I'm not a luddite, saying that technology dumbs the masses. As my own post said, it can be used as a great educator, but reliance on it is a path that leads to ignorance.
Also with computers there's the whole cut and paste thing... at least with a printed encyclopedia you had to read the content when writing your report.
Technology has the ability to improve everyone's collective IQ, but also has the ability to dumb down the populace. Kind of like TV. I remember tutoring an elementary student when I was a high school student back in '95 or so, and he couldn't do simple math (addition, subtraction, etc.) without his calculator. Sad...
You have adequate savings to support yourself and your dependents for several months
If neither of these conditions apply, then you acted irresponsibly, perhaps how a 7-year old might respond. Now, had they said, "Do illegal act X," or, "Violate your morals in this way," I could see leaving without either of those above two conditions being supported... but I have trouble seeing how using a tool - i.e., VS.NET vs. Borland's offer - is a moral issue in the faintest. And if this is the greatest moral obstacle in your life then you have a very easy, easy life. Or you are just a zany zealot who views technology as a religious experience as opposed to a means to an end.
From what I've read/heard on the radio, many businesses are planning on either leaving California, expanding outside of the state's borders, or are not planning on opening any new facilities within the state, due largely to the state's high taxes, business-unfriendly worker's compensation laws, and socialist-minded legislature. From Businesses Ponder Leaving California [PDF]: "In a recent survey conducted by the California Business Roundtable, about 20% of 400 California businesses said they are planning to move or expand out of state. That's by far the highest figure ever recorded in their survey, the group says."
I think Arnie has helped quell some of the concern businesses had with previous governor Davis, and I do personally believe the State is getting back on track from some rather fiscally irresponsible years, but California does have wildly inflated property prices, high labor costs relative to other states, and an ever-growing illegal alien problem (which helps mitigate the expensive labor for manual labor jobs, but brings with it a high social services cost that must be borne by the citizens of the state).
How about a move away from censorship? I stopped going to Blockbuster and Rogers Video after I found out that they perform their own censoring and scene-removal on films.
I hear a lot of people talk about censorship in Blockbuster films, but when I go to my local Blockbuster I find a lot of "soft porn" adult movies there. (The actual names escape me right now, but they're titles like, "Urban Affair," and have on the cover horny looking, half-dressed women and the pictures on the back show half naked people kissing.) Never rented one, so I don't know how salacious they are, but I always get a good chuckle at the titles and descriptions on the back of the boxes.
You're right, you weren't the one who said: "Get rid of the public schools and you will see a more abused and ill-educated populace than we've had in this country for over a century. Unless of course we all forget about those people who are working at McDonald's and Walmart and can't afford to send their kids to private schools since they don't really matter anyway." That was said by eno2001 at http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=137903&thresho ld=1&commentsort=0&tid=146&mode=thread&cid=1153358 2
I see no reason to believe that a free market approach would successfully achieve *comprehensive* education. Being as we have, as a country, decided that everyone deserves a basic education, the free market approach to it seems designed to fail our desires.
This I agree with - as society we have dictated that public education is something everyone should have. Great. Fine. Government program, all around. No complaints here. My whole point in starting this thread stemmed from the fact that it seemed like the original poster (you?) alluded that without government education there would be only schooling for the elite. I still think my point on that matter holds water, that if schooling were privatized there might be those who fall through the cracks, but to assume that only the upper crust would be educated is absurd. There would be schools of different quality; true, the poorer folks might receive a lower quality education than the rich folks, but to assume that they would receive no education is erroneous, IMO. Capitalism works - choices would spring up for satisfying the eudcational needs of those in varying income brackets. That was my initial point, and one I stand by.
You have some good points, ones that I've thought about in the past and surely agree with you. Never claimed capitalism to be a panacea.
I'm referring to welfare, food stamps, somewhat to social security, yes. Without those, a segment of our population *does not eat*.
Granted, but I think this is more true now than in the past, thanks to the welfare state. For example, my parents live in a small town. A member in their Church congregation was having some hard times, he had lost his job recently, his mobile home burned down, etc. Now, you could say that without these government programs, he would be SOL. He'd be sleeping on the street corner, eating other people's garbage to stay alive. But this didn't happen. People in the Church helped out. They donated items he lost when his home burned down; they offerred him a place to stay while he got his things back in order. They had him over for dinner so he would not go hungry.
