The many Africa nations where telecom isn't closely tied to the government?
Or the many African nations which have leapfrogged the dominant telecommunications technology here?
Or the many nations that have freed themselves from international standards?
The free-market theory sounds promising, but if I were wrong Australia would not be debating a bill to kill the technologies developed within its own boundaries. That's what happens.
Call me when you can successfully run any kind of reliable low latency service off wireless that doesn't cost you more then deploying same service over a landline. Until then, all you can really do is cite advertisement and PR material of wireless operators.
Those wireless operators, and their landline corporate companions, do not represent the stable edge of what can be done technically and economically.
They manage protected franchises limited to competition among themselves.
Stomping on the implementation of wireless technologies that could put them into permanent obsolescence has been their main source of income for decades now.
MCI once stood for Microwave Communications Incorporate, but it only got to play in (the real) AT&T's game after going through enough bankruptcies to put fund managers in charge and becoming a price-weapon for the newly-regional twisted-pair monopolies.
Marty Cooper, who can be fairly credited with turning wireless communications an aspect of global infrastructure, has tried to get the world to appreciate how antenna technologies and associated spectrum-splitting devices could bypass the requirement for any physical conductor for a wide range of uses.
The companies that have run telecommunications networks alternately brag about then weep over their investments in buried strings and ten-years-too-late-switches and in this and that overdetermined long-delayed technical standard and in coveys of towers and satellites, but where they actually spend the money is on keeping the field to themselves -- seizing exclusive government-granted franchises, erecting barriers to obsolescence, and researching and developing untrustworthy pricing and billing operations.
Since none of this seems about to change, your point is well taken.
That was my first thought, too. Then I remembered something.
In the oil extraction business, there is a phenomenon known as the "gusher". It is the uncontrolled upward rush of oil and gas. It was quite common in the early days, when the techniques were new. It required a very messy and haphazard solution known as capping the well. Often, the gusher would catch fire, and very expensive specialists would have to fly in to regain control.
Correct, but there are even more factors to weigh. Two examples:
The political entrenchment of the hydrocarbon industry (OPEC, etc.) crushes sensible policy deliberations everywhere. There must be recognition that the world has become a colony of the hydrocarbon oligopoly and oligarchy, and that the measures needed to break this political domination do not reflect what we would do once free.
There is a risk of mass extermination if the frozen underwater hydrocarbons start turning gaseous independently of human mining. Once the bubbling begins, the heating effect and the turbulence will accelerate it, then increase the rate of acceleration, until the atmosphere and the climate are toxic to our species. We are playing with fire, but we've been playing with fire for the duration of the industrial era.
Oh, you mean they're broke and their lives are ruined?
Could it be because they don't don't buy their heroin from Bayer, which invented and introduced the product, but from the only kind of distributor able to stay in business under the current regime -- a monopolistic gang of greedy murders?
Nice theory, but counterfactual.
Drug use has not changed much since around 1906, when the law required canners and bottlers to disclose what's in their products. Cocaine and opium use plunged once people knew what they were taking. We did not then and we do not need now to take care of remaining users, unless you are talking about tobacco and alcohol, truly harmful substances.
Since then, the lives of millions have been ruined by a violent war on those who use drugs. This is true even of methamphetamine, commonly available until the expanding army of salary-and-pension addicts needed to find new markets for their brutal services. The public expense of this war is horrendous, but worse is the savage reduction of person freedom it has wrought -- criminalizing of currency, sniffing and invasion of every aspect of private life.
In your tagline the phrase "for all intensive purposes" is an aural misconstruing of the phrase "for all intents and purposes". Please convey our consternation to whomever you consulted for editorial emendations.
Both authors are law professors.
The Wharton School just publishes the journal where the article appears.
The Wharton School is the business school of The University of Pennsylvania, which does have a renowned medical school - the School of Medicine.
Wharton does have a Department of Health Care Management, but neither author is listed on that faculty.
So you wouldn't object to a first-person shooter game called, say, Casanova's Conquests, in which the Player dies if the seduced opponent reaches orgasm before being abandoned.
Slashdot Mirror
The many Africa nations where telecom isn't closely tied to the government? Or the many African nations which have leapfrogged the dominant telecommunications technology here? Or the many nations that have freed themselves from international standards? The free-market theory sounds promising, but if I were wrong Australia would not be debating a bill to kill the technologies developed within its own boundaries. That's what happens.
