but government financial support is the worse idea possible. Things change, times change, and most especially business changes.
Amen. Big companies buy up small ones, big companies get bloated and create less niche content, new small companies come up with niche products, now tons of small companies producing niche products, that are now mainstream.....rinse and repeat. its in the natural cycle. as long as the playing field is level. Govt. support makes a level playing field NOT level. If the products are worth buying, people will buy it.
The problems is people freak out on one end "oh my god, there are too few big companies! Its a monopoly!" and on the other "oh my god, there are too many small companies! no standards!" instead of understanding its the ebb and flow of capitalism. Its like "sea level" which is simply the average of low and high tides. It is the ebb and flow, the changes from big companies, then small companies, dominating that helps fuel innovation. Once again, as long as the playing field is level, or as you so elequently put it, "As long as competition reigns supreme, the market will thrive and that's all that really matters"
The swings from big and small company domination are a good thing. Nothing grows in still water.
really? I m2 every day and yet to see under or over, yet i see them all the time in m1. is it just luck of the draw? Since I have been here a while (years), thats pretty 'lucky' that I have yet to M2 under/overs. I have not seen anything in the FAQ that indicates it either. Not trying to be a smartass, quite sincere.
Why was this post modded "overrated" before it had been rated? That's just laziness on the mod's part...geez
Not to argue with the other guys answer, but several people also moderate using only UNDERRATED and OVERRATED because those are the only moderations that are not subject to M2.
So, some spread their bad moderation that is motivated only by their agenda, and not good citizenship, by using these two mods, and never get metamoderated, thus, never get moderation taken away. Not all, but some do this. and its lame. and slashdot wont fix it for some reason.
I think the worst shock will through techie society when all the bugs and design flaws are fixed... because admins are no longer needed then...
I don't know, this might be more like trying to knock down a mountain with a small shovel. Opening that code up may make hackers just throw their hands in the air and give up. It would be eaiser to teach French soldiers to be brave than fix code that is not designed to be secure from the ground up.
No, he is just ashamed of his race. Yea, then he blames the corporate heads at Sony for being racist. What Michael Jackson has is serious emotional problems, which has nothing to do with this article (and discussion) is about.
the most futuristic cars we have is the pontiac Aztek and that new honda vehicle. they have really low drag coefficients due to their actual streamlining and have a very futuristic look. not just a reworked buick or cadallac. (emphasis mine)
Thats the idea of his work, it was more art than function. What I want in a future car (like anyone cares what I think) is this:
1. Impact prevention. sensors wont let me run into the back of a bus.
2. auto navigation. so i can shave on the way to work. (depending on pot holes)
3. Fuel efficiency. Really i dont care, screw it, i can afford gas at any price and enjoy pissing off the environmentalists and euro-socialists anyway.
4. Self cleaning. Not going to happen, i just hate washing my truck. so i dont.
But the first two are REAL solutions to real problems. (the third i guess is, but petro/gas isnt the answer in the long run anyway) And they are doable in my lifetime. Notice I didn't say anything about looks? You can make it look like a 86 Yugo if i can take a nap on the way home from work, without plowing into a dump truck. Ok, maybe not a Yugo, but a Ford Probe. Thats pretty ugly too. The point is the features that allow me to USE my time better when commuting 1 to 1.5 hours per day.
Plus, who knows what other land mines will be uncovered during trial?
My prediction - they'll plead guilty instead of taking more risks, unless a guilty plea would force them into bankruptcy, or give one of their higher-ups some jail time.
Cant exactly be "guilty" since its a civil case, thus no one will be going to jail unless a seperate criminal case is filled.
But being aforded the opportunity to prove your innocence in this forum (read as: publicly raked over the coals) is kinda like your mom making you go cut the switch that she is about to beat your ass with.
Actually, it sounds more like "Harley Earl" and the Buick commercials running on American TV. As someone who has spent two decades in marketing, I feel I can say those commercials suck, but they do ask the same question:
Where are all the cars we were promised?
What we were NOT promised was the computing power that took up a city block in the 30s, in a laptop. Nor 500 channels (and still nothing on). We were promised alot of cool looking things that were already invented. They just would look stream lined.
All and all, I am pretty happy with what we actually got, and where we are going. I don't want my neighbors to be flying helicopters either. Its nice to look back, but I see more about who we are and were, rather than what we missed. I don't miss the good old days 'cause I think the good old days are now, I guess. Even with all the problems.
