For eGovOS to win the full support of the free software and open source community, it must take a clear stand for our community. It should acknowledge the free software movement as a part of our community, and acknowledge Microsoft as its adversary.
This is awfully reminiscent of President Bush's standpoint on terrorism. Is such rhetoric helpuful?
If not, go and give it a shot. Powell dissented on the continued regulation of the local and long distance phone service, not the de-regulation of broadband services.
There's no room for economic sense when people begin viewing property as public. Tragic ideologies thrive amongst all things common.
Another way: There is no free lunch, not even for CLECs.
The FCC's original intentions were good: To encourage competition where a some-what natural monopoly had taken root. However, it quickly discovered its regulatory actions were far too inadequate, and that rectifying the situation would be terribly costly. Alternatives to DSL exist in both cable and satellite. Wi-Fi community networks are next. There's no reason for beauracracy when market forces and private enterprise are working. Michael Powell recognized this, and acted upon it, despite the un-popularity of his stance.
I agree with half of your preliminary statement. We (in the U.S.) should not alllow, under any circumstance, corporatations to be involved in our political process, and the reform should begin with donations. However, it would be far too costly to put the burden of campaign financing on the tax-payers (and by that I take you to mean via the gov't). For an election to be fair, anyone has to be able to run, but if the gov't (read: taxpayers) is going to foot the bill for anyone to run, just about everyone will run. And that could get outrageously expensive.
Individuals (aka taxpayers) should be able to directlly contribute, but there should be a maximum, and it should be set at a value that is reasonable (and by that I mean accessible to the general public). The current limit of $1,000 is well beyond what most people could or would give, and it's set to increase to $2,000 under the McCain-Feingold bill. The bill has some other negative consequences as well, although most are unintentional. By attempting to limit (or remove) "soft" corporate donations, the bill effectively forces politicians to spend more time not only on fundraising in general, but also directing their efforts toward individuals. Of course, those with $2,000 per campaign to contribute (or $37,500 a year total, an increase from the pre-McCain-Feingold $25,000) will receive a disproportionate amount of attention. While it's good to be removing the corporate influence, it's awful the bill disenfranchises the poor so drastically.
Alas, for progress to be made, compromises must occur. But it's the process that matters, and, as the original post suggests, for it to work correctly the populous must be involved. One way or the other, get out there and do something. Otherwise, the politicians will determine the rules for campaign finance. And, as has been clearly demonstrated, most of them want as much money as they can get, and are very indiscriminate about who'll they'll take it from.
I have two laptops, each purchased in the fall of 2000. The first is an Apple PowerBook ("Pismo" model) with a 400Mhz G3, 320MB of RAM and Mac OS X 10.2.1 (Jaguar). The other is a Dell Inspiron 5000e with a 750Mhz PIII, 256MB of RAM and Windows XP Pro (along with which-ever Linux distro I'm trying out at the time -- none have been good enough to stay permanently.) These are both decent systems -- definitely not new but not too terribly old.
Based on my use (I run MS Office, various web browsers, Macromedia's Dreamweaver and Fireworks, and Quicken on both machines), I see a clear difference in speed/performance: Mac OS X is definitely slower.
Web browsing brings the starkest contrast in performance. Be it via Mozilla, Opera, Chimera, IE, or Omni, navigating the Internet in Mac OS X is slower than in XP or Linux.
Mac OS X's Finder is also slower than its Windows and Linux counterparts. QuickTime's slower too. And games aren't even an option for me on the Apple, while I play Counter-Strike comfortably on the Dell.
I would like to say that my Apple hardware is just outdated, but it's no older than the Dell, so I can only chalk it up to the OS.
Apple made some dramatic improvements in user experience with Mac OS X, and I'll continue to use it over Mac OS 9 (and Windows for web development and graphics), but it is without a doubt slower than the competition.
... powernotebooks.com went on-line in 1999 (although the company as been around for 25 year.) In addition, shipping to Canada is only ~US$45. How much are the duties and taxes?
Here's the deal, Ino. You clearly hold to a value system at odds with mine. You think that my use of "M$" as a reference to Microsoft is in some way a put-down, when it's not. You also believe that intellectual property should not be privatized, but instead offered free to all.
Now, I'm not going to pull out the big "S" word on you, or try to envelope your ideology in any other way. But I will pick apart a couple of your comments...
