Yes, but they were against Sony and Nintendo in that market. Now they are locked against Google and Apple, completely different beasts and hardened veterans in the sector. Look where MSN/Live/Bing is after all these years and and what about the Zune?
Don't take my word for it. On privacyscore.com, you can check the privacy comparisons between Google and MS websites yourself and look at the breakdowns.
Actually, capital appreciation as an investment strategy is quite new. Historically, investing in stocks is all about dividend returns, with a lot of case law around interest and dividends especially in trusts and equity law.
Actually, Google's business is to organize, index and provide access to information. Selling ad-space is just how they profit off their core business, for now. This can change anytime in the future when a better business model appears.
Probably because the update process fails all the time. The Titan had a 9 stage update process consisting of 9 steps in each stage. It took a long time to update and sometimes bricked phones. (This I know because it was available as a company phone previously and I have seen this happen a few times in the office)
I'm glad you're happy with your WP7 phone, but for me, usability is paramount and it fails hard in that measure. The problem is that the UI is based on some graphics designer's wet dream. The typographical elements look cool, but it creates an interface with little graphical differentiation between a list of items. It also means a lot of scrolling to get to what you need. For example, in a typical Android or iPhone, you get 16 to 20 icons in the application menu.
HTC makes all of their premium Android phones in Taiwan. The workplace standards are of course much higher there compared to Mainland China. Samsung, on the other hand uses a number of factories, including ones in South Korea and China to make their flagship Galaxy SII phones.
Most Hong Kongers may be Chinese, but by no mean is Hong Kong reflective of Mainland China. In fact, it's a corporatist/capitalist regime that values monetary wealth beyond all else (the history behind this is too long to mention in a/. post). In fact the GINA (income disparity) coeffiecient for Hong Kong is worse than the mainland, with a small number of very very rich individuals, where the GDP per capita is the second-highest in the far-east (only behind Japan due to the strong Yen). Then you have these poor people living in high-rise slums.. it's sad.
On the other hand, Hong Kong also leads the world pretty much in life expectancy, as there is universal healthcare supplied based on a system similar to the NHS (due to the British colonial influence) for emergency and hospital care, but with a larger private sector and private GPs/family doctors providing various frontline services.
As a heavy gmail user, the new interface is great. There's nothing not to like about it - it's more flexible, has more features and better implemented than the old interface.
But the argument is that the existing privatised system enables the type of inefficient behavior you just described.
In countries that perform better than the US in healthcare, even the non-fully-nationalised systems, the state plays a very big role in regulation and legislation to enable the type of efficiencies you described. However, to admit that there is a role for government is not in the playbook of American conservatives, because they are afraid to promote any idea that deviates from their "Government always leads to inefficiency" script.
The victory of the allies assured US economic dominance for the next 60 years. That would have never happened if Germany conquered all of Europe, and the Japanese all of East-Asia.
If you were around in the 1940's, your isolationist worldview would fit right in with the popular opinion at the time. It was fortuanate that some disagreed with your ilk.
I wrote "The People" as a allusion to how it is written in the Constitution to communicate that the Constitution puts people over government, and empowers The People with the right to not only change the government by vote, but when that fails due to government ignoring the results of such a vote, or refusing to allow a vote, or otherwise ignore the will of The People, to remove it by any means necessary including force. I would argue the majority of the voting public is ready to make those changes. It's now up to the government to decide how it wants this to go down, hard or easy.
On the contrary to what you assert, the constitution is a declaration of the delegation of power from "The People" into a government, recognizing the source of power of government is derived from "The People's right to self-determination", rather than from "The Divine Right of Kings". The mechanism of this delegation is specified in the constitution and is at the heart of the American political system. At the end of the day, the government is an aparatus like any other. It is not the government who is oppressing you, it is some of your fellow citizenry that are - sometimes through the use of unproper influence in government, sometimes through market manipulation, etc..
Let's get this straight. There are no "transfer payments" as such between the Federal government and the States. There is no provision for such a Federal power in the Constitution, therefor it would require a Constitutional Amendment be added, which is extremely unlikely to occur.
