'First, right to work laws by their very nature are an interevention in free trade otherwise the laws wouldn't exist. Having said that though I Googled "right to work" and went through the results without finding a paper that had the cons of these laws. So I then added "pro con" and still didn't get any result, of the ten results on the first page I went through 9 of them but didn't check the tenth one because it was about the abortion debate, that said what the cons of right to work laws are though some gave what are the pros. Now can you provide a link to a research paper that supports your belief that right to work laws only benefit those with the means (and what you mean by "means")?'
Personally I don't find research papers to be a more sacred source of information than any other. However a search for right to work problems will yield a wikipedia page giving arguments for and against right to work laws. That said, to find what I was actually referring to search for 'at-will employment'.
When I refer to 'means' I am referring to the common usage. Wealth and/or financial leverage. The employer has the financial advantage and because of this employer and employee relationships are entirely advantageous to the employer. This allows the employer to exploit the employee to gain further financial advantage.
'if you really believe this, I suggest you read Smith's The Theory of Moral Sentiments . His first sentence in it is '
And that in no way contradicts what I said. In fact it implies that people want to see others do well and would ethically if left to their own devices. About that I can say nothing beyond that history has yet to show any groups of humans that by and large behave this way.
'Agreed! And you don't have real competition if you don't have a free market.'
Which leads to market leaders and winners and collaboration between those winners (something they are FREE to do in a free market) and that in turn means there will be no real competition. Hence, a free market does not lead to competition it leads to a lack of real competition.
'With few exceptions true free trade capitalism improves economics for everyone.'
True free trade is like every other aspect of life. It is a survival of the fitest competition that is advantageous to the fit and to the detrement on the unfit. In the case of economics a free trade environment puts the power in the hands of those with means. One good example of this is the employer and employee relationship in 'right to work' states. There is little or no government intervention and the since the employer has the greatest means and therefore is more fit the employer exploits the unfit to become even more fit.
Monopolies are a natural result because competing market leaders have the same common interests. Direct competition is to the benefit of the consumer and therefore not in the best interest of market leaders. Rather than compete with one another they will instead collaborate. If the market leaders in an industry collaborate (or legally merge) it essentially makes all choices equal from the perspective of the consumer and elminates their ability to vote with their dollar. Even where that is not the case, the more fit have more dollars to vote with.
Now, please don't misunderstand. I am actually not advocating any particular economic system. The simple truth is that there are not enough resources for everyone to live beyond the essentials needed to survive. Every piece of chicken you eat beyond what you need to survive is a piece of chicken being taken from the mouth of another. The price of a luxery vehicle could have saved dozens of lives. Adam Smith believed that the only right that is certain is the right to keep the things that you earn and accumulate. What that means is that Adam Smith and the principle of capitalism supports that idea that you have a right to your luxery vehicle despite the consequences to others.
Today's corporate aristocracy is simply the inevitable result of capitalism. When the only undeniable right is the right to what is yours and the only unquestioned code of ethics is the financial merit system, the result is that all other ethics and morals will eventually be superceded by financial motive.
'That said I think it is interesting that just like in health care, those who can afford to provide for themselves, are able to do so in a better fashion than those who look to the government to help them. Looks like you proved the point that leaving things to the government leads to massive incompetence and inefficiency.'
No doubt, although any entity the size of the government would have the same problems. Large private entities are nearly as bad as governments. However, like healthcare those who can afford to provide for themselves will always have the option of doing so if they feel it will provide them with a better level of care. The problem is that those who can provide for themselves aren't happy with their success providing them a higher quality of care. They want those who can't provide for themselves to be screwed as well. It isn't as if private healthcare would suddenly be unavailable if public healthcare were available.
Actually I find most of the inefficiency and incompetence that goes with government management comes from the side that is opposed to the program. For instance if government provided healthcare were to be passed in the United States; those opposed to that healthcare system would continue to fight every aspect of it. They would fight to minimize the cost by insisting on as much oversight over every penny spent as possible. They would fight to have experimental procedures and new drugs excluded from the program arguing that tax payer dollars should only be spent on proven treatments. Basically they would bog the system down with so much red tape that their predictions of inefficiency would be a self-fullfilled prophecy.