First of all, go read (what will probably stand as) the final ruling in the DOJ vs. Microsoft trial, instead of making references to statements (which I've read, btw) made by a judge whose ruling was overturned (and who breaks code by speaking with the media while a trial is underway.) You want to talk facts (and by that I take you to mean reality), right?
Secondly, do some research into the business practices of Standard Oil -- particularly those which garnered the company market share -- and explain to me how they parallel those of Microsoft. Focus on innovation, consolidation, predatory pricing, and coersion.
Last but not least, I'd like to challenge you to re-think the logical connection (and validity) of your claims that M$ "forces" companies to use its "proprietary standards" (which ones, exactly?), and how this relates to a company in Saskatchewan that (supposedly) engages in price fixing (I mean, c'mon, even Judge Jackson admitted M$ doesn't price at either monopoly or predatory pricing levels for Windows.)
And to conclude I'll ask once again: How are consumers being harmed by Microsoft? 'Cause in the end, this is all that matters.
I have a B.S. in Economics (I graduated in 2001), so yes, I have taken a few courses. These include graduate level micro- and macro-economics, econometrics, and industrial organization (check out these two links for some good stuff on IO), including others.
It's interesting to me that you bring up Apple in an argument in which you accuse a software company (Microsoft) of being a monopolist (or a monopoly, as you put it). Apple couldn't exist if this was the case. Study some IO and you'll come to understand that M$ is certainly not a monopolist, but rather the most successful member of a large oligopoly. This means that M$ does enjoy quite a bit of market power, but certainly not "monopoly" power. Monopolists simply do not occur "naturally" (the term natural monopoly is a bit of a misnomer); they only exist when a government grants such authority (such as with the postal service in the U.S.)
The key here is to break down the markets (demand), the products/services (supply), and the competitive forces (how companies react to the latter) at play. Once you do you'll find that the OS market is dominated -- but not controlled -- by Microsoft, and that several competitors offer similarly fuctional products/services and are constantly driving the industry (and M$) to innovate. Bottom line: alternatives to Windows are available, M$ does not price its products at anywhere near the "monopoly" level, and competitors are constantly nipping at M$'s marketshare. None of these would occur if Bill Gates had created a monopolist.
You're right in stating monopolies are special cases. In order to maintain a Pareto efficient economy, monopolists must be heavily regulated. Microsoft however, just doesn't fit the bill.
To put it another way: How is it you're being harmed?
Okay, so a competitor has stepped in to provide you with exactly the good you claim to demand (the one you said didn't exist because of Microsoft's use of its monopoly power), right? And this is also a result of Microsoft abusing its monopoly powers, simply because Dell, et al don't?
C'mon, Ino, what are you proposing? That corporations not be allowed to enter into limiting agreements with one another?
Government regulations do not exist to keep companies from making profits and increasing market share, they exist to protect consumers from undue harm. So, tell me again, how are you being harmed?
Check out this site for an "unbundled" laptop option.
Oh, and the machines these guys sell are the same as some Dell and Toshiba models too, so don't come back arguing for an "acceptable" option or any bullshit like that.
Microsoft gets my money without my consent. This is robery -- they are stealing from me.
You've got to be kidding. In the situation described, no one gets your money without your consent. Buying the fucking cd player (or a computer with Windows) is precisely all the consent you have to give.
No one's coercing you to buy the bundled goods. The only reason you consider those options is because they are the better value -- even better than non-bundled goods. You said it yourself,
But the thing is, I'm paying for something I don't want and won't use.
It has long been my contention that the 'clincher' apps everyone speaks about (the ones the Linux platform needs to compete for corporate desktops) aren't clinchers at all -- they're vitals. Without a decent GUI, office suite, web browser and email client, Linux would never be viable. Now that those all exist (for the most part), Linux is a player, but it's still missing the one app for which Microsoft faces no competition: Exchange.
And Exchange is damn good. If you ask me it's the reason why Windows has remained on the desktops of so many businesses. But I *know* that many, especially small, cash-strapped, businesses would love an inexpensive alternative. But none exists. So MS marches on in the corporate space, and most people continue with it on their personal desktops 'cause it's what they know from work.
Pricewatch does a great job of categorizing all the different components you'll need to build your own computer. Buyer beware however, as not all vendors appear to be 'upstanding'.