And to those of you that did not actually READ the article(ie:75% of you), and the cool Flash presentation of his art, this stuff makes the Jetsons look practical:)
Well, its linked to a French server, so it must be true. Everyone knows the French are very objective when it comes to Americans.
"The poor ranking of the United States (17th) is mainly because of the number of journalists arrested or imprisoned there."
You failed to quote this: Arrests are often because they refuse to reveal their sources in court. Also, since the 11 September attacks, several journalists have been arrested for crossing security lines at some official buildings. which is an unsubstantiated claim that sounds more like American bashing than fact. Crossing over lines to contaminate a crime scene doesn't qualify as 'gagging' the press. The press's rights to not reveal sources is so strong in America as to be bordering on aiding criminals. And we tolorate it anyway.
Nothing personal, but I have good grounds to compare freedom on press, as well as personal liberty in France vs. America. No contest. I notice they rank their own country very high, too. After reading it, and looking around at this groups mission statement, the fact that they appear to be full of shit on many counts is quite obvious to any objective person.
Yes, its easy to bash France. Their arrogence and incompetance is what made it so easy, tho.
A person with a lottery ticket has infinitely more chances of winning than a person that has none. So nyeah!
Correct. We buy a few buck worth a week. Its cheap entertainment, no hangover, and moderately legal.
To be honest, we don't have the lotto in this state, so we drive an hour to another state to buy them once a week. And if it comes to a vote here, I will vote against it. I saw what happened in TX when it first came in. It became a tax on the poor. Call it what you will, but I prefer NO lotto here so only those that can drive a bit can get them, not every welfare mom that just need to walk to the corner Circle K store. Same reason I fly to Vegas, but don't want casino gambling here (NIMBY syndrome I guess)
So its simple, we need a law to make it so everyone must buy lotto tickets out of state but not in your own state, so poor people can't buy them and get poorer.:-)
My guess is that most of the people that use these are business customers (ie. used as cash register displays or something like that) and they don't want to lose any repeat business.
My experience with IBM has always been great. Twice they have replaced minor parts OUT OF WARRANTY with just a call, free. And this was just on consumer grade products. One reason I half a dozen IBM servers now. (ppro 2 dual's, never a down day in over 4 years, even the used one i bought off ebay).
I am betting most (not all, but most) people that talk trash about IBM have never been IBM customers. As always, you mileage will vary, but they have always treated me, a very tiny customer, like gold.
Fucking huge CO2 emmissions and loads of methane from all the cows. We would not have land-lords (so no rent), cost of living would be about 12 hours work a week(max). I'd never be hungry (my family comes from temperate regions). I could sleep more-or-less when I wanted.......
And you wouldn't have a computer in front of you, to use to bitch about capitalism. If you want to work only 12 hours a week, and sleep the rest of the time fine. I'm just glad I live in a capitalistic society where those of us that work 60 hours a week (and enjoy it) are more greatly rewarded. You get what you put out of it. What a concept.
If you prefer communism, you can always check out North Korea or Cuba. They don't have all the methane and CO2 emmissions. Of course, its because the average person makes about 1/30th of the average person in the US or most of Europe, so they can't afford cars and beef. But at least you could breath easier.
After over a decade of waiting for Microsofts monopoly to correct itself, I think it's safe to conclude that the system is in fact fundamentally broken. For some time now it's looked like the only thing that can move them from their position of power is Linux, which has to be one the biggest economic hacks in history.
Like I also said in the original post, sometimes we expect too much, too soon. The system isn't broken. There are some fundamental problems with how the Justice dept. handles this, however, if you look at IBM, they were relatively in the same position as Microsoft in the 60s-70s, just as much a monopoly. Anti-trust suits followed that took many many years, but in the end, it was market forces that changed the way they did business, not the suit. I made that point earlier, but I guess most don't remember the IBM heyday, or don't read history.
Solaris x86 ISOs aren't free -- sol9/x86 is 25$. And none of them are free for commercial use.
Solaris 8 was distributed free for use on systems up to 8 cpus. they requested you ask permission if you used it on over 50 computers. But totally free, 3 CD set. I have it. Downloaded directly from sun.com. No, not 9, but still a very good OS. Not sure if they still have it up or not.
You seem to think that it illegal to be a big company and/or try to make a lot of money. Why?
Thank you for making this point. I have been saying this for years. Its not the size of the company, its what you do with it;)
One example: IBM, for all its prior anti-trust problems and size and stupid marketing of proprietary stuff (mca, ps/2, os/2) has turned into a pretty good company. I have owned alot of their servers, and they treat customers like gold. This is just my experience, your mileage may vary.
