The American government and economic systems are based on two important principles: freedom and equality. Often these two important principles are opposites. However, I believe a strength of the system is the checks and balances that a dynamic equilibrium between these two forces provides. But if one or the other were to become dominant then the system would break.
What I see in the world around me is a case of extreme concentration of wealth, enormous profits for the few, and decreasing wages in real dollars for most. We have a situation where things are out of whack and outside forces must step in to reset the balance. Should that force be a progressive, forward thinking government? Or torch-bearing villagers at the gates? History tells us it will happen one way or the other.
The free market is great for creating efficient processes - but when unchecked by principles of equality we see the socialization of risk and the privatization of reward. The bailout of fanny and freddy mac a good example; superfund cleanup sites another.
So - IF you are paying all your external costs, IF the rewards you get are in DIRECT correlation with the risks you bear, then sure - set your own prices. But I don't see that happening a lot at the higher/bigger levels of our economies and governments.
I believe my argument still holds in the case where profits increase at a higher rate than the cost of living - if the cost of living had doubled then I agree it makes sense that doubling profit (in absolute terms) makes sense.
I am just saying there is such a thing as enough - you don't have to have continuously increasing growth and profits to live a meaningful life. At some point measuring a profit in absolute dollars and cents and declaring that enough is enough makes sense.
Okay - so say that you take your profit of $1000 and live comfortably. For whatever reason, prices go up as you suggest and now you pocket $2000. If the profit of $1000 was sufficient before, why is the (absolute) profit of $1000 not sufficient after?
Current "mainstream" economics rates and values growth - if something is not growing then it is considered bad. That is not sustainable and that is the problem. We need to rethink economics "at the most basic level". Suggested reading, "Deep Economics" by Bill McKibben. There is such a thing as "enough" and there is value in undeveloped resources.
Yep - ditto on all your points. I've got two of these: one at work and one at home. Best keyboard that I have had; both going strong for how ever long that I have had them (which is so long that I don't remember how long that has been).
The M-style keyboards are nice too, but the noise is too much for me.
I predict that nothing will happen to the cameras. The surveillance and the tie-in will be mutely accepted by a population conditioned and resigned to live in fear.
Maybe I'm one of those grumpy people you mentioned...
Have you never had a train set? A switch will have one pair of rails on one side, and two pairs of rails on the other. If you are coming to the switch from the side with one pair, you won't get derailed - you'll just go to one or the other output tracks. But if you are on the other side of the switch it has to be set right to get your train back to the single pair side. If the switch is set to route traffic from the other side rail then you would derail if you didn't stop.
I'm sure there are visual indicators if you are heading into a situation where the track ahead isn't switched correctly (my train set had red and green lights), but it is easy to see how there could have been derailments if somebody was running amok with the switches.
...it's the software - the DRM. I've been an eBook fan for a while - I love the convenience. I have read on many devices - but if you want to get the books that are "protected" then you immediately lock yourself into a scheme that will limit your choices.
I have no experience with either device, but am tempted by both. Either comes with their own DRM hell. If the past and other devices are an indicator, I'd bet that Sony's reader is a beautiful piece of hardware that is utterly crippled by the software they loaded it down with.
I've been happy with using Fictionwise (www.fictionwise.com) - they've got a good collection of stuff and for the non-secure stuff you can download it into many different formats.
Alas that new stuff is more and more coming out in proprietary/secure formats only. So I just check those out from the library.
If you want to put your job up against "the principle of the thing", then that's one thing. But if you like where you work and the people around you then realize that this was likely dreamed up by some consultant that was hired by your HR dept. For most people it's a bit of pointless busywork - somebody has a checklist where your name will remain unchecked until you turn it in.
So - strike out and modify the agreement to something you are willing to live with. Sign it, make a copy, and turn it in. Let your coworkers know about it - encourage them to also modify theirs - but otherwise don't make a stink about it. Your name gets checked off and you (presumably) are not under an agreement you are unhappy with.
In the end, that is what I ended up doing in a similar case.
I completely agree. I suggest, if available, seeing if there are some 1st or 2nd year math grad students nearby. They are probably in the middle of being jaded by teaching sections of intro calculus and would love to spend time helping an interested student with a subject they love. At least that would have been true of me when I was in grad school.
I'm personally in favor of an Approval or Range voting approach - but you are absolutely right it is the voting system that is locking us into two parties. But how do you get representatives to change the system that got them their job? Ug.
I do not depend on the network program directors to raise my kids - if that's what is on, then as a parent I would take steps to limit exposure.
But you are right - freedoms do have limits as a part of living with other people. The question is how those limits should come about - should they be imposed on the many by the few? Should the process be strictly market driven? Should it be a democratic process involving checks and balances that is reviewed and updated over time?
No system is perfect, but I would favor one that is as light-handed as possible.
