Pager batteries last a long time because they just listen for a page and don't continuously communicate with the network. Why can't cellphone work the same way when not in use? I guess the answer is that cellphones won't work as smoothly or as transparently as a phone has too because there will be some delay in knowing that the phone can even ring (it might be off altogether). It sure would be more efficient if there were at least a mode like that you could switch into. Of course, the type of network is completely different (probably cost big bux) and you can receive pages in a lot of places where you can't get a cell call.
I think that ultimately consumers are going to band together into large groups that can use their collective bargaining power to deal with companies in ways that allows much more restricted sharing of information.
However it happens, consumers should ultimately be able to control who stores what information about them.
Also, companies should be made to notify consumers any time something is done in their name, such as instant credit being extended. How much fraud would happen if consumers had to be sent an instant message every time their credit cards were used and a quick way of objecting to that use was available? I imagine a lot of it couldn't happen at all.
Consumers should also be able to control who can mail stuff to their homes as well. And all this dumping of materials outside your front door or on your car should be banned without express permission from the property owners.
Realistically, government will not achieve any of these reforms until it actually represents the interests of the citizenry instead of the corporations.
I think the Kurds should have their own nation. Turkey should let the kurds determine what government governs their territory.
According to the American Declaration of Independence, sometimes "it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another"; surely the oppression of the kurds justifies them being independent. That oppression is worse than the taxes the British tried to impose on the American colonies.
Of course, such notions and rights are generally thought to be only suitable for those of European descent, so perhaps we shouldn't promote the idea. I do think that real peace in the world will not be possible until it is possible to do so without conflict, as is already possible in places like Canada (where Quebec has had referendums on the issue) and Switzerland (with its flexible cantons).
Granted, Turkey will not be ok with the idea, but it is the right thing for the Kurds. Some day they will achieve it and I, for one, will be quite happy for them. The more free people there are, the less wars have to be fought. We should try to induce Turkey to allow this, perhaps in exchange for entry into the EU, limits on what a Kurdistan could do militarily and maybe a load of cash.
I think your understanding of our involvement in the region is accurate as far as it goes. Of course, we were there because of the Soviets.
A lot of the issues in the middle east go back to the colonialism of the European powers. The artificial divisions and unions that led to the borders of countries like Iraq and Iran should be addressed. The Kurds should get their own country, the Shiites in Iraq should be able to merge into Iran, etc.
Yes, in the hands of a tyrant an enlarged Iran is a threat. That's why we should extract some major concessions for making such changes, concessions that would make all the neighbors happy. Real freedom of speech, military reductions including giving up nuclear ambitions and some enforcement capability would be good.
This whole approach of people together who hate each other and then wait and see what happens is pretty dumb. It may have made sense for the colonial powers but has worked out to be more of a problem than any its solved.
Check it out. Its still unproven, but on paper its supposed to be cheaper and more convenient than current mass transit systems. It does away with all the stop and go and sharing rides with those you'd rather not.
You just swipe your payment card and key in your destination and it proceeds there nonstop.
Its elevated and much narrower than light rail, so the right of way and construction costs are cheaper.
Ultimately, even our packages, dry cleaning and take out dinners will all use a similar network. Why do we have to move 3500 pounds around to get 2 pounds of food?
The stockholders provided the capital to get things going and, in the case of a public company, additional capital in the IPO and any subsequent offerings.
They put real money at risk and are entitled to a return just as you are when you place your money in the bank. Except their return is not guaranteed and their entire investment could be lost. They are entitled to as much of a reward as their good judgement and tolerance for risk earns them.
One of the elements that makes the economy work is a system of prices. People don't know what effort goes into creating something or making a service available; they only care about the price they have to pay. This enables them to focus on their particular part of the equation.
So a system of prices for the factors of production available within a company that accurately reflect the costs involved in making those things available is essential to make such a system work. Otherwise, assests are allocated politically, which tends to break down as things scale. And, again, because of distance from information.
The US economy is more efficient than the Soviet ever was precisely because decisions can be made by those with better access to relevant information and individuals are free to make decisions that best suit their own interests. They voluntarily align their interests with others through enforceable contracts. Control from the top over how individuals allocate their resources is counterproductive. What is important is a stable, predictable legal framework and a solid, unmanipulated currency.
The same principle also work with a corporation. Investable assets should be controlled by those who have proven their good judgement and how they invest those assets, say in new products and services, should be guided by the information they have, not directives from on high (not that those are never suitable, sometimes they are).
There are many mechanisms which can put into place that leverage the capabilities of a free market. This is quite different, actually, from democracy, where everyone decides what the organization does. Each player actually decides the best use of the assets he has, rather than trying to decide what others should do.
In such an environment, leadership focusses on building this framework, creating incentives and making the system work better, rather than on dictating what should be done within the framework.
Ideally, government should not be using force to transfer funds to those needing an education. Perhaps the thing to do is to create a system of financial instruments that allow people to invest in the education of individuals and be able to collect a portion of future earnings. This would address the needs of individuals to be educated, investors to get a return and government to avoid using force to get this important thing financed.
Slashdot Mirror
Excellent thanks. Hadn't thought about the battery considerations. I guess one could always use a second battery, but again that adds expense.
