that Linux usage is increasing. Heck, ask Dell, HP, or IBM, they'll tell you. Businesses are definitely looking at Linux. Don't believe me, well perhaps you'll believe the March 15 issue of CIO. Take your time, there are quite a few articles that you probably should read.
Now, I would certainly agree that Linux hasn't achieved Total World Domination. However, no one that's paying any attention at all to the server market can pretend that Linux isn't making a serious impact. You may not like that fact, but saying that it isn't so is just ridiculous.
If you would have clicked on the link that I provided you would have noticed that the divisions that produce Windows and MS Office do indeed have profit margins of well over 80%. Microsoft server software generates a profit margin of about 43% and the rest of Microsoft's divisions lose money (a lot of money).
If you would have read the actual article you would have noticed that it was about Merrill Lynch, a non-government entity, and how they are saving huge money with Free Software. Why exactly would they lie about this? It's one thing to disbelieve a commercial software developer (like Microsoft); they make promises all of the time that they can't keep. After all, they want you to buy their software. It's quite another to disbelieve a software customer. What would be Merrill Lynch's reason for lying?
As for the rest, well, you can believe that Linux use isn't growing, if that is what makes you happy. While you are at it feel free to believe that the moon landings were elaborate fakes.
I am unaware of any commercial software company posting an 80% profit margin. Perhaps you could clarify this claim?
That's simple. Just take a quick look at Microsoft's public financial statements. They make absolutely ridiculous profits on both Windows and MS Office. Here's a link.
Except it promotes crappy software, like what we currently see with Open Source. Software that is difficult to install, difficult to administer, difficult to use... thus encouraging support calls and customization contracting. This isn't in the best interests of consumers.
Linux has actually got quite a bit of high quality software. The desktop software is still maturing, but there is plenty of high quality server software and development tools. Give the desktop a few more years and Free Software will be competitive there as well. You have to remember, in 1995 the only GUI application that Free Software had worthy of the name was Emacs. On the server side, on the other hand, I personally find Linux much easier to admin than Windows, and I come from a Windows background (that's an entirely different discussion).
It puts geek users back in control, at the expense of software developers. That's the difference, and it's the point you can't seem to grasp.
The point that you don't understand is that the the folks purchasing software don't care about commercial software developers anymore than they care about buggy-whip makers. If Free Software produces a product that is "good enough" at a lower price, then the market is going to be interested. Free Software is now part of the software ecosystem, and all signs point to it becoming a larger part of the ecosystem in the future.
Yes Bob Young has definately done a fine job of taking billions of dollars of investment capital and turning it into something worth mere millions.
Bob Young did an excellent job of selling RedHat as a commercial enterprise, and he was able to raise quite a bit of money in RedHat's IPO. I don't think that RHAT is worth anything near its present Price/Earnings ratio, but I do think that they are quite likely to be profitable in the long run. Not ridiculously profitable, but profitable nonetheless.
All I'm asking for is the free market to be allowed to work. That means no government laws mandating open source, no government funding of open source, and news based on actual results not speculation.
Government are somewhat different for two reasons. First of these is that left to themselves government employees tend to purchase $300 hammers (or a quadzillion Oracle licenses). Oversight of government purchases is a good thing, and making government employees cost justify their software purchases is a definite benefit for the taxpayer. This is true if the government employee is purchasing Oracle licenses, or paying for customizations to the Linux kernel. However, I think that this is likely to get worked out in the long run by companies like IBM and Sun that know how to sell software to the government. The fact of the matter is that quite a few of the larger software firms are some of the major catalysts for a push towards more Free Software.
The second reason that governments are different is that governments can force people to use a particular piece of software. For example, if my county clerk wants all digital documents in WordPerfect format, then sending a Word document isn't going to be good enough. I think that it is in everyone's best interests to nudge our governments towards open formats. Open formats don't preclude commercial software, of course.
In the end I just want software that doesn't suck. Is that really too much to ask for?