"Despite considerable differences in the abilities of states to generate revenues, there is no federal program in the United States that aims explicitly at reducing the disparities in state fiscal capacity."
Transfer payments in the US are not officially declared as such. They are achieved through fiscal programs - for example, building bridges, dams or military bases in certain states. This spending then makes its way up to the states through taxes. As I said previously, all fiscal spending is wealth distribution.
BTW, on that pages you linked from, you might of forgotten to quote the sentence after - "... Certain federal-state transfers, however, do contain equalizing elements. For instance, some formula grants consider a state's personal income in determining levels of federal support. However, most federal grant programs require that each state receive at least.5% of the grant money regardless of population, so large states end up subsidizing small states, thus enabling the small states to have low or no income taxes...."
Wealth (re)distribution by government distorts and destroys a free market and Capitalist economy over time. A Capitalist, free-market economy depends on private sector distribution of wealth in order to function. Government generates no wealth, only consumes it, so it has to first confiscate wealth. The US capitalist economy functions only so long as there is a relatively free and fair market. Forcibly removing wealth that would otherwise go to capital to finance existing and start new businesses hinders that process, and removing wealth selectively destroys a free market.
Wealth distribution by the private sector in the US produces the greatest growth, generation of wealth, best efficiency, and fairest outcomes as compared to any other system yet tried on a comparable scale. It's why the US became the world's greatest superpower in under 200 years from it's founding, and why people from nearly every part of the world dream of coming to the US. They know that it's the one place where someone with nothing can create wealth and raise themselves from poverty to riches.
Your economic claims require backing up with examples or references which you have yet
The interpretation of the written document is what is important - not the interpretation of you or me, but the interpretation of the courts and the political establishment.
No, in the US, as it was laid out in the Constitution, the will (and therefor the interpretation of the Constitution) of The People is what is important, as government and those that work for it are servants of The People. That this relationship has been turned on it's head is one of the greatest problems facing the US, and what is likely to be the root cause of an uprising by The People to replace those in power and reform the government so as to reestablish the role of servants, submissive to the Constitution and The People, for those in government.
Writing "The People" in uppercase does not make what you say true. If you want to make changes to the political and judicial establishment, you are free to by persuading the voting public. Until that happens, your interpretations do not matter any more than Ron Pauls. Don't get me wrong, I never said politicians or judges are above the law - they are after all accountable to the people through the political process representative democracy. I just said that they make and interpret laws, and that's how government works (as defined in the US constitution). Campaign finance reform is a good thing if it can keep vested interests out of government and make decisions based on merit as opposed to lobbying. I believe that's something we can both agree on.
The constitution is not a list of negative liberties. In fact, most of the constitution are articles defining the process and operation of government.
In this context it is still a statement of negative liberties, as those definitions describe the only powers and functions allowed to government, and anything not expressly listed is prohibited. Yet another area where the relationship between Government and The People has been wrongly turned on it's head.
Sorry. There is a very specific meaning to negative liberty and your assertions simply do not fit with your choice of words. Negative liberties are rights for individuals to be free from control of others. This is the accepted meaning in both philosophy and jurisprudence; and hence not really related to the acutal machinery or process of government itself. The term was popularized by Isaiah Berlin back in the 60s but can be traced back much further to the works of Immanuel Kant in which he examines the different "senses" of freedom back in the 16th century.
On weath redistribution, you were confusing wealth distribution between states, and between different demographics. When government functions, it redistributes wealth, money goes in, and then it goes out to different people, you can't avoid that, that's redistribution between demographics. In fact, private enterprises redistributes wealth as well in essence- you might think you have a choice in the private sector, but I can give you many examples in which it doesn't. Natural monopolies and cartels for example redistributes wealth and people dont' usually have a choice - without any government aid or assistance.
