It's actually very simple. Business today takes every opportunity to reduce costs. Think Walmart. They're HUGE. They probably have tens of thousands of Windows desktops, at least.
You don't think that company, which has become the largest in the world by wringing every last loose cent from the supply chain and overhead, would stick with Windows if it was more expensive?
This is the BIGGEST COMPANY in the world, it doesn't have to stay with Windows for it's customers or its suppliers: it's suppliers do whatever WALMART TELLS THEM to do. Read about the RFID rollout, for example.
So there's your business-case. Every single business I've ever walked into or even heard of uses windows. I've never seen an all-linux shop in my life, except for the companies that actually MAKE linux.
Like it or not, there's a REASON for that. American business is addicted to shaving costs wherever possible. One-ply toilet paper instead of two. Direct Deposit instead of paper checks. Company cars instead of reimbursing milage. If it saves a few cents here or there, they do it. And they all run Windows.
So what does that tell you about TCO?
I'm sure you'll say how people just don't get it, that MSFT is an unfair monopoly, etc etc etc. But for me it comes down to simple market economics.
Our system of govenment is designed to protect the will of the majority and the rights of the minority.
This is a case of "saving the majority from themselves." And if a country elects representitives, they should REPRESENT the will of their constituents.
I'm not a big fan of Free Trade Agreements, but I AM a big fan of taking peoples money on PokerStars. Luckily, we've enacted FTAs with the caribbean nations that host most of these Companies.
It's a little known fact that these treaties actually give foreign companies the ability to sue the US Government for loss of revenue due to legislation. Yes, you heard me right: Foreign companies can do something that domestic companies cannot: They can SUE the US Government.
A recent lobbyist for the Online Gambling Industry attributed 80% of their revenue to U.S. patrons. IANAL but that seems like a legitimate cause of action if I've ever seen one.
I've never seen software that runs on 98 and not XP. In fact, XP has a compatability mode just for this purpose.
And THAT's the crux of the problem. When you install XP and load the "classic" theme, it looks an AWFUL LOT like Win98. Users won't need OS training. The ones that do venture into the control panel or network neighborhood probably have an XP machine at home.
It's the SOFTWARE TRAINING that's important. All the apps that have to be completely replaced when going to Linux. All the Excel Spreadsheets, Access Databases, and dozens of obscure apps that are used for this-or-that process.
If you're not a total linux cyborg then you must be flamebait.
Anyone that looks at my past posts would see, I'm actually very fair on linux.
I'm a windows developer, I butter my bread with Visual Studio. But I also run LAMPP for all of my web-stuff. Linux is by far the best choice for our intranet and extranet web servers. But that doesn't make it right for the desktops. Apparently this level of pragmatism isn't respected at Slashdot. You either blindly Hate Bill and Love Linus or you're just not welcome.
If Linux was ACTUALLY this easy to use, WE'D ALL BE USING IT. The fact is, that it's NOT.
Most likely your IT provider ISN'T a linux pro. Most likely he'll try to sell you $10,000 in Citrix becuase that's who his company is affiliated with and they get kickbacks. But that's a whole different issue.
Most likely you won't be able to find Apples-to-Apples software replacements for the applications you're currently using, not in an afternoon. It would be a little more work then you describe.
Most likely the users need a LOT more training then a guy to "show [them] how to use the new system." You have to assume a fair cross-section. This means, say, 1/3 of the staff is a younger, more flexible audience, 1/3 is the type that started working with Smith Corona ruled the business world and who took a year to pick up the salient features of Microsoft Word, and 1/3 is in the middle. This is an issue of fixed, up-front training costs, and open-ended costs associated to lost-productivity. I don't care HOW GOOD the linux software is, it's going to hit productivity.
Most likely linux will INCREASE support costs for this small business. When Windows crashes there's a good chance the on staff technician (read: 23y/o graphic designer that just happens to be the most knowlegable PC user in the biz) can fix the usual problems. But when linux crashes--and it will, these are not technical users. If it can break, they will break it--it means an AUTOMATIC call to their contract-IT guy who charges $100 just to SHOW UP.