Now, you might say that this is a contrived example, that this doesn't happen in our modern world enough. True, I won't argue there, but I wonder if part of this decrease in neighbors watching out for one another is because of welfare. Because of a "the government will take care of it" attitude. (Again, I'm not saying 100% of the people "back in the day" were helped by Church/charity - there definitely were those that fell through the cracks, as there are even those today, even with governmental aid.)
Those who capitalism has rewarded can buy *better* computers than the free government computers, but *everyone* has a computer
From whom will they be buying these computers? I'd imagine once the government started giving away computers for free many of the existing hardware companies - which exist on thin margins - would shrivel up and die. You might still have a company or two around like Apple, one that can successfully market to the Yuppies and convince them to overspend to be trendy, but fewer choices for the consumer means higher prices for those who do want to do their own; less competition means crappier quality all around, even for the expensive options.
To wrap things up on this thread, I don't think capitalism should be necessarily followed to the T. That is, laizze-faire capitalism works but at too great a cost, IMHO. But in the same thought, we should be remiss to ditch capitalism and to hand over tasks to the government that might be better served by the free market. What many people have a hard time with is objetively stepping back and thinking about the pros and cons of taking away some governmental role/agency and moving it back to the free market. Government is like a black hole - once something gets moved there, it's almost impossible to get it back out of their hands. And for some strange reason, many people have a very strong reaction to merely suggesting that such programs might be better handled by the private sector.
A stock option is normally issued at very nearly today's market price for a stock, and is nothing more than the guarantee that stock may be purchased at that price
Yes, I understand how stock options work, but the article doesn't mention stock options. It says the employees are rewarded restricted stock; not stock options. So it is my understanding that the stock is a gift, not a right to buy. But the problem is if there are rules on when they can sell the stock, then the gift today might be worth less when they finally can "cash it in." (Or people may make the mistake of not selling/diversifying, and have their nestegg fluctuate wildly with Google's ups and downs; see Enron for why this is not a good idea.)
Google Inc.'s Internet-leading search engine fueled a sevenfold increase in fourth-quarter profits to soar past analyst expectations.
The Mountain View-based company said Tuesday that it earned $204.1 million, or 71 cents per share, during the final three months of 2004. That compared to net income of $27.3 million, or 10 cents per share, at the same time in 2003.
Yes, they have an insane PE ratio, I won't argue there, but they are a profitably company.
I'm not certain of the details, but oftentimes when a company doles out restricted stock (the type mentioned in the article) there are rules about how long a time must pass before it can be sold. Remember when VA Linux went public? The initial founding folks got assloads of stock which was worth multiple millions when the stock took off on IPO day. However, they could not sell it for six months after the IPO. Well, by six months later, the stock had gone from over $200/share to something around $25/share, IIRC. Today it's worth a shade under $2/share.
RTFA... The headline might imply that employees are getting "millions" each, but in actuality, a reward program worht "millions" is being dispersed among dozens (hundreds?) of employees. I don't think any individual employees have been rewarded with an award worth "millions."
RTFAATWT - that stands for RTFA All The Way Through. In fact, just read the first few paragraphs and you'd see [emphasis mine]:
Brin... said the shares were
****not**** divided evenly, but were distributed according to each individual's contribution. ****Some employees received millions of dollars in stock****, said Brin.
Food isn't a particularly good example for your point, given that prior to the existence of a social safety net (which is not a capitalist concept) starvation wasn't particularly uncommon.
By "social safety net" are you referring to welfare and social security? I'd don't have stats to back this up, but I'd wager that the decrease in malnutrition and starvation today in the US is more attributable to increased wealth and spending power of its citizenry (a byproduct of capitalism) along with technological advances that have made a wide variety of foods readily available year round and safe from spoilage. Of course, government subsidies and tax law help keep prices low (i.e., farm grants/subsidies and no sales tax on food items), but in the same breath one could imagine that prices are kept a bit high by the government by these same devices, as it gives American farmers an unfair advantage and thus robs opportunities from competition in other nations, which would drive down prices.