You can also check pricegrabber.com and dealtime.com for comparisons.
Oh, and you might also want to read through anandtech.com, arstechnica.com, tomshardware.com, onepc.com, and other sites dedicated to computer-component reviews.
MIT Economics?
on
Wireless Mania
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
I don't understand how the MIT author believes offering bandwidth for free will not drive up marginal use.
Whenever something is free people use it as if it's free, that is to say freely. This is not a good recipe for an economical campus (or office) network.
In economics this is known as the Freeloader problem, and is ubiquitous amongst public goods.
Remember, nothing is ever entirely free, someone always pays. In this case the MIT author's bandwidth was being paid for by students.
MS invested $150 million (a very small chunk) in Apple around 4 years ago, but has since sold all of its holdings (the anti-trust case being one reason for this action).
The real reason exists Office for the Mac OS? It's often cited as MS's 3rd most profitable product, which is undoubtedly why there is already an OS X version out.
Why not port it to other Unices (including Linux)? Office, as its name implies, is meant for workplace desktops -- a space where Unix isn't exactly prominent.
The gov't shouldn't own the physical layer because gov'ts aren't into profit making, and therefore do not perform R&D or innovate. It's the incentive of profit that justifies R&D, and tax payers wouldn't (and shouldn't) stand for such behavior by the gov't when private corps. can do so (and be liable). This is what venture capitalists are for, not taxpayers' dollars
Why did the U.S. Postal Service lose over $1B last year? Because the private sector innovated and kicked its ass. Monopolies are monopolies, public or private. There's nothing special about a gov't run monopoly accept for that it sucks up even more money for bureaucratic expenses.
Wall Street was threatened by this, so it blew it into a bubble in order to (1) take East Coast profits on it and (2) make it go away.
Good god man, that's one helluva conspiracy theory. Why didn't they (the East Coasters) just buy-out their opponents when the going was good (read: after they'd taken profits and the West Coasters went broke) and accumuluate the built-up capital for themselves? Then they'd have the money *and* the tools...
I'm reading through these posts thinking one thing: this author hit the nail on the head. Everybody's got his/her own opinion on what globalisation is, and depending on the viewpoint one is coming from, it can be either great, awful, or just another historical process.
However, there do seem to be two dominant perspectives. First, and perhaps most ironically, are the globalisation-as-the-multi-national-corporations'- plot-to-rule-the-world anti-globalisation persons who seem to be trapped in thinking that globalisation is exactly what those same "evil" MNCs are touting globalisation to be. The other's are those who don't really have a strong view of what is it or isn't, or what it's going to do, but just seem to accept it as fact.
While not promoting ignorance as bliss, I take comfort in so many of those who've chosen the latter route. If you ask me, globalisation (at least as we're experiencing it now) is the process by which the influence and reach of the individual is being extended, globally. Yes, corporations, governments, religions, and other institutions' reach are being extended as well, but they've enjoyed a global reach for centuries. This time around, it's the individual who's getting the biggest boost. And it's the individual who's going to have the opportunity for the greatest benefit (IMHO, at least). Like anything else, though, globalisation has it's cons. As newly empowered individuals, we can do more to correct any problems that arise (rather than leaving those big institutions to figure it out).
One last thing: why do we always talk about MNCs, big governments, religions, and other large institutions as something completely different from the individual? Aren't those just large groups of individuals? If a MNC benefits, don't those who make it up benefit as well? I guess what I'm getting at it this: we seem to argue than in our world it's the institution vs. the individual in a zero-sum game. But I don't see how that can be when ultimately both populations are made of the same stuff -- people.
As most of us know, Apple has astounding amounts of cash on hand -- enough to carry itself through short- (and even medium-) term sales slumps/R&D efforts.
Also, the next season in the business cycle for Apple is the holidays -- a season marked by consumer purchases, not professional ones. As well, with a new iMac probably around the corner, Apple's marketing will probably be focused on the holiday season purchasers.
Mac OS X is Apple's focus right now, and beefed up hardware to support the resource-hungry GUI is definitely needed to get the push for OS X really going -- an effort that will pick up in the coming months following the release of 10.1. Knowing these sorts of machines are coming will keep demand for OS X strong.