Ideally healthcare would never go completely public. Currently government employees enjoy some of the best health, dental, and vision benefits available. There is no reason that providing healthcare can't be as simple as extending those programs to all citizens and letting them visit healthcare professionals of their choice. The money has to come from somewhere but there is plenty of fat in the defense budget. There really is nothing to justify letting citizens die or live in poor health when we paid more than all of Europe for defense DURING PEACETIME.
The outrageous costs in private healthcare are largely associated with government intervention. For instance, without government granted monopolies in the form of patents, prescription medication will quickly become affordable. Without the ridiculous government oversight over prescription medication development the costs associated with developing drugs will be reduced by millions and would reach the people who need them in a 10th of the time. Without creative accounting the costs would be reduced by billions. Without drugs being worth billions because there are no more drug patents the free market will dramatically reduce the cost of the equipment and personel needed to develop the drugs. This will again drop the costs.
If you want an example of this just look at Social Security Disability. Virtually every claim is rejected. I can think of 8 people off hand who recieve disability for legitimate problems. Of those 8 people 7 were initially rejected. To the best of my knowledge those seven people had to live without any sort of income for a minimum of three years before they saw a dime of their benefits. The political forces that oppose disability seek to minimize it. The result is millions of americans paying into an insurance policy that the government refuses to honor. Personally I don't like social security but there are millions of upright hard working middle-class citizens who have paid into that systems for decades and if a credible doctor says they can't work they should be granted benefits on the spot. How much the appeals judges, career experts, transporation reimbursement, and second and third opinions from doctors who are so incompetent that the only way they can fill their schedule is to take SS appointments in the first place; cost taxpayers?
Patent monopolies are government granted monopolies and in direct contradiction to the founding principles of the nation. That said without any government intervention at all monopolies are the inevitable conclusion of capitalism. Monopolies in turn provide the wealthy with a safe way to guarantee they only become wealthier. It goes without saying that where there are monopolies there is no competition and therefore no benefit to the consumer.
Capitalism works on the assumption of individual human greed and jealousy as a driving motivator. People sugar coat it by phrasing it differently but that is what is boils down to. Under capitalism the right to accumalate personal wealth regardless of consequence to others is absolute.
Communism on the other hand depends upon group efforts and an honest work ethic.
In other words, communism is a naive system that fails to recognize that the average human is cruel, selfish, stingy, and lazy. Capitalism is a fundementally flawed and repressive system that supports an elite wealthy class on the shoulders of the populace and maintains order by keeping that populace largely blinded by the slim possibility that they could become one of the wealthy class. Basically, capitalism is much like the lottery.
I think we should all stop wasting our time with either system.
IANAL either but to the best of my ability to read you are wrong. The GPL is broken the moment you don't have the legal authority to grant those to whom you distribute the software the authority to excercise the same terms (this explicitly includes indirect distribution so your authority to grant those permissions must be able to pass no matter how many generations of redistribution occur after you distribute). It's a blanket thing that would apply to any legal impediment be it a patent, copyright violation, or court order.
'Write a free cross platform client and server network filesystem which runs on...' Here is the catch.
'...OSX' Only Apple can make OSX natively support your new standard. They probably will since it is an open standard.
'...Unix' Unix is modular and you could plug in your solution even if vendors didn't ship it. You probably wouldn't have much trouble getting vendors to include an implementation of your protocol since it only benefits them to do so.
'...Linux' Duh
'...Windows' And here is the show stopper. Only Microsoft can integrate native support for your protocol in windows. Further Microsoft has complete control of the API's that would be required to hook support into windows after installation and can change them at will and break your solution's installed base.
Since Microsoft is a monopoly they don't have to play ball and interoperate with you. For the same reason, in order to have a chance of success you must interoperate with them.
'A license that you need to make 100 copies of GPL-covered software, for each of your servers. That, or it's legal to make 100 copies of Windows, for each of your servers. Either way, Microsoft loses.'