I feel your pain. Free Software has a lot of shortcomings. At
HP and IBM are hardware companies. Most people I know of do not wish to go back to the days of being beholden to proprietary hardware. If you do, why don't you just go buy a Macintosh and leave us alone.
What does it matter that HP and IBM are hardware companies if both support Linux? Migrating from one architecture to another is as easy as typing "make." I personally like being able to choose between Intel-based hardware, an IBM mainframe, or SGI's Altix and be able to drag my software along with me.
I never claimed it was. *YOU* however are claiming the way to fortunes using Open Source is easy... well that is, as long as you give up on the idea of making money and beholden yourself as a slave to someone elses profit lines. (hardware or tax dollars as it were).
I never said that making money from Free Software was easy. However, when commercial software companies can post profit margins of over 80% it is clear that there is a great deal of inefficiency in the current system. Giving away the source and charging for service and customization seems to be a fairly workable model (especially for smaller development shops).
Unfortunately Free Software offers less, for free. This is good enough for some people, but it's certainly not much of a driving force towards innovation. For the long term robustness and growth of our industry, Free Software is just a bad idea.
First of all, competition in the software world has hardly evern been about the best product. The winner has generally been the product that was "good enough" at the lowest price. In fact, this is basically how Microsoft has made their money.
Second of all, there is plenty of Free Software that has been "innovative." Sure, Linux is currently slavishly copying features from the Windows and Mac desktops, but that has more to do with the fact that not too many years ago GNU/Linux's idea of a desktop application was Emacs than the fact that the commercial competition is particularly "innovative." Free Software also has the advantage is that anyone can build new software from existing Free Software pieces. If I have an innovative new use for Word, then I had better be working for Microsoft, or my idea is stillborn.
Third of all, Free Software is a great idea for end users of software. You can customize it so that it works precisely how you want. You can contract support from a much wider range of support providers, and you can download and test software without obligation and without paying large fees. In short, Free Software puts the software user back in control.
The proof is in the pudding, as it were... Enough with articles proclaiming the success of Linux is right around the corner. Bring me the meat. Show me that Open Source is an effective business model from which you can build a multi-billion dollar company and employ thousands of developers.
Anyone who thinks that Linux and Free Software is going to disappear from the server scene anytime soon is simply not paying attention. The market has spoken, and Linux is definitely part of the software landscape going forward. Folks working on commercial software aren't too happy about how things are working out, but the folks working on Free Software seem pretty happy with their prospects.
Bob Young of RedHat said it best. I don't have his exact quote handy, but basically he said that his goal was to take a business that was worth billions of dollars a year and turn it into a business worth hundreds of millions a year (with RedHat making a good chunk of that smaller pie). As someone who is primarily a consumer of software, that sounds like a pretty good deal. I don't particularly want to help fund big software companies if I can get software that is "good enough" at a lower price.
Money is money, it doesn't really matter who is making it. In fact, the article I was responding to derided the success of "Mom and Pop" software houses.
The fact of the matter is that there are a lot of businesses that are making money from Free Software. Free Software allows smaller development houses to offer their customers custom software at a pre-packaged price. In many ways the real benchmark isn't who is making money, but who is saving money. There are many more businesses that are saving money by using Free Software. Merril Lynch is an example of a business that has been very vocal about the money it has saved.
Now, it certainly is true that none of the Free Software developers are ever likely to have the ridiculous profit margins that Microsoft currently enjoys, but my guess is that Microsoft isn't going to be able to hang onto those profit margins forever. Linux is going to continue to gain ground, and the only way that the commercial software vendors are going to be able to fight Free Software effectively is to lower their profit margins. In the next couple of years software prices are likely to drop dramatically, whether you are talking about proprietary software or Free Software.
It's somewhat funny that your list of software companies would miss software giants like IBM, HP, Sun, and Oracle, all of which are now actively selling Free Software based systems. HP and IBM have both tossed out the word "billion" when talking about Linux revenues.