Apple's current professional hardware offerings are simply repackaged versions of an older design with speed-bumped processors (read: not a lot of money spent to develop them).
I think Apple couldn't ask for better timing from Motorola. The "MHz Myth" ad campaign just isn't flying. Apple needs a GHz processor to at least *appear* to be keeping up with it's PC rivals.
I wouldn't be surprised if someone over in Japan has already figured this sort of thing out...those people go nuts with their Apple laptops -- it's great.
I think it is quite clear that a human life is not of infinite value to the public, nor to any individual.
The life-threatening risks we take everyday (for the sake of saving some $) discredits the argument that saving "one life" justifies stealing from another. (Do you drive a car? Is it the safest you can buy? If not, why?)
Poor has always been, and always will be, a relative term. *Everyone* is poor in one aspect or another. If being poor were to justify stealing, we'd all be thieves in a chaotic society ruled by those with more coersive power. Although you may disagree, this is not how we live today.
Human behavior is driven by incentives, which in all cases I can think of is linked to profit (not just in $ terms - think about happiness, love, even exercise). Drug companies (and their employees) operate in a world of trade, in which currency has been introduced to make the way we go about exchanging our goods and services more efficient (bartering and the double-coincidence of wants never worked too well). Accordingly, these companies (and their employees) are motivated by $ profits, which, I must say, if a very reasonable thing, because developing drugs is a very, very, very costly venture.
The profits earned from one drug do not simply cover the costs of developing that same drug. Pharmaceutical companies are constanting failing in their attempts to find treatments and cures for our ailments. A failed attempt costs just as much as a successful one.
Take away the drug companies' incentives, and their development efforts will most definitely go away. And no one, and I mean no one, benefits in that case.
What happens, for instance, if your bank decides that they want to do a hyper-thorough check on you before giving you a loan? They might decide not to give you a mortgage despite a perfect record of making payments on time because you don't change your oil often enough and they think that you won't take good care of your house. Or what happens when nobody wants to sell you health insurance because you buy too much ice cream?
The bank and the health insurance company go broke. Companies don't make money by turning customers away for idiotic reasons.
Slashdot Mirror
From the article:
For eGovOS to win the full support of the free software and open source community, it must take a clear stand for our community. It should acknowledge the free software movement as a part of our community, and acknowledge Microsoft as its adversary.
This is awfully reminiscent of President Bush's standpoint on terrorism. Is such rhetoric helpuful?
If not, go and give it a shot. Powell dissented on the continued regulation of the local and long distance phone service, not the de-regulation of broadband services.
There's no room for economic sense when people begin viewing property as public. Tragic ideologies thrive amongst all things common.
Another way: There is no free lunch, not even for CLECs.
The FCC's original intentions were good: To encourage competition where a some-what natural monopoly had taken root. However, it quickly discovered its regulatory actions were far too inadequate, and that rectifying the situation would be terribly costly. Alternatives to DSL exist in both cable and satellite. Wi-Fi community networks are next. There's no reason for beauracracy when market forces and private enterprise are working. Michael Powell recognized this, and acted upon it, despite the un-popularity of his stance.
Good on him.
I agree with half of your preliminary statement. We (in the U.S.) should not alllow, under any circumstance, corporatations to be involved in our political process, and the reform should begin with donations. However, it would be far too costly to put the burden of campaign financing on the tax-payers (and by that I take you to mean via the gov't). For an election to be fair, anyone has to be able to run, but if the gov't (read: taxpayers) is going to foot the bill for anyone to run, just about everyone will run. And that could get outrageously expensive.
Individuals (aka taxpayers) should be able to directlly contribute, but there should be a maximum, and it should be set at a value that is reasonable (and by that I mean accessible to the general public). The current limit of $1,000 is well beyond what most people could or would give, and it's set to increase to $2,000 under the McCain-Feingold bill. The bill has some other negative consequences as well, although most are unintentional. By attempting to limit (or remove) "soft" corporate donations, the bill effectively forces politicians to spend more time not only on fundraising in general, but also directing their efforts toward individuals. Of course, those with $2,000 per campaign to contribute (or $37,500 a year total, an increase from the pre-McCain-Feingold $25,000) will receive a disproportionate amount of attention. While it's good to be removing the corporate influence, it's awful the bill disenfranchises the poor so drastically.