You are correct it would be legal to install a single piece of software that you've purchased on 100 computers without needing to invoke the GPL or any other distribution license. With windows you give up the right to use the software in this manner when you agree to the EULA. The EULA is a contract in which you give up your default rights (which include every discretionary use not explicitly granted to the copyright holder) in exchange for (if I recall correctly) something like a $5 warranty.
It's a nice glitch that they silently amended. They can't make you agree to the EULA in order to the use the software. Contract law requires something of value be exchanged and you gained the right to use the software when you legally obtained the software by purchasing it through a legitimate distribution channel. Although they word it as if they are granting you permissions, every clause the EULA is either simply restating rights they already have under the law; rights you already have under the law; or adding additional restriction upon your excercise of de facto rights you would have without the EULA, with the exception of the promise of $5 worth of warranty coverage.
IANAL But actually you aren't. It is a single organization so you aren't distributing the software. A business sending a copy to their Dallas office from their NY office is no different than an individual moving the cd from their right hand to their left. The only thing that prevents you from installing it on every pc is the EULA. Breaking the EULA is a breach of contract, not copyright infringment.
The terms of the GPL only kick in for distribution. There are no GPL restrictions on how you use the software and there is no EULA.
'DRM isn't necessarily evil; it's the unfair enforcement of such DRM that is, which is his main point. He's also saying also that a standard unencrypted mp3 can have DRM merely by being bound by a license agreement; it's once you start employing a digital means to enforce those terms that DRM begins to become intrusive.'
Anything that attempts to assert for the copyright holder greater control and right than copyright law itself grants them is intrusive. This includes most license agreements. Aside from a few open licenses intended to grant distribution rights every license I have seen for content attempts to gain some sort of control over how the content is used after I purchase it above and beyond the distribution controls granted by copyright.
'And also much more likely to be targeted by "real" criminals.'
Most crackers aren't real criminals. They are kiddie (in terms of 'normal' maturity not necessarily age) geniuses that have different motives than real criminals. Most of the 'real' criminals in the cyber world are spammers.
They work around it. They charge the same price upfront and give the incentives as kickbacks after the initial sale. It works out to the same anti-competative behavior but complies with the letter of the DoJ agreement.
How about they keep them at the hospital in containment to assure they don't spread anything. As for bacteria I didn't mean the plague so much as that the high cost of healthcare makes doctors feel obligated to prescribe medicine to the patient when they don't need it. This causes overuse of anti-biotics and makes the ones we have less effective.
Shh don't tell anyone but bacteria don't cause colds. If the doctor feels guilty about taking your $75 and gives you anti-biotics when you come in for a cold then it doesn't help you feel better it just makes anti-biotic resistant bacteria.
Say that again when they refilm Shawshank Redemption and do away with the requirement that the maggot fed to Jake (the bird) have died of natural causes.
Yes that's right the animal rights nuts decided it would be cruel to the maggot. Any day now I expect to see a 'save the maggots' movement.
Since there are no effective DRM schemes out it seems silly to evaluate which are 'more secure'. What do you do; count the ways available to bypass the DRM? There are easy cookie cutter utilities to crack them all.
'If the company sold 2000 computers a year, and had the microsoft tax break which require them to pay the $35 instead of $99 for an OEM of XP home, they are only talking about $128,000 or so a year difference.'
You assume that they are pocketing the difference. Mom and Pop's that just sell computers pretty much non-existant nowdays; what you have are service shops that will also build a computer. PC stores have not survived. A mom and pop store simply could not sell a decent machine under $500 today and would be taking a pretty tiny profit (maybe none after honoring the warranty) at that price. You can buy that same computer for $200-$300 after rebates from a large PC vendor. The $50+ discount they get from Microsoft definately plays a role in that. Anyone who has looked into bulk purchasing of PC components can tell you that the low margins in that market assures you won't see a very large discount there.
I've recommended and sold a lot of computers. A computer that is identical with a 20% price hike will not sell.
'The Mac Mini is a very decent machine, by comparison, and doesn't come full of shovelware nor does it get infected constantly when the crappy pathetic antivirus "trial" times out after a few weeks.'
Those are windows and vendor issues and therefore irrelevant. We are talking about PC's vs Macs, not windows vs OSX.