Whether it be between the States or The People, wealth redistribution is unconstitutional. Just like individuals, States must stand or fall economically on their own. Just as with individuals, were this not so there would be no reason to behave in an economically-sound manner, as both individuals and States could rely on being bailed out by others when unwise decisions are made and avoid negative consequences for foolish behavior. This is yet another area where government acts unconstitutionally to the detriment of the nation and The People. What we have now is a system in which the Federal government takes in taxes a huge amount of wealth from the individuals of each State and doles out some portion back to State governments under conditions amount
Actually, it is a compliment to call somebody a paid shill. It at least he or she is getting paid for mouthing such useless drivel. Certainly smarter than doing it for free.
Let me repeat my assertion - "In fact, the constitution that you have written down is only the constitutional document, the real constitution is the structure and rules of government in practice that are acceptable by the political and judicial establishments."
The interpretation of the written document is what is important - not the interpretation of you or me, but the interpretation of the courts and the political establishment.
The constitution is not a list of negative liberties. In fact, most of the constitution are articles defining the process and operation of government. Only parts of the constitution, esp. the second amendment, affirm certain negative liberties, for example, the freedom from state intervention in endorsement of religion, and the freedom from the state banning militias and from bearing arms, etc. In fact, the power of government is quite abstract and wide, even considering the limitations of article X.
I also have the feeling, hopefully mistaken, that you have a confused view of negative liberty. Negative liberty can be described as freedom to do something without the interference from others. Certain negative rights are cherished and necessary in a fair and just society, such as the right to free of speech and freedom of religion. However, all societies require individuals to suspends partially some of this liberty to ensure that one's actions does not cause harm to others. The criminal law, for example, is a massive restriction on individual negative freedoms to ensure that society can function.
On weath redistribution, you were confusing wealth distribution between states, and between different demographics. When government functions, it redistributes wealth, money goes in, and then it goes out to different people, you can't avoid that, that's redistribution between demographics. In fact, private enterprises redistributes wealth as well in essence- you might think you have a choice in the private sector, but I can give you many examples in which it doesn't. Natural monopolies and cartels for example redistributes wealth and people dont' usually have a choice - without any government aid or assistance.
What we are concerned about in this context is the redistribution of wealth between states in the EU, or in the US, which you have yet to address. The problem with Greece is that it is in the Eurozone, which mean that it cannot set its own monetary policy. In the US, fiscal problems with a weaker state is dealt with transfer payments from the stronger ones. In the EU there are states which are atill very strong fiscally - such as NL and D, and the question is whether they are willing to commit to the Euro by agreeing to back the risky debt of the weaker ones. That is the core of the debate - and the pressure is piling on Germany and the ECB.
The constitution (of the US) is not the be all and end all of government. There are countries without a written constitution that run fine even. In fact, the constitution that you have written down is only the constitutional document, the real constitution is the structure and rules of government in practice that are acceptable by the political and judicial establishments. Not to mention the founders of the US lived in a completely different economic era and economic as a discipline was only in its infancy when the US was founded. Oh, and one more thing, monetary policy has changed drastically over the centuries.
BTW, natural economic forces also leads to a slew of unsavoury effects that you fail to mention. This discussion had been visited many times in history and there is no point in debating something which is established fact. The latest foray into deregulation of financial markets since the 1980s has only proven what was understood in the past. Technology has made possible now what was not possible before and the financial markets operate at a speed and at a scale that wasn't even imaginable half a century ago. Storms in this emergent system become more destructive, and this translates into lives destroyed when they happen, even to those who are without fault.
Your last point about federal fiscal policy is confusing. You do realise that without this wealth distribution the monetary union would not survive in a modern economy? You will end up with the same situation as the EU is in now.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, but they were against Sony and Nintendo in that market. Now they are locked against Google and Apple, completely different beasts and hardened veterans in the sector. Look where MSN/Live/Bing is after all these years and and what about the Zune?
Please buy our products!
You don't. That's why Google soldiers on.
Right.. more FUD...
What about this?
Don't take my word for it. On privacyscore.com, you can check the privacy comparisons between Google and MS websites yourself and look at the breakdowns.