Alas, for progress to be made, compromises must occur. But it's the process that matters, and, as the original post suggests, for it to work correctly the populous must be involved. One way or the other, get out there and do something. Otherwise, the politicians will determine the rules for campaign finance. And, as has been clearly demonstrated, most of them want as much money as they can get, and are very indiscriminate about who'll they'll take it from.
I have two laptops, each purchased in the fall of 2000. The first is an Apple PowerBook ("Pismo" model) with a 400Mhz G3, 320MB of RAM and Mac OS X 10.2.1 (Jaguar). The other is a Dell Inspiron 5000e with a 750Mhz PIII, 256MB of RAM and Windows XP Pro (along with which-ever Linux distro I'm trying out at the time -- none have been good enough to stay permanently.) These are both decent systems -- definitely not new but not too terribly old.
Based on my use (I run MS Office, various web browsers, Macromedia's Dreamweaver and Fireworks, and Quicken on both machines), I see a clear difference in speed/performance: Mac OS X is definitely slower.
Web browsing brings the starkest contrast in performance. Be it via Mozilla, Opera, Chimera, IE, or Omni, navigating the Internet in Mac OS X is slower than in XP or Linux.
Mac OS X's Finder is also slower than its Windows and Linux counterparts. QuickTime's slower too. And games aren't even an option for me on the Apple, while I play Counter-Strike comfortably on the Dell.
I would like to say that my Apple hardware is just outdated, but it's no older than the Dell, so I can only chalk it up to the OS.
Apple made some dramatic improvements in user experience with Mac OS X, and I'll continue to use it over Mac OS 9 (and Windows for web development and graphics), but it is without a doubt slower than the competition.
Thank you Ino. You truly just made my day.
Oh, and you can still buy a laptop without Windows here. That experiment sure was fun.
Cheers.
Here's the deal, Ino. You clearly hold to a value system at odds with mine. You think that my use of "M$" as a reference to Microsoft is in some way a put-down, when it's not. You also believe that intellectual property should not be privatized, but instead offered free to all.
Now, I'm not going to pull out the big "S" word on you, or try to envelope your ideology in any other way. But I will pick apart a couple of your comments
First of all, go read (what will probably stand as) the final ruling in the DOJ vs. Microsoft trial, instead of making references to statements (which I've read, btw) made by a judge whose ruling was overturned (and who breaks code by speaking with the media while a trial is underway.) You want to talk facts (and by that I take you to mean reality), right?
Secondly, do some research into the business practices of Standard Oil -- particularly those which garnered the company market share -- and explain to me how they parallel those of Microsoft. Focus on innovation, consolidation, predatory pricing, and coersion.
Last but not least, I'd like to challenge you to re-think the logical connection (and validity) of your claims that M$ "forces" companies to use its "proprietary standards" (which ones, exactly?), and how this relates to a company in Saskatchewan that (supposedly) engages in price fixing (I mean, c'mon, even Judge Jackson admitted M$ doesn't price at either monopoly or predatory pricing levels for Windows.)
And to conclude I'll ask once again: How are consumers being harmed by Microsoft? 'Cause in the end, this is all that matters.
I have a B.S. in Economics (I graduated in 2001), so yes, I have taken a few courses. These include graduate level micro- and macro-economics, econometrics, and industrial organization (check out these two links for some good stuff on IO), including others.
It's interesting to me that you bring up Apple in an argument in which you accuse a software company (Microsoft) of being a monopolist (or a monopoly, as you put it). Apple couldn't exist if this was the case. Study some IO and you'll come to understand that M$ is certainly not a monopolist, but rather the most successful member of a large oligopoly. This means that M$ does enjoy quite a bit of market power, but certainly not "monopoly" power. Monopolists simply do not occur "naturally" (the term natural monopoly is a bit of a misnomer); they only exist when a government grants such authority (such as with the postal service in the U.S.)
The key here is to break down the markets (demand), the products/services (supply), and the competitive forces (how companies react to the latter) at play. Once you do you'll find that the OS market is dominated -- but not controlled -- by Microsoft, and that several competitors offer similarly fuctional products/services and are constantly driving the industry (and M$) to innovate. Bottom line: alternatives to Windows are available, M$ does not price its products at anywhere near the "monopoly" level, and competitors are constantly nipping at M$'s marketshare. None of these would occur if Bill Gates had created a monopolist.
