Re:Shocking example of Industry gone awry.
on
UCITA is passed
·
· Score: 1
Personally I know people who live on a subsistence salary. Subsistence means they have to buy the cheapest goods available in order to survive.
Yup, I'm one that can't afford much more than the minimum. The real point is that the chemicals make it cheaper to grow the produce, the beef industry uses hormones, etc. It makes it cheaper for the grower and some of the decreased cost is passed to the consumer. If they (and I) can't afford to buy organically grown food or grow their own then they will unfortunately have to go with what is available (as I am). If someone could figure out a way to grow food organically for less money then that would be wonderful, but until that time I don't think that I will ask producers to supply me with food at prices that will potentially put them out of business.
Simplistic
Yup (once again), I didn't claim that it covered all possibilities. It was intended as just one of the possibilities (you covered several others and there are many, many more) and it is the only one the related to what I was discussing so there was no point in discussing the others. My point was that with increased demand for organic food there will be more people willing to produce organic food and more profits to be spread around. Your other scenarios are fine but had nothing to do with that argument.
I feel I'm not gonna sit around to wait for them to decrease their profits to "deal with it".
Me neither, I was actually referring to consumers and how I don't think they have the right to ask for a Mercedes at a Yugo price (I know thats overkill but I'm just trying to prove a point).
There's plenty that we both probably agree on (the need for keeping tabs on what companies do, preventing widespread abuse of the environment and our rights, etc.) but we don't appear to be getting our points across to each other effectively here.
Re:Shocking example of Industry gone awry.
on
UCITA is passed
·
· Score: 1
I guess you've never heard of organically grown (and certified) food. If pesticides bother you then put your money where your mouth is and buy organic food. If enough people do this then the organic producers will make more money and more producers will "go organic" and show that there are profits to be made. And the argument that its too expensive doesn't really hold water either, if its important enough to you then you will spend the money on it (the difference isn't that huge). The same argument is used by people that want to use recycled paper but don't want the added expense. It costs more money so you have to be willing to deal with it. I'm not going to deny that there are evil companies out there and there are too many monopolies (>1 is too many) but there is almost always an alternative, when there isn't an alternative then we are forced to hope that the government will do something (which is shaky at best).
WRONG. Let me quote the Perl slogan out of context: "There's More Than One Way To Do It". Corporations use many means to increase profits. For example, advertising, as someone pointed out above.
This is about the only part that I agree with
For example, if it is not profitable for corporations to produce eco-friendly products vs. eco-unfriendly products, they will produce much more of the latter. I think it is absurd to conclude from this that consumers "want" or "like" pollution, for example.
True, its doubtful that consumers like or want pollutioin. This example also shows that consumers do have some power (and in some case quite a bit of power). According to your model, the corporations would only do things that would maximize their profits (and I agree with that). So why is it that we see more and more "eco-friendly" companies, more recycling, companies stopping the use of child labor overseas, pollution reduction, community involvement and improvements (the list can go on and on). It certainly isn't increasing their profits to use more expensive labor or production techniques. It is going to increase their profits in the long run because consumers have made it clear that they want a cleaner environment, fair labor practices, etc. The company is maximizing their profits in the long run if they listen to their customers and give them what they want. To say that companies give consumers what the companies want and the consumers must take it is superficial, actually, that is called a monopoly, or as economists call it "market failure". For the free market to work there must be choice.
Anyway, you're just baldy asserting that THE way for corporations to maximize their profit is to make the "best possible products". This idea I frankly find simplistic to the point of absurdity.
Again I have to say that what you are saying is closer to absurd than what the other person posted. If there is really a market (and not a monopoly) then the corp. that doesn't produce the best possible product that the comsumers (as a whole) want then their product won't be bought and the company will not survive. Most of your assumptions seem to be pointing to all corporations being a monopoly. I don't think that is the case but UCITA seems to be trying to give monopoly (market FAILURE) power to all software companies. I do agree that most likely a company isn't making the "best" product but with a free market the trend is towards "better" and what the customer wants. With a monopoly that isn't the case, the trend is towards more profit and towards what is better for the company.