Besides which, for every Adobe or Symantec, there are hundreds of commercial software companies that have gone bankrupt. So pretending that commercial software is some sort of Yellow Brick Road to software fortune is more than a little misleading.
The fact of the matter is that the only way to realistically compete with the entrenched commercial software vendors is to offer more than they do, at a lower price. Free Software is one method that appears to be working.
Anyone that believes that single parents don't face serious obstacles in raising their children is deluded, plain and simple. Sure, there are lots of cases of single mothers (or single fathers) that do a good job raising their children, but such cases are the exception to the rule.
The fact of the matter is that both the mother and the father play important roles in raising children. Raising children is hard, and doing so singlehanded is a monumental task.
Marriages are hard too. Even the best marriages require a great deal of work. In fact, it is the work that makes them worth the while. Being married gives you the opportunity to think about someone else's welfare over and above your own welfare. This does not mean that I believe that parents should stay together even when they hate each other. What this means is that parents should do whatever it takes to stay in love.
Despite the fact that being married and having children is harder work than anything that I have ever done, I can honestly say that nothing else has ever brought me the joy that being a husband and father has brought to my life. It is comforting to know that my wife "has my back," and it is very rewarding to see my children grow and progress. As far as I am concerned my family is what life is all about.
And so if you will excuse me, I think I'll go see what my wife is up to.
I am pro-Freedom, which means that I am glad that the madman Saddam is finally getting his just desserts. This also means that I get pissed when I hear about someone being denined their legal right to due process.
I certainly agree that this doesn't make President Bush the moral equivalent of Saddam Hussein, but it isn't right all the same. Locking people up without charging them with a crime is wrong, and if they do charge Mike with a crime he should have the right to a speedy trial by his peers.
This is not the same as what has been done by other tyrants around the world, but it is still tyranny.
Exactly, two people editting the same document at the same time is a recipe for disaster. I don't mind collaborating, but you can bet that I want some tools that will allow me to keep a revision history of any editting done. The last thing I would want is some hoser editting out the last 4 hours of my work.
Exactly. Heck, there is a good chance that when I am googling that I am looking to purchase something. Popping up ads that actually relate to what I am searching for is only good business.
That's actually one of the things I like about/. ads as well. Most of the ads I see are at least somewhat interesting to me.
Not really. Wounding a soldier is generally even better than killing him, because not only is he taken out of the action, but he now ties up any other soldiers that might try and help him. Wounded soldiers have to be evacuated, they require medics, etc. etc. You would be surprised how many weapons are designed more towards wounding the maximum amount of people instead of killing them outright.
Yes, you just hope that the U.S. is there to pull your ass out of the fire when the invaders come.
Read some history. Civilization requires defense. Perhaps someday that won't be the case, but I am not holding my breath. When it comes to being able to defend yourself it is better to be safe than sorry.
Perhaps the animal rights activists will volunteer to take the place of some of the turkeys. If that is the case then I think I might need to buy me an SUV.
The part that you don't see is that lower software prices are actually good for the rest of the U.S. economy. Sure it means that it is harder to get a job programming here in the States, and it also means that you can't charge as much as you would like, but that's good news for the small business down the stree that needs some custom programming done. All of a sudden even Mom and Pop organizations can afford custom software.
In the long run when the economy expands in this manner it is good for everyone.
Now take the contrary example. Let's imagine that we imposed heavy tariffs on "imported" software. Well, that might save some programming jobs here in the states, but it guarantees that American companies will pay a premium for software. Meanwhile our competitors in Mexico, Canada, Europe, India, China, and wherever else are able to buy software at lower prices. Possibly considerably lower prices. Now all sorts of businesses are having trouble competing. This is precisely what happened when we slapped tariffs on sugar and steel.
One of the primary reasons that our standard of living is so higher than the rest of the world is that we are an open market.