So while my scenario may have been pessismistic, yours was CLEARLY overly optimistic. And if it's MY MONEY on the line, I'll assume worst case scenario.
It's obvious you can't set aside your zealotry long enough to recognize that this is a MUCH BIGGER DECISION then where you buy your copy paper. So much that your analogy is unintentionally humorous.
Like it or not, Linux is not in the mainstream. Most people have HEARD of it, but they couldn't describe it. I'd wager that most don't even realize that it's an Operating System akin to Windows.
What you don't seem to get--perhaps because you work with Linux daily--is that it's DRIVING ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE ROAD. It's foreign. It's an unknown quantity.
And you can argue all you want about "Linux being as easy to use as XP." No matter how you slice it, you're going to have to re-train employees. Not just on the OS, but on the linux-based software that replaces your windows-based software. And you have to train every new-hire you bring in the door. And for what, the $100 you save off a Windows license? You can talk about TCO but is it really worth the opportunity costs associated with the move?
There is no viable business argument for moving a non-techie small-business to Linux. The things that make Linux TCO cheaper then windows aren't valid. It doesn't matter that one Admin can support 100 Linux boxes and only 50 Windows boxes, because a 15 man business doesn't even have one admin on staff!
Take a look at your scenario: If YOU were that small business owner, with 10-15 employees and 10 older '98 machines, which do you think is more likely?
Scenario 1 - Sees slashdot headline in RSS reader about '98 support being discontinued and a mention of Linux, which is free software that you've heard discussed every now and then - Ignores all matters critical to running his business--normally a 60hr/wk job--and learns about Linux and the different distros and which companies offer support - Calls Red Hat, or a Red Hat provider, and discusses the software, gets a demo, installs, tests, and orders the software and support contract - Tries to find software to replace all of the titles used in Windows - Trains employees or hires someone to train employees
Scenario 2 - Calls Dell and orders 10 of their cheapest XP PC's shipped to their door at $500 machine.
Scenario 3 - Does nothing, crosses fingers, replaces PC's one at a time as they break
I can't possibly imagine ANY SMALL BIZ owner following Scenario 1. I don't understand why linux zealots try to push linux down everyones throat, even where it doesn't belong.
The people that WANT to use linux are already using it. It's not as if a critical mass of people are JUST ABOUT to use Linux if only X would happen or Y would happen to nudge it along. Like it or not, linux is positioned as a Server OS.
Currently, OSX isn't enough to convert users. So when Linux is better then OSX, come back and tell me and I'll help you evangalize.
It's not the COST of the second lens, it's the SIZE. That's why the article summary boasts of the compact size of this solution. There isn't a lot of extra room available, especially in small form-factor drives.
A slashdotter capable of considering two opposing viewpoints at the same time.. What is this world comming to?!
I'm a windows developer and I like linux just fine. I build all of our webstuff w/ PHP on Ubuntu. I personally think that Windows is superior to Linux in the ways people actually care about, but linux is still a good product, especially for web servers.
I get that linux is more secure then windows. ESPECIALLY if you're just a Joe-User: It's so difficult to install and configure that he'd eventually just forget-it and leave the PC half-baked and useless. I've seen this happen to more then one coworker.
The MSFT commecials were suggesting that Windows will ignite the creativity of your CHILD by equipping them, in this specific example, with the ability to make & manipulate music on their PC.
It doesn't matter that professional artists of all stripes use Macs. Your child doesn't need pro tools (or Pro Tools, even tho it's available on Windows). An average parent wouldn't purchase $4000 custom golf clubs or $500 tennis rackets, for example. They'd go to Dicks Sporting Goods and buy something that most professionals wouldn't be caught dead using.
This is another example of the "Micro$oft $ucks" slashdot mentality.
Worst-case scenario: A parent sees the commercial and decides that instead of the new Macbook that their son asked for to assist with his music production, they could purchase a great Wintel notebook for 2/3 the price. So they head to Best Buy, pick it up, and perhaps after they give it to their son they find out that it doesn't have ANY MUSIC CREATION SOFTWARE! Oh No! So they search Google for/windows "music creation software"/ and what do you know: 70,000 results.