The other person seemed to be arguing that a free market is a good thing and I whole heartedly agree. You say that his thinking is wrong but you are using the assumption that it is in a monopoly setting. I guess you could say that you are correct in one sense because if you try to use freedom of choice in a monopoly setting then you are screwed (that is why it is called market failure) but that was not the point. The point was that if you get rid of the market failure then good things will happen and the product will be better and the customers happier. UCITA is an attempt to give more monopoly power but for those of us that know about and use "free" software we will choose to not support the monopolists (of course most of us here already don't support them). I feel that the end result is that more people will be forced to join our club (which is good) but I feel sorry for those people that are stuck with the newer monopolistic powers (if UCITA is made into law in all states, which I doubt that it will)
I don't know, maybe it has something to do with www.chaos.org, www.cha0s.org, and www.khaos.org already being taken. Ya think? Let someone name it what they want. Hackers (I'm not one) get all pissy about being lumped in with crackers, so why not just judge this on its merits. A novel idea I'm sure. Feel free to use whatever you want, however, choice is good.
I understand the need to be able to read what someone else has written but I don't agree that buying Micro$oft products is the answer (not now or in the future). I think it would be great to force them to publish their file formats but I seem to get along fine without that. When someone sends me a document that I cannot read then I reply and tell them that they will need to send me something in a format that I can read. I have started using LaTeX when I feel the need to get something done right. My guess is that the way that an individual has formatted their particular document is probably useless anyhow. I care about the content and not the typesetting (which is probably done incorrectly anyhow) so they can give me something simple and if I want it to look pretty I cut and paste into a LaTeX file and it looks better than the original author could ever hope for. All that I ask is that a person give me something that I can read whether it is in a compatible format, plain text, or LaTeX (or something else that will work). If a person doesn't give me that on the first try then I tell them what I want and make them do the work to make it readable to me.
I don't know that much about the legal soundness of the GPL but what appears to be legally sound and what actually washes out in court are frequently two different things. It is not uncommon for the US Forest Service to ask someone to sue them to find out exactly what the results of a new law or regulation will be. Laws can seem sound when you read them but until they are tested in court there will always be a possibility that the end result will not be what you intended. I for one hope that there is no need for it to be challenged in court but with more $$$ appearing in the Linux world the likelihood seems pretty good that it will be challenged some day.
Slashdot Mirror
to survive.
Yup, I'm one that can't afford much more than the minimum. The real point is that the chemicals make it cheaper to grow the produce, the beef industry uses hormones, etc. It makes it cheaper for the grower and some of the decreased cost is passed to the consumer. If they (and I) can't afford to buy organically grown food or grow their own then they will unfortunately have to go with what is available (as I am). If someone could figure out a way to grow food organically for less money then that would be wonderful, but until that time I don't think that I will ask producers to supply me with food at prices that will potentially put them out of business.
Simplistic
Yup (once again), I didn't claim that it covered all possibilities. It was intended as just one of the possibilities (you covered several others and there are many, many more) and it is the only one the related to what I was discussing so there was no point in discussing the others. My point was that with increased demand for organic food there will be more people willing to produce organic food and more profits to be spread around. Your other scenarios are fine but had nothing to do with that argument.
I feel I'm not gonna sit around to wait for them to decrease their profits to "deal with it".
Me neither, I was actually referring to consumers and how I don't think they have the right to ask for a Mercedes at a Yugo price (I know thats overkill but I'm just trying to prove a point).
There's plenty that we both probably agree on (the need for keeping tabs on what companies do, preventing widespread abuse of the environment and our rights, etc.) but we don't appear to be getting our points across to each other effectively here.
I guess you've never heard of organically grown (and certified) food. If pesticides bother you then put your money where your mouth is and buy organic food. If enough people do this then the organic producers will make more money and more producers will "go organic" and show that there are profits to be made. And the argument that its too expensive doesn't really hold water either, if its important enough to you then you will spend the money on it (the difference isn't that huge). The same argument is used by people that want to use recycled paper but don't want the added expense. It costs more money so you have to be willing to deal with it. I'm not going to deny that there are evil companies out there and there are too many monopolies (>1 is too many) but there is almost always an alternative, when there isn't an alternative then we are forced to hope that the government will do something (which is shaky at best).