On the other hand, I suppose that when the alternative is to be fed feet first into a plastic shredder the idea of a free phone system doesn't sound so bad. Even if it is a free American phone system.
It would be a different story if the Iraqui people weren't glad to be getting rid of Saddam.
When I give my old couch to Goodwill, that's a good thing, especially if it is a really nice couch that is practically brand new.
Now, the local furniture store might prefer that I go purchase their couch and give it away, but you can't hardly blame me if I would rather give my couch despite their protests.
American companies pay American taxes and provide American jobs. It only makes sense that the U.S. would want to favor American companies, after all, they get back some of the money they spend on taxes if they choose American companies. This is not a conspiracy, this is simply common sense. When all is said and done the American people is going to pay an astronomical price for the rebuilding of Iraq. Can you blame us for wanting to keep as much of the money spent in our own country as possible?
The gold isn't coming out of the ground. It is coming out of my pocket. Pardon me for wanting to spend it on American companies.
I was being sarcastic. However, the fact of the matter is that the vast majority of Iraquis support the removal of Saddam from power. Everyone agrees that Saddam is a bad person, and that the Iraqui people have suffered under his rule.
So now the U.S. is finally doing something about it. Sure, we are doing it primarily to protect our own skins from terrorists and weapons of mass destruction, but we are helping all the same. And despite the fact that we could just as easily simply bomb the heck out of the whole country we are also trying to be careful. In fact, we have lost soldiers because we have been more concerned with taking prisoners than securing the lives of U.S. troops.
When the war is over, and Saddam is gone we are even going to spend billions rebuilding the country. The conspiracy theorists say we are doing it for the Iraqui oil, but that's worth (max) $20 billion a year until Iraq can rebuild their infrastructure. In short, there is no way that Iraq is going to be able to pay for all the stuff that we are going to do to help. For the most part, however, Americans are glad to help.
For most of history conquering countries simply nailed everyone that disagreed with them to trees, and took whatever loot they could find. The U.S., on the other hand, is not only doing its best not to hurt Iraquis (despite the fact we are currently at war with them), but we are going to spend piles money rebuilding the country, of which we will recover almost nothing.
When things are all said and done Iraq is going to be a better place thanks to us. America has quite a bit of experience rebuilding our enemies after a war (ask Germany or Japan), but we never get any credit.
The war isn't the Olympics. Qualcomm might make some money, but every U.S. company that does work overseas is being hurt by the war (not to mention the airlines). In the big picture the U.S. is paying more than it could ever hope to recover from Iraq.
The U.S. is fighting this war to help stabilize a region.
Iraqi oil is presently worth about $20 billion a year (max). They haven't made over $12 billion since the Gulf War, and their infrastructure is shot to hades.
In other words, we would need to take all of the oil produced in Iraq for the next 3 3/4 years just to pay for the war, not to mention the billions we are going to pour into rebuilding the country, and that doesn't even include interest. In short, only people who are really bad at math think that this is about making money from Iraqui oil.
Yes, we are going to secure some low interest loans with Iraqui oil. Of course this is just another way of saying that we will be giving money to the Iraquis so that they can build their infrastructure enough to sell us the oil we need. If you don't understand why this is so, then read up on the time value of money. In the end this works out to our benefit because a stable Iraq makes for a more stable region and a better world. Consequently this works in the favor of the Iraqui people as well. A stable country and a chance to sell oil is what they want as well.
Read this. Notice that I picked the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, not an American media outlet.
To make a long story short, Iraq currently makes about $10 - $12 Billion a year selling oil. With the embargo lifted they might be able to make as much as $20 Billion with their currently badly damaged infrastructure. Making more money than that will require massive investments. The U.S. will almost certainly help Iraq secure the credit they will need, but they will make the bulk of the profits.
Yes, the U.S. will probably get some oil out of the deal, but we aren't going to get anywhere near enough oil to pay for this mess. Anyone that thinks otherwise simply doesn't know what they are talking about. What the U.S. is interested in is stabilizing the region, a happy Iraq is our goal.