Similarly, comprehensive compulsory education, while it may not achieve its goal of educating everyone, does a better job at it than a capitalist economic model can.
Eh, you say that, and it makes sense that it would be true, but I don't know if I'd buy into it 100%. For example, imagine that society decided that computers were a "right" that should be enjoyed by all its citizens. So the government uses tax dollars to build factories and hire engineers and starts making computers that they then give away. You might be right in arguing that now everyone can have a computer, but in the same breath, I'd wager that the quality of computers would decrease, as there would be no drive to improve, no competitors breathing down you neck, so to speak.
If you are judging public education strictly by how many people are educated, then, yes, a government funded system will always outperform a capitalistic one. But if you are more concerned about the average quality of education, then I'd argue the capitalist approach would be superior.
Capitalism has its benefits, and its drawbacks. Understanding the latter should be required before you preach the former.
I think I clearly understand the drawbacks of capitalism. I never claimed it to be perfect, but I do believe it to be a better system than the other economic options available. Capitalism is going to really be great for a handful, it's going to suck for a handful, and be better than average for the vast majority. But for this cost to the few who get squished, society as a whole moves forward in leaps and bounds not otherwise possible. (For example, would we have the level of technological advance that we have today if, say, Communism had prevailed from the Cold War?)
The legal disclaimer makes perfect sense to me. Think about it, they get revenue by people using their site, seeing their ads, and clicking on them. Without that legalese, they'd be opening the door for someone creating a search engine branded on their own site that uses MSN as the backend.
Google does the exact same thing, mind you. They have the Google API that lets you programmatically issue search requests but you need a license (granted, it's free) and are limited to 1,000 queries per day. That query limit is Google's way of ensuring it's only used by hobbyists/small-time folks, which, IMHO, is essentially the same thing MS's disclaimer is trying to enforce.
Yeah, my point wasn't that we shouldn't spend public money on free education, but rather I was disputing the claim that if it weren't for public education, then only the elite few would be able to afford schooling. This is simply false.
Capitalism isn't perfect; it inherently fails when the desire is to supply something to everyone
Last time I checked food wasn't free to everyone, yet how many deaths by starvation or malnurishment were there in the US last year? (Granted, there were some, but far less than say those who died from the hands of our military.) What makes capitalism work so nicely is that if there is something a person needs, they're motivated to work, to do something to contibute to societ, in order to make the money needed for the desired object. Yes, it isn't perfect, but I think it is far better than the other economic model alternatives. (Again, I'm not saying schools shouldn't be free, but don't besmirch capitalism...)
The only thing that ever worked is excercise and consuming less energy than the body can burn
Well, duh. It's sad that people don't embrace this nearly as often as they do the latest dieting fad. Personally I think it's healthier to exercise and eat poorly than eat well but not exercise at all. (I have no medical basis in that, just my take on the matter... of course, the best option is to both exercise and eat well!)
Communism had many, many real threats that did come to pass, albeit indirectly. Some examples:
Vietnam - granted, this wasn't war with Russia, but the North Vietnamese were getting funding/supplies from Communist countries, and the whole motivation for US involvement was to stop the spread of Communism in Southeast Asia.
Korea - again, not a battle with Russia, per se, but we did fight the Chinese briefly, when they poured into North Korea. For cripes sake, McArthur wanted to nuke China and take the war further than the Korean borders. Also, North Korea was receiving funding from Communist nations to help with their war effort.
The Eastern Europe Bloc - as Churchill said, there was an iron curtain established, separating East and West Europe between the democracies and Communists.
There were also psychological threats that very nearly came to be... think the Cuban Missle Crisis. I'd say that single event brought us much more close to nuclear devestation than any terrorist has yet. Much closer. There's a great biography film staring Robert Mcnamara and he talks about just how close we came to annihiliation with the missle crisis - The Fog of War - definitely worth checking out sometime....
