Your anaology doens't work. Microsoft doesn't catch up when it wins, it simply brings a crappy product to the market that the majority of the people buy.
Microsoft made its greatest in-roads in the desktop market with Windows 3.1 - are you going to argue with me that Windows 3.1 was anywhere near the Mac? I hope not, because everyone can agree that 3.1 was the worst abomination of programming ever.
Micrsoft doesn't make superior products - it makes products for the uniformed masses. Btw, the jury is still out on the PDA market - another industry segment created by that Cupertino fruit company...
Re:Intel is the real winner
on
HP Buys Compaq
·
· Score: 1
With the continued decline of Motorola, I think it's high time that the PowerPC alliance gets some new blood, along with new terms to abide by. Instead of the Apple-IBM-Motorola alliance, why not the Apple-IBM-AMD alliance? AMD seems to have its act together, and I believe they could do really well if they stopped trying to outdo Intel at processor bloat.
Apple should definitely be the driving force behind chip architecture development, leaving fabrication duties to the other partners. It's time to really start pouring development into the future of the PPC, which is truly the only viable alternative to Intel hegemony.
I'm going to help out the majority of you by explaining a few simple concepts of the US Constitution, as well as some principles of the free market - because most of you desperately need this assistance. It really bothers me that so many are so ignorant of the truth. Whatever you think the moral implications are of stem cell research, the fact remains that federal funding of it is unconstitutional. Most individuals on both sides of the political spectrum seemingly forget that the Constitution - the highest law of the land - settles nearly all of the issues concerning the size and scope of the federal government. It's when we as a nation choose deviate from the Constitution that we have problems.
People may not want to admit it, but the Constitution of the United States of America prohibits federal stem-cell research funding. I'm not saying that it prohibits the research altogether, but it does prohibit federal funding. If you don't believe me, just take a look at Article 1: Section 8 of the Constitution, which details the powers granted to Congress.
You won't see an "indiscriminate spending clause" or a "total jurisdiction clause" in there, because the federal government was never, ever granted those types of powers. The federal government is limited to some specific duties with very little wiggle room beyond that. The founders created a limited government purposefully, one that would serve to protect the nation militarily; one that would serve to preserve personal liberty. The founders did this because they hated the cesspool of European politics, and they knew the tendency for government to constantly expand and impose its will on its citizenry.
Federal funding for stem cell research is simply unconstitutional; a majority of the taxes imposed and duties executed by the federal government today are also unconstitutional. The legality of stem cell research must be left up to individual states, and the funding for that research must be left up to the private sector.
The checks on the federal government also arose from the realization that government can never match the private sector's performance. The simple economic principles of supply and demand and competition are at play here. When the government sets forth to complete an objective, it obviously has no competition and therefore no reason to work well. The government doesn't have to worry all that much about profits or losses - if it needs more money, it decides to tax the citizenry more. And the government can choose to embark on the wrong quest because it isn't constrained by supply and demand. The government is simply terrible at handling things that belong properly to the private sector.
The private sector, in contrast, will constantly improve products and services - making them better and cheaper - because if one company doesn't strike, its competition will surely do so. Capitalism is the only way to go, and the subversion of capitalism, like the subversion of the Constitution, will send us down a dark path.
A good recent example of the power of the private sector is the human genome project. The federal government provided funding to one group of scientists to do the work, while another group of scientists utilized the private sector. The government funded researchers had modest goals for completion of the product, when compared to the privately funded researchers. Long story short, the privately funded scientists finished much farther ahead of the government's scientists, simply because they had the incentive to succeed. The government's money was useless, because the private sector yielded completely superior results; the government didn't care about the money spent because they were only spending the people's money.
And if you still can't grasp my point about government entering into the private sphere, please think for yourself for a moment about the government programs you like or think are productive. Can you think of any? Tell me if you like any of these public sector programs:
The ever increasing cost of health care, courteous of government over regulation; subsidized government slums; the continued decline of American public education, despite the fact that the government spends a great deal more on it than it did 20 years ago; airline delays resulting from stone age technology employed by FAA air traffic control systems; being taxed half of your income; the sham of social security; privacy violations (carnivore, etc.); the IRS. . . Which of these features do you like?