There are some sucky big companies, and some good ones. The sucky ones don't stay big forever, because people will quit buying their products, even if they are better, if they don't like the company. Capitalism is a self correcting system. Its just sometimes we are too impatient and want the results unreasonably quick.
Besides, if we didn't have BIG corporations, we would not have ships, planes, affordable computers, cars, etc.
If you define yourself as a conservative because you believe in a strict interpretation of the constitution, in the way of State's rights, then you're correct in believing that Republicans have abandoned it. This is shown in the huge amounts of unfunded mandates (primarily education and homeland security) pushed by Bush. If you define yourself as a conservative because you believe people have natural rights that shouldn't be infridged by others, then you're confused, because that is a liberal belief... for instance, abortion rights is based on the belief you should be able to do what you want to your body, homosexual rights to marry and serve in the military, and be exactly like other normal people.
I understand what you are saying, but I don't see Personal Rights as exclusively conservative or liberal at all, both treasure it. I may bash people who call themselves Liberals, and are really Socialists (read: Hillary) but I have the utmost respect with true Liberals. I disagree with them alot, but I can at least understand their perspective, and respect them, knowing the difference is philosophical (and sometimes purely achedemic), not a selfish political grab.
As to abortion rights, I agree that you should be able to do what you want to your own body, but I believe that an unborn person is still a person (hense, falls under 'hurting someone else'). I also am against capital punishment for the same reason. Human life is precious, unborn or a criminal. I don't see how many so called conservatives can be pro-death penalty. Either all life is important, or it's not. The fact that you and I may disagree on when life begins is a seperate issue, that doesn't take away from our similarities in cherishing human life. We both believe that if someone commits crimes, we have the right to remove them from society for a (un)limited amount of time, depending upon the crime.
Your comparison with Jefferson's Anti-Federalism is very valid. _I_ consider conservatism to be the literal interpretation of the Constitution, including the spirit, not just the letter. There ARE alot of similarities. Just like there are a fair amount of similarities to conservatism and liberalism. They are not polar opposites, IMHO. To be fair, I should go back and read more of Jefferson's writings, the federalist, etc.
As to "(some)liberals believe the State gives you this right" I did qualify it, but perhaps did not make it clear enough. True liberalism doesn't see it this way, but many so called Liberals (read: Socialists) DO think that all power comes from the Govt. It was not meant to reflect on Liberal views, only on people claiming to have them, and not. You hear some politicians talk about "giving or granting rights" rather than "restoring or reaffirming rights". That is my first clue of how they view rights.
As I stated, all of this is just my opinion, my perspective. Your milage may vary.
On a side note: The people whom I mark as Friends here, fall into your camp. Disagree with key points of mine, but smart enough to challenge them in a dignified and intellegent manner.
I've always thought that anyone with a college degree should be a conservative. Any college that hasn't convinced a person that there is a long heritage of things worth conserving has failed.
There is an old expression, and I can't for the life of me remember where it came from, to give it proper credit, but it goes:
Those who are not Liberals when they are young just don't care.
Those who are not Conservatives when they are older just don't think.
Maybe they should rank songs in the Top 40 by how many times it is downloaded on Kazaa. I mean, the idea is to rank how POPULAR the song is, what better method than to measure how many people are getting using the most popular method for getting new music?
Yea, I know, its illegal, but at least it would be more accurate. Then again the purpose of the Top 40 is to SELL CDs, not to inform you on what is really most popular.
If we followed a strict interpretation of the constitution do you know how much different the world would be today?
sig:the byproduct of years of oppression by the white man
Amen. No time to start like the present. Now if we can just convince african-americans that many of the Democrats are not their friends, and they should vote their conscience rather than for a party who only makes promises, then we can start the healing.
I am of the belief that black america is no less capable than white america. The problem is too many white folks telling black folks that they can't succeed unless the deck is stacked in their favor. Unfortunately, many african americans fall into this trap, believing that Democrats will save them. Because black Americans vote for Democrats 90% of the time, Democrats don't feel the need to make real changes. After all, they will get the votes either way, right? Surely blacks will not vote for those rascally conservatives!