Get rid of the public schools and you will see a more abused and ill-educated populace than we've had in this country for over a century. Unless of course we all forget about those people who are working at McDonald's and Walmart and can't afford to send their kids to private schools since they don't really matter anyway
The reason private schools are so expensive today is because there are free alternatives that get major funding. For example, imagine that the government gave away cheap food items to any citizen who wanted it - simple sandwhiches, fruit, chips, cookies, etc. Do you think places like McDonalds and Subway would exist? No. The only restaurants that would exist would be ones that offerred food items that were not given away freely - expensive delicacies, ethnic cuisine, etc.
My point, arriving at it kind of backwards, is that if you eliminate free education, a variety of private school offerrings would popup, just like there are a wide variety of restaraunts. There would continue to be top-dollar private schools, sure, but there would also be a smattering of very affordable schooling options. I guarantee it -- capitalism works.
Now, those cheaper schools are likely going to be of much lower quality than the expensive ones - worse buildings/supplies, less skilled teachers, overcrowded rooms, etc. - but to assume that no option would exist if public schools went by the wayside is to not understand or appreciate the beauty that is the free market.
I cut my teeth on CivI back in 10th grade, what a fun little game. When CivII came out, I sunk more hours into that game than I'd like to admit. I thought CivII was a huge improvement over CivI - better graphics, better playability, more techs, more units, etc. In fact, every now and then, when I have no pressing deadlines, I'll fire up C-Evo, which is a pretty slick looking CivII-like game (and free and open-source (Delphi 4)). C-Evo's got a lot of twists on the classic CivII game, new units, different wonders, different effects of wonders, a better diplomacy option, etc.
I tried Alpha Centari in college, but found it's look and feel distracting. I prefer the Earth-like features of Civ. Also, Alpha Centari seemed too military focus, and I didn't like the weird military units. (As with the terrain, I'd prefer soldiers, tanks, planes, etc. over alien weaponry.) I guess my favorite part of the game is growing my cities, discovering new technologies, and establishing alliances with my neighbors. The military part is ok, but I'd rather be at peace with everyone than at war. War, for me, is only fun when I am a modernized nation and I get to pick on some stone aged civ, sending in tanks, bombers, etc. I think I might enjoy the military aspect more if it was more involved - i.e., if a single attack wouldn't just decimate your forces. If there were more variables for accounting the defensive or offensive strength of a unit; if you could plan your attacks better, like having three units attack one simultaneously, or setting up a line of defense in which others could come to the aid of a unit being attacked. Or coordinated attacks/defenses with allies. (I.e., I could agree with an ally to attack a certain city for a certain number of turns...)
Now I've not tried CivIII, so maybe it has a lot of the features I'm looking for, but I am a little doubtful on the reviews I've read and what little I've heard about the game. I am hesitant to give it a whirl b/c I'll be really bummed if it turns out to be a downer, and will likely end up staying up too late, neglecting the ol' lady, putting off working out, etc. as I would be too engrossed in the game if I do enjoy it. Curse you, Sid Meier!
$27 billion has been placed into a tax sheltered trust, from which 5% or so must be disbursed for charitable works per year.
Good point, I misinterpretted that.
The rest is used to further Gates' own agendas, since it is under his control.
Technically I believe the money is under control of the trust's board of directors. Granted, these directors are Bill Gates, his wife, his dad, and someone else, so I would wager they'd let him vote how he'd need to...
I think you are being a bit over-reactive on his motives. You chide him for his charity in India. So would you rather have him not provide help there? And what about the millions given away to charities where there is no direct or indirect gain to himself or Microsoft? What say you about those?
My point is that the man gives away more money than I'll ever have. While there are things you can knock the guy for, I don't see how this is one of them.
I understand the concept of this argument, and many folks have made this point, but what I haven't seen is one concrete example from Microsoft. Can you - or anyone else - point to one Microsoft product line where this has occurred? I cannot think of one...
The problem lies in step #3. Customers are going to balk. At least the big ones are. My inlaws work for mega-large, multi-billion dollar international conglomorates, and their computer systems are updated like once every eight years or so. They just did a big rollout to Windows 2000, and they won't be moving past that for at least another five years.
