I can't see this as anything other than a positive development.
How are increasing prices, by any stretch of the imagination, a positive development? Thats like saying that increasing the price of food is good because it will help end obesity.
Seriously, has deregulation ever benefited consumers?
Well, seeing as just about everything on the market is deregulated, with the exception of cable companies and power companies, I would say that not having business regulated generally is a good thing. Remember, when the gov't decides to regulate a company, they generally allow that company to be a monopoly. Recently, there have been some smaller DSL companies that have wanted to lay their own wiring instead of using AT&T's existing wiring. However, it was illegal for them to do this, the government forced them to use AT&T's wiring or nothing at all. So while regulating monopolies may sound good at first, keep in mind that the government tends to help the companies keep their monoply as much as they try to regulate the monopoly.
Re:oh, my first chance at seeing the dumb Katz
on
Review: Panic Room
·
· Score: 1
If it was methane, it would have floated. However, they were using a propane tank to pump gas into the room. So unless they went and filled up the propane tank with methane, the gas would not have floated.
Well, I don't really have the time to find that article. Would it be possible for you to give me a quick summary of the straightforward solution to paradoxes?
Re:oh, my first chance at seeing the dumb Katz
on
Review: Panic Room
·
· Score: 1
One other thing that bugged me... since when does propane float??? Propane is hevier than air, and I'm pretty sure that they were pumping propane into the room. Jodie Foster and her kid would have been burnt to a crisp if she lit the propane on fire.
Yes, but your theory fails to take into account paradoxes such as if I kill my father, how could I exist in the first place. If time travel is possible, then there almost has to be multiple universes.
Re:This is the beginning of the revolution
on
Google to Offer API
·
· Score: 1
In recent years intellectual property has shifted from a free market system to a command economy. This has culminated to the DMCA and CARP (Copywright Arbitration Royalty Panel, a government appointed panel). Mark my words, if we continue down this path, the intellectual market will collapse, just as the entire market collapsed in the Soviet Union.
We can't have a single body that determines the prices for an entire segment of the market, it simply does not work. Supply and Demand is the only proven method of determining prices, and 14/100 of a cent per song per listener does not adequatelty refelct supply and demand.
True, but the point that I was trying to make is that the user is not affected either way. Businesses are affected though. I guess that it is not only the small businesses, but also the big ones like Amazon and Yahoo that are harmed too.
This isn't that bad really for the user, Yahoo and Amazon will give a commision to somebody anyways. What really annoys me is that this hurts all the other websites in the world. If I give a legitimate referal from my site to Amazon, then I should get the commision, not Morpheus. If this becomes common practice, then it will effectively kill the way that business is done on the web, and in the process take out a ton of small websites that are struggling to stay alive out there.
Getright does do multiple downloads, but they are generally from the same source, which helps speed things up, but not that much. Getright can do multiple sources, but it doesn't find the other sources automtically, you have to find them yourself. (Yeah, it has a built in Lycos FTP search for files, but that never returns any results).
The size of the file is often used to determine if two files are the same. Even if your two files are similar in size, they will not be the exact same amount of bytes, therefore size is actually a very accurate way to find if two files are the same. I believe that Morpheus used this method.
So why would the government of Germany want their citizens to talk without knowing what they arte talking about? In itself it doesn't make sense.
The same question can be asked as as to why our founding fathers gave us the bill of rights. I guess that sometimes people are just nice. Sometimes, very rarely, the governmrnt does the right thing.
It's getting so that I hardly bother reading/. stories that reference the NYT
Good Grief! Is it really that hard to just register your own account, it takes about all of 5 seconds and its not like you even have to give out any real information. In the time it took you to complain about free registration, you could have already registered an account.
I believe that the original poster made it clear what his ruler was. He stated that any economic intervention of the government was bad. This clearly states that he was using an econoimic ruler, as such your example involving rape is meaningless. Rape is not an economic issue, it does not fall on the economic ruler.
I know that your intentions may be good, but whether or not you go to see movies, the DMCA will still exist. You are basically saying that you should not buy any new cars because you don't agree with seatbelt laws. That would have no effect on the laws. What you CAN do is vote into office people that will help change the DMCA.
Protection of property falls under the 'protection from force' or your definition. And you are right, subsidies are a far cry from capitalism. I too disapprove of subidies to big business (and all businesses, farms, or individuals for that matter).
Being a capitalist country should not rely on government protection of property, seeing as how that is contrary to the concept of capitalism in general. But we do need government intervention to aid private inventors, perhaps in the form of government subsidies.
Erm... I think that you are mistaken as to exactly what capitalism is. In a true capitalist society, the ONLY job of the government is to protect property. Subsidies are definately NOT a capitalist thing.
I think that we're gonna have to agree to disagree on this one. The only point that I am really trying to make though is that by the time the legislation against MS actually allows some competition to get going, the market will have already done the same thing on its own. Hence, the legislation against MS is useless. Oh, and one last thing, just for the record. I never gave the 'Microsoft is too important to be held accountable for their actions' argument. I agree with you that this argument, in and of itself, is ethically unsound.