Looks like those parents were DECIEVED all right.
Microsoft is advertising their platform. Their brand. Maybe the best thing is that in a year when the kid no longer cares about creating digital music he can use his Windows-based notebook to run any of the millions of other software applications that have been written for Windows over the past 15 years.
It's like saying that Gatorade commercials are deceptive because Gatorade doesn't actually sell sporting goods equipment.
I meant to also point out that what I'm talking about isn't the "soft money ban" alone, but in concert with the laws that prevent ads such as the swift boat ads for (i think) 30 days prior to the election. It could be longer then that.
This law already EXISTS. The law is written in a way that prevents the naming or endorsment of a candidate or party. So your post would be relevent if this wasn't a problem that's already been addressed by congress and the supreme court.
The answer to this, like most political problems in America, is simple: Get the money out of politics! We need to move to taxpayer-financed elections. Not like our current "Opt In" taxpayer financing, but mandatory federal financing. Different types of races are given different amounts of cash (President > Senate <> Congress) depending on the cost of airtime in your market. A congressmen from LA could need as much cash to run as a senator from Vermont. Individual doners and "PACs" can only run "issue ads" that use the same rules as we currently use to prohibit "soft money."
Once the money is out of politics, our representitives no longer rely on companies and wealthy doners. When that happens, they'll have no reason to do anything but vote their conscience. And if you don't like it, it'd be a lot easier to boot the guy out when his next challenger has as much cash as the incumbant.
This could cost more then $2 Billion per 4-year cycle, but $1.75 per citizen per year is a BARGAIN for the privlege of our democracy back.
It would take a huge grassroots effort to get this passed as a constitutional amendment, because the people in power would never vote to somehow abridge that power. Since the grassroots method is unlikely to succeed, congress should pass this law and have it go into effect in 20 years...... And your assertion that we should try to elect someone that agrees with the "majority of your peers" is ludicris. How do I know what the majority of my peers agree on? What issues take prescidence? No.... The idea is to vote for whichever guy holds views that more closely resemble your own.
OK, whatever you say, I'm a "Nay Sayer".... but your opinion is still clueless. Voting daily is just not viable. It would strain our physical infrastructure, and cause more problems then it solves. Like how do you pick which issues go to the public and which issues are "special" issues that only congress can vote on? Clueless.
I agree that there is a problem here, but your solution is just clueless. How do you suggest that representitives determine the opinions of his constituents? Do you suggest Americans "vote" on every issue like we vote on our representitives? If not, then are you suggesting the Representitive rely on polling? What if there are two polls that show different results? What if the poll is within the margin of error?
And what are you going to do when it's a vote to raise the debt ceiling or override a veto or ratify a treaty? If you think it's bad to have 535 people vote on something that they don't understand, why would you want 300 million?
And if you think we have low turnout now, just wait to see how low it gets when we have to vote a dozen times every single day.
The idea is to elect someone that agrees with you on MOST things. Or at least the most important things.
Dynamite was the most deft satire of high school life that I've ever seen. There are a ton of people that are twentysomething or younger that DONT'T like the movie, but in my experience, most do. And the older you get, the more you're removed from todays High School experience, the less likely that you'll enjoy the movie.
The story here is a lot more simple then you make it out to be. When the US Space Shuttle was designed it went through dozens, even hundreds of prototypes before they settled on a design. They spent millions of dollars to figure out the optimal shape and configuration for the craft.
When the Soviet Union decided to build a shuttle they didn't immediately just copy the US version. They tested a number of different aircraft designs. In the initial stages of development they wanted to build a craft that could take off and land in the vertical position. On landing it would fly into the atmosphere horizontally like our shuttle, then as it lowers to the ground, use thrusters to kick the tail down and put the craft vertical before it landed in the upright position. This was later scrapped due to complexity, along with other design expariments. In the end, they realized that they just couldn't improve upon the American design. We picked the design we did because it was the best. The soviet engineers saw no reason to use an inferior design just so it could be different.