I think Microsoft's main problem future-revenue wise is that computer software has become a commodity. There's no new killer app around the corner that could justify consumers dropping tons of money to buy it and the new hardware/OS to boot. Software today works well enough, does what it needs. This is not just true for MS, but for other companies that create software for the average end user.
I don't think you understand what tax shelters are used for - they are used to hide gains. But Bill's not making billions of dollars a year. His net worth is tied up in stocks and investments. It's not taxes until he liquidates.
And, even if he is doing all of this charity for purely selfish reasons, you realize that even at the height of the.com boom his paper weath was, what, ~$90 billion, if I recall. So his charity encompasses a third of his net worth. (Forbes pegged his 2003 net worth at $40.7 billion.)
Once you donate more than one third of your net worth, then I think you have a right to talk some smack about Bill Gate's philantrophy - until then, you ought to respect his charity for the billions he's given to schools, AIDS research, etc. I fail to see how someone could chide his charity, even if that someone was a Linux zealot. It would be like an Arab or Jew saying Jesus did no good in his entire life.
If you think Microsoft would do this you have no appreciation for their history of backwards compatability. You should read Raymond Chen's blog. He's an old timer at MS and has oodles of entries talking about various things Microsoft has done to ensure backwards compatibility. Good God, man, they've halted service packs because a game wouldn't run on it, 16-bit DOS applications are still fully supported, and - get this - they've mucked with the actual Windows source code to fix a bug in popular programs. Not only that, but Office will open old school file formats from programs that are no longer even sold, Excel 2003 maintains keyboard shortcuts/behaviors of Lotus 1-2-3... and you really think MS would now just do a complete 180 and not have their own software work with their own older software? I think you are dead wrong.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not a luddite, saying that technology dumbs the masses. As my own post said, it can be used as a great educator, but reliance on it is a path that leads to ignorance.
Technology has the ability to improve everyone's collective IQ, but also has the ability to dumb down the populace. Kind of like TV. I remember tutoring an elementary student when I was a high school student back in '95 or so, and he couldn't do simple math (addition, subtraction, etc.) without his calculator. Sad...
- You have no one to support but yourself,
- You have adequate savings to support yourself and your dependents for several months
If neither of these conditions apply, then you acted irresponsibly, perhaps how a 7-year old might respond. Now, had they said, "Do illegal act X," or, "Violate your morals in this way," I could see leaving without either of those above two conditions being supported... but I have trouble seeing how using a tool - i.e., VS.NET vs. Borland's offer - is a moral issue in the faintest. And if this is the greatest moral obstacle in your life then you have a very easy, easy life. Or you are just a zany zealot who views technology as a religious experience as opposed to a means to an end.I think Arnie has helped quell some of the concern businesses had with previous governor Davis, and I do personally believe the State is getting back on track from some rather fiscally irresponsible years, but California does have wildly inflated property prices, high labor costs relative to other states, and an ever-growing illegal alien problem (which helps mitigate the expensive labor for manual labor jobs, but brings with it a high social services cost that must be borne by the citizens of the state).
I hear a lot of people talk about censorship in Blockbuster films, but when I go to my local Blockbuster I find a lot of "soft porn" adult movies there. (The actual names escape me right now, but they're titles like, "Urban Affair," and have on the cover horny looking, half-dressed women and the pictures on the back show half naked people kissing.) Never rented one, so I don't know how salacious they are, but I always get a good chuckle at the titles and descriptions on the back of the boxes.
The XBOX 2 won't be released in 2005. Just look at .NET 2.0 and how the release date for that keeps getting pushed back further and further....
You're right, you weren't the one who said: "Get rid of the public schools and you will see a more abused and ill-educated populace than we've had in this country for over a century. Unless of course we all forget about those people who are working at McDonald's and Walmart and can't afford to send their kids to private schools since they don't really matter anyway." That was said by eno2001 at http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=137903&thresho ld=1&commentsort=0&tid=146&mode=thread&cid=1153358 2
I see no reason to believe that a free market approach would successfully achieve *comprehensive* education. Being as we have, as a country, decided that everyone deserves a basic education, the free market approach to it seems designed to fail our desires.