As a side question, what other company besides Microsoft provides an OS that can run the bulk of the applications available at any software store? I'd like to know.
Well, Macs run about all the software found in stores. It may not be the same software, but just about any regular software (Office, IE, Photoshop) can be found for the Mac as well as Windows.
I personally think the case against Microsoft has managed to be ineffective despite having all the facts on their side
Anti-trust cases are ALWAYS ineffective. it is not simply because of the current politics. In 1911, there was an anti-trust case against Standard Oil. The legislation was ineffective, by the time it was complete, Standard Oil's market share had fallen form 90% to 60%. This was not because of the legislation, but because of the natural development of the market. The Microsoft case is showing the same signs. The legislation is slow, and by the time it is complete there will already be more competition. Keep in mind that the modern OS market is still fairly new. The government never gives markets a chance to work themselves out, they always react too quickly. This legislation is only harming you and I. If it is successful, then MS's products will only become more expensive and of lower quality than they already are.
I guess I don't truly believe that Microsoft actually has a monopoly. There are plenty of alternative OS's, I won't list them all, but a monopoly is specifically ONE company that is the ONLY vendor for a specific type of product. The law does not say that if you have more than 90% of the market share, then you cannot use your semi-monopoly power to prevent competitors. It says full monopoly, which is 100% of the market share.
Not only this, but I disagree with US anti-trust laws. They are biased, and generally end up helping no one because the market is usually able to work itself out before the clunky government is even able to get done with the case against the offending big-business. How mush longer do you think this case agains MS will last? Do you think that by the time the case is finally finished that MS will still have the market share that it has today? I personally don't think so.
Are you the one that modded me? Heh, if so then it sounds like there is quite a bit of bias in your modding.
Anyway, why should MS have to give their API's to other companies like Real? MS develpoed the API's. If they want to, they can keep them forever (until someone hacks around and finds out what they are). And by the way, the only "force" that MS used was that of the market. They didn't use real force (the threat of guns and weapons) like the government is trying to use on MS. (And yes, the government is threatening to use guns on MS. If MS doens't comply with their rulings, don't think that the government wouldn't use weapons to force MS to comply)
But why would this be illegal? Microsoft created an OS that everyone wanted, and as a result, Dell would have gone bankrupt if they did not put it on their computers. If you can explain why this is illegal, please do.
Slashdot Mirror
I can't see this as anything other than a positive development.
How are increasing prices, by any stretch of the imagination, a positive development? Thats like saying that increasing the price of food is good because it will help end obesity.
Seriously, has deregulation ever benefited consumers?
Well, seeing as just about everything on the market is deregulated, with the exception of cable companies and power companies, I would say that not having business regulated generally is a good thing. Remember, when the gov't decides to regulate a company, they generally allow that company to be a monopoly. Recently, there have been some smaller DSL companies that have wanted to lay their own wiring instead of using AT&T's existing wiring. However, it was illegal for them to do this, the government forced them to use AT&T's wiring or nothing at all. So while regulating monopolies may sound good at first, keep in mind that the government tends to help the companies keep their monoply as much as they try to regulate the monopoly.
If it was methane, it would have floated. However, they were using a propane tank to pump gas into the room. So unless they went and filled up the propane tank with methane, the gas would not have floated.
Well, I don't really have the time to find that article. Would it be possible for you to give me a quick summary of the straightforward solution to paradoxes?
One other thing that bugged me... since when does propane float??? Propane is hevier than air, and I'm pretty sure that they were pumping propane into the room. Jodie Foster and her kid would have been burnt to a crisp if she lit the propane on fire.
Yes, but your theory fails to take into account paradoxes such as if I kill my father, how could I exist in the first place. If time travel is possible, then there almost has to be multiple universes.
That's a great idea! You should work for google.
In recent years intellectual property has shifted from a free market system to a command economy. This has culminated to the DMCA and CARP (Copywright Arbitration Royalty Panel, a government appointed panel). Mark my words, if we continue down this path, the intellectual market will collapse, just as the entire market collapsed in the Soviet Union.
We can't have a single body that determines the prices for an entire segment of the market, it simply does not work. Supply and Demand is the only proven method of determining prices, and 14/100 of a cent per song per listener does not adequatelty refelct supply and demand.
erm..., Its only March 24, I still have another month. You had me worried for a second though, until I realized that it was actually March, not April.
Actually, in the release notes, it says that this distribution is not 7.3, but actually 7.2.92
True, but the point that I was trying to make is that the user is not affected either way. Businesses are affected though. I guess that it is not only the small businesses, but also the big ones like Amazon and Yahoo that are harmed too.
