Who exactly is going to force Americans to do this?
Well it would be simpler if the Americans forced themselves by electing a government that will do it, but if we have to, the rest of the world could theoretically unite and tax the US for polluting too much. That would be legal under WTO treaties.
Raise? You really haven't done the math, have you? They can't raise, they need to cut. Everyone needs to cut. The whole planet, on average, needs to cut 80% of the CO2 output by 2050, or we're in a pile of trouble.
Well first a cut of 20% is better than no cut. And a raise of 20% is better than a raise of 50%. If the planet, on average, want to cut 20%, that could mean that US have to cut 50% while some African countries get to emit more. What's wrong with that?
What you REALLY want is money
Me? I'm part of a rich, polluting, western country. I wouldn't get any of that money.
Any cut is better than no cut. The US could cut from 20 to 5 while China cut from 7 to 5, that would be a great start. I do think China should cut, I just don't think the US should be allowed to emit more per capita.
Altruism and selfishness represent opposite extremes on a wide spectrum. You seem to be committing a fallacy of excluded middle.
I fail to see the middle in this particular example. "I am from Iowa, I don't care about the rest of the world, why would I change anything?" is pretty much the definition of selfishness.
No, what I am saying is that heavy polluters (such as the Americans) should be forced to reduce their emissions, while the low polluters (such as the Africans) should be forced not to raise theirs too much. In the end, the equilibrium is when everyone emit the same amount of CO2. Of course, I am not against trade, so the African should have a right to lease his emission rights to the highest bidder.
Who is saying they shouldn't? They also should. Let say we should all reduce our emissions to 4 tons/person/year. That means the typical American must cut 80% of their emissions. The typical Indian can still double. But by altruism they shouldn't raise them 10 fold.
Man's influence on global warming comes from pollution. The lion's share of pollution does not come from first-world consumer waste. It overwhelmingly comes from third-world industrial waste.
Well 85% of the population of the world is in the third world. Still, the other 15% must emit 35% of the greenhouse gases. And much more historically.
They do. The US wouldn't have close to this standard of living without those working for cheap in China, or without oil from Venezuela and the Middle East.
It's called altruism. But also, because the rest of the world could (and should, legitimately) tax trade with polluting countries, which could impact that selfish Iowa boy even more.
In the case of Apple, despite having less than 10% of the e-book market, they were fined hundreds of millions of dollars for engaging in anticompetitive behavior by colluding to price-fix the market.
I agree there are various anticompetitive practices which are illegal but aren't caused by an abuse of monopoly position. It's the case in your Apple example, and it's also the case when all gas stations from a small town fix the price (cartel).
Likewise, despite not having a monopoly position, Intel recently settled with the government after they paid PC manufacturers to drop AMD products.
Intel does have a dominant position, with what, 80% of the PC market? They were clearly abusing their position. AMD couldn't convince PC makers to drop Intel, even if they offered the same amount of money, because they are not in such a position.
The distinction I'd draw, and which I believe is supported by the evidence, is that you don't have an obligation to sell your products piecemeal, but that if you choose to do so, you have an obligation to not use your dominant position with one of those pieces to gain an unfair advantage with the others.
Microsoft didn't "sell" Internet Explorer, it was built-in to Windows, just as you suggest. Apple is doing the same with Safari and never had any trouble. Why? The only difference I see is that Apple isn't in a monopoly position. IE was even deeply rooted into the operating system (used as the file browser). Regulators didn't care. It was an abuse of monopoly position. I also read that Microsoft didn't include a PDF creator (and even a reader) for years into Windows in order to avoid being accused of abuse by Adobe.
Not so. With the exception of government-granted monopolies, it's rare that companies have an obligation to grant competitors access to their platform. [...] Again, there's nothing illegal about selling a locked-down product, regardless of your market share, otherwise you'd see things like Facebook, Google Search, Windows, etc. being compelled to provide full, public APIs to access every single component of their platforms. Clearly, that isn't happening.
