I usually avoid commenting on moderation of my posts but the one above brought to my attention something rather peculiar which occured to me several times before. The post is moderated (as of the time I am writing this): 70% Troll 30% Insightful.
It would appear that I have a privilege of being a member of one of the rarest of species: an insightful troll. I am not sure if I should be congratulating myself or consider surrendering to despair.
and instructing somebody howto better insulate their hose?
I also neglected to mention that the act of teaching is also labour which is subject to trade, although the knowledge which you are transferring to the student is not. You are merely getting paid for the labour of information acquisition/storage/processing/handling and in the end transmission of it not for the thing that is being so handled.
Ideas / Information could be argued to be thoughts, that is "mental" labour, so what is the basic difference between selling the physical labour of chopping wood for an hour and instructing somebody howto better insulate their hose?
The difference is the end result. While chopping wood results in a unique set of physical objects, smaller chunks of wood where before there was a large one, the result of "mental labour" is an abstract concept, which by its very nature, exists by duplication (from mind to mind). So while it is conceivable that one could trade the labour of coming up with the thought (and which in no way was contradicted by my statement) the end result is not tradeable. For example, an artist who composes a symphony and whose living expenses are covered by an arts foundation is being recompensed for his labour but the symphony itself is not subject to trade. A stage performer, whose efforts on stage are paid for by the admission fee, is similarly paid for his mental (and physical) effort of interpreting the play but the end result (information transmitted by photons and air particles into his audience's senses) is not tradeable.
Sorry, that is plainly incorrect. People pay for books. People pay for newspapers and weather reports. People pay for employees who have knowledge. Information is an extremely valuable asset.
Then lets examine each of these closer. What do you pay for in a book? The paper? The printing process or the ink? You perheaps imagine yourself paying for the information, but if it were so, you would be entitled to move it out of the book to any other medium of your choice, in perpetuity. Is it so? As a matter of fact, your mistaken presumption comes from the process of coupling the information and a physical object, such as a book or a vinyl record or a CD, and then claiming that the sale of the physical object constitutes a sale of the information. Unfortunately that coupling is non-permanent and given the proper technology, it soon becomes obvious that the medium and the contents are not only not one and the same, but obey different rules alltogether. One is an old-fashioned physical object (and this is what allows the scam to go in as the trade in such objects is quite valid) and the other essentially a thought, an abstract concept or a large integer number (or any other abstract representation one can think of).
Then there is a service of providing information, like weather reports or newspapers. Which is a wholly different process, based upon not the sale of information itself, which has no attributes which could make that possible, but on the labour of gathering and disseminating it.
Employees are paid by the effects of their labour and the knowledge they posess is not subject to trade here (not to mention the very concept being grotesque and revolting) but it merely influences the quality of their labour, which is indeed subject to trade.
The pen is mightier than the sword" is an old saying.
And which, while sometimes true, has no bearing of any of the above. This saying, merely states that thought is what guides us and that thought is that which determines our actions and our future. Some people take that as a license to attempt to control what we think in order to make us do things beneficial to them. This process of thought control is none other then the one advocated by the would be feudal lords of "Intellectual Property".
Sorry to say this, but the capitalist system abides to capital, not to merit. Blame it on the system.
While it is technically true, Adam Smith's argument was that the merit part is a side-effect of the mechanisms of the free marketplace and that is that side-effect which guides unwitting paticipants towards progress and improvement of their society (a guiding process he named "An Invisible Hand") which is the true function and the purpose of the system.
Has it occured to you that, perhaps the system worked and Windows was the best operating system for the masses?
"Best" is an absolute term, which is inapplicable in this situation. "Sufficient" is probably the word you could use here. But that is not the question. Bill Gates did not, directly, contribute to the society in any way imaginable which would warrant the reward he received. Thus the contribution-reward scheme of capitalism has failed here utterly. Unless of course you are claiming that the "masses" have received such a great benefit from using a medicore system (I will skip here the arguments of relative contributions of Microsoft employees and err in Gates favour assuming he was 100% responsible), in a (for all practical intents) monopoly scenario, whose features could have been provided by a multitude of vendors should the various vendor lock-in, trust and carel schemes of Microsoft be not in place, so great that it warrants the accumulation of wealth greater that that of the effects of a combined life-long labour of 1/3 of the inhabitants of the planet?
It is this base understanding of relative importance of things and the valuation of our relative contributions to life which makes this particular failure of the supposed meritocracy and a demonstration of the devastating excesses such failure can produce so jarring.