No, not at all - no computers are involved in analog baseball. However, if you were watching somebody play Head to HEad Madden '07 on their PSP on the bus, then they could cart your ass off to jail.
You say cybersquatting is not simply the result of free market forces, then you go on to cite the free market forces (cheap domain names) that have resulted in the ubiquity of cybersquatting?
I don't think there is anything really new or interesting about cybersquatting vs any other form of trademark infringement and/or deceptive advertising that has been going on for as long as there have been trademarks. It will work itself out in the courts as so many similar things have in years past.
But in the end, I think you are right - this isn't a free market problem. So long as one person is willing to lie and cheat to make a living, the problem will never really go away. Caveat emptor; on the Internet doubly so.
Yeah - and like the time when they invented the threat of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq so they could save us all - at the expense of our personal liberties, of course.
Oh wait - it wasn't the LEFT that did that, was it? It's the extremes that are the problems. True liberals and true conservatives both care deeply about personal liberty.
Good point. Also - if you are of the opinion that both the republicans and the democrats are worthless bags of hot air, then voting for them is also throwing your vote away.
Find a party, better yet - find candidates that you can support whole-heartedly and cast your vote accordingly. Encourage others to do the same. If you don't have compromised electronic voting machines then maybe one day your vote will count!
If the lawsuit is successful, the companies will know they can be held accountable for the actions they were sued for. The company will make a choice - is the cost of changing their behavior less than the cost of even more lawsuits. The benefit to society will come when the companies make positive changes.
This is a major way that things change in America - legal action is part of everyday business.
Actually, I think that a lawsuit can be a market solution. If it means that car manufacturers have to build in enviromental costs of their products into the price, then the public can vote with their dollar. Companies that do a better job of greening up their cars can have lower prices and thus presumably more success.
The thing that is mostly missing is that oil companies and car manufacturers do not have to bear all the costs of their products.
Increasing gas prices would influence buyer/consumer behavior - this lawsuit might influence manufacturer behavior.
...is the other way around - those sites that advertise "Free Porn - Nude Celebrities" and when you go to them there are no nudes, no celebrities, no porn, and nothing is free. What a rip!
Slashdot Mirror
The American government and economic systems are based on two important principles: freedom and equality. Often these two important principles are opposites. However, I believe a strength of the system is the checks and balances that a dynamic equilibrium between these two forces provides. But if one or the other were to become dominant then the system would break.
What I see in the world around me is a case of extreme concentration of wealth, enormous profits for the few, and decreasing wages in real dollars for most. We have a situation where things are out of whack and outside forces must step in to reset the balance. Should that force be a progressive, forward thinking government? Or torch-bearing villagers at the gates? History tells us it will happen one way or the other.
The free market is great for creating efficient processes - but when unchecked by principles of equality we see the socialization of risk and the privatization of reward. The bailout of fanny and freddy mac a good example; superfund cleanup sites another.
So - IF you are paying all your external costs, IF the rewards you get are in DIRECT correlation with the risks you bear, then sure - set your own prices. But I don't see that happening a lot at the higher/bigger levels of our economies and governments.
I believe my argument still holds in the case where profits increase at a higher rate than the cost of living - if the cost of living had doubled then I agree it makes sense that doubling profit (in absolute terms) makes sense.
I am just saying there is such a thing as enough - you don't have to have continuously increasing growth and profits to live a meaningful life. At some point measuring a profit in absolute dollars and cents and declaring that enough is enough makes sense.
Okay - so say that you take your profit of $1000 and live comfortably. For whatever reason, prices go up as you suggest and now you pocket $2000. If the profit of $1000 was sufficient before, why is the (absolute) profit of $1000 not sufficient after?
Current "mainstream" economics rates and values growth - if something is not growing then it is considered bad. That is not sustainable and that is the problem. We need to rethink economics "at the most basic level". Suggested reading, "Deep Economics" by Bill McKibben. There is such a thing as "enough" and there is value in undeveloped resources.
by Adam Rex. Great book - 1st person narrative of a pre-teen girl navigating an alien invasion of earth. Good for kids, good for adults.
Yep - ditto on all your points. I've got two of these: one at work and one at home. Best keyboard that I have had; both going strong for how ever long that I have had them (which is so long that I don't remember how long that has been).
The M-style keyboards are nice too, but the noise is too much for me.
Our first test of Hodgkin's Law of Parallel Planetary Development!
I predict that nothing will happen to the cameras. The surveillance and the tie-in will be mutely accepted by a population conditioned and resigned to live in fear.
Maybe I'm one of those grumpy people you mentioned...
Have you never had a train set? A switch will have one pair of rails on one side, and two pairs of rails on the other. If you are coming to the switch from the side with one pair, you won't get derailed - you'll just go to one or the other output tracks. But if you are on the other side of the switch it has to be set right to get your train back to the single pair side. If the switch is set to route traffic from the other side rail then you would derail if you didn't stop.