So they get talk, and occasionally legistlation that stacks the deck against whites. This is not reform. As a matter of fact, I find it insulting. It is as if some white liberals think so low of black americans, they treat african americans as if they are too stupid to succeed without white liberal help. You contantly see rhetoric that implies "Vote for us. We will help you. You can't make it, we understand, but we will share with you a piece of the white man's pie". This is a real bone with me. Granted, there is plenty of pure racism by people claiming to be conservatives as well, but this institutional racism by individual that are claiming to help is worse. If a redneck uses a racist statement, as least you know he is an idiot, and it reflects badly on him. When a liberal lies to you to get your vote, and then "throws a bone" every now and then, while working against your interests behind your back, it reflects badly on YOU, because you blindly trusted, and voted for them.
African Americans don't need to be "saved" by persons with alterior motives (white or black). They need equal access to education, to jobs and to other opportunities. I am convinced that when the playing field is level, success will be color blind.
Thanks:) While I don't agree with alot of stuff that Rush says (hes a bit liberal, from my perspective) one thing he says IS right.
Speak up for what you believe. Conservatives should not be ashamed about what they believe. Be willing to debate it, know your beliefs enough to be willing to defend them. Everyone has within themselves abilities that are untapped, and a governmental system should allow that potential to be explored, with the guarantee of equally opportunity, but not outcome.
People who want you to believe that you can't do it without government help are attempting to enslave you.
I do believe that that is Anti-Federalism, not conservativism.
I understand the similarities, but I am talking about conservatism as a philosophy, not as defined by popular media. Conservatism generally believes that the Feds SHOULD leave to the states everything that the states can do (10th amendment). As I stated in a different post, the concept of individual freedom is not unique to conservatism, it is a part of liberalism as well. One of the main differences is (some) liberals believe the State gives you this right, and conversatives believe it is inhearent to all human beings.
But thats irrelevant today, because conservativism and liberalism are today about economic policies and moral issues, not about interpreting the Constitution loosely or strictly.
Actually Republicans and Democrats are. But I see your point. This is the whole reason I made a point of saying to not confuse Republicanism with Conservatism in an earlier post.
Which is basically the American Civil Liberties Union's mission statement (minus the conservative part).
The problem being they select primarily leftist causes to protect. This is political based upon an agenda, rather than a philosophy. In theory, yes. In practice, no. I worked in law a few years, and its amazing how the rank and file liberal lawyers support "liberals only", with only the occasional conservative case. This is not part of liberalism, this is just their agenda.
What about for driving while talking on a cell phone? Are you going to be consistent? (That's about as dangerous... depending on several circumstances.)
Good question. Recent studies have shown that people that talk on a cell phone are 4 times more likely to get in an accident, the same as people who are intoxicated. In my opinion, this would qualify as "affecting others". Pull over or get a hands free.
Whether an activity is socially taboo (drinking) or acceptable (on phone) should not be relevant. The most basic part of freedom is responsibility. You MUST be held respoonsible for your actions when you have this much freedom.
freedom = personal responsibility
socialism = state resonsibility
Other examples, IMHO: Suicide is legal. Abortion is not. Capital punishment is not. (Look, either life is precious or it isn't) Spam is not legal. (anything where the goal is to generate profit is not afforded the same protection as political speech, as the founders intended, just like you can't yell FIRE in a crowded theatre). Most drugs are legal. (may be regulated, and require a preprsciption). I could go on, but just giving people who want to disagree at any cost more fuel;)
In many countries they do. For example in holland the liberal party is the most (mainstream) conservative country. Liberalism is about individual freedom and responsability, which is contrary to the socialist idea of a strong state that takes care for you.
OTOH the "as long as it doesn't adversely affect others" is the key point, the practical consequences of liberalism depend greatly on how to implement this. But it remains that the core value of liberalism is personal freedom and (thus) responsability, which is more politically right than left (b.t.w. the word liberal is used completely false in the US, and often is used synomymous with permissive or even leftist).
Thank you. Someone please mod the parent up. The concepts of personal liberty are both LIBERAL AND CONSERVATIVE, with the main difference is in implementation. So many of my fellow Americans are under the impression that the 'left' (liberals) have cornered the market on freedom.
Many people who are called Liberal in the US are actually Socialist (Hillary Clinton, for example), but the stigma of that name is so great, they allow themselves to be called "lefist" or "liberal". Many people think you can draw a line from left to right and name all the philosophies, but its not that simple. Socialists are liberal in some ways, conservative in others. All of the political philosophys can NOT be drawn on a piece of graph paper.
Slashdot Mirror
but government financial support is the worse idea possible. Things change, times change, and most especially business changes.
Amen. Big companies buy up small ones, big companies get bloated and create less niche content, new small companies come up with niche products, now tons of small companies producing niche products, that are now mainstream.....rinse and repeat. its in the natural cycle. as long as the playing field is level. Govt. support makes a level playing field NOT level. If the products are worth buying, people will buy it.