This I agree with - as society we have dictated that public education is something everyone should have. Great. Fine. Government program, all around. No complaints here. My whole point in starting this thread stemmed from the fact that it seemed like the original poster (you?) alluded that without government education there would be only schooling for the elite. I still think my point on that matter holds water, that if schooling were privatized there might be those who fall through the cracks, but to assume that only the upper crust would be educated is absurd. There would be schools of different quality; true, the poorer folks might receive a lower quality education than the rich folks, but to assume that they would receive no education is erroneous, IMO. Capitalism works - choices would spring up for satisfying the eudcational needs of those in varying income brackets. That was my initial point, and one I stand by.
I'm referring to welfare, food stamps, somewhat to social security, yes. Without those, a segment of our population *does not eat*.
Granted, but I think this is more true now than in the past, thanks to the welfare state. For example, my parents live in a small town. A member in their Church congregation was having some hard times, he had lost his job recently, his mobile home burned down, etc. Now, you could say that without these government programs, he would be SOL. He'd be sleeping on the street corner, eating other people's garbage to stay alive. But this didn't happen. People in the Church helped out. They donated items he lost when his home burned down; they offerred him a place to stay while he got his things back in order. They had him over for dinner so he would not go hungry.
Now, you might say that this is a contrived example, that this doesn't happen in our modern world enough. True, I won't argue there, but I wonder if part of this decrease in neighbors watching out for one another is because of welfare. Because of a "the government will take care of it" attitude. (Again, I'm not saying 100% of the people "back in the day" were helped by Church/charity - there definitely were those that fell through the cracks, as there are even those today, even with governmental aid.)
Those who capitalism has rewarded can buy *better* computers than the free government computers, but *everyone* has a computer
From whom will they be buying these computers? I'd imagine once the government started giving away computers for free many of the existing hardware companies - which exist on thin margins - would shrivel up and die. You might still have a company or two around like Apple, one that can successfully market to the Yuppies and convince them to overspend to be trendy, but fewer choices for the consumer means higher prices for those who do want to do their own; less competition means crappier quality all around, even for the expensive options.
To wrap things up on this thread, I don't think capitalism should be necessarily followed to the T. That is, laizze-faire capitalism works but at too great a cost, IMHO. But in the same thought, we should be remiss to ditch capitalism and to hand over tasks to the government that might be better served by the free market. What many people have a hard time with is objetively stepping back and thinking about the pros and cons of taking away some governmental role/agency and moving it back to the free market. Government is like a black hole - once something gets moved there, it's almost impossible to get it back out of their hands. And for some strange reason, many people have a very strong reaction to merely suggesting that such programs might be better handled by the private sector.
Yes, I understand how stock options work, but the article doesn't mention stock options. It says the employees are rewarded restricted stock; not stock options. So it is my understanding that the stock is a gift, not a right to buy. But the problem is if there are rules on when they can sell the stock, then the gift today might be worth less when they finally can "cash it in." (Or people may make the mistake of not selling/diversifying, and have their nestegg fluctuate wildly with Google's ups and downs; see Enron for why this is not a good idea.)
To quote:
Yes, they have an insane PE ratio, I won't argue there, but they are a profitably company.I'm not certain of the details, but oftentimes when a company doles out restricted stock (the type mentioned in the article) there are rules about how long a time must pass before it can be sold. Remember when VA Linux went public? The initial founding folks got assloads of stock which was worth multiple millions when the stock took off on IPO day. However, they could not sell it for six months after the IPO. Well, by six months later, the stock had gone from over $200/share to something around $25/share, IIRC. Today it's worth a shade under $2/share.
RTFAATWT - that stands for RTFA All The Way Through. In fact, just read the first few paragraphs and you'd see [emphasis mine]:
By "social safety net" are you referring to welfare and social security? I'd don't have stats to back this up, but I'd wager that the decrease in malnutrition and starvation today in the US is more attributable to increased wealth and spending power of its citizenry (a byproduct of capitalism) along with technological advances that have made a wide variety of foods readily available year round and safe from spoilage. Of course, government subsidies and tax law help keep prices low (i.e., farm grants/subsidies and no sales tax on food items), but in the same breath one could imagine that prices are kept a bit high by the government by these same devices, as it gives American farmers an unfair advantage and thus robs opportunities from competition in other nations, which would drive down prices.