I also disagree with the parent post that says we should give the soviets so much credit for their advanced technology. It's true that the soviet shuttle(s) were more advanced then the American fleet, but they were designed and constructed a decade later. Even then, they didn't have engineering parity with the US. A lot of the engine-related design decisions were made because the USSR had no experience developing solid-fuel rockets. Their few attempts at doing so were disasterous and they had no choice but use liquid fuel.
You have shown so little basic comprihension that I'm genuinely surprised that you're as old as you claim. From what you've shown here in both mental capacity and chosen vernacular I estimated 15, tops.
I'm terribly sorry for not writing 3 pages in footnotes for my original post. And I apologize for going so obviously above your head, but I don't usually craft my slashdot posts for the least common denominator. This might come as a disservice to the under-educated and uninitiated--like yourself, for example--but you can be sure I won't be losing any sleep over the matter.
I hope you've had as much fun here as I have. It can be very enjoyable to see the neon of my intellect shine so brightly against such a profound ignorance. Cheers.
Did you even read what you pasted into the webpage? If you did, then you *OBVIOUSLY* didn't understand it.
In fact, the *proof* that you didn't understand a basic wikipedia entry, is that you later remarked on the except and said: " [the cost of pirating music is] no greater than doing NOTHING..." Essentially, you're saying "You have to do SOMETHING during that five minutes, so what's the diff?"
Now, go back and re-read the text that YOU CUT AND PASTED. You'll find an explanation that opportunity cost is equal to the *MOST VALUABLE* alternative. Not any old alternative. But the MOST VALUABLE.
If you understood the most basic tenents of economics, you'd understand that there is a difference between accounting cost and economic cost. You'd also have a meaningful understanding of time-poverty. The majority of Americans that make more then the median annual income (around $40k annum) consider themselves to be more time-poor then money-poor. An allegory of this is the classic example that started this thread: Spending $1+1-Minute to download at iTunes, versus $0+6 minutes on a P2P network. You want a proof? Here you go:
5-Minutes > $1...Now...I have now explained to you in 3 posts what usually takes a Freshmen Econ student 5 minutes to read and understand in Section One, Chapter One. I'm certain that you will reply with some additional *moronic* remarks, but sadly the lesson is over for the evening. My advice to you: Cut your losses. Arguing with me about this is like arguing with me about algebra. I didn't invent it, and I can't change it. It's just the way it is.
I have complete confidence in your ignorance and unfailing ability to avoid actually learning anything in this post. So please, don't surprise me.
This post is so inane that I'm not even going to try to explain to you why you're wrong. But you *are* wrong. If you want to spend your time learning why, then google "Opportunity Cost."
Opportunity Costing is a very mature--and fundamental--discipline in Economics......And while you're at it, google "Irony."
AdWords has had the capability to track "conversions" by placing pieces of javascript on "Success!" pages for quite a long time. I've used it for years and always thought of it as very useful.
You seem to think that only pecuniary costs really matter. The time that I wrote-- 5 minutes -- is not download time. That is the time it takes to search for a song--including the multiple query variations that are usually tried--quickly sort the results on your screen and filter out the matches you don't want, queue the download of one or more copies of the song, review the file(s) for quality. And, often of the time, delete the "riaa bait" song(s) and repeat the process.
In economics time is computed as cost whether or not you're actually at work. A common economics test case is whether to pack a lunch vs. buying a lunch. You can often pack food for 1/2 of the price of eating out every day. But if an attorney who bills $250 an hour takes 5 minutes to pack a good lunch, you have to add $21 to the price of that sandwich. This clearly shows that eating out is more economical. Again, there is a "salary threshold" in this example as well.
If you had any clue about basic economic principles you'd have known this to begin with.
Slashdot Mirror
It's actually very simple. Business today takes every opportunity to reduce costs. Think Walmart. They're HUGE. They probably have tens of thousands of Windows desktops, at least.
You don't think that company, which has become the largest in the world by wringing every last loose cent from the supply chain and overhead, would stick with Windows if it was more expensive?