This isn't that bad really for the user, Yahoo and Amazon will give a commision to somebody anyways. What really annoys me is that this hurts all the other websites in the world. If I give a legitimate referal from my site to Amazon, then I should get the commision, not Morpheus. If this becomes common practice, then it will effectively kill the way that business is done on the web, and in the process take out a ton of small websites that are struggling to stay alive out there.
Getright does do multiple downloads, but they are generally from the same source, which helps speed things up, but not that much. Getright can do multiple sources, but it doesn't find the other sources automtically, you have to find them yourself. (Yeah, it has a built in Lycos FTP search for files, but that never returns any results).
The size of the file is often used to determine if two files are the same. Even if your two files are similar in size, they will not be the exact same amount of bytes, therefore size is actually a very accurate way to find if two files are the same. I believe that Morpheus used this method.
So why would the government of Germany want their citizens to talk without knowing what they arte talking about? In itself it doesn't make sense.
The same question can be asked as as to why our founding fathers gave us the bill of rights. I guess that sometimes people are just nice. Sometimes, very rarely, the governmrnt does the right thing.
It's getting so that I hardly bother reading /. stories that reference the NYT
Good Grief! Is it really that hard to just register your own account, it takes about all of 5 seconds and its not like you even have to give out any real information. In the time it took you to complain about free registration, you could have already registered an account.
I believe that the original poster made it clear what his ruler was. He stated that any economic intervention of the government was bad. This clearly states that he was using an econoimic ruler, as such your example involving rape is meaningless. Rape is not an economic issue, it does not fall on the economic ruler.
I know that your intentions may be good, but whether or not you go to see movies, the DMCA will still exist. You are basically saying that you should not buy any new cars because you don't agree with seatbelt laws. That would have no effect on the laws. What you CAN do is vote into office people that will help change the DMCA.
Protection of property falls under the 'protection from force' or your definition. And you are right, subsidies are a far cry from capitalism. I too disapprove of subidies to big business (and all businesses, farms, or individuals for that matter).
Being a capitalist country should not rely on government protection of property, seeing as how that is contrary to the concept of capitalism in general. But we do need government intervention to aid private inventors, perhaps in the form of government subsidies.
Erm... I think that you are mistaken as to exactly what capitalism is. In a true capitalist society, the ONLY job of the government is to protect property. Subsidies are definately NOT a capitalist thing.
I think that we're gonna have to agree to disagree on this one. The only point that I am really trying to make though is that by the time the legislation against MS actually allows some competition to get going, the market will have already done the same thing on its own. Hence, the legislation against MS is useless. Oh, and one last thing, just for the record. I never gave the 'Microsoft is too important to be held accountable for their actions' argument. I agree with you that this argument, in and of itself, is ethically unsound.
As a side question, what other company besides Microsoft provides an OS that can run the bulk of the applications available at any software store? I'd like to know.
Well, Macs run about all the software found in stores. It may not be the same software, but just about any regular software (Office, IE, Photoshop) can be found for the Mac as well as Windows.
I personally think the case against Microsoft has managed to be ineffective despite having all the facts on their side
Anti-trust cases are ALWAYS ineffective. it is not simply because of the current politics. In 1911, there was an anti-trust case against Standard Oil. The legislation was ineffective, by the time it was complete, Standard Oil's market share had fallen form 90% to 60%. This was not because of the legislation, but because of the natural development of the market. The Microsoft case is showing the same signs. The legislation is slow, and by the time it is complete there will already be more competition. Keep in mind that the modern OS market is still fairly new. The government never gives markets a chance to work themselves out, they always react too quickly. This legislation is only harming you and I. If it is successful, then MS's products will only become more expensive and of lower quality than they already are.
I guess I don't truly believe that Microsoft actually has a monopoly. There are plenty of alternative OS's, I won't list them all, but a monopoly is specifically ONE company that is the ONLY vendor for a specific type of product. The law does not say that if you have more than 90% of the market share, then you cannot use your semi-monopoly power to prevent competitors. It says full monopoly, which is 100% of the market share.
Not only this, but I disagree with US anti-trust laws. They are biased, and generally end up helping no one because the market is usually able to work itself out before the clunky government is even able to get done with the case against the offending big-business. How mush longer do you think this case agains MS will last? Do you think that by the time the case is finally finished that MS will still have the market share that it has today? I personally don't think so.
Are you the one that modded me? Heh, if so then it sounds like there is quite a bit of bias in your modding.
Anyway, why should MS have to give their API's to other companies like Real? MS develpoed the API's. If they want to, they can keep them forever (until someone hacks around and finds out what they are). And by the way, the only "force" that MS used was that of the market. They didn't use real force (the threat of guns and weapons) like the government is trying to use on MS. (And yes, the government is threatening to use guns on MS. If MS doens't comply with their rulings, don't think that the government wouldn't use weapons to force MS to comply)
But why would this be illegal? Microsoft created an OS that everyone wanted, and as a result, Dell would have gone bankrupt if they did not put it on their computers. If you can explain why this is illegal, please do.