Actually, capital appreciation as an investment strategy is quite new. Historically, investing in stocks is all about dividend returns, with a lot of case law around interest and dividends especially in trusts and equity law.
Just a bit of packetloss, that's all.
Blackberrys are actually quite big in the UK. The playbook has been doing well after cutting the price of the base 16GB version to 169 GBP.
Actually, Google's business is to organize, index and provide access to information. Selling ad-space is just how they profit off their core business, for now. This can change anytime in the future when a better business model appears.
All of that stuff is included in a modern Linux distro by default. I'm on Fedora and for the Cisco VPN client, all you need is to "yum install vpnc".
That seems to be an isolated incident of an engineer, not a factory worker, so no, it is not the same.
IIRC, all GSM Galaxy Nexuses are made in Korea in 2011.
No, you're just bitter.
Probably because the update process fails all the time. The Titan had a 9 stage update process consisting of 9 steps in each stage. It took a long time to update and sometimes bricked phones. (This I know because it was available as a company phone previously and I have seen this happen a few times in the office)
I'm glad you're happy with your WP7 phone, but for me, usability is paramount and it fails hard in that measure. The problem is that the UI is based on some graphics designer's wet dream. The typographical elements look cool, but it creates an interface with little graphical differentiation between a list of items. It also means a lot of scrolling to get to what you need. For example, in a typical Android or iPhone, you get 16 to 20 icons in the application menu.
HTC makes all of their premium Android phones in Taiwan. The workplace standards are of course much higher there compared to Mainland China. Samsung, on the other hand uses a number of factories, including ones in South Korea and China to make their flagship Galaxy SII phones.
Most Hong Kongers may be Chinese, but by no mean is Hong Kong reflective of Mainland China. In fact, it's a corporatist/capitalist regime that values monetary wealth beyond all else (the history behind this is too long to mention in a /. post). In fact the GINA (income disparity) coeffiecient for Hong Kong is worse than the mainland, with a small number of very very rich individuals, where the GDP per capita is the second-highest in the far-east (only behind Japan due to the strong Yen). Then you have these poor people living in high-rise slums.. it's sad.
On the other hand, Hong Kong also leads the world pretty much in life expectancy, as there is universal healthcare supplied based on a system similar to the NHS (due to the British colonial influence) for emergency and hospital care, but with a larger private sector and private GPs/family doctors providing various frontline services.
As a heavy gmail user, the new interface is great. There's nothing not to like about it - it's more flexible, has more features and better implemented than the old interface.
I don't think the distaste is for the technology, although there may be technical reasons. The distaste is for Microsoft's commercial practices.
It matters becuase you can violate anti-competition clauses even if you are not a monopoly, or not yet a monopoly.
But the argument is that the existing privatised system enables the type of inefficient behavior you just described.
In countries that perform better than the US in healthcare, even the non-fully-nationalised systems, the state plays a very big role in regulation and legislation to enable the type of efficiencies you described. However, to admit that there is a role for government is not in the playbook of American conservatives, because they are afraid to promote any idea that deviates from their "Government always leads to inefficiency" script.
The victory of the allies assured US economic dominance for the next 60 years. That would have never happened if Germany conquered all of Europe, and the Japanese all of East-Asia.
If you were around in the 1940's, your isolationist worldview would fit right in with the popular opinion at the time. It was fortuanate that some disagreed with your ilk.
I wrote "The People" as a allusion to how it is written in the Constitution to communicate that the Constitution puts people over government, and empowers The People with the right to not only change the government by vote, but when that fails due to government ignoring the results of such a vote, or refusing to allow a vote, or otherwise ignore the will of The People, to remove it by any means necessary including force. I would argue the majority of the voting public is ready to make those changes. It's now up to the government to decide how it wants this to go down, hard or easy.