This is the BIGGEST COMPANY in the world, it doesn't have to stay with Windows for it's customers or its suppliers: it's suppliers do whatever WALMART TELLS THEM to do. Read about the RFID rollout, for example.
So there's your business-case. Every single business I've ever walked into or even heard of uses windows. I've never seen an all-linux shop in my life, except for the companies that actually MAKE linux.
Like it or not, there's a REASON for that. American business is addicted to shaving costs wherever possible. One-ply toilet paper instead of two. Direct Deposit instead of paper checks. Company cars instead of reimbursing milage. If it saves a few cents here or there, they do it. And they all run Windows.
So what does that tell you about TCO?
I'm sure you'll say how people just don't get it, that MSFT is an unfair monopoly, etc etc etc. But for me it comes down to simple market economics.
Our system of govenment is designed to protect the will of the majority and the rights of the minority.
This is a case of "saving the majority from themselves." And if a country elects representitives, they should REPRESENT the will of their constituents.
I'm not a big fan of Free Trade Agreements, but I AM a big fan of taking peoples money on PokerStars. Luckily, we've enacted FTAs with the caribbean nations that host most of these Companies.
It's a little known fact that these treaties actually give foreign companies the ability to sue the US Government for loss of revenue due to legislation. Yes, you heard me right: Foreign companies can do something that domestic companies cannot: They can SUE the US Government.
A recent lobbyist for the Online Gambling Industry attributed 80% of their revenue to U.S. patrons. IANAL but that seems like a legitimate cause of action if I've ever seen one.
I've never seen software that runs on 98 and not XP. In fact, XP has a compatability mode just for this purpose.
And THAT's the crux of the problem. When you install XP and load the "classic" theme, it looks an AWFUL LOT like Win98. Users won't need OS training. The ones that do venture into the control panel or network neighborhood probably have an XP machine at home.
It's the SOFTWARE TRAINING that's important. All the apps that have to be completely replaced when going to Linux. All the Excel Spreadsheets, Access Databases, and dozens of obscure apps that are used for this-or-that process.
If you're not a total linux cyborg then you must be flamebait.
Anyone that looks at my past posts would see, I'm actually very fair on linux.
I'm a windows developer, I butter my bread with Visual Studio. But I also run LAMPP for all of my web-stuff. Linux is by far the best choice for our intranet and extranet web servers. But that doesn't make it right for the desktops. Apparently this level of pragmatism isn't respected at Slashdot. You either blindly Hate Bill and Love Linus or you're just not welcome.
Riiiiiight.
If Linux was ACTUALLY this easy to use, WE'D ALL BE USING IT. The fact is, that it's NOT.
Most likely your IT provider ISN'T a linux pro. Most likely he'll try to sell you $10,000 in Citrix becuase that's who his company is affiliated with and they get kickbacks. But that's a whole different issue.
Most likely you won't be able to find Apples-to-Apples software replacements for the applications you're currently using, not in an afternoon. It would be a little more work then you describe.
Most likely the users need a LOT more training then a guy to "show [them] how to use the new system." You have to assume a fair cross-section. This means, say, 1/3 of the staff is a younger, more flexible audience, 1/3 is the type that started working with Smith Corona ruled the business world and who took a year to pick up the salient features of Microsoft Word, and 1/3 is in the middle. This is an issue of fixed, up-front training costs, and open-ended costs associated to lost-productivity. I don't care HOW GOOD the linux software is, it's going to hit productivity.
Most likely linux will INCREASE support costs for this small business. When Windows crashes there's a good chance the on staff technician (read: 23y/o graphic designer that just happens to be the most knowlegable PC user in the biz) can fix the usual problems. But when linux crashes--and it will, these are not technical users. If it can break, they will break it--it means an AUTOMATIC call to their contract-IT guy who charges $100 just to SHOW UP.
So while my scenario may have been pessismistic, yours was CLEARLY overly optimistic. And if it's MY MONEY on the line, I'll assume worst case scenario.
"Let pub guy install Linux and get back to work by the afternoon."