The problems is people freak out on one end "oh my god, there are too few big companies! Its a monopoly!" and on the other "oh my god, there are too many small companies! no standards!" instead of understanding its the ebb and flow of capitalism. Its like "sea level" which is simply the average of low and high tides. It is the ebb and flow, the changes from big companies, then small companies, dominating that helps fuel innovation. Once again, as long as the playing field is level, or as you so elequently put it, "As long as competition reigns supreme, the market will thrive and that's all that really matters"
The swings from big and small company domination are a good thing. Nothing grows in still water.
really? I m2 every day and yet to see under or over, yet i see them all the time in m1. is it just luck of the draw? Since I have been here a while (years), thats pretty 'lucky' that I have yet to M2 under/overs. I have not seen anything in the FAQ that indicates it either. Not trying to be a smartass, quite sincere.
Why was this post modded "overrated" before it had been rated? That's just laziness on the mod's part...geez
Not to argue with the other guys answer, but several people also moderate using only UNDERRATED and OVERRATED because those are the only moderations that are not subject to M2.
So, some spread their bad moderation that is motivated only by their agenda, and not good citizenship, by using these two mods, and never get metamoderated, thus, never get moderation taken away. Not all, but some do this. and its lame. and slashdot wont fix it for some reason.
I think the worst shock will through techie society when all the bugs and design flaws are fixed ... because admins are no longer needed then...
I don't know, this might be more like trying to knock down a mountain with a small shovel. Opening that code up may make hackers just throw their hands in the air and give up. It would be eaiser to teach French soldiers to be brave than fix code that is not designed to be secure from the ground up.
He has vitiligo [google.com].
No, he is just ashamed of his race. Yea, then he blames the corporate heads at Sony for being racist. What Michael Jackson has is serious emotional problems, which has nothing to do with this article (and discussion) is about.
the most futuristic cars we have is the pontiac Aztek and that new honda vehicle. they have really low drag coefficients due to their actual streamlining and have a very futuristic look. not just a reworked buick or cadallac. (emphasis mine)
Thats the idea of his work, it was more art than function. What I want in a future car (like anyone cares what I think) is this:
1. Impact prevention. sensors wont let me run into the back of a bus.
2. auto navigation. so i can shave on the way to work. (depending on pot holes)
3. Fuel efficiency. Really i dont care, screw it, i can afford gas at any price and enjoy pissing off the environmentalists and euro-socialists anyway.
4. Self cleaning. Not going to happen, i just hate washing my truck. so i dont.
But the first two are REAL solutions to real problems. (the third i guess is, but petro/gas isnt the answer in the long run anyway) And they are doable in my lifetime. Notice I didn't say anything about looks? You can make it look like a 86 Yugo if i can take a nap on the way home from work, without plowing into a dump truck. Ok, maybe not a Yugo, but a Ford Probe. Thats pretty ugly too. The point is the features that allow me to USE my time better when commuting 1 to 1.5 hours per day.
Plus, who knows what other land mines will be uncovered during trial?
My prediction - they'll plead guilty instead of taking more risks, unless a guilty plea would force them into bankruptcy, or give one of their higher-ups some jail time.
Cant exactly be "guilty" since its a civil case, thus no one will be going to jail unless a seperate criminal case is filled.
But being aforded the opportunity to prove your innocence in this forum (read as: publicly raked over the coals) is kinda like your mom making you go cut the switch that she is about to beat your ass with.
Actually, it sounds more like "Harley Earl" and the Buick commercials running on American TV. As someone who has spent two decades in marketing, I feel I can say those commercials suck, but they do ask the same question:
:)
Where are all the cars we were promised?
What we were NOT promised was the computing power that took up a city block in the 30s, in a laptop. Nor 500 channels (and still nothing on). We were promised alot of cool looking things that were already invented. They just would look stream lined.
All and all, I am pretty happy with what we actually got, and where we are going. I don't want my neighbors to be flying helicopters either. Its nice to look back, but I see more about who we are and were, rather than what we missed. I don't miss the good old days 'cause I think the good old days are now, I guess. Even with all the problems.
And to those of you that did not actually READ the article(ie:75% of you), and the cool Flash presentation of his art, this stuff makes the Jetsons look practical
Actually the US ranks 17th in press freedom.
Well, its linked to a French server, so it must be true. Everyone knows the French are very objective when it comes to Americans.