Call me when you can successfully run any kind of reliable low latency service off wireless that doesn't cost you more then deploying same service over a landline. Until then, all you can really do is cite advertisement and PR material of wireless operators.
Those wireless operators, and their landline corporate companions, do not represent the stable edge of what can be done technically and economically.
They manage protected franchises limited to competition among themselves.
Stomping on the implementation of wireless technologies that could put them into permanent obsolescence has been their main source of income for decades now.
MCI once stood for Microwave Communications Incorporate, but it only got to play in (the real) AT&T's game after going through enough bankruptcies to put fund managers in charge and becoming a price-weapon for the newly-regional twisted-pair monopolies.
Marty Cooper, who can be fairly credited with turning wireless communications an aspect of global infrastructure, has tried to get the world to appreciate how antenna technologies and associated spectrum-splitting devices could bypass the requirement for any physical conductor for a wide range of uses.
The companies that have run telecommunications networks alternately brag about then weep over their investments in buried strings and ten-years-too-late-switches and in this and that overdetermined long-delayed technical standard and in coveys of towers and satellites, but where they actually spend the money is on keeping the field to themselves -- seizing exclusive government-granted franchises, erecting barriers to obsolescence, and researching and developing untrustworthy pricing and billing operations.
Since none of this seems about to change, your point is well taken.
So the Chinese can find the phony files and feel smug when the United States of America pretends to be worried.
That was my first thought, too. Then I remembered something.
In the oil extraction business, there is a phenomenon known as the "gusher". It is the uncontrolled upward rush of oil and gas. It was quite common in the early days, when the techniques were new. It required a very messy and haphazard solution known as capping the well. Often, the gusher would catch fire, and very expensive specialists would have to fly in to regain control.
Correct, but there are even more factors to weigh. Two examples:
The political entrenchment of the hydrocarbon industry (OPEC, etc.) crushes sensible policy deliberations everywhere. There must be recognition that the world has become a colony of the hydrocarbon oligopoly and oligarchy, and that the measures needed to break this political domination do not reflect what we would do once free.
There is a risk of mass extermination if the frozen underwater hydrocarbons start turning gaseous independently of human mining. Once the bubbling begins, the heating effect and the turbulence will accelerate it, then increase the rate of acceleration, until the atmosphere and the climate are toxic to our species. We are playing with fire, but we've been playing with fire for the duration of the industrial era.
Oh, you mean they're broke and their lives are ruined? Could it be because they don't don't buy their heroin from Bayer, which invented and introduced the product, but from the only kind of distributor able to stay in business under the current regime -- a monopolistic gang of greedy murders?
Nice theory, but counterfactual. Drug use has not changed much since around 1906, when the law required canners and bottlers to disclose what's in their products. Cocaine and opium use plunged once people knew what they were taking. We did not then and we do not need now to take care of remaining users, unless you are talking about tobacco and alcohol, truly harmful substances. Since then, the lives of millions have been ruined by a violent war on those who use drugs. This is true even of methamphetamine, commonly available until the expanding army of salary-and-pension addicts needed to find new markets for their brutal services. The public expense of this war is horrendous, but worse is the savage reduction of person freedom it has wrought -- criminalizing of currency, sniffing and invasion of every aspect of private life.
Distrust is the biggest hog of brain resources. Followed by self-doubt. In this unspeakable snob, both modules are reduced to vestigial place-savers.
If you could care less, then must care care some.
Like Abby Hoffman wasn't serious.
In your tagline the phrase "for all intensive purposes" is an aural misconstruing of the phrase "for all intents and purposes". Please convey our consternation to whomever you consulted for editorial emendations.
Klick lists an affliation with "The Property and Environmental Research Center" -- publishers of such classics as "The Benefits of Climate Change".
Both authors are law professors. The Wharton School just publishes the journal where the article appears. The Wharton School is the business school of The University of Pennsylvania, which does have a renowned medical school - the School of Medicine. Wharton does have a Department of Health Care Management, but neither author is listed on that faculty.
So you wouldn't object to a first-person shooter game called, say, Casanova's Conquests, in which the Player dies if the seduced opponent reaches orgasm before being abandoned.