Well Microsoft has been accused under anti-trust laws in both US and EU (forcing IE, Windows Media Player, Office XML formats). Google had some trouble with search too in Europe. Facebook could well be next one day if they abuse their domination in the social networking market to force an other product. It's illegal to abuse a monopoly position. If EU consider that Google is abusing by forcing Google Search into Android, no matter if it's open or not, they can sue.
So in short, I disagree that Google is in that position because of Android being open.
How about 2015? http://www.consumerreports.org... Ford is not that bad (slightly below average), but the Asian brands still dominate. Fiat is last by a wide margin.
Is that so? I'd wager you'd be hard-pressed to back that claim up by naming a single mobile OS that prevents manufacturers from changing the default. After all, the point is moot with most of the other OSes (e.g. iOS, Windows), simply because the companies behind them do their own manufacturing.
Some Windows Phone manufacturers aren't Microsoft/Nokia. They are forced to use Bing and IE.
And for that matter, it doesn't work in Google's favor here, since by opening the option up and then paying carriers/manufacturers to exclude their competitors, they've opened themselves up to allegations of wrongdoing.
I don't know that it's enough to warrant an anti-competition investigation, but it certainly doesn't help their case.
it would have been even worse if Google locked-down Android and forced everyone to use their search engine and browser. The only reason Apple has a free pass for doing so is because they have little market share (~13%).
Slashdot Mirror
Who exactly is going to force Americans to do this?
Well it would be simpler if the Americans forced themselves by electing a government that will do it, but if we have to, the rest of the world could theoretically unite and tax the US for polluting too much. That would be legal under WTO treaties.
Raise? You really haven't done the math, have you? They can't raise, they need to cut. Everyone needs to cut. The whole planet, on average, needs to cut 80% of the CO2 output by 2050, or we're in a pile of trouble.
Well first a cut of 20% is better than no cut. And a raise of 20% is better than a raise of 50%.
If the planet, on average, want to cut 20%, that could mean that US have to cut 50% while some African countries get to emit more. What's wrong with that?
What you REALLY want is money
Me? I'm part of a rich, polluting, western country. I wouldn't get any of that money.
Any cut is better than no cut.
The US could cut from 20 to 5 while China cut from 7 to 5, that would be a great start. I do think China should cut, I just don't think the US should be allowed to emit more per capita.
other countries don't have the same problem with climate deniers/skeptics/whatever:
http://www.nytimes.com/interac...
maybe because there is more to the world than just the US?
Wrong, read the discussion before making stupid comments.
https://slashdot.org/comments....
because random anonymous slashdot posters from around the world represent the majority of americans.
I never said that. I was replying to operagost who said "no one is saying that", which is obviously not true.
Altruism and selfishness represent opposite extremes on a wide spectrum. You seem to be committing a fallacy of excluded middle.
I fail to see the middle in this particular example. "I am from Iowa, I don't care about the rest of the world, why would I change anything?" is pretty much the definition of selfishness.
Read this whole discussion. You'll find plenty of slashdotters who seems to think that way.
you should praise China, the only country which implemented a massive birth limitation policy
You may be told that. It doesn't mean it's true.
Well, given that their population is 4x the US, it seems more than fair that they only emit twice as much CO2.
No, what I am saying is that heavy polluters (such as the Americans) should be forced to reduce their emissions, while the low polluters (such as the Africans) should be forced not to raise theirs too much.
In the end, the equilibrium is when everyone emit the same amount of CO2. Of course, I am not against trade, so the African should have a right to lease his emission rights to the highest bidder.
Who is saying they shouldn't? They also should. Let say we should all reduce our emissions to 4 tons/person/year.
That means the typical American must cut 80% of their emissions. The typical Indian can still double. But by altruism they shouldn't raise them 10 fold.