Similarly, comprehensive compulsory education, while it may not achieve its goal of educating everyone, does a better job at it than a capitalist economic model can.
Eh, you say that, and it makes sense that it would be true, but I don't know if I'd buy into it 100%. For example, imagine that society decided that computers were a "right" that should be enjoyed by all its citizens. So the government uses tax dollars to build factories and hire engineers and starts making computers that they then give away. You might be right in arguing that now everyone can have a computer, but in the same breath, I'd wager that the quality of computers would decrease, as there would be no drive to improve, no competitors breathing down you neck, so to speak.
If you are judging public education strictly by how many people are educated, then, yes, a government funded system will always outperform a capitalistic one. But if you are more concerned about the average quality of education, then I'd argue the capitalist approach would be superior.
Capitalism has its benefits, and its drawbacks. Understanding the latter should be required before you preach the former.
I think I clearly understand the drawbacks of capitalism. I never claimed it to be perfect, but I do believe it to be a better system than the other economic options available. Capitalism is going to really be great for a handful, it's going to suck for a handful, and be better than average for the vast majority. But for this cost to the few who get squished, society as a whole moves forward in leaps and bounds not otherwise possible. (For example, would we have the level of technological advance that we have today if, say, Communism had prevailed from the Cold War?)
Google does the exact same thing, mind you. They have the Google API that lets you programmatically issue search requests but you need a license (granted, it's free) and are limited to 1,000 queries per day. That query limit is Google's way of ensuring it's only used by hobbyists/small-time folks, which, IMHO, is essentially the same thing MS's disclaimer is trying to enforce.
Capitalism isn't perfect; it inherently fails when the desire is to supply something to everyone
Last time I checked food wasn't free to everyone, yet how many deaths by starvation or malnurishment were there in the US last year? (Granted, there were some, but far less than say those who died from the hands of our military.) What makes capitalism work so nicely is that if there is something a person needs, they're motivated to work, to do something to contibute to societ, in order to make the money needed for the desired object. Yes, it isn't perfect, but I think it is far better than the other economic model alternatives. (Again, I'm not saying schools shouldn't be free, but don't besmirch capitalism...)
Well, duh. It's sad that people don't embrace this nearly as often as they do the latest dieting fad. Personally I think it's healthier to exercise and eat poorly than eat well but not exercise at all. (I have no medical basis in that, just my take on the matter... of course, the best option is to both exercise and eat well!)
- Vietnam - granted, this wasn't war with Russia, but the North Vietnamese were getting funding/supplies from Communist countries, and the whole motivation for US involvement was to stop the spread of Communism in Southeast Asia.
- Korea - again, not a battle with Russia, per se, but we did fight the Chinese briefly, when they poured into North Korea. For cripes sake, McArthur wanted to nuke China and take the war further than the Korean borders. Also, North Korea was receiving funding from Communist nations to help with their war effort.
- The Eastern Europe Bloc - as Churchill said, there was an iron curtain established, separating East and West Europe between the democracies and Communists.
There were also psychological threats that very nearly came to be... think the Cuban Missle Crisis. I'd say that single event brought us much more close to nuclear devestation than any terrorist has yet. Much closer. There's a great biography film staring Robert Mcnamara and he talks about just how close we came to annihiliation with the missle crisis - The Fog of War - definitely worth checking out sometime....The reason private schools are so expensive today is because there are free alternatives that get major funding. For example, imagine that the government gave away cheap food items to any citizen who wanted it - simple sandwhiches, fruit, chips, cookies, etc. Do you think places like McDonalds and Subway would exist? No. The only restaurants that would exist would be ones that offerred food items that were not given away freely - expensive delicacies, ethnic cuisine, etc.
My point, arriving at it kind of backwards, is that if you eliminate free education, a variety of private school offerrings would popup, just like there are a wide variety of restaraunts. There would continue to be top-dollar private schools, sure, but there would also be a smattering of very affordable schooling options. I guarantee it -- capitalism works.