Are you serious? By the afternoon? This is so far removed from reality that I won't even touch it.
Is there a Linux Anonymous? You need help, my friend.
It's obvious you can't set aside your zealotry long enough to recognize that this is a MUCH BIGGER DECISION then where you buy your copy paper. So much that your analogy is unintentionally humorous.
Like it or not, Linux is not in the mainstream. Most people have HEARD of it, but they couldn't describe it. I'd wager that most don't even realize that it's an Operating System akin to Windows.
What you don't seem to get--perhaps because you work with Linux daily--is that it's DRIVING ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE ROAD. It's foreign. It's an unknown quantity.
And you can argue all you want about "Linux being as easy to use as XP." No matter how you slice it, you're going to have to re-train employees. Not just on the OS, but on the linux-based software that replaces your windows-based software. And you have to train every new-hire you bring in the door. And for what, the $100 you save off a Windows license? You can talk about TCO but is it really worth the opportunity costs associated with the move?
There is no viable business argument for moving a non-techie small-business to Linux. The things that make Linux TCO cheaper then windows aren't valid. It doesn't matter that one Admin can support 100 Linux boxes and only 50 Windows boxes, because a 15 man business doesn't even have one admin on staff!
Take a look at your scenario: If YOU were that small business owner, with 10-15 employees and 10 older '98 machines, which do you think is more likely?
Scenario 1
- Sees slashdot headline in RSS reader about '98 support being discontinued and a mention of Linux, which is free software that you've heard discussed every now and then
- Ignores all matters critical to running his business--normally a 60hr/wk job--and learns about Linux and the different distros and which companies offer support
- Calls Red Hat, or a Red Hat provider, and discusses the software, gets a demo, installs, tests, and orders the software and support contract
- Tries to find software to replace all of the titles used in Windows
- Trains employees or hires someone to train employees
Scenario 2
- Calls Dell and orders 10 of their cheapest XP PC's shipped to their door at $500 machine.
Scenario 3
- Does nothing, crosses fingers, replaces PC's one at a time as they break
I can't possibly imagine ANY SMALL BIZ owner following Scenario 1. I don't understand why linux zealots try to push linux down everyones throat, even where it doesn't belong.
The people that WANT to use linux are already using it. It's not as if a critical mass of people are JUST ABOUT to use Linux if only X would happen or Y would happen to nudge it along. Like it or not, linux is positioned as a Server OS.
Currently, OSX isn't enough to convert users. So when Linux is better then OSX, come back and tell me and I'll help you evangalize.
It's not the COST of the second lens, it's the SIZE. That's why the article summary boasts of the compact size of this solution. There isn't a lot of extra room available, especially in small form-factor drives.
A slashdotter capable of considering two opposing viewpoints at the same time.. What is this world comming to?!
I'm a windows developer and I like linux just fine. I build all of our webstuff w/ PHP on Ubuntu. I personally think that Windows is superior to Linux in the ways people actually care about, but linux is still a good product, especially for web servers.
I get that linux is more secure then windows. ESPECIALLY if you're just a Joe-User: It's so difficult to install and configure that he'd eventually just forget-it and leave the PC half-baked and useless. I've seen this happen to more then one coworker.
The MSFT commecials were suggesting that Windows will ignite the creativity of your CHILD by equipping them, in this specific example, with the ability to make & manipulate music on their PC.
It doesn't matter that professional artists of all stripes use Macs. Your child doesn't need pro tools (or Pro Tools, even tho it's available on Windows). An average parent wouldn't purchase $4000 custom golf clubs or $500 tennis rackets, for example. They'd go to Dicks Sporting Goods and buy something that most professionals wouldn't be caught dead using.
This is another example of the "Micro$oft $ucks" slashdot mentality.
/windows "music creation software"/ and what do you know: 70,000 results.
Worst-case scenario: A parent sees the commercial and decides that instead of the new Macbook that their son asked for to assist with his music production, they could purchase a great Wintel notebook for 2/3 the price. So they head to Best Buy, pick it up, and perhaps after they give it to their son they find out that it doesn't have ANY MUSIC CREATION SOFTWARE! Oh No! So they search Google for
Looks like those parents were DECIEVED all right.