You're right in stating monopolies are special cases. In order to maintain a Pareto efficient economy, monopolists must be heavily regulated. Microsoft however, just doesn't fit the bill.
To put it another way: How is it you're being harmed?
Okay, so a competitor has stepped in to provide you with exactly the good you claim to demand (the one you said didn't exist because of Microsoft's use of its monopoly power), right? And this is also a result of Microsoft abusing its monopoly powers, simply because Dell, et al don't?
C'mon, Ino, what are you proposing? That corporations not be allowed to enter into limiting agreements with one another?
Government regulations do not exist to keep companies from making profits and increasing market share, they exist to protect consumers from undue harm. So, tell me again, how are you being harmed?
Check out this site for an "unbundled" laptop option.
Oh, and the machines these guys sell are the same as some Dell and Toshiba models too, so don't come back arguing for an "acceptable" option or any bullshit like that.
Microsoft gets my money without my consent. This is robery -- they are stealing from me.
You've got to be kidding. In the situation described, no one gets your money without your consent. Buying the fucking cd player (or a computer with Windows) is precisely all the consent you have to give.
No one's coercing you to buy the bundled goods. The only reason you consider those options is because they are the better value -- even better than non-bundled goods. You said it yourself,
But the thing is, I'm paying for something I don't want and won't use.
And that's your own damn fault.
It has long been my contention that the 'clincher' apps everyone speaks about (the ones the Linux platform needs to compete for corporate desktops) aren't clinchers at all -- they're vitals. Without a decent GUI, office suite, web browser and email client, Linux would never be viable. Now that those all exist (for the most part), Linux is a player, but it's still missing the one app for which Microsoft faces no competition: Exchange.
And Exchange is damn good. If you ask me it's the reason why Windows has remained on the desktops of so many businesses. But I *know* that many, especially small, cash-strapped, businesses would love an inexpensive alternative. But none exists. So MS marches on in the corporate space, and most people continue with it on their personal desktops 'cause it's what they know from work.
Pricewatch does a great job of categorizing all the different components you'll need to build your own computer. Buyer beware however, as not all vendors appear to be 'upstanding'.
You can also check pricegrabber.com and dealtime.com for comparisons.
Oh, and you might also want to read through anandtech.com, arstechnica.com, tomshardware.com, onepc.com, and other sites dedicated to computer-component reviews.
Good luck.
With that, Microsoft could by anybody.
I don't understand how the MIT author believes offering bandwidth for free will not drive up marginal use.
Whenever something is free people use it as if it's free, that is to say freely. This is not a good recipe for an economical campus (or office) network.
In economics this is known as the Freeloader problem, and is ubiquitous amongst public goods.
Remember, nothing is ever entirely free, someone always pays. In this case the MIT author's bandwidth was being paid for by students.
MS invested $150 million (a very small chunk) in Apple around 4 years ago, but has since sold all of its holdings (the anti-trust case being one reason for this action).
The real reason exists Office for the Mac OS? It's often cited as MS's 3rd most profitable product, which is undoubtedly why there is already an OS X version out.
Why not port it to other Unices (including Linux)? Office, as its name implies, is meant for workplace desktops -- a space where Unix isn't exactly prominent.
The gov't shouldn't own the physical layer because gov'ts aren't into profit making, and therefore do not perform R&D or innovate. It's the incentive of profit that justifies R&D, and tax payers wouldn't (and shouldn't) stand for such behavior by the gov't when private corps. can do so (and be liable). This is what venture capitalists are for, not taxpayers' dollars
Why did the U.S. Postal Service lose over $1B last year? Because the private sector innovated and kicked its ass. Monopolies are monopolies, public or private. There's nothing special about a gov't run monopoly accept for that it sucks up even more money for bureaucratic expenses.
Wall Street was threatened by this, so it blew it into a bubble in order to (1) take East Coast profits on it and (2) make it go away.
...
Good god man, that's one helluva conspiracy theory. Why didn't they (the East Coasters) just buy-out their opponents when the going was good (read: after they'd taken profits and the West Coasters went broke) and accumuluate the built-up capital for themselves? Then they'd have the money *and* the tools
...that's one great book. Thanks for reminding me of it!