I'm sure there are visual indicators if you are heading into a situation where the track ahead isn't switched correctly (my train set had red and green lights), but it is easy to see how there could have been derailments if somebody was running amok with the switches.
Yes - I agree entirely. More cops on the beat - far more effective than mechanical & electronic movie-plot detection devices.
...it's the software - the DRM. I've been an eBook fan for a while - I love the convenience. I have read on many devices - but if you want to get the books that are "protected" then you immediately lock yourself into a scheme that will limit your choices.
I have no experience with either device, but am tempted by both. Either comes with their own DRM hell. If the past and other devices are an indicator, I'd bet that Sony's reader is a beautiful piece of hardware that is utterly crippled by the software they loaded it down with.
I've been happy with using Fictionwise (www.fictionwise.com) - they've got a good collection of stuff and for the non-secure stuff you can download it into many different formats.
Alas that new stuff is more and more coming out in proprietary/secure formats only. So I just check those out from the library.
If you want to put your job up against "the principle of the thing", then that's one thing. But if you like where you work and the people around you then realize that this was likely dreamed up by some consultant that was hired by your HR dept. For most people it's a bit of pointless busywork - somebody has a checklist where your name will remain unchecked until you turn it in.
So - strike out and modify the agreement to something you are willing to live with. Sign it, make a copy, and turn it in. Let your coworkers know about it - encourage them to also modify theirs - but otherwise don't make a stink about it. Your name gets checked off and you (presumably) are not under an agreement you are unhappy with.
In the end, that is what I ended up doing in a similar case.
I completely agree. I suggest, if available, seeing if there are some 1st or 2nd year math grad students nearby. They are probably in the middle of being jaded by teaching sections of intro calculus and would love to spend time helping an interested student with a subject they love. At least that would have been true of me when I was in grad school.
I'm personally in favor of an Approval or Range voting approach - but you are absolutely right it is the voting system that is locking us into two parties. But how do you get representatives to change the system that got them their job? Ug.
If it weren't for that pesky 2nd law of thermodynamics, we could have perpetual orgasmatrons!
Rutkowska should also think about the reward: "If we're wrong, she keeps the laptop." Who the hell wants a laptop infected with undetectable malware?
I do not depend on the network program directors to raise my kids - if that's what is on, then as a parent I would take steps to limit exposure.
But you are right - freedoms do have limits as a part of living with other people. The question is how those limits should come about - should they be imposed on the many by the few? Should the process be strictly market driven? Should it be a democratic process involving checks and balances that is reviewed and updated over time?
No system is perfect, but I would favor one that is as light-handed as possible.
No, not at all - no computers are involved in analog baseball. However, if you were watching somebody play Head to HEad Madden '07 on their PSP on the bus, then they could cart your ass off to jail.
What if your current lifestyle is not sustainable?
You say cybersquatting is not simply the result of free market forces, then you go on to cite the free market forces (cheap domain names) that have resulted in the ubiquity of cybersquatting?
I don't think there is anything really new or interesting about cybersquatting vs any other form of trademark infringement and/or deceptive advertising that has been going on for as long as there have been trademarks. It will work itself out in the courts as so many similar things have in years past.
But in the end, I think you are right - this isn't a free market problem. So long as one person is willing to lie and cheat to make a living, the problem will never really go away. Caveat emptor; on the Internet doubly so.
Yeah - and like the time when they invented the threat of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq so they could save us all - at the expense of our personal liberties, of course.
Oh wait - it wasn't the LEFT that did that, was it? It's the extremes that are the problems. True liberals and true conservatives both care deeply about personal liberty.
I guess we'll find out if CmdrTaco or dptalia get fined...
Good point. Also - if you are of the opinion that both the republicans and the democrats are worthless bags of hot air, then voting for them is also throwing your vote away.
Find a party, better yet - find candidates that you can support whole-heartedly and cast your vote accordingly. Encourage others to do the same. If you don't have compromised electronic voting machines then maybe one day your vote will count!
If the lawsuit is successful, the companies will know they can be held accountable for the actions they were sued for. The company will make a choice - is the cost of changing their behavior less than the cost of even more lawsuits. The benefit to society will come when the companies make positive changes.
This is a major way that things change in America - legal action is part of everyday business.
Actually, I think that a lawsuit can be a market solution. If it means that car manufacturers have to build in enviromental costs of their products into the price, then the public can vote with their dollar. Companies that do a better job of greening up their cars can have lower prices and thus presumably more success.
The thing that is mostly missing is that oil companies and car manufacturers do not have to bear all the costs of their products.
Increasing gas prices would influence buyer/consumer behavior - this lawsuit might influence manufacturer behavior.
...is the other way around - those sites that advertise "Free Porn - Nude Celebrities" and when you go to them there are no nudes, no celebrities, no porn, and nothing is free. What a rip!