Microsoft is advertising their platform. Their brand. Maybe the best thing is that in a year when the kid no longer cares about creating digital music he can use his Windows-based notebook to run any of the millions of other software applications that have been written for Windows over the past 15 years.
It's like saying that Gatorade commercials are deceptive because Gatorade doesn't actually sell sporting goods equipment.
I meant to also point out that what I'm talking about isn't the "soft money ban" alone, but in concert with the laws that prevent ads such as the swift boat ads for (i think) 30 days prior to the election. It could be longer then that.
This law already EXISTS. The law is written in a way that prevents the naming or endorsment of a candidate or party. So your post would be relevent if this wasn't a problem that's already been addressed by congress and the supreme court.
Since you insist, I'll give you an answer:
..... And your assertion that we should try to elect someone that agrees with the "majority of your peers" is ludicris. How do I know what the majority of my peers agree on? What issues take prescidence? No.... The idea is to vote for whichever guy holds views that more closely resemble your own.
.... but your opinion is still clueless. Voting daily is just not viable. It would strain our physical infrastructure, and cause more problems then it solves. Like how do you pick which issues go to the public and which issues are "special" issues that only congress can vote on? Clueless.
The answer to this, like most political problems in America, is simple: Get the money out of politics! We need to move to taxpayer-financed elections. Not like our current "Opt In" taxpayer financing, but mandatory federal financing. Different types of races are given different amounts of cash (President > Senate <> Congress) depending on the cost of airtime in your market. A congressmen from LA could need as much cash to run as a senator from Vermont. Individual doners and "PACs" can only run "issue ads" that use the same rules as we currently use to prohibit "soft money."
Once the money is out of politics, our representitives no longer rely on companies and wealthy doners. When that happens, they'll have no reason to do anything but vote their conscience. And if you don't like it, it'd be a lot easier to boot the guy out when his next challenger has as much cash as the incumbant.
This could cost more then $2 Billion per 4-year cycle, but $1.75 per citizen per year is a BARGAIN for the privlege of our democracy back.
It would take a huge grassroots effort to get this passed as a constitutional amendment, because the people in power would never vote to somehow abridge that power. Since the grassroots method is unlikely to succeed, congress should pass this law and have it go into effect in 20 years.
OK, whatever you say, I'm a "Nay Sayer"
I agree that there is a problem here, but your solution is just clueless. How do you suggest that representitives determine the opinions of his constituents? Do you suggest Americans "vote" on every issue like we vote on our representitives? If not, then are you suggesting the Representitive rely on polling? What if there are two polls that show different results? What if the poll is within the margin of error?
And what are you going to do when it's a vote to raise the debt ceiling or override a veto or ratify a treaty? If you think it's bad to have 535 people vote on something that they don't understand, why would you want 300 million?
And if you think we have low turnout now, just wait to see how low it gets when we have to vote a dozen times every single day.
The idea is to elect someone that agrees with you on MOST things. Or at least the most important things.
Dynamite was the most deft satire of high school life that I've ever seen. There are a ton of people that are twentysomething or younger that DONT'T like the movie, but in my experience, most do. And the older you get, the more you're removed from todays High School experience, the less likely that you'll enjoy the movie.
The story here is a lot more simple then you make it out to be. When the US Space Shuttle was designed it went through dozens, even hundreds of prototypes before they settled on a design. They spent millions of dollars to figure out the optimal shape and configuration for the craft.
When the Soviet Union decided to build a shuttle they didn't immediately just copy the US version. They tested a number of different aircraft designs. In the initial stages of development they wanted to build a craft that could take off and land in the vertical position. On landing it would fly into the atmosphere horizontally like our shuttle, then as it lowers to the ground, use thrusters to kick the tail down and put the craft vertical before it landed in the upright position. This was later scrapped due to complexity, along with other design expariments. In the end, they realized that they just couldn't improve upon the American design. We picked the design we did because it was the best. The soviet engineers saw no reason to use an inferior design just so it could be different.