If you like any of that, you must also want the government to encroach on the rest of the private sector. Would you like government fast food and government clothing? Would you like a government controlled Internet or government controlled computer corporations? Government control of the media? Should the government take over all property rights? I mean, since most of you believe that the government should have a role in funding everything, it's only logical that the government should have control over even more than it has now - it should, according to most of you, control everything. What a commie-fascist paradise that would be, huh? The really problematic thing is, though, this nation's concept of government would only have to mutate some additional steps before American totalitarianism would be realized.
Look, I'm not some kind of militia nut; I'm not preaching open rebellion against the sovereign. If what I've written has caused even one person to rethink his or her politics, then I would be a happy libertarian Republican. It is a real struggle to teach the truth, but it must be done. I will never back down when some challanges my principles, but no one ever said standing up for what's right is easy.
If you appreciate any of the points I've made, I encourage you to read your Constitution and live by it - don't just pay it lip service. Vote for those candidates who are truly committed to ending unconstitutional practices of government; vocally support those personalities who share a like opinion. We must make a choice, on this day, to either be committed to liberty and the true American way, or else choose automatically to submit to the inexorable march of this nation toward totalitarian rule.
Dude, Mentifex, you're a total friggin moron. Go to hell you communist scumbag, okay? Renounce your American citizenship, and go live in the communist paradise of Cuba or China. Alternatively, you may go to hell.
You and your fellow travelers are the only true problem with America. G-d bless President George W. Bush; G-d bless America. (By the way, the United States is a Constitutional Republic, which is very different from representative or pure democracy.)
Hear hear! I don't have any problems with my tradiitonal credit card, and while I am both bothered by skimming and aware that progress must be made, I believe it's better to wait on this technology until the public is assured of how exactly it operates.
The most distressing issue concerning these cards is the privacy factor. Who wants his or her buying habits tracked every step of the way, tied to SSNs and home addresses? No sir, I don't like it.
And while I understand that corporations already track traditional credit card purchases, such invasions of privacy would be worse with smart technology since it's being positioned as a replacement for currency.
I'm all for smart technology, but only such techology that's good for the consumer - by protecting privacy and monetary security.
Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft made its greatest in-roads in the desktop market with Windows 3.1 - are you going to argue with me that Windows 3.1 was anywhere near the Mac? I hope not, because everyone can agree that 3.1 was the worst abomination of programming ever.
Micrsoft doesn't make superior products - it makes products for the uniformed masses. Btw, the jury is still out on the PDA market - another industry segment created by that Cupertino fruit company...
Apple should definitely be the driving force behind chip architecture development, leaving fabrication duties to the other partners. It's time to really start pouring development into the future of the PPC, which is truly the only viable alternative to Intel hegemony.
I'm going to help out the majority of you by explaining a few simple concepts of the US Constitution, as well as some principles of the free market - because most of you desperately need this assistance. It really bothers me that so many are so ignorant of the truth. Whatever you think the moral implications are of stem cell research, the fact remains that federal funding of it is unconstitutional. Most individuals on both sides of the political spectrum seemingly forget that the Constitution - the highest law of the land - settles nearly all of the issues concerning the size and scope of the federal government. It's when we as a nation choose deviate from the Constitution that we have problems.
People may not want to admit it, but the Constitution of the United States of America prohibits federal stem-cell research funding. I'm not saying that it prohibits the research altogether, but it does prohibit federal funding. If you don't believe me, just take a look at Article 1: Section 8 of the Constitution, which details the powers granted to Congress.
You won't see an "indiscriminate spending clause" or a "total jurisdiction clause" in there, because the federal government was never, ever granted those types of powers. The federal government is limited to some specific duties with very little wiggle room beyond that. The founders created a limited government purposefully, one that would serve to protect the nation militarily; one that would serve to preserve personal liberty. The founders did this because they hated the cesspool of European politics, and they knew the tendency for government to constantly expand and impose its will on its citizenry.