Man's influence on global warming comes from pollution. The lion's share of pollution does not come from first-world consumer waste. It overwhelmingly comes from third-world industrial waste.
Well 85% of the population of the world is in the third world. Still, the other 15% must emit 35% of the greenhouse gases. And much more historically.
They do. The US wouldn't have close to this standard of living without those working for cheap in China, or without oil from Venezuela and the Middle East.
No one is saying that of course. But they still think it.
It's called altruism.
But also, because the rest of the world could (and should, legitimately) tax trade with polluting countries, which could impact that selfish Iowa boy even more.
It has been better for the US, therefore it must be good.
In the case of Apple, despite having less than 10% of the e-book market, they were fined hundreds of millions of dollars for engaging in anticompetitive behavior by colluding to price-fix the market.
I agree there are various anticompetitive practices which are illegal but aren't caused by an abuse of monopoly position. It's the case in your Apple example, and it's also the case when all gas stations from a small town fix the price (cartel).
Likewise, despite not having a monopoly position, Intel recently settled with the government after they paid PC manufacturers to drop AMD products.
Intel does have a dominant position, with what, 80% of the PC market? They were clearly abusing their position. AMD couldn't convince PC makers to drop Intel, even if they offered the same amount of money, because they are not in such a position.
The distinction I'd draw, and which I believe is supported by the evidence, is that you don't have an obligation to sell your products piecemeal, but that if you choose to do so, you have an obligation to not use your dominant position with one of those pieces to gain an unfair advantage with the others.
Microsoft didn't "sell" Internet Explorer, it was built-in to Windows, just as you suggest. Apple is doing the same with Safari and never had any trouble. Why? The only difference I see is that Apple isn't in a monopoly position.
IE was even deeply rooted into the operating system (used as the file browser). Regulators didn't care. It was an abuse of monopoly position.
I also read that Microsoft didn't include a PDF creator (and even a reader) for years into Windows in order to avoid being accused of abuse by Adobe.
I disagree with most of your post.
Not so. With the exception of government-granted monopolies, it's rare that companies have an obligation to grant competitors access to their platform. [...] Again, there's nothing illegal about selling a locked-down product, regardless of your market share, otherwise you'd see things like Facebook, Google Search, Windows, etc. being compelled to provide full, public APIs to access every single component of their platforms. Clearly, that isn't happening.
Well Microsoft has been accused under anti-trust laws in both US and EU (forcing IE, Windows Media Player, Office XML formats). Google had some trouble with search too in Europe. Facebook could well be next one day if they abuse their domination in the social networking market to force an other product.
It's illegal to abuse a monopoly position. If EU consider that Google is abusing by forcing Google Search into Android, no matter if it's open or not, they can sue.
So in short, I disagree that Google is in that position because of Android being open.
How about 2015? http://www.consumerreports.org...
Ford is not that bad (slightly below average), but the Asian brands still dominate. Fiat is last by a wide margin.
win10 (and 8?) has built-in support for Miracast, even on non-phone.
No matter if it is a good thing or not, it's an opening from Google to competition, and should please the EU.
You would have had a point 10-15 years ago, when Blackberry was still relevant.
Is that so? I'd wager you'd be hard-pressed to back that claim up by naming a single mobile OS that prevents manufacturers from changing the default. After all, the point is moot with most of the other OSes (e.g. iOS, Windows), simply because the companies behind them do their own manufacturing.
Some Windows Phone manufacturers aren't Microsoft/Nokia. They are forced to use Bing and IE.
And for that matter, it doesn't work in Google's favor here, since by opening the option up and then paying carriers/manufacturers to exclude their competitors, they've opened themselves up to allegations of wrongdoing.
I don't know that it's enough to warrant an anti-competition investigation, but it certainly doesn't help their case.
it would have been even worse if Google locked-down Android and forced everyone to use their search engine and browser.
The only reason Apple has a free pass for doing so is because they have little market share (~13%).