I also disagree with the parent post that says we should give the soviets so much credit for their advanced technology. It's true that the soviet shuttle(s) were more advanced then the American fleet, but they were designed and constructed a decade later. Even then, they didn't have engineering parity with the US. A lot of the engine-related design decisions were made because the USSR had no experience developing solid-fuel rockets. Their few attempts at doing so were disasterous and they had no choice but use liquid fuel.
The article comes in at 10 pages.
t ent&task=view&id=3313&Itemid=2&pop=1&page=0
Here's the "Print Version"
http://www.next-gen.biz/index2.php?option=com_con
You have shown so little basic comprihension that I'm genuinely surprised that you're as old as you claim. From what you've shown here in both mental capacity and chosen vernacular I estimated 15, tops.
I'm terribly sorry for not writing 3 pages in footnotes for my original post. And I apologize for going so obviously above your head, but I don't usually craft my slashdot posts for the least common denominator. This might come as a disservice to the under-educated and uninitiated--like yourself, for example--but you can be sure I won't be losing any sleep over the matter.
I hope you've had as much fun here as I have. It can be very enjoyable to see the neon of my intellect shine so brightly against such a profound ignorance. Cheers.
Did you even read what you pasted into the webpage? If you did, then you *OBVIOUSLY* didn't understand it.
...Now...I have now explained to you in 3 posts what usually takes a Freshmen Econ student 5 minutes to read and understand in Section One, Chapter One. I'm certain that you will reply with some additional *moronic* remarks, but sadly the lesson is over for the evening. My advice to you: Cut your losses. Arguing with me about this is like arguing with me about algebra. I didn't invent it, and I can't change it. It's just the way it is.
In fact, the *proof* that you didn't understand a basic wikipedia entry, is that you later remarked on the except and said: " [the cost of pirating music is] no greater than doing NOTHING..." Essentially, you're saying "You have to do SOMETHING during that five minutes, so what's the diff?"
Now, go back and re-read the text that YOU CUT AND PASTED. You'll find an explanation that opportunity cost is equal to the *MOST VALUABLE* alternative. Not any old alternative. But the MOST VALUABLE.
If you understood the most basic tenents of economics, you'd understand that there is a difference between accounting cost and economic cost. You'd also have a meaningful understanding of time-poverty. The majority of Americans that make more then the median annual income (around $40k annum) consider themselves to be more time-poor then money-poor. An allegory of this is the classic example that started this thread: Spending $1+1-Minute to download at iTunes, versus $0+6 minutes on a P2P network. You want a proof? Here you go:
5-Minutes > $1
I have complete confidence in your ignorance and unfailing ability to avoid actually learning anything in this post. So please, don't surprise me.
This post is so inane that I'm not even going to try to explain to you why you're wrong. But you *are* wrong. If you want to spend your time learning why, then google "Opportunity Cost."
.....And while you're at it, google "Irony."
Opportunity Costing is a very mature--and fundamental--discipline in Economics.
AdWords has had the capability to track "conversions" by placing pieces of javascript on "Success!" pages for quite a long time. I've used it for years and always thought of it as very useful.
Apparently it's equally been useful to google.
Yes, that is precicely why you are wrong.
You seem to think that only pecuniary costs really matter. The time that I wrote-- 5 minutes -- is not download time. That is the time it takes to search for a song--including the multiple query variations that are usually tried--quickly sort the results on your screen and filter out the matches you don't want, queue the download of one or more copies of the song, review the file(s) for quality. And, often of the time, delete the "riaa bait" song(s) and repeat the process.
In economics time is computed as cost whether or not you're actually at work. A common economics test case is whether to pack a lunch vs. buying a lunch. You can often pack food for 1/2 of the price of eating out every day. But if an attorney who bills $250 an hour takes 5 minutes to pack a good lunch, you have to add $21 to the price of that sandwich. This clearly shows that eating out is more economical. Again, there is a "salary threshold" in this example as well.
If you had any clue about basic economic principles you'd have known this to begin with.