Now, those cheaper schools are likely going to be of much lower quality than the expensive ones - worse buildings/supplies, less skilled teachers, overcrowded rooms, etc. - but to assume that no option would exist if public schools went by the wayside is to not understand or appreciate the beauty that is the free market.
I tried Alpha Centari in college, but found it's look and feel distracting. I prefer the Earth-like features of Civ. Also, Alpha Centari seemed too military focus, and I didn't like the weird military units. (As with the terrain, I'd prefer soldiers, tanks, planes, etc. over alien weaponry.) I guess my favorite part of the game is growing my cities, discovering new technologies, and establishing alliances with my neighbors. The military part is ok, but I'd rather be at peace with everyone than at war. War, for me, is only fun when I am a modernized nation and I get to pick on some stone aged civ, sending in tanks, bombers, etc. I think I might enjoy the military aspect more if it was more involved - i.e., if a single attack wouldn't just decimate your forces. If there were more variables for accounting the defensive or offensive strength of a unit; if you could plan your attacks better, like having three units attack one simultaneously, or setting up a line of defense in which others could come to the aid of a unit being attacked. Or coordinated attacks/defenses with allies. (I.e., I could agree with an ally to attack a certain city for a certain number of turns...)
Now I've not tried CivIII, so maybe it has a lot of the features I'm looking for, but I am a little doubtful on the reviews I've read and what little I've heard about the game. I am hesitant to give it a whirl b/c I'll be really bummed if it turns out to be a downer, and will likely end up staying up too late, neglecting the ol' lady, putting off working out, etc. as I would be too engrossed in the game if I do enjoy it. Curse you, Sid Meier!
Good point, I misinterpretted that.
The rest is used to further Gates' own agendas, since it is under his control.
Technically I believe the money is under control of the trust's board of directors. Granted, these directors are Bill Gates, his wife, his dad, and someone else, so I would wager they'd let him vote how he'd need to...
I think you are being a bit over-reactive on his motives. You chide him for his charity in India. So would you rather have him not provide help there? And what about the millions given away to charities where there is no direct or indirect gain to himself or Microsoft? What say you about those?
My point is that the man gives away more money than I'll ever have. While there are things you can knock the guy for, I don't see how this is one of them.
I understand the concept of this argument, and many folks have made this point, but what I haven't seen is one concrete example from Microsoft. Can you - or anyone else - point to one Microsoft product line where this has occurred? I cannot think of one...
I think Microsoft's main problem future-revenue wise is that computer software has become a commodity. There's no new killer app around the corner that could justify consumers dropping tons of money to buy it and the new hardware/OS to boot. Software today works well enough, does what it needs. This is not just true for MS, but for other companies that create software for the average end user.
I don't think you understand what tax shelters are used for - they are used to hide gains. But Bill's not making billions of dollars a year. His net worth is tied up in stocks and investments. It's not taxes until he liquidates.
And, even if he is doing all of this charity for purely selfish reasons, you realize that even at the height of the .com boom his paper weath was, what, ~$90 billion, if I recall. So his charity encompasses a third of his net worth. (Forbes pegged his 2003 net worth at $40.7 billion.)
Once you donate more than one third of your net worth, then I think you have a right to talk some smack about Bill Gate's philantrophy - until then, you ought to respect his charity for the billions he's given to schools, AIDS research, etc. I fail to see how someone could chide his charity, even if that someone was a Linux zealot. It would be like an Arab or Jew saying Jesus did no good in his entire life.
If you think Microsoft would do this you have no appreciation for their history of backwards compatability. You should read Raymond Chen's blog. He's an old timer at MS and has oodles of entries talking about various things Microsoft has done to ensure backwards compatibility. Good God, man, they've halted service packs because a game wouldn't run on it, 16-bit DOS applications are still fully supported, and - get this - they've mucked with the actual Windows source code to fix a bug in popular programs. Not only that, but Office will open old school file formats from programs that are no longer even sold, Excel 2003 maintains keyboard shortcuts/behaviors of Lotus 1-2-3... and you really think MS would now just do a complete 180 and not have their own software work with their own older software? I think you are dead wrong.