For profit companies are not offering a "gift horse."
Of course Qualcomm is going to make a profit installing the phone system, but America isn't going to make a profit. The millions of Americans that don't work for Qualcomm are going to lose money. Qualcomm will make a profit, making them happy. Iraq will get a new phone system at a good price making them happy. The American people is giving stuff away to Iraq for free, and the Europeans are complaining because we are going away our stuff instead of their stuff.
Last I checked the U.S. was looking for help from the International community in paying for the rebuilding of Iraq. I imagine if some of these countries wanted to help that we would let them give away some of their stuff.
Slashdot Mirror
Linux has had several years of declining growth? Where did you get those numbers? Every number I have seen shows that Linux has grown dramatically since 1999. Growth rates might be declining, but that's just part of the numbers game. Going from zero Linux installations to one Linux installation is infinite growth. It's all downhill from there.
If you clicked on my link that I provided you learned that last year Linux server sales were up 90% from the year before.
Now, I would certainly agree that Linux hasn't achieved Total World Domination. However, no one that's paying any attention at all to the server market can pretend that Linux isn't making a serious impact. You may not like that fact, but saying that it isn't so is just ridiculous.
If you would have clicked on the link that I provided you would have noticed that the divisions that produce Windows and MS Office do indeed have profit margins of well over 80%. Microsoft server software generates a profit margin of about 43% and the rest of Microsoft's divisions lose money (a lot of money).
If you would have read the actual article you would have noticed that it was about Merrill Lynch, a non-government entity, and how they are saving huge money with Free Software. Why exactly would they lie about this? It's one thing to disbelieve a commercial software developer (like Microsoft); they make promises all of the time that they can't keep. After all, they want you to buy their software. It's quite another to disbelieve a software customer. What would be Merrill Lynch's reason for lying?
As for the rest, well, you can believe that Linux use isn't growing, if that is what makes you happy. While you are at it feel free to believe that the moon landings were elaborate fakes.
How much do the Linux distributors charge you for every gizmo that you sell that uses Linux?
$0
How much does Microsoft charge you for every gizmo that you sell that uses Windows CE?
> $0
These people are trying to sell hardware not software.
That's simple. Just take a quick look at Microsoft's public financial statements. They make absolutely ridiculous profits on both Windows and MS Office. Here's a link.
Linux has actually got quite a bit of high quality software. The desktop software is still maturing, but there is plenty of high quality server software and development tools. Give the desktop a few more years and Free Software will be competitive there as well. You have to remember, in 1995 the only GUI application that Free Software had worthy of the name was Emacs. On the server side, on the other hand, I personally find Linux much easier to admin than Windows, and I come from a Windows background (that's an entirely different discussion).
The point that you don't understand is that the the folks purchasing software don't care about commercial software developers anymore than they care about buggy-whip makers. If Free Software produces a product that is "good enough" at a lower price, then the market is going to be interested. Free Software is now part of the software ecosystem, and all signs point to it becoming a larger part of the ecosystem in the future.
Bob Young did an excellent job of selling RedHat as a commercial enterprise, and he was able to raise quite a bit of money in RedHat's IPO. I don't think that RHAT is worth anything near its present Price/Earnings ratio, but I do think that they are quite likely to be profitable in the long run. Not ridiculously profitable, but profitable nonetheless.
Government are somewhat different for two reasons. First of these is that left to themselves government employees tend to purchase $300 hammers (or a quadzillion Oracle licenses). Oversight of government purchases is a good thing, and making government employees cost justify their software purchases is a definite benefit for the taxpayer. This is true if the government employee is purchasing Oracle licenses, or paying for customizations to the Linux kernel. However, I think that this is likely to get worked out in the long run by companies like IBM and Sun that know how to sell software to the government. The fact of the matter is that quite a few of the larger software firms are some of the major catalysts for a push towards more Free Software.