On the contrary to what you assert, the constitution is a declaration of the delegation of power from "The People" into a government, recognizing the source of power of government is derived from "The People's right to self-determination", rather than from "The Divine Right of Kings". The mechanism of this delegation is specified in the constitution and is at the heart of the American political system. At the end of the day, the government is an aparatus like any other. It is not the government who is oppressing you, it is some of your fellow citizenry that are - sometimes through the use of unproper influence in government, sometimes through market manipulation, etc..
Let's get this straight. There are no "transfer payments" as such between the Federal government and the States. There is no provision for such a Federal power in the Constitution, therefor it would require a Constitutional Amendment be added, which is extremely unlikely to occur.
"Despite considerable differences in the abilities of states to generate revenues, there is no federal program in the United States that aims explicitly at reducing the disparities in state fiscal capacity."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equalization_payments#United_States
Transfer payments in the US are not officially declared as such. They are achieved through fiscal programs - for example, building bridges, dams or military bases in certain states. This spending then makes its way up to the states through taxes. As I said previously, all fiscal spending is wealth distribution.
BTW, on that pages you linked from, you might of forgotten to quote the sentence after - "... Certain federal-state transfers, however, do contain equalizing elements. For instance, some formula grants consider a state's personal income in determining levels of federal support. However, most federal grant programs require that each state receive at least .5% of the grant money regardless of population, so large states end up subsidizing small states, thus enabling the small states to have low or no income taxes. ..."
Wealth (re)distribution by government distorts and destroys a free market and Capitalist economy over time. A Capitalist, free-market economy depends on private sector distribution of wealth in order to function. Government generates no wealth, only consumes it, so it has to first confiscate wealth. The US capitalist economy functions only so long as there is a relatively free and fair market. Forcibly removing wealth that would otherwise go to capital to finance existing and start new businesses hinders that process, and removing wealth selectively destroys a free market.
Wealth distribution by the private sector in the US produces the greatest growth, generation of wealth, best efficiency, and fairest outcomes as compared to any other system yet tried on a comparable scale. It's why the US became the world's greatest superpower in under 200 years from it's founding, and why people from nearly every part of the world dream of coming to the US. They know that it's the one place where someone with nothing can create wealth and raise themselves from poverty to riches.
Your economic claims require backing up with examples or references which you have yet
The interpretation of the written document is what is important - not the interpretation of you or me, but the interpretation of the courts and the political establishment.
No, in the US, as it was laid out in the Constitution, the will (and therefor the interpretation of the Constitution) of The People is what is important, as government and those that work for it are servants of The People. That this relationship has been turned on it's head is one of the greatest problems facing the US, and what is likely to be the root cause of an uprising by The People to replace those in power and reform the government so as to reestablish the role of servants, submissive to the Constitution and The People, for those in government.
Writing "The People" in uppercase does not make what you say true. If you want to make changes to the political and judicial establishment, you are free to by persuading the voting public. Until that happens, your interpretations do not matter any more than Ron Pauls. Don't get me wrong, I never said politicians or judges are above the law - they are after all accountable to the people through the political process representative democracy. I just said that they make and interpret laws, and that's how government works (as defined in the US constitution). Campaign finance reform is a good thing if it can keep vested interests out of government and make decisions based on merit as opposed to lobbying. I believe that's something we can both agree on.
The constitution is not a list of negative liberties. In fact, most of the constitution are articles defining the process and operation of government.
In this context it is still a statement of negative liberties, as those definitions describe the only powers and functions allowed to government, and anything not expressly listed is prohibited. Yet another area where the relationship between Government and The People has been wrongly turned on it's head.
Sorry. There is a very specific meaning to negative liberty and your assertions simply do not fit with your choice of words. Negative liberties are rights for individuals to be free from control of others. This is the accepted meaning in both philosophy and jurisprudence; and hence not really related to the acutal machinery or process of government itself. The term was popularized by Isaiah Berlin back in the 60s but can be traced back much further to the works of Immanuel Kant in which he examines the different "senses" of freedom back in the 16th century.