Federal funding for stem cell research is simply unconstitutional; a majority of the taxes imposed and duties executed by the federal government today are also unconstitutional. The legality of stem cell research must be left up to individual states, and the funding for that research must be left up to the private sector.
The checks on the federal government also arose from the realization that government can never match the private sector's performance. The simple economic principles of supply and demand and competition are at play here. When the government sets forth to complete an objective, it obviously has no competition and therefore no reason to work well. The government doesn't have to worry all that much about profits or losses - if it needs more money, it decides to tax the citizenry more. And the government can choose to embark on the wrong quest because it isn't constrained by supply and demand. The government is simply terrible at handling things that belong properly to the private sector.
The private sector, in contrast, will constantly improve products and services - making them better and cheaper - because if one company doesn't strike, its competition will surely do so. Capitalism is the only way to go, and the subversion of capitalism, like the subversion of the Constitution, will send us down a dark path.
A good recent example of the power of the private sector is the human genome project. The federal government provided funding to one group of scientists to do the work, while another group of scientists utilized the private sector. The government funded researchers had modest goals for completion of the product, when compared to the privately funded researchers. Long story short, the privately funded scientists finished much farther ahead of the government's scientists, simply because they had the incentive to succeed. The government's money was useless, because the private sector yielded completely superior results; the government didn't care about the money spent because they were only spending the people's money.
And if you still can't grasp my point about government entering into the private sphere, please think for yourself for a moment about the government programs you like or think are productive. Can you think of any? Tell me if you like any of these public sector programs:
The ever increasing cost of health care, courteous of government over regulation; subsidized government slums; the continued decline of American public education, despite the fact that the government spends a great deal more on it than it did 20 years ago; airline delays resulting from stone age technology employed by FAA air traffic control systems; being taxed half of your income; the sham of social security; privacy violations (carnivore, etc.); the IRS. . . Which of these features do you like?
If you like any of that, you must also want the government to encroach on the rest of the private sector. Would you like government fast food and government clothing? Would you like a government controlled Internet or government controlled computer corporations? Government control of the media? Should the government take over all property rights? I mean, since most of you believe that the government should have a role in funding everything, it's only logical that the government should have control over even more than it has now - it should, according to most of you, control everything. What a commie-fascist paradise that would be, huh? The really problematic thing is, though, this nation's concept of government would only have to mutate some additional steps before American totalitarianism would be realized.
Look, I'm not some kind of militia nut; I'm not preaching open rebellion against the sovereign. If what I've written has caused even one person to rethink his or her politics, then I would be a happy libertarian Republican. It is a real struggle to teach the truth, but it must be done. I will never back down when some challanges my principles, but no one ever said standing up for what's right is easy.
If you appreciate any of the points I've made, I encourage you to read your Constitution and live by it - don't just pay it lip service. Vote for those candidates who are truly committed to ending unconstitutional practices of government; vocally support those personalities who share a like opinion. We must make a choice, on this day, to either be committed to liberty and the true American way, or else choose automatically to submit to the inexorable march of this nation toward totalitarian rule.
You and your fellow travelers are the only true problem with America. G-d bless President George W. Bush; G-d bless America. (By the way, the United States is a Constitutional Republic, which is very different from representative or pure democracy.)
Apple Acolyte
Hear hear! I don't have any problems with my tradiitonal credit card, and while I am both bothered by skimming and aware that progress must be made, I believe it's better to wait on this technology until the public is assured of how exactly it operates. The most distressing issue concerning these cards is the privacy factor. Who wants his or her buying habits tracked every step of the way, tied to SSNs and home addresses? No sir, I don't like it. And while I understand that corporations already track traditional credit card purchases, such invasions of privacy would be worse with smart technology since it's being positioned as a replacement for currency. I'm all for smart technology, but only such techology that's good for the consumer - by protecting privacy and monetary security.