'The low end PC still does cost $550 and up -- I went shopping on Gateway's website and they were charging the same for their low-end PCs as they were for Mac Minis -- and that was at the educational store.'
At full price sure. You can walk into a best buy, circuit city, or office depot and get a PC for $200-$300 after rebate. If they don't have one now they will within the month if you follow their specials.
'If there was a pandemic illness sweeping the nation, a national emergency would be declared, and people would get the immediate attention they required.'
Most illnesses of this sort, including the black plague; could have been stopped if appropriate care were provided BEFORE the pandemic was a pandemic. Bum A slips off a ship carrying the new plague. He feels sick but can't afford healthcare and doubts he'll receive the treatment he needs if he shows up at the ER claiming a heart attack again. So he hangs out with other bums on the street. They in turn ask you for change outside the subway. 48hrs later thousands of people are infected and starting to feel sick. But they don't go to the doctor either. After all, you only go to the doctor if you are really sick in this country because it is expensive. So they wait and thousands more contract the illness. Some of the first were on their way to the airport so they spread it from city to city. And so on and so forth it goes from there. With free healthcare you go to the doctor when you feel sick and everytime you feel sick. The doctor doesn't prescribe anti-biotics if you have a cold because he no longer feels like he has to do something to justify your $75. Anti-biotics remain effective and plagues have a much higher probability of being caught in the first place.
Oh yeah. Plus nobody dies sick, alone, and unable to chew their food because you are rich, cheap, and have principles. Healthcare (including the sub-aspects like Dental, Vision, etc) is a basic fundemental human need. This is the wealthiest nation in the world; this nation is so wealthy that our definition of lower income bracket has a lifestyle that exceeds the wealthy of other nations in many respects. It is just fucking pathetic that a wealthy nation like this can't afford to provide the essentials to its citizens.
It might hurt your work ethic but the secret is that working hard does NOT bring success or a guarantee of making your way in life. The only ones who claim that are the ones that worked hard and succeeded.
'The "average" Windows user isn't the ones downloading their apps. Those are mostly the power users that build their machines and just download a new copy of spybot anytime they need it. Those are probably also the same people who run Kazaa, Limewire, and every other p2p spyware infested program on the planet.'
Which is why those default security programs are NOT good enough. Those users may not spend time doing that but they pay me for my time to do it for them. Their computers slow to a crawl and then they call me. Believe me, they pay for the experience.
'Besides, didn't Slashdot complain once that Apple didn't have a $500-$700 system available? Now that they do, people STILL complain. You just can't make anyone happy around here.'
That was when a low end pc cost $500-$700. Now the figure would be $200-$300. A Mac Mini is not comparable to a decent gaming PC by a long shot. Your comparing a low end Mac to a high end PC.
The price difference used to be justified with superior hardware but now that mac's are just rebranded pc's with a different OS how does Apple justify the price difference?
There is no secret conspiracy. Microsoft made agreements with vendors requiring them to exclusively ship the MS OS. They aren't allowed to do this anymore due to anti-trust provisions. However, they still give pricing advantages in exchange for not shipping other choices. In a buisness with margins as tiny as personal computers there isn't much choice. You can't ship other OS's and still remain competative. And you can't cut out the option of using the monopoly OS either.
This isn't a gunman on the grassy knoll here. None of this is in dispute.
I really don't drink more than once or twice a year. But I have been in fights and I've always had friends covering my back. I have one friend that I know will be my friend for life. He has not only covered my back and me his in turn; between us there is no such thing as my money and his money. It doesn't matter if he has no job, I'll buy him dinner. If he shows up in the middle of the night running from the law I'll give him a place to stay and help him avoid it. He's done the same for me.
Unfortunately, people such as he and I are few and far between. People like you are a dime a million. Whether or not money rules the world depends on your priorities in the world.
Vista doesn't even have any worthwhile new features. Mostly useless aesthetic nonesense. I haven't had a mac since OS 9 so I really can't comment on what is in the updates. But if Apple is charging for something that delivers LESS than Vista that is fairly sad.