In short, everytime you see a billionaire, you are seeing a failure of the system as in a properly functioning capitalist society, its fundamental cornerstone mechanism, called "competition", should, according to the theory, render such accumulation near impossible. As any time one company were to realize such gains as to make such earnings possible, it means that there is an unfulfilled need in the marketplace wich should immediately attract a vast number of competitors. Since in a properly functioning, efficient market there is no way to create a "barrier to entry", be it legal or technical, such massive competiton would immediately result in a spread of the accumulated wealth accross that large number of competitors. In short, in a properly functioning capitalist society, a bult-in equalization mechanism exists which should prevent formation of large companies and large fortunes. And only when things function that way, a contribution-reward scheme becomes functional. Just look around and tell me how well is this thing working. And then look at Bill Gates and his fortune exceeding that of most developing countries.
Microsoft produced a product that a whole bunch of people thought was worth spending money on instead of its competitors, and thus made its founders rich.
What competitors? I am not sure if you are familiar with the history of this but the "success" of Microsoft is a result of confluence of several factors: a) IBM's irrational decision to tie its fortunes to Microsoft's on an exclusive basis, b) general public's lack of understanding of principles of computing, leading it to treat everything and anything PC-related as a brand-new, never before heard of discovery, never you mind not realizing that Microsoft was doing them great disservice by reinventing 20 year-old principles, poorly and c) Bill's ability to create a vendor lock in, by unethical and morally repugnant manouvers both legal and technical. One leading to exclusions of all competitors by forming essentially a protection racket with major vendors and the other by creating great obstacles for users and developers should they consider a competing product. This is a text book example of failure of capitalism, the dangers of trusts and cartels and the limitations of the contribution-reward scheme when the consumers are deprived of sufficient information to make an informed purchase.
The risk doesn't need to be financially based. He risked his growing reputation and he risked himself, in a sense, with many of the ballsy moves he pulled
I am afraid that "reputation" is no way a thing that you can risk in business, other in extreme cases of graft or failure so great that it becomes common knowledge of every layman. Bernie Ebbers of WorldCom is an example of that rare case. Bill Gates was never ever in a position to risk anything in that regard. Should his venture fail, he had a vast multitude of others opened to him, and I know it from personal experience that the business community's memory is shorter than that of a particularly forgetful goldfish. And when you add to this the fact that IBM (in an error that should never be forgoten) has essentially provided their then rather substantial resources in backing Microsoft's venture, and even managed to tie their own to his, leaving themselves no choice but to assist him. As far as Gates was concerned, there was no risk involved, ever. Then, once he had a fortune so substantial that a loong series of mistakes was not even able to make a dent in it, the rest of the "risk" argument is not only moot but rather comical.
I just hate when I hear fellow geeks blast him for being a shitty programmer. It took more than BASIC donkeys to make Microsoft what it is.
He actually is not that good. I had the opportunity to examine his early work in some detail and it was competent, to a degree, but nothing extraordinary for the time it was written. I know programmers who were far more talented and inspired at that time then Gates could ever dream of, doing similar things but whose far superior work is now not even a history footnote. Gate's only strengh was his unrelenting self-centered pursuit of money and power by legal manouvers (inspired by his father who was a high-powered lawyer), and on that front he was indeed rather effective.
I find your nick and your/. ID number cool as shit.
Thank you. I am not sure that it is that cool (and the ID was not exactly my doing - the credit goes to the fairies of Perl and Slashcode on that one) but I selected it after some thought. The nickname is a pun on, and a conundrum all in one, based on both, Socrates' "I am the wisest man alive, for I know one thing, and that is that I know nothing." and Einstein's "The more I learn the more realize I don't know". I am glad you like it.
Hey, you're smart. Or at least you can sound that way.
Although my ego finds platitudes pleasureable, I must confess that it is easier then it looks for the art of oration and general discourse seems to be somewhat diminishing throughout society in general and in technical circles in particular. So where I would be found rather wanting and mediocre just a few centuries back, now I appear above the norm. A sad state of affairs indeed.
Since I'm sooo misinformed, explain it to me, how do you "know" it's a waste of time....all knowing one.
I base it upon what you yourself have said.
It does not gall me at all, you were the one whining about it, not me.
Whining? About my name? As far as I recall I was replying to an accusation of me using hyperbole. My name had nothing to do with it. It is you who brought it into the discussion. Can you understand what you read at all?