Pager batteries last a long time because they just listen for a page and don't continuously communicate with the network. Why can't cellphone work the same way when not in use? I guess the answer is that cellphones won't work as smoothly or as transparently as a phone has too because there will be some delay in knowing that the phone can even ring (it might be off altogether). It sure would be more efficient if there were at least a mode like that you could switch into. Of course, the type of network is completely different (probably cost big bux) and you can receive pages in a lot of places where you can't get a cell call.
However it happens, consumers should ultimately be able to control who stores what information about them.
Also, companies should be made to notify consumers any time something is done in their name, such as instant credit being extended. How much fraud would happen if consumers had to be sent an instant message every time their credit cards were used and a quick way of objecting to that use was available? I imagine a lot of it couldn't happen at all.
Consumers should also be able to control who can mail stuff to their homes as well. And all this dumping of materials outside your front door or on your car should be banned without express permission from the property owners.
Realistically, government will not achieve any of these reforms until it actually represents the interests of the citizenry instead of the corporations.
According to the American Declaration of Independence, sometimes "it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another"; surely the oppression of the kurds justifies them being independent. That oppression is worse than the taxes the British tried to impose on the American colonies.
Of course, such notions and rights are generally thought to be only suitable for those of European descent, so perhaps we shouldn't promote the idea. I do think that real peace in the world will not be possible until it is possible to do so without conflict, as is already possible in places like Canada (where Quebec has had referendums on the issue) and Switzerland (with its flexible cantons).
Granted, Turkey will not be ok with the idea, but it is the right thing for the Kurds. Some day they will achieve it and I, for one, will be quite happy for them. The more free people there are, the less wars have to be fought. We should try to induce Turkey to allow this, perhaps in exchange for entry into the EU, limits on what a Kurdistan could do militarily and maybe a load of cash.
Why do you think Saddam was elected? My understanding is that he came to power in 1963 with the help of the CIA. It was a coup, not an election.
I think your understanding of our involvement in the region is accurate as far as it goes. Of course, we were there because of the Soviets. A lot of the issues in the middle east go back to the colonialism of the European powers. The artificial divisions and unions that led to the borders of countries like Iraq and Iran should be addressed. The Kurds should get their own country, the Shiites in Iraq should be able to merge into Iran, etc. Yes, in the hands of a tyrant an enlarged Iran is a threat. That's why we should extract some major concessions for making such changes, concessions that would make all the neighbors happy. Real freedom of speech, military reductions including giving up nuclear ambitions and some enforcement capability would be good. This whole approach of people together who hate each other and then wait and see what happens is pretty dumb. It may have made sense for the colonial powers but has worked out to be more of a problem than any its solved.
Check it out. Its still unproven, but on paper its supposed to be cheaper and more convenient than current mass transit systems. It does away with all the stop and go and sharing rides with those you'd rather not. You just swipe your payment card and key in your destination and it proceeds there nonstop. Its elevated and much narrower than light rail, so the right of way and construction costs are cheaper. Ultimately, even our packages, dry cleaning and take out dinners will all use a similar network. Why do we have to move 3500 pounds around to get 2 pounds of food?
The stockholders provided the capital to get things going and, in the case of a public company, additional capital in the IPO and any subsequent offerings.
They put real money at risk and are entitled to a return just as you are when you place your money in the bank. Except their return is not guaranteed and their entire investment could be lost. They are entitled to as much of a reward as their good judgement and tolerance for risk earns them.
One of the elements that makes the economy work is a system of prices. People don't know what effort goes into creating something or making a service available; they only care about the price they have to pay. This enables them to focus on their particular part of the equation. So a system of prices for the factors of production available within a company that accurately reflect the costs involved in making those things available is essential to make such a system work. Otherwise, assests are allocated politically, which tends to break down as things scale. And, again, because of distance from information.
The US economy is more efficient than the Soviet ever was precisely because decisions can be made by those with better access to relevant information and individuals are free to make decisions that best suit their own interests. They voluntarily align their interests with others through enforceable contracts. Control from the top over how individuals allocate their resources is counterproductive. What is important is a stable, predictable legal framework and a solid, unmanipulated currency.
The same principle also work with a corporation. Investable assets should be controlled by those who have proven their good judgement and how they invest those assets, say in new products and services, should be guided by the information they have, not directives from on high (not that those are never suitable, sometimes they are).
There are many mechanisms which can put into place that leverage the capabilities of a free market. This is quite different, actually, from democracy, where everyone decides what the organization does. Each player actually decides the best use of the assets he has, rather than trying to decide what others should do.
In such an environment, leadership focusses on building this framework, creating incentives and making the system work better, rather than on dictating what should be done within the framework.
Ideally, government should not be using force to transfer funds to those needing an education. Perhaps the thing to do is to create a system of financial instruments that allow people to invest in the education of individuals and be able to collect a portion of future earnings. This would address the needs of individuals to be educated, investors to get a return and government to avoid using force to get this important thing financed.
What is the Libertarian position on proportional representation (http://fairvote.org/pr) and instant runoff voting (http://fairvote.org/irv)?