The second reason that governments are different is that governments can force people to use a particular piece of software. For example, if my county clerk wants all digital documents in WordPerfect format, then sending a Word document isn't going to be good enough. I think that it is in everyone's best interests to nudge our governments towards open formats. Open formats don't preclude commercial software, of course.
I feel your pain. Free Software has a lot of shortcomings. At
What does it matter that HP and IBM are hardware companies if both support Linux? Migrating from one architecture to another is as easy as typing "make." I personally like being able to choose between Intel-based hardware, an IBM mainframe, or SGI's Altix and be able to drag my software along with me.
I never said that making money from Free Software was easy. However, when commercial software companies can post profit margins of over 80% it is clear that there is a great deal of inefficiency in the current system. Giving away the source and charging for service and customization seems to be a fairly workable model (especially for smaller development shops).
First of all, competition in the software world has hardly evern been about the best product. The winner has generally been the product that was "good enough" at the lowest price. In fact, this is basically how Microsoft has made their money.
Second of all, there is plenty of Free Software that has been "innovative." Sure, Linux is currently slavishly copying features from the Windows and Mac desktops, but that has more to do with the fact that not too many years ago GNU/Linux's idea of a desktop application was Emacs than the fact that the commercial competition is particularly "innovative." Free Software also has the advantage is that anyone can build new software from existing Free Software pieces. If I have an innovative new use for Word, then I had better be working for Microsoft, or my idea is stillborn.
Third of all, Free Software is a great idea for end users of software. You can customize it so that it works precisely how you want. You can contract support from a much wider range of support providers, and you can download and test software without obligation and without paying large fees. In short, Free Software puts the software user back in control.
Anyone who thinks that Linux and Free Software is going to disappear from the server scene anytime soon is simply not paying attention. The market has spoken, and Linux is definitely part of the software landscape going forward. Folks working on commercial software aren't too happy about how things are working out, but the folks working on Free Software seem pretty happy with their prospects.
Bob Young of RedHat said it best. I don't have his exact quote handy, but basically he said that his goal was to take a business that was worth billions of dollars a year and turn it into a business worth hundreds of millions a year (with RedHat making a good chunk of that smaller pie). As someone who is primarily a consumer of software, that sounds like a pretty good deal. I don't particularly want to help fund big software companies if I can get software that is "good enough" at a lower price.
Money is money, it doesn't really matter who is making it. In fact, the article I was responding to derided the success of "Mom and Pop" software houses.
The fact of the matter is that there are a lot of businesses that are making money from Free Software. Free Software allows smaller development houses to offer their customers custom software at a pre-packaged price. In many ways the real benchmark isn't who is making money, but who is saving money. There are many more businesses that are saving money by using Free Software. Merril Lynch is an example of a business that has been very vocal about the money it has saved.
Now, it certainly is true that none of the Free Software developers are ever likely to have the ridiculous profit margins that Microsoft currently enjoys, but my guess is that Microsoft isn't going to be able to hang onto those profit margins forever. Linux is going to continue to gain ground, and the only way that the commercial software vendors are going to be able to fight Free Software effectively is to lower their profit margins. In the next couple of years software prices are likely to drop dramatically, whether you are talking about proprietary software or Free Software.
It's somewhat funny that your list of software companies would miss software giants like IBM, HP, Sun, and Oracle, all of which are now actively selling Free Software based systems. HP and IBM have both tossed out the word "billion" when talking about Linux revenues.
Besides which, for every Adobe or Symantec, there are hundreds of commercial software companies that have gone bankrupt. So pretending that commercial software is some sort of Yellow Brick Road to software fortune is more than a little misleading.
The fact of the matter is that the only way to realistically compete with the entrenched commercial software vendors is to offer more than they do, at a lower price. Free Software is one method that appears to be working.
Anyone that believes that single parents don't face serious obstacles in raising their children is deluded, plain and simple. Sure, there are lots of cases of single mothers (or single fathers) that do a good job raising their children, but such cases are the exception to the rule.