My reading comprehension is quite high, where's your evidence for this?
Besides the above, you accused me of presenting a "theme" compatible with that of what a potential "RIAA lawyer" and proposed me becoming one. To anyone familiar with my position, any of my past posts and most importantly the very posts on this thread, that suggestion can only mean that you have not read anything prior to posting or are unable to comprehend that what you did. Hence my diagnosis.
We can keep this crap up all night, but I'm not willing to waste my time on the likes of you unless you can come up with supporting evidence (right or wrong, just something other than insulting remarks), so as I said- get a clue....you are FAR MORE important in your own mind than you are in anyone elses.....get over it.
Sure, although this is a rather unoriginal manouver: come to the thread, fire a broadside, and when the other side responds and the going gets tough, excuse yourself for the "discussion is beneath you" and go away braying indignantly all the way out.
Not saying if that is good or bad, but I can see a point in calling information of any type a product, it's just an intangible product
Other then simply defying logic, and a wee little problem of attempts to enforce this idea in any degree leading to lovely implications of totalitarian control of all channels of information, crippling of science and eventually creating a new type of feudalism whereby most of the humanity is enslaved to a few lords who happened to manage to lock down the body of human knowledge amassed through generations, it is a reasonable idea, no?
Shrewd? Bill was an efficient abuser of others and quick to exploit any disadvantages, like say, a conscience, they might have had for his profit. I guess you could call that "shrewd" although I have more choice words for it. Lucky? Certainly. But if luck is to be the cornerstone of the capitalist system then it is simply feudalism in a fancy dress. Risk? You gotta be kidding. We are talking about a spoiled, already rich brat whose entire early operation was underwritten (foolishly) by IBM.
I hope you realise that it shows that something is profoundly wrong with America. Since the capitalist system is supposed to be a meritocracy, whereby individual, haphazard transactions of consumers magically even out over time to reward contributors in direct proportion to their contributions (a.k.a. The Invisible Hand), this can only be construded as a total and complete failure of the capitalist system. Neither Bill Gates nor Paul Allen did ivented anything novel or unique, they merely happened to be, by happy circumstance at the right place and knew the right people. Add to it the supremely tenacious and boundless selfish greed of Gates and the rest is history. Unless of course you are going to suggest that a progression of work of others these two appropriated over time and an 8080 rendition of BASIC (a language neither of those two invented) was worth all those untold billions.
Obviously I'm not him, but if I were ever feeling down, that would be enough to make me cackle with evil glee right there. If I were having a particularly terrible week, maybe I'd buy an entire country, or build an orbiting space battle platform crewed by hot women with Eastern European accents and use it to vapourize my enemies.
Obviously that depends on what amuses you. I suspect Bill was at one time amused by climbing over backs of others to show how "superior" he was to all those around him. And just like swimming in a pool full of money that probably got old quickly. As to buying a country, there still appear to be some barriers present in the form of the local inhabitants, otherwise the Pentagon would have bought Iraq instead of going to all that trouble. And a space station appears to have a problem of feasibilty. A slave harem of Eastern European women might have worked, alas it was apparently incompatible with the image Billy was trying to present of himself. Probably a tactical error.
Would you like to reply to his actual argument instead of just attacking the man?
His actual argument, like all those wishing to own and trade "intellectual property" disintegrates upon the examination of what it is that they wish to trade and then accuse others of stealing. Information is not, under any possible definition that can withstand even a most cursory test of logic, an object which can be traded. All principles of mercantile trade and also that of capitalism which is built on that trade are constructed upon the premise that the only things valid for trade are either physical (private property) or labour. An attemt to use law to redefine esoterical thought representations and large numbers into physical objects are not only morally repugnant but also a dire warning, a clear demonstration that the legal system is dangerously out of control and no longer subject to rules of decency and logic.
That is also a wholly independent and separate issue of that of how to reward artists and inventors for their creative works. To which a question many answers exist which do not require a totalitarian regime and a wholesale crippling of our freedoms to accomplish. However those who are enemies of those freedoms as they see them in the way of their boundless greed and therefore those who our mortal enemies, enemies of the human kind, enemies like Bill Gates or the so-called "music industry", would stop at nothing in order to use perversions of law to reap "rewards" so out of proportion with their contributions that soon their fortunes exceed that of 99% of their fellow citizens individually and probably good 30% of global population combined. There is no possible justification for that state of affairs, other then out-of control rule of greed and wholesale subjegations of law and the society to it.