This is about the only part that I agree with
For example, if it is not profitable for corporations to produce eco-friendly products vs. eco-unfriendly products, they will produce much more of the latter. I think it is absurd to conclude from this that consumers "want" or "like" pollution, for example.
True, its doubtful that consumers like or want pollutioin. This example also shows that consumers do have some power (and in some case quite a bit of power). According to your model, the corporations would only do things that would maximize their profits (and I agree with that). So why is it that we see more and more "eco-friendly" companies, more recycling, companies stopping the use of child labor overseas, pollution reduction, community involvement and improvements (the list can go on and on). It certainly isn't increasing their profits to use more expensive labor or production techniques. It is going to increase their profits in the long run because consumers have made it clear that they want a cleaner environment, fair labor practices, etc. The company is maximizing their profits in the long run if they listen to their customers and give them what they want. To say that companies give consumers what the companies want and the consumers must take it is superficial, actually, that is called a monopoly, or as economists call it "market failure". For the free market to work there must be choice.
Anyway, you're just baldy asserting that THE way for corporations to maximize their profit is to make the "best possible products". This idea I frankly find simplistic to the point of absurdity.
Again I have to say that what you are saying is closer to absurd than what the other person posted. If there is really a market (and not a monopoly) then the corp. that doesn't produce the best possible product that the comsumers (as a whole) want then their product won't be bought and the company will not survive. Most of your assumptions seem to be pointing to all corporations being a monopoly. I don't think that is the case but UCITA seems to be trying to give monopoly (market FAILURE) power to all software companies. I do agree that most likely a company isn't making the "best" product but with a free market the trend is towards "better" and what the customer wants. With a monopoly that isn't the case, the trend is towards more profit and towards what is better for the company.
The other person seemed to be arguing that a free market is a good thing and I whole heartedly agree. You say that his thinking is wrong but you are using the assumption that it is in a monopoly setting. I guess you could say that you are correct in one sense because if you try to use freedom of choice in a monopoly setting then you are screwed (that is why it is called market failure) but that was not the point. The point was that if you get rid of the market failure then good things will happen and the product will be better and the customers happier. UCITA is an attempt to give more monopoly power but for those of us that know about and use "free" software we will choose to not support the monopolists (of course most of us here already don't support them). I feel that the end result is that more people will be forced to join our club (which is good) but I feel sorry for those people that are stuck with the newer monopolistic powers (if UCITA is made into law in all states, which I doubt that it will)
Dave
I don't know, maybe it has something to do with www.chaos.org, www.cha0s.org, and www.khaos.org already being taken. Ya think? Let someone name it what they want. Hackers (I'm not one) get all pissy about being lumped in with crackers, so why not just judge this on its merits. A novel idea I'm sure. Feel free to use whatever you want, however, choice is good.
I understand the need to be able to read what someone else has written but I don't agree that buying Micro$oft products is the answer (not now or in the future). I think it would be great to force them to publish their file formats but I seem to get along fine without that. When someone sends me a document that I cannot read then I reply and tell them that they will need to send me something in a format that I can read. I have started using LaTeX when I feel the need to get something done right. My guess is that the way that an individual has formatted their particular document is probably useless anyhow. I care about the content and not the typesetting (which is probably done incorrectly anyhow) so they can give me something simple and if I want it to look pretty I cut and paste into a LaTeX file and it looks better than the original author could ever hope for.
All that I ask is that a person give me something that I can read whether it is in a compatible format, plain text, or LaTeX (or something else that will work). If a person doesn't give me that on the first try then I tell them what I want and make them do the work to make it readable to me.
I don't know that much about the legal soundness of the GPL but what appears to be legally sound and what actually washes out in court are frequently two different things. It is not uncommon for the US Forest Service to ask someone to sue them to find out exactly what the results of a new law or regulation will be. Laws can seem sound when you read them but until they are tested in court there will always be a possibility that the end result will not be what you intended. I for one hope that there is no need for it to be challenged in court but with more $$$ appearing in the Linux world the likelihood seems pretty good that it will be challenged some day.