"The poor ranking of the United States (17th) is mainly because of the number of journalists arrested or imprisoned there."
You failed to quote this: Arrests are often because they refuse to reveal their sources in court. Also, since the 11 September attacks, several journalists have been arrested for crossing security lines at some official buildings. which is an unsubstantiated claim that sounds more like American bashing than fact. Crossing over lines to contaminate a crime scene doesn't qualify as 'gagging' the press. The press's rights to not reveal sources is so strong in America as to be bordering on aiding criminals. And we tolorate it anyway.
Nothing personal, but I have good grounds to compare freedom on press, as well as personal liberty in France vs. America. No contest. I notice they rank their own country very high, too. After reading it, and looking around at this groups mission statement, the fact that they appear to be full of shit on many counts is quite obvious to any objective person.
Yes, its easy to bash France. Their arrogence and incompetance is what made it so easy, tho.
A person with a lottery ticket has infinitely more chances of winning than a person that has none. So nyeah!
:-)
Correct. We buy a few buck worth a week. Its cheap entertainment, no hangover, and moderately legal.
To be honest, we don't have the lotto in this state, so we drive an hour to another state to buy them once a week. And if it comes to a vote here, I will vote against it. I saw what happened in TX when it first came in. It became a tax on the poor. Call it what you will, but I prefer NO lotto here so only those that can drive a bit can get them, not every welfare mom that just need to walk to the corner Circle K store.
Same reason I fly to Vegas, but don't want casino gambling here (NIMBY syndrome I guess)
So its simple, we need a law to make it so everyone must buy lotto tickets out of state but not in your own state, so poor people can't buy them and get poorer.
Sucks to be right when it sounds that bad.
My guess is that most of the people that use these are business customers (ie. used as cash register displays or something like that) and they don't want to lose any repeat business.
My experience with IBM has always been great. Twice they have replaced minor parts OUT OF WARRANTY with just a call, free. And this was just on consumer grade products. One reason I half a dozen IBM servers now. (ppro 2 dual's, never a down day in over 4 years, even the used one i bought off ebay).
I am betting most (not all, but most) people that talk trash about IBM have never been IBM customers. As always, you mileage will vary, but they have always treated me, a very tiny customer, like gold.
Doesn't ANYONE read the article?
:)
I think the answer to that is pretty obvious. This IS Slashdot after all. We don't need to read an article to have an opinion on it
Imagine a beowulf swarm of those!
They are dead. They don't swarm anymore.
<tongue in cheek>Besides, it makes sense to use a dead fly, but putting a server in a live fly, why, thats just plain silly.</tongue in cheek>
Fucking huge CO2 emmissions and loads of methane from all the cows. We would not have land-lords (so no rent), cost of living would be about 12 hours work a week(max). I'd never be hungry (my family comes from temperate regions). I could sleep more-or-less when I wanted.......
And you wouldn't have a computer in front of you, to use to bitch about capitalism. If you want to work only 12 hours a week, and sleep the rest of the time fine. I'm just glad I live in a capitalistic society where those of us that work 60 hours a week (and enjoy it) are more greatly rewarded. You get what you put out of it. What a concept.
If you prefer communism, you can always check out North Korea or Cuba. They don't have all the methane and CO2 emmissions. Of course, its because the average person makes about 1/30th of the average person in the US or most of Europe, so they can't afford cars and beef. But at least you could breath easier.
After over a decade of waiting for Microsofts monopoly to correct itself, I think it's safe to conclude that the system is in fact fundamentally broken. For some time now it's looked like the only thing that can move them from their position of power is Linux, which has to be one the biggest economic hacks in history.
Like I also said in the original post, sometimes we expect too much, too soon. The system isn't broken. There are some fundamental problems with how the Justice dept. handles this, however, if you look at IBM, they were relatively in the same position as Microsoft in the 60s-70s, just as much a monopoly. Anti-trust suits followed that took many many years, but in the end, it was market forces that changed the way they did business, not the suit. I made that point earlier, but I guess most don't remember the IBM heyday, or don't read history.
Solaris x86 ISOs aren't free -- sol9/x86 is 25$. And none of them are free for commercial use.
Solaris 8 was distributed free for use on systems up to 8 cpus. they requested you ask permission if you used it on over 50 computers. But totally free, 3 CD set. I have it. Downloaded directly from sun.com. No, not 9, but still a very good OS. Not sure if they still have it up or not.
You seem to think that it illegal to be a big company and/or try to make a lot of money. Why?