Slashdot Mirror
'First, right to work laws by their very nature are an interevention in free trade otherwise the laws wouldn't exist. Having said that though I Googled "right to work" and went through the results without finding a paper that had the cons of these laws. So I then added "pro con" and still didn't get any result, of the ten results on the first page I went through 9 of them but didn't check the tenth one because it was about the abortion debate, that said what the cons of right to work laws are though some gave what are the pros. Now can you provide a link to a research paper that supports your belief that right to work laws only benefit those with the means (and what you mean by "means")?'
Personally I don't find research papers to be a more sacred source of information than any other. However a search for right to work problems will yield a wikipedia page giving arguments for and against right to work laws. That said, to find what I was actually referring to search for 'at-will employment'.
When I refer to 'means' I am referring to the common usage. Wealth and/or financial leverage. The employer has the financial advantage and because of this employer and employee relationships are entirely advantageous to the employer. This allows the employer to exploit the employee to gain further financial advantage.
'if you really believe this, I suggest you read Smith's The Theory of Moral Sentiments . His first sentence in it is '
And that in no way contradicts what I said. In fact it implies that people want to see others do well and would ethically if left to their own devices. About that I can say nothing beyond that history has yet to show any groups of humans that by and large behave this way.
'Agreed! And you don't have real competition if you don't have a free market.'
Which leads to market leaders and winners and collaboration between those winners (something they are FREE to do in a free market) and that in turn means there will be no real competition. Hence, a free market does not lead to competition it leads to a lack of real competition.
'With few exceptions true free trade capitalism improves economics for everyone.'
True free trade is like every other aspect of life. It is a survival of the fitest competition that is advantageous to the fit and to the detrement on the unfit. In the case of economics a free trade environment puts the power in the hands of those with means. One good example of this is the employer and employee relationship in 'right to work' states. There is little or no government intervention and the since the employer has the greatest means and therefore is more fit the employer exploits the unfit to become even more fit.
Monopolies are a natural result because competing market leaders have the same common interests. Direct competition is to the benefit of the consumer and therefore not in the best interest of market leaders. Rather than compete with one another they will instead collaborate. If the market leaders in an industry collaborate (or legally merge) it essentially makes all choices equal from the perspective of the consumer and elminates their ability to vote with their dollar. Even where that is not the case, the more fit have more dollars to vote with.
Now, please don't misunderstand. I am actually not advocating any particular economic system. The simple truth is that there are not enough resources for everyone to live beyond the essentials needed to survive. Every piece of chicken you eat beyond what you need to survive is a piece of chicken being taken from the mouth of another. The price of a luxery vehicle could have saved dozens of lives. Adam Smith believed that the only right that is certain is the right to keep the things that you earn and accumulate. What that means is that Adam Smith and the principle of capitalism supports that idea that you have a right to your luxery vehicle despite the consequences to others.
Today's corporate aristocracy is simply the inevitable result of capitalism. When the only undeniable right is the right to what is yours and the only unquestioned code of ethics is the financial merit system, the result is that all other ethics and morals will eventually be superceded by financial motive.
'That said I think it is interesting that just like in health care, those who can afford to provide for themselves, are able to do so in a better fashion than those who look to the government to help them. Looks like you proved the point that leaving things to the government leads to massive incompetence and inefficiency.'
No doubt, although any entity the size of the government would have the same problems. Large private entities are nearly as bad as governments. However, like healthcare those who can afford to provide for themselves will always have the option of doing so if they feel it will provide them with a better level of care. The problem is that those who can provide for themselves aren't happy with their success providing them a higher quality of care. They want those who can't provide for themselves to be screwed as well. It isn't as if private healthcare would suddenly be unavailable if public healthcare were available.
Actually I find most of the inefficiency and incompetence that goes with government management comes from the side that is opposed to the program. For instance if government provided healthcare were to be passed in the United States; those opposed to that healthcare system would continue to fight every aspect of it. They would fight to minimize the cost by insisting on as much oversight over every penny spent as possible. They would fight to have experimental procedures and new drugs excluded from the program arguing that tax payer dollars should only be spent on proven treatments. Basically they would bog the system down with so much red tape that their predictions of inefficiency would be a self-fullfilled prophecy.