.sigs are for people who write short comments
I'm reading through these posts thinking one thing: this author hit the nail on the head. Everybody's got his/her own opinion on what globalisation is, and depending on the viewpoint one is coming from, it can be either great, awful, or just another historical process.
- plot-to-rule-the-world anti-globalisation persons who seem to be trapped in thinking that globalisation is exactly what those same "evil" MNCs are touting globalisation to be. The other's are those who don't really have a strong view of what is it or isn't, or what it's going to do, but just seem to accept it as fact.
However, there do seem to be two dominant perspectives. First, and perhaps most ironically, are the globalisation-as-the-multi-national-corporations'
While not promoting ignorance as bliss, I take comfort in so many of those who've chosen the latter route. If you ask me, globalisation (at least as we're experiencing it now) is the process by which the influence and reach of the individual is being extended, globally. Yes, corporations, governments, religions, and other institutions' reach are being extended as well, but they've enjoyed a global reach for centuries. This time around, it's the individual who's getting the biggest boost. And it's the individual who's going to have the opportunity for the greatest benefit (IMHO, at least). Like anything else, though, globalisation has it's cons. As newly empowered individuals, we can do more to correct any problems that arise (rather than leaving those big institutions to figure it out).
One last thing: why do we always talk about MNCs, big governments, religions, and other large institutions as something completely different from the individual? Aren't those just large groups of individuals? If a MNC benefits, don't those who make it up benefit as well? I guess what I'm getting at it this: we seem to argue than in our world it's the institution vs. the individual in a zero-sum game. But I don't see how that can be when ultimately both populations are made of the same stuff -- people.
Sir:
As most of us know, Apple has astounding amounts of cash on hand -- enough to carry itself through short- (and even medium-) term sales slumps/R&D efforts.
Also, the next season in the business cycle for Apple is the holidays -- a season marked by consumer purchases, not professional ones. As well, with a new iMac probably around the corner, Apple's marketing will probably be focused on the holiday season purchasers.
Mac OS X is Apple's focus right now, and beefed up hardware to support the resource-hungry GUI is definitely needed to get the push for OS X really going -- an effort that will pick up in the coming months following the release of 10.1. Knowing these sorts of machines are coming will keep demand for OS X strong.
Apple's current professional hardware offerings are simply repackaged versions of an older design with speed-bumped processors (read: not a lot of money spent to develop them).
I think Apple couldn't ask for better timing from Motorola. The "MHz Myth" ad campaign just isn't flying. Apple needs a GHz processor to at least *appear* to be keeping up with it's PC rivals.
- Michael
I wouldn't be surprised if someone over in Japan has already figured this sort of thing out...those people go nuts with their Apple laptops -- it's great.
I think it is quite clear that a human life is not of infinite value to the public, nor to any individual.
The life-threatening risks we take everyday (for the sake of saving some $) discredits the argument that saving "one life" justifies stealing from another. (Do you drive a car? Is it the safest you can buy? If not, why?)
Poor has always been, and always will be, a relative term. *Everyone* is poor in one aspect or another. If being poor were to justify stealing, we'd all be thieves in a chaotic society ruled by those with more coersive power. Although you may disagree, this is not how we live today.
Human behavior is driven by incentives, which in all cases I can think of is linked to profit (not just in $ terms - think about happiness, love, even exercise). Drug companies (and their employees) operate in a world of trade, in which currency has been introduced to make the way we go about exchanging our goods and services more efficient (bartering and the double-coincidence of wants never worked too well). Accordingly, these companies (and their employees) are motivated by $ profits, which, I must say, if a very reasonable thing, because developing drugs is a very, very, very costly venture.
The profits earned from one drug do not simply cover the costs of developing that same drug. Pharmaceutical companies are constanting failing in their attempts to find treatments and cures for our ailments. A failed attempt costs just as much as a successful one.
Take away the drug companies' incentives, and their development efforts will most definitely go away. And no one, and I mean no one, benefits in that case.
What happens, for instance, if your bank decides that they want to do a hyper-thorough check on you before giving you a loan? They might decide not to give you a mortgage despite a perfect record of making payments on time because you don't change your oil often enough and they think that you won't take good care of your house. Or what happens when nobody wants to sell you health insurance because you buy too much ice cream?
The bank and the health insurance company go broke. Companies don't make money by turning customers away for idiotic reasons.