The fact of the matter is that both the mother and the father play important roles in raising children. Raising children is hard, and doing so singlehanded is a monumental task.
Marriages are hard too. Even the best marriages require a great deal of work. In fact, it is the work that makes them worth the while. Being married gives you the opportunity to think about someone else's welfare over and above your own welfare. This does not mean that I believe that parents should stay together even when they hate each other. What this means is that parents should do whatever it takes to stay in love.
Despite the fact that being married and having children is harder work than anything that I have ever done, I can honestly say that nothing else has ever brought me the joy that being a husband and father has brought to my life. It is comforting to know that my wife "has my back," and it is very rewarding to see my children grow and progress. As far as I am concerned my family is what life is all about.
And so if you will excuse me, I think I'll go see what my wife is up to.
I am pro-Freedom, which means that I am glad that the madman Saddam is finally getting his just desserts. This also means that I get pissed when I hear about someone being denined their legal right to due process.
I certainly agree that this doesn't make President Bush the moral equivalent of Saddam Hussein, but it isn't right all the same. Locking people up without charging them with a crime is wrong, and if they do charge Mike with a crime he should have the right to a speedy trial by his peers.
This is not the same as what has been done by other tyrants around the world, but it is still tyranny.
Exactly, two people editting the same document at the same time is a recipe for disaster. I don't mind collaborating, but you can bet that I want some tools that will allow me to keep a revision history of any editting done. The last thing I would want is some hoser editting out the last 4 hours of my work.
Exactly. Heck, there is a good chance that when I am googling that I am looking to purchase something. Popping up ads that actually relate to what I am searching for is only good business.
That's actually one of the things I like about /. ads as well. Most of the ads I see are at least somewhat interesting to me.
Try this
Not really. Wounding a soldier is generally even better than killing him, because not only is he taken out of the action, but he now ties up any other soldiers that might try and help him. Wounded soldiers have to be evacuated, they require medics, etc. etc. You would be surprised how many weapons are designed more towards wounding the maximum amount of people instead of killing them outright.
Yes, you just hope that the U.S. is there to pull your ass out of the fire when the invaders come.
Read some history. Civilization requires defense. Perhaps someday that won't be the case, but I am not holding my breath. When it comes to being able to defend yourself it is better to be safe than sorry.
Perhaps the animal rights activists will volunteer to take the place of some of the turkeys. If that is the case then I think I might need to buy me an SUV.
The part that you don't see is that lower software prices are actually good for the rest of the U.S. economy. Sure it means that it is harder to get a job programming here in the States, and it also means that you can't charge as much as you would like, but that's good news for the small business down the stree that needs some custom programming done. All of a sudden even Mom and Pop organizations can afford custom software.
In the long run when the economy expands in this manner it is good for everyone.
Now take the contrary example. Let's imagine that we imposed heavy tariffs on "imported" software. Well, that might save some programming jobs here in the states, but it guarantees that American companies will pay a premium for software. Meanwhile our competitors in Mexico, Canada, Europe, India, China, and wherever else are able to buy software at lower prices. Possibly considerably lower prices. Now all sorts of businesses are having trouble competing. This is precisely what happened when we slapped tariffs on sugar and steel.
One of the primary reasons that our standard of living is so higher than the rest of the world is that we are an open market.
On the other hand, I suppose that when the alternative is to be fed feet first into a plastic shredder the idea of a free phone system doesn't sound so bad. Even if it is a free American phone system.
It would be a different story if the Iraqui people weren't glad to be getting rid of Saddam.
A sandbox for MS Office macros would be an excellent idea, but you don't need Palladium for that. You don't need .NET either.
When I give my old couch to Goodwill, that's a good thing, especially if it is a really nice couch that is practically brand new.
Now, the local furniture store might prefer that I go purchase their couch and give it away, but you can't hardly blame me if I would rather give my couch despite their protests.