;)
Thank you for making this point. I have been saying this for years. Its not the size of the company, its what you do with it
One example: IBM, for all its prior anti-trust problems and size and stupid marketing of proprietary stuff (mca, ps/2, os/2) has turned into a pretty good company. I have owned alot of their servers, and they treat customers like gold. This is just my experience, your mileage may vary.
There are some sucky big companies, and some good ones. The sucky ones don't stay big forever, because people will quit buying their products, even if they are better, if they don't like the company. Capitalism is a self correcting system. Its just sometimes we are too impatient and want the results unreasonably quick.
Besides, if we didn't have BIG corporations, we would not have ships, planes, affordable computers, cars, etc.
If you define yourself as a conservative because you believe in a strict interpretation of the constitution, in the way of State's rights, then you're correct in believing that Republicans have abandoned it. This is shown in the huge amounts of unfunded mandates (primarily education and homeland security) pushed by Bush. If you define yourself as a conservative because you believe people have natural rights that shouldn't be infridged by others, then you're confused, because that is a liberal belief... for instance, abortion rights is based on the belief you should be able to do what you want to your body, homosexual rights to marry and serve in the military, and be exactly like other normal people.
I understand what you are saying, but I don't see Personal Rights as exclusively conservative or liberal at all, both treasure it. I may bash people who call themselves Liberals, and are really Socialists (read: Hillary) but I have the utmost respect with true Liberals. I disagree with them alot, but I can at least understand their perspective, and respect them, knowing the difference is philosophical (and sometimes purely achedemic), not a selfish political grab.
As to abortion rights, I agree that you should be able to do what you want to your own body, but I believe that an unborn person is still a person (hense, falls under 'hurting someone else'). I also am against capital punishment for the same reason. Human life is precious, unborn or a criminal. I don't see how many so called conservatives can be pro-death penalty. Either all life is important, or it's not. The fact that you and I may disagree on when life begins is a seperate issue, that doesn't take away from our similarities in cherishing human life. We both believe that if someone commits crimes, we have the right to remove them from society for a (un)limited amount of time, depending upon the crime.
Your comparison with Jefferson's Anti-Federalism is very valid. _I_ consider conservatism to be the literal interpretation of the Constitution, including the spirit, not just the letter. There ARE alot of similarities. Just like there are a fair amount of similarities to conservatism and liberalism. They are not polar opposites, IMHO. To be fair, I should go back and read more of Jefferson's writings, the federalist, etc.
As to "(some)liberals believe the State gives you this right" I did qualify it, but perhaps did not make it clear enough. True liberalism doesn't see it this way, but many so called Liberals (read: Socialists) DO think that all power comes from the Govt. It was not meant to reflect on Liberal views, only on people claiming to have them, and not. You hear some politicians talk about "giving or granting rights" rather than "restoring or reaffirming rights". That is my first clue of how they view rights.
As I stated, all of this is just my opinion, my perspective. Your milage may vary.
On a side note: The people whom I mark as Friends here, fall into your camp. Disagree with key points of mine, but smart enough to challenge them in a dignified and intellegent manner.
I've always thought that anyone with a college degree should be a conservative. Any college that hasn't convinced a person that there is a long heritage of things worth conserving has failed.
There is an old expression, and I can't for the life of me remember where it came from, to give it proper credit, but it goes:
Those who are not Liberals when they are young just don't care.
Those who are not Conservatives when they are older just don't think.
Maybe they should rank songs in the Top 40 by how many times it is downloaded on Kazaa. I mean, the idea is to rank how POPULAR the song is, what better method than to measure how many people are getting using the most popular method for getting new music?
Yea, I know, its illegal, but at least it would be more accurate. Then again the purpose of the Top 40 is to SELL CDs, not to inform you on what is really most popular.
If we followed a strict interpretation of the constitution do you know how much different the world would be today?
sig:the byproduct of years of oppression by the white man
Amen. No time to start like the present. Now if we can just convince african-americans that many of the Democrats are not their friends, and they should vote their conscience rather than for a party who only makes promises, then we can start the healing.
I am of the belief that black america is no less capable than white america. The problem is too many white folks telling black folks that they can't succeed unless the deck is stacked in their favor. Unfortunately, many african americans fall into this trap, believing that Democrats will save them. Because black Americans vote for Democrats 90% of the time, Democrats don't feel the need to make real changes. After all, they will get the votes either way, right? Surely blacks will not vote for those rascally conservatives!