Ideally healthcare would never go completely public. Currently government employees enjoy some of the best health, dental, and vision benefits available. There is no reason that providing healthcare can't be as simple as extending those programs to all citizens and letting them visit healthcare professionals of their choice. The money has to come from somewhere but there is plenty of fat in the defense budget. There really is nothing to justify letting citizens die or live in poor health when we paid more than all of Europe for defense DURING PEACETIME.
The outrageous costs in private healthcare are largely associated with government intervention. For instance, without government granted monopolies in the form of patents, prescription medication will quickly become affordable. Without the ridiculous government oversight over prescription medication development the costs associated with developing drugs will be reduced by millions and would reach the people who need them in a 10th of the time. Without creative accounting the costs would be reduced by billions. Without drugs being worth billions because there are no more drug patents the free market will dramatically reduce the cost of the equipment and personel needed to develop the drugs. This will again drop the costs.
If you want an example of this just look at Social Security Disability. Virtually every claim is rejected. I can think of 8 people off hand who recieve disability for legitimate problems. Of those 8 people 7 were initially rejected. To the best of my knowledge those seven people had to live without any sort of income for a minimum of three years before they saw a dime of their benefits. The political forces that oppose disability seek to minimize it. The result is millions of americans paying into an insurance policy that the government refuses to honor. Personally I don't like social security but there are millions of upright hard working middle-class citizens who have paid into that systems for decades and if a credible doctor says they can't work they should be granted benefits on the spot. How much the appeals judges, career experts, transporation reimbursement, and second and third opinions from doctors who are so incompetent that the only way they can fill their schedule is to take SS appointments in the first place; cost taxpayers?
Patent monopolies are government granted monopolies and in direct contradiction to the founding principles of the nation. That said without any government intervention at all monopolies are the inevitable conclusion of capitalism. Monopolies in turn provide the wealthy with a safe way to guarantee they only become wealthier. It goes without saying that where there are monopolies there is no competition and therefore no benefit to the consumer.
Capitalism works on the assumption of individual human greed and jealousy as a driving motivator. People sugar coat it by phrasing it differently but that is what is boils down to. Under capitalism the right to accumalate personal wealth regardless of consequence to others is absolute.
Communism on the other hand depends upon group efforts and an honest work ethic.
In other words, communism is a naive system that fails to recognize that the average human is cruel, selfish, stingy, and lazy. Capitalism is a fundementally flawed and repressive system that supports an elite wealthy class on the shoulders of the populace and maintains order by keeping that populace largely blinded by the slim possibility that they could become one of the wealthy class. Basically, capitalism is much like the lottery.
I think we should all stop wasting our time with either system.
IANAL either but to the best of my ability to read you are wrong. The GPL is broken the moment you don't have the legal authority to grant those to whom you distribute the software the authority to excercise the same terms (this explicitly includes indirect distribution so your authority to grant those permissions must be able to pass no matter how many generations of redistribution occur after you distribute). It's a blanket thing that would apply to any legal impediment be it a patent, copyright violation, or court order.
There is a huge problem with this.
'Write a free cross platform client and server network filesystem which runs on...'
Here is the catch.
'...OSX'
Only Apple can make OSX natively support your new standard. They probably will since it is an open standard.
'...Unix'
Unix is modular and you could plug in your solution even if vendors didn't ship it. You probably wouldn't have much trouble getting vendors to include an implementation of your protocol since it only benefits them to do so.
'...Linux'
Duh
'...Windows'
And here is the show stopper. Only Microsoft can integrate native support for your protocol in windows. Further Microsoft has complete control of the API's that would be required to hook support into windows after installation and can change them at will and break your solution's installed base.
Since Microsoft is a monopoly they don't have to play ball and interoperate with you. For the same reason, in order to have a chance of success you must interoperate with them.
'A license that you need to make 100 copies of GPL-covered software, for each of your servers. That, or it's legal to make 100 copies of Windows, for each of your servers. Either way, Microsoft loses.'
You are correct it would be legal to install a single piece of software that you've purchased on 100 computers without needing to invoke the GPL or any other distribution license. With windows you give up the right to use the software in this manner when you agree to the EULA. The EULA is a contract in which you give up your default rights (which include every discretionary use not explicitly granted to the copyright holder) in exchange for (if I recall correctly) something like a $5 warranty.