On weath redistribution, you were confusing wealth distribution between states, and between different demographics. When government functions, it redistributes wealth, money goes in, and then it goes out to different people, you can't avoid that, that's redistribution between demographics. In fact, private enterprises redistributes wealth as well in essence- you might think you have a choice in the private sector, but I can give you many examples in which it doesn't. Natural monopolies and cartels for example redistributes wealth and people dont' usually have a choice - without any government aid or assistance.
Whether it be between the States or The People, wealth redistribution is unconstitutional. Just like individuals, States must stand or fall economically on their own. Just as with individuals, were this not so there would be no reason to behave in an economically-sound manner, as both individuals and States could rely on being bailed out by others when unwise decisions are made and avoid negative consequences for foolish behavior. This is yet another area where government acts unconstitutionally to the detriment of the nation and The People. What we have now is a system in which the Federal government takes in taxes a huge amount of wealth from the individuals of each State and doles out some portion back to State governments under conditions amount
Actually, it is a compliment to call somebody a paid shill. It at least he or she is getting paid for mouthing such useless drivel. Certainly smarter than doing it for free.
Let me repeat my assertion - "In fact, the constitution that you have written down is only the constitutional document, the real constitution is the structure and rules of government in practice that are acceptable by the political and judicial establishments."
The interpretation of the written document is what is important - not the interpretation of you or me, but the interpretation of the courts and the political establishment.
The constitution is not a list of negative liberties. In fact, most of the constitution are articles defining the process and operation of government. Only parts of the constitution, esp. the second amendment, affirm certain negative liberties, for example, the freedom from state intervention in endorsement of religion, and the freedom from the state banning militias and from bearing arms, etc. In fact, the power of government is quite abstract and wide, even considering the limitations of article X.
I also have the feeling, hopefully mistaken, that you have a confused view of negative liberty. Negative liberty can be described as freedom to do something without the interference from others. Certain negative rights are cherished and necessary in a fair and just society, such as the right to free of speech and freedom of religion. However, all societies require individuals to suspends partially some of this liberty to ensure that one's actions does not cause harm to others. The criminal law, for example, is a massive restriction on individual negative freedoms to ensure that society can function.
On weath redistribution, you were confusing wealth distribution between states, and between different demographics. When government functions, it redistributes wealth, money goes in, and then it goes out to different people, you can't avoid that, that's redistribution between demographics. In fact, private enterprises redistributes wealth as well in essence- you might think you have a choice in the private sector, but I can give you many examples in which it doesn't. Natural monopolies and cartels for example redistributes wealth and people dont' usually have a choice - without any government aid or assistance.
What we are concerned about in this context is the redistribution of wealth between states in the EU, or in the US, which you have yet to address. The problem with Greece is that it is in the Eurozone, which mean that it cannot set its own monetary policy. In the US, fiscal problems with a weaker state is dealt with transfer payments from the stronger ones. In the EU there are states which are atill very strong fiscally - such as NL and D, and the question is whether they are willing to commit to the Euro by agreeing to back the risky debt of the weaker ones. That is the core of the debate - and the pressure is piling on Germany and the ECB.
The constitution (of the US) is not the be all and end all of government. There are countries without a written constitution that run fine even. In fact, the constitution that you have written down is only the constitutional document, the real constitution is the structure and rules of government in practice that are acceptable by the political and judicial establishments. Not to mention the founders of the US lived in a completely different economic era and economic as a discipline was only in its infancy when the US was founded. Oh, and one more thing, monetary policy has changed drastically over the centuries.
BTW, natural economic forces also leads to a slew of unsavoury effects that you fail to mention. This discussion had been visited many times in history and there is no point in debating something which is established fact. The latest foray into deregulation of financial markets since the 1980s has only proven what was understood in the past. Technology has made possible now what was not possible before and the financial markets operate at a speed and at a scale that wasn't even imaginable half a century ago. Storms in this emergent system become more destructive, and this translates into lives destroyed when they happen, even to those who are without fault.
Your last point about federal fiscal policy is confusing. You do realise that without this wealth distribution the monetary union would not survive in a modern economy? You will end up with the same situation as the EU is in now.