But Sir, you have failed to take into account the Glorious Logic Of Selfish Greed. Yes, indeedy, in an old-fashioned, non-neo-conservative, quaint, obsolete morality of old, this would indeed be rather embarassing and would expose some devastating flaws of character and a despicable nature of the writer of that "open letter". But that is sooo pre-"intellectual property" era thinking. Those old rules no longer apply. Today, a new paradigm: Selfish Greed Is All You Need (take that John Lennon!). In this new, exciting, profitable way of thinking, nothing is ever your fault! You are a perpetual victim, defenseless, dewy-eyed and cuddly and always deserve, no make it demand, sympathy and protection and help because everybody else is a thieving mofo out to get you! Naturally, since thus you acquired an apex of new-morality heights, everything and anything goes in order to thwart the untoward design of all those vile pretenders, those socialist, thieving, no good hippies around you who would dare in their insolence to share things between themselves without paying you! Or think without paying you! Or for that matter breathe without paying you!
So now you see how it is possible for our shining, towering example of Greed Personified to think that way.
Incidentally, beware of a minor drawback of this new way of thinking: in your old age, when the novelty of vast fortunes you have meticulously conned and abused out of others wears out and when that 340500sq ft. mansion feels cold and univiting despite of 350 maids and 250 buttlers, you might find that nasty affliction, called "conscience", starting to ache you here and there. Like some other illnesses of age the medicine has apparently failed to produce a cure. So you might find it useful and a form of a short-term relief to give away some parts of the loot you hoarded. Just keep telling yourself "I am a Good Man, I am a Good Man" over and over and the pain will soon go away.
Those little spy cameras aren't going to take very good photos if you need to take a picture of something far away.
"Far away" was never a consideration as the spies could have used telephoto lenses and thus avoid being in proximity to the object they photographed. You could also use larger cameras concealed in purses and similar at closer proximity. Besides, the button cameras used special, significantly less granular then normal film and thus were capable of very high resolutions even with their small apretures and short focal lengths. Also one could simply observe with a trained eye and record the desired features in writing. The point still stands: a determined spy finds such prohibitions laughable and futile and therefore their existence serves other, more logical purposes.
Unless you're arguing that the U.S. already totally secure, and monitoring the communications of suspected terrorist cells is wholly unnecessary on account of them (a) not existing and (b) not having any convenient methods of murdering large numbers of people all at once.
I am arguing that acts of terrorism are fundamentally unpreventable in a free society and only marginally so in a totalitarian one. Therefore the intelligence services in a free state should confine themselves to operating within confines of the law, respecting due process and citizen rights, otherwise the outcome is the loss of the very freedom they are supposedly defending and any moral authority the state had for no substantial practical gain, other than incurred by would-be tyrants, small and large, wishing to end such freedom to further their own designs. Furthermore, combined acts of terror globally for the last 50 years account for less then 10% of the casualties on both sides in the Iraq and Afghanistan campaigns alone, or less then 20% of the yearly death toll due to car accidents in the US. The whole point of terror is that it is conducted by weak enemies who, lacking any significant military strength, resort to psychological warfare aiming to frighten hundrends of millions of people out of their mind, to the point of them ceasing any logical thought, to the point of them reverting to their most base animal instincts, to the point of them giving up all their rights and freedoms for which their ancestors fought and died, to the point of bigotry and xenophobia becoming the standard in their relations with others, to the point of welcoming totalitarian police-state complete with intrusive surveilance which would boil the blood of any of the patriots of any decade past, to the point of where their fear becomes an all-encompassing world-view which can only be satisfied by bloodshed and military dominance of all who might be a source of that fear -- all of it by an inexpensive act of killing at most few thousands and making sure hysterical media enlarges that act until it surpasses the opening battles of WWII in preceived importance.
The way to fight terror is courage and resolve, not panic, not random lashing out at random targets and definitely not cowardice exemplified by pathetic bargraining of one's sniveling subservience to authority figures in exchange for a comforting but empty promise of protection by the state.
The most potent anti-terror weapon ever devised, one that makes Osama cringe, is a simple refusal to be indimidated by him and the corresponding responsibility of the media of reporting any terror attacks matter of factly, briefly and immediately de-emphasizing them without any hint of fear or hysteria. Conversely, fueled by fear mongering, crazed, out-of control activities of zealots on a power-mad binge of destruction of the cornerstone elements of the democratic legacy, under the cloak of "war on terror", most certainly please Osama greatly as the actions of these lunatics only legitimize his position in the view of many moderates in his audience and drive them to his cause. That is how the phony "patriots" whose contempt for the principles of democracy is only surpassed by their hate for all who would challenge their power make Osama's terror campain such a success.