It's a nice glitch that they silently amended. They can't make you agree to the EULA in order to the use the software. Contract law requires something of value be exchanged and you gained the right to use the software when you legally obtained the software by purchasing it through a legitimate distribution channel. Although they word it as if they are granting you permissions, every clause the EULA is either simply restating rights they already have under the law; rights you already have under the law; or adding additional restriction upon your excercise of de facto rights you would have without the EULA, with the exception of the promise of $5 worth of warranty coverage.
IANAL But actually you aren't. It is a single organization so you aren't distributing the software. A business sending a copy to their Dallas office from their NY office is no different than an individual moving the cd from their right hand to their left. The only thing that prevents you from installing it on every pc is the EULA. Breaking the EULA is a breach of contract, not copyright infringment.
The terms of the GPL only kick in for distribution. There are no GPL restrictions on how you use the software and there is no EULA.
'DRM isn't necessarily evil; it's the unfair enforcement of such DRM that is, which is his main point. He's also saying also that a standard unencrypted mp3 can have DRM merely by being bound by a license agreement; it's once you start employing a digital means to enforce those terms that DRM begins to become intrusive.'
Anything that attempts to assert for the copyright holder greater control and right than copyright law itself grants them is intrusive. This includes most license agreements. Aside from a few open licenses intended to grant distribution rights every license I have seen for content attempts to gain some sort of control over how the content is used after I purchase it above and beyond the distribution controls granted by copyright.
'And also much more likely to be targeted by "real" criminals.'
Most crackers aren't real criminals. They are kiddie (in terms of 'normal' maturity not necessarily age) geniuses that have different motives than real criminals. Most of the 'real' criminals in the cyber world are spammers.
He can say anything he wants in open letters. Actions speak louder than words.
They work around it. They charge the same price upfront and give the incentives as kickbacks after the initial sale. It works out to the same anti-competative behavior but complies with the letter of the DoJ agreement.
How about they keep them at the hospital in containment to assure they don't spread anything. As for bacteria I didn't mean the plague so much as that the high cost of healthcare makes doctors feel obligated to prescribe medicine to the patient when they don't need it. This causes overuse of anti-biotics and makes the ones we have less effective.
Shh don't tell anyone but bacteria don't cause colds. If the doctor feels guilty about taking your $75 and gives you anti-biotics when you come in for a cold then it doesn't help you feel better it just makes anti-biotic resistant bacteria.
Say that again when they refilm Shawshank Redemption and do away with the requirement that the maggot fed to Jake (the bird) have died of natural causes.
Yes that's right the animal rights nuts decided it would be cruel to the maggot. Any day now I expect to see a 'save the maggots' movement.
But why not convert the heat directly into electricity without an intermediate mechanical generator? http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2001/electricity-120 5.html
Since there are no effective DRM schemes out it seems silly to evaluate which are 'more secure'. What do you do; count the ways available to bypass the DRM? There are easy cookie cutter utilities to crack them all.
'If the company sold 2000 computers a year, and had the microsoft tax break which require them to pay the $35 instead of $99 for an OEM of XP home, they are only talking about $128,000 or so a year difference.'
You assume that they are pocketing the difference. Mom and Pop's that just sell computers pretty much non-existant nowdays; what you have are service shops that will also build a computer. PC stores have not survived. A mom and pop store simply could not sell a decent machine under $500 today and would be taking a pretty tiny profit (maybe none after honoring the warranty) at that price. You can buy that same computer for $200-$300 after rebates from a large PC vendor. The $50+ discount they get from Microsoft definately plays a role in that. Anyone who has looked into bulk purchasing of PC components can tell you that the low margins in that market assures you won't see a very large discount there.
I've recommended and sold a lot of computers. A computer that is identical with a 20% price hike will not sell.
'The Mac Mini is a very decent machine, by comparison, and doesn't come full of shovelware nor does it get infected constantly when the crappy pathetic antivirus "trial" times out after a few weeks.'