American companies pay American taxes and provide American jobs. It only makes sense that the U.S. would want to favor American companies, after all, they get back some of the money they spend on taxes if they choose American companies. This is not a conspiracy, this is simply common sense. When all is said and done the American people is going to pay an astronomical price for the rebuilding of Iraq. Can you blame us for wanting to keep as much of the money spent in our own country as possible?
The gold isn't coming out of the ground. It is coming out of my pocket. Pardon me for wanting to spend it on American companies.
I was being sarcastic. However, the fact of the matter is that the vast majority of Iraquis support the removal of Saddam from power. Everyone agrees that Saddam is a bad person, and that the Iraqui people have suffered under his rule.
So now the U.S. is finally doing something about it. Sure, we are doing it primarily to protect our own skins from terrorists and weapons of mass destruction, but we are helping all the same. And despite the fact that we could just as easily simply bomb the heck out of the whole country we are also trying to be careful. In fact, we have lost soldiers because we have been more concerned with taking prisoners than securing the lives of U.S. troops.
When the war is over, and Saddam is gone we are even going to spend billions rebuilding the country. The conspiracy theorists say we are doing it for the Iraqui oil, but that's worth (max) $20 billion a year until Iraq can rebuild their infrastructure. In short, there is no way that Iraq is going to be able to pay for all the stuff that we are going to do to help. For the most part, however, Americans are glad to help.
For most of history conquering countries simply nailed everyone that disagreed with them to trees, and took whatever loot they could find. The U.S., on the other hand, is not only doing its best not to hurt Iraquis (despite the fact we are currently at war with them), but we are going to spend piles money rebuilding the country, of which we will recover almost nothing.
When things are all said and done Iraq is going to be a better place thanks to us. America has quite a bit of experience rebuilding our enemies after a war (ask Germany or Japan), but we never get any credit.
The war isn't the Olympics. Qualcomm might make some money, but every U.S. company that does work overseas is being hurt by the war (not to mention the airlines). In the big picture the U.S. is paying more than it could ever hope to recover from Iraq.
The U.S. is fighting this war to help stabilize a region.
In other words, we would need to take all of the oil produced in Iraq for the next 3 3/4 years just to pay for the war, not to mention the billions we are going to pour into rebuilding the country, and that doesn't even include interest. In short, only people who are really bad at math think that this is about making money from Iraqui oil.
Yes, we are going to secure some low interest loans with Iraqui oil. Of course this is just another way of saying that we will be giving money to the Iraquis so that they can build their infrastructure enough to sell us the oil we need. If you don't understand why this is so, then read up on the time value of money. In the end this works out to our benefit because a stable Iraq makes for a more stable region and a better world. Consequently this works in the favor of the Iraqui people as well. A stable country and a chance to sell oil is what they want as well.
Read this. Notice that I picked the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, not an American media outlet.
To make a long story short, Iraq currently makes about $10 - $12 Billion a year selling oil. With the embargo lifted they might be able to make as much as $20 Billion with their currently badly damaged infrastructure. Making more money than that will require massive investments. The U.S. will almost certainly help Iraq secure the credit they will need, but they will make the bulk of the profits.
Yes, the U.S. will probably get some oil out of the deal, but we aren't going to get anywhere near enough oil to pay for this mess. Anyone that thinks otherwise simply doesn't know what they are talking about. What the U.S. is interested in is stabilizing the region, a happy Iraq is our goal.
Of course Qualcomm is going to make a profit installing the phone system, but America isn't going to make a profit. The millions of Americans that don't work for Qualcomm are going to lose money. Qualcomm will make a profit, making them happy. Iraq will get a new phone system at a good price making them happy. The American people is giving stuff away to Iraq for free, and the Europeans are complaining because we are going away our stuff instead of their stuff.
Last I checked the U.S. was looking for help from the International community in paying for the rebuilding of Iraq. I imagine if some of these countries wanted to help that we would let them give away some of their stuff.