So they get talk, and occasionally legistlation that stacks the deck against whites. This is not reform. As a matter of fact, I find it insulting. It is as if some white liberals think so low of black americans, they treat african americans as if they are too stupid to succeed without white liberal help. You contantly see rhetoric that implies "Vote for us. We will help you. You can't make it, we understand, but we will share with you a piece of the white man's pie". This is a real bone with me. Granted, there is plenty of pure racism by people claiming to be conservatives as well, but this institutional racism by individual that are claiming to help is worse. If a redneck uses a racist statement, as least you know he is an idiot, and it reflects badly on him. When a liberal lies to you to get your vote, and then "throws a bone" every now and then, while working against your interests behind your back, it reflects badly on YOU, because you blindly trusted, and voted for them.
African Americans don't need to be "saved" by persons with alterior motives (white or black). They need equal access to education, to jobs and to other opportunities. I am convinced that when the playing field is level, success will be color blind.
Ahh I wish more people thought like you.
:) While I don't agree with alot of stuff that Rush says (hes a bit liberal, from my perspective) one thing he says IS right.
You make sense, go forth, convince others.
Thanks
Speak up for what you believe. Conservatives should not be ashamed about what they believe. Be willing to debate it, know your beliefs enough to be willing to defend them. Everyone has within themselves abilities that are untapped, and a governmental system should allow that potential to be explored, with the guarantee of equally opportunity, but not outcome.
People who want you to believe that you can't do it without government help are attempting to enslave you.
I do believe that that is Anti-Federalism, not conservativism.
I understand the similarities, but I am talking about conservatism as a philosophy, not as defined by popular media. Conservatism generally believes that the Feds SHOULD leave to the states everything that the states can do (10th amendment). As I stated in a different post, the concept of individual freedom is not unique to conservatism, it is a part of liberalism as well. One of the main differences is (some) liberals believe the State gives you this right, and conversatives believe it is inhearent to all human beings.
But thats irrelevant today, because conservativism and liberalism are today about economic policies and moral issues, not about interpreting the Constitution loosely or strictly.
Actually Republicans and Democrats are. But I see your point. This is the whole reason I made a point of saying to not confuse Republicanism with Conservatism in an earlier post.
Which is basically the American Civil Liberties Union's mission statement (minus the conservative part).
The problem being they select primarily leftist causes to protect. This is political based upon an agenda, rather than a philosophy. In theory, yes. In practice, no. I worked in law a few years, and its amazing how the rank and file liberal lawyers support "liberals only", with only the occasional conservative case. This is not part of liberalism, this is just their agenda.
What about for driving while talking on a cell phone? Are you going to be consistent? (That's about as dangerous... depending on several circumstances.)
;)
Good question. Recent studies have shown that people that talk on a cell phone are 4 times more likely to get in an accident, the same as people who are intoxicated. In my opinion, this would qualify as "affecting others". Pull over or get a hands free.
Whether an activity is socially taboo (drinking) or acceptable (on phone) should not be relevant. The most basic part of freedom is responsibility. You MUST be held respoonsible for your actions when you have this much freedom.
freedom = personal responsibility
socialism = state resonsibility
Other examples, IMHO: Suicide is legal. Abortion is not. Capital punishment is not. (Look, either life is precious or it isn't) Spam is not legal. (anything where the goal is to generate profit is not afforded the same protection as political speech, as the founders intended, just like you can't yell FIRE in a crowded theatre). Most drugs are legal. (may be regulated, and require a preprsciption). I could go on, but just giving people who want to disagree at any cost more fuel
In many countries they do. For example in holland the liberal party is the most (mainstream) conservative country. Liberalism is about individual freedom and responsability, which is contrary to the socialist idea of a strong state that takes care for you.
OTOH the "as long as it doesn't adversely affect others" is the key point, the practical consequences of liberalism depend greatly on how to implement this. But it remains that the core value of liberalism is personal freedom and (thus) responsability, which is more politically right than left (b.t.w. the word liberal is used completely false in the US, and often is used synomymous with permissive or even leftist).
Thank you. Someone please mod the parent up. The concepts of personal liberty are both LIBERAL AND CONSERVATIVE, with the main difference is in implementation. So many of my fellow Americans are under the impression that the 'left' (liberals) have cornered the market on freedom.
Many people who are called Liberal in the US are actually Socialist (Hillary Clinton, for example), but the stigma of that name is so great, they allow themselves to be called "lefist" or "liberal". Many people think you can draw a line from left to right and name all the philosophies, but its not that simple. Socialists are liberal in some ways, conservative in others. All of the political philosophys can NOT be drawn on a piece of graph paper.