As I already explained, it has nothing to do with "security" whatsoever and everything to do with police state tactics and propaganda.
But also, for what it's worth, McCarthy was actually 100% CORRECT in his inquiries. Tactics not withstanding, he was right.
I am getting tired of this new neo-con meme. McCarthy was 100% WRONG as McCarthy believed that anyone with any contact with the Communists was a Soviet (not a communist) spy. For your information, the American Communist Party still exists and is still legal. It was also far more popular in the 1930-1940s. That is why there is no surprise that McCarthy "found" some of its then members and former members. Incindentally, most of the US communists (and many others) had nothing whatsover to do with the Soviets and many were anything but, like, for example, Trotskyists (who Stalin considered traitors and a mortal threat). Also, most famous Soviet spies were never even remotely close to any of the communist movements and hailed from typical all-american families, some complete with Republican party memberships and did their deeds out of greed and lust for power. Walker, Ames, Pelton etc. Most experts believe that the last of the major "ideological" (i.e. communist-leaning out of principle) spies were the Rosenbergs who were active primarily during WWII. That is what makes a good spy: being beyond an easily cast suspicion. But all of this of course is beyond some imbecillic neo-con propaganda hacks busy trying to ressurect McCarthyism and trying hard to reshape that vile, self-aggrandising psycho into a national hero.
And of course the spies would have never thought of hidden, miniature cameras in buttons, purses, books and what not, yes? The actual purposes this (and many other equally ridiculous) prohibitions served were to: intimidate the population, empower the police to arrest people wantonly on a multitude of pretexts and to create a false impression that the state vigilantly guards you against the Emmanuel Goldsteins of the world. I feel rather sad that so many people fall for such obvious psych-ops manouvers.
I believe "Do not photograph under pain of severe penalties" was at one point a standard sign on 1950s era train stations and other installations in the USSR and Warsaw Pact countries. As the saying goes: "Check you hate at the door or you will become that what you hate most"....
if someone did detonate an Iranian suitcase nuke in San Diego
You might as well discuss the likelyhood of the Moon turning into a gigiantic green face and proceeding to spit out hordes of winged toasters which then proceed to smother the US under 60 foot thick layer of toasted Pumpernickel. I'd say, start preparing secret underground caches of butter to deal with this "imminent" threat.
Seriously, the Iranians are about 5 years away from producing a most primitive, dumpster-truck-sized uranium pistol-type nuke. It will take them years to produce enough uranium just for a single one using their gas centrifuge enrichment process. Before they can start making anything a wee bit more practical, they will need plutonium and therefore a fast-breeder reactor to feed their U235 and U238 into. A decade before they have anything even remotely streamlined to put on a missile after that. Suitcase? Pure comedy. The same by the way applies to Pakistan and India. You did not seriously fall for all that comical posturing about "nuclear capable missiles", did you? They'd need a Saturn V sized one to deliver their current generation of nukes anywhere. Their test ones had to be assembled in-place at the test site and weighted a feather-like 5 tons or so. They are far behind in many ways of the stage where the US was with the Manhattan project in 1944.
With tactics such as manipulating the press? Collective punishment involving levelling whole cities? Wholesale graft and theft of the so-called "reconstruction" money in addition to other Iraqi funds and local valuables? And earlier on, death-squads in South America and destruction of secular democracy in Iran to install the Shah? And now whipping up open hostility against the same, theocratic but for the most part democratic Iran (you did know that, didn't you)? You are kidding, right?
That is the past. That is exactly what Iraq was like under Saddam Hussein.
Whom incidentally, US supported when he was doing his weak Adolf impression. Speaking of victims, high end estimates indicate that Hussain killed around 300 thousands of Iraqis during his 20-year reign. High end estimates of the result of the US invasion run at 100 thousands of casualties. As the result of the invasion, factional militias now control much of the "police" in the country and are routinely kidnapping, torturing and executing people or otherwise "disappear" them. And that is just a bonus on top of the regular daily insurgent activities. If you add to that the catastrofic failure of the Iraqi post-Saddam economy, which is still at the levels lower then the sanctions-ravaged pre-war time, one can only conclude that this whole crusade is one gigiantic improvement for the Iraqis, no?