Those are windows and vendor issues and therefore irrelevant. We are talking about PC's vs Macs, not windows vs OSX.
'The low end PC still does cost $550 and up -- I went shopping on Gateway's website and they were charging the same for their low-end PCs as they were for Mac Minis -- and that was at the educational store.'
At full price sure. You can walk into a best buy, circuit city, or office depot and get a PC for $200-$300 after rebate. If they don't have one now they will within the month if you follow their specials.
'If there was a pandemic illness sweeping the nation, a national emergency would be declared, and people would get the immediate attention they required.'
Most illnesses of this sort, including the black plague; could have been stopped if appropriate care were provided BEFORE the pandemic was a pandemic. Bum A slips off a ship carrying the new plague. He feels sick but can't afford healthcare and doubts he'll receive the treatment he needs if he shows up at the ER claiming a heart attack again. So he hangs out with other bums on the street. They in turn ask you for change outside the subway. 48hrs later thousands of people are infected and starting to feel sick. But they don't go to the doctor either. After all, you only go to the doctor if you are really sick in this country because it is expensive. So they wait and thousands more contract the illness. Some of the first were on their way to the airport so they spread it from city to city. And so on and so forth it goes from there. With free healthcare you go to the doctor when you feel sick and everytime you feel sick. The doctor doesn't prescribe anti-biotics if you have a cold because he no longer feels like he has to do something to justify your $75. Anti-biotics remain effective and plagues have a much higher probability of being caught in the first place.
Oh yeah. Plus nobody dies sick, alone, and unable to chew their food because you are rich, cheap, and have principles. Healthcare (including the sub-aspects like Dental, Vision, etc) is a basic fundemental human need. This is the wealthiest nation in the world; this nation is so wealthy that our definition of lower income bracket has a lifestyle that exceeds the wealthy of other nations in many respects. It is just fucking pathetic that a wealthy nation like this can't afford to provide the essentials to its citizens.
It might hurt your work ethic but the secret is that working hard does NOT bring success or a guarantee of making your way in life. The only ones who claim that are the ones that worked hard and succeeded.
'The "average" Windows user isn't the ones downloading their apps. Those are mostly the power users that build their machines and just download a new copy of spybot anytime they need it. Those are probably also the same people who run Kazaa, Limewire, and every other p2p spyware infested program on the planet.'
Which is why those default security programs are NOT good enough. Those users may not spend time doing that but they pay me for my time to do it for them. Their computers slow to a crawl and then they call me. Believe me, they pay for the experience.
'Besides, didn't Slashdot complain once that Apple didn't have a $500-$700 system available? Now that they do, people STILL complain. You just can't make anyone happy around here.'
That was when a low end pc cost $500-$700. Now the figure would be $200-$300. A Mac Mini is not comparable to a decent gaming PC by a long shot. Your comparing a low end Mac to a high end PC.
The price difference used to be justified with superior hardware but now that mac's are just rebranded pc's with a different OS how does Apple justify the price difference?
There is no secret conspiracy. Microsoft made agreements with vendors requiring them to exclusively ship the MS OS. They aren't allowed to do this anymore due to anti-trust provisions. However, they still give pricing advantages in exchange for not shipping other choices. In a buisness with margins as tiny as personal computers there isn't much choice. You can't ship other OS's and still remain competative. And you can't cut out the option of using the monopoly OS either.
This isn't a gunman on the grassy knoll here. None of this is in dispute.
I really don't drink more than once or twice a year. But I have been in fights and I've always had friends covering my back. I have one friend that I know will be my friend for life. He has not only covered my back and me his in turn; between us there is no such thing as my money and his money. It doesn't matter if he has no job, I'll buy him dinner. If he shows up in the middle of the night running from the law I'll give him a place to stay and help him avoid it. He's done the same for me.
Unfortunately, people such as he and I are few and far between. People like you are a dime a million. Whether or not money rules the world depends on your priorities in the world.
Vista doesn't even have any worthwhile new features. Mostly useless aesthetic nonesense. I haven't had a mac since OS 9 so I really can't comment on what is in the updates. But if Apple is charging for something that delivers LESS than Vista that is fairly sad.