The actions of the United States and a large number of allies have put a stop to much of this
No, they have merely replaced Saddam's goons with a combination of their own and those of sectarian militias, killing tens of thousands in the process.
and are pursuing the remaining terrorists who are still dedicated to Saddam's dream.
You are woefully mis-informed. "Saddam supporters" are long since gone from the scene, replaced by both fanatical religious maniacs and by sectarian supremacists and there is no end in sight to the activities of both, nor to their numbers. The only thing all of these groups share in common is the hate of the US and the support of the local populace long since dis-illusioned and wise to the US propaganda.
The Nazi war machine problem is dwindling.
Apparently not from the Arab (and much of the rest of the world) perspective, where the US is the Nazi war machine.
Slashdot Mirror
It would appear that I have a privilege of being a member of one of the rarest of species: an insightful troll. I am not sure if I should be congratulating myself or consider surrendering to despair.
I also neglected to mention that the act of teaching is also labour which is subject to trade, although the knowledge which you are transferring to the student is not. You are merely getting paid for the labour of information acquisition/storage/processing/handling and in the end transmission of it not for the thing that is being so handled.
The difference is the end result. While chopping wood results in a unique set of physical objects, smaller chunks of wood where before there was a large one, the result of "mental labour" is an abstract concept, which by its very nature, exists by duplication (from mind to mind). So while it is conceivable that one could trade the labour of coming up with the thought (and which in no way was contradicted by my statement) the end result is not tradeable. For example, an artist who composes a symphony and whose living expenses are covered by an arts foundation is being recompensed for his labour but the symphony itself is not subject to trade. A stage performer, whose efforts on stage are paid for by the admission fee, is similarly paid for his mental (and physical) effort of interpreting the play but the end result (information transmitted by photons and air particles into his audience's senses) is not tradeable.
Then lets examine each of these closer. What do you pay for in a book? The paper? The printing process or the ink? You perheaps imagine yourself paying for the information, but if it were so, you would be entitled to move it out of the book to any other medium of your choice, in perpetuity. Is it so? As a matter of fact, your mistaken presumption comes from the process of coupling the information and a physical object, such as a book or a vinyl record or a CD, and then claiming that the sale of the physical object constitutes a sale of the information. Unfortunately that coupling is non-permanent and given the proper technology, it soon becomes obvious that the medium and the contents are not only not one and the same, but obey different rules alltogether. One is an old-fashioned physical object (and this is what allows the scam to go in as the trade in such objects is quite valid) and the other essentially a thought, an abstract concept or a large integer number (or any other abstract representation one can think of).
Then there is a service of providing information, like weather reports or newspapers. Which is a wholly different process, based upon not the sale of information itself, which has no attributes which could make that possible, but on the labour of gathering and disseminating it.
Employees are paid by the effects of their labour and the knowledge they posess is not subject to trade here (not to mention the very concept being grotesque and revolting) but it merely influences the quality of their labour, which is indeed subject to trade.
The pen is mightier than the sword" is an old saying.
And which, while sometimes true, has no bearing of any of the above. This saying, merely states that thought is what guides us and that thought is that which determines our actions and our future. Some people take that as a license to attempt to control what we think in order to make us do things beneficial to them. This process of thought control is none other then the one advocated by the would be feudal lords of "Intellectual Property".
While it is technically true, Adam Smith's argument was that the merit part is a side-effect of the mechanisms of the free marketplace and that is that side-effect which guides unwitting paticipants towards progress and improvement of their society (a guiding process he named "An Invisible Hand") which is the true function and the purpose of the system.
"Best" is an absolute term, which is inapplicable in this situation. "Sufficient" is probably the word you could use here. But that is not the question. Bill Gates did not, directly, contribute to the society in any way imaginable which would warrant the reward he received. Thus the contribution-reward scheme of capitalism has failed here utterly. Unless of course you are claiming that the "masses" have received such a great benefit from using a medicore system (I will skip here the arguments of relative contributions of Microsoft employees and err in Gates favour assuming he was 100% responsible), in a (for all practical intents) monopoly scenario, whose features could have been provided by a multitude of vendors should the various vendor lock-in, trust and carel schemes of Microsoft be not in place, so great that it warrants the accumulation of wealth greater that that of the effects of a combined life-long labour of 1/3 of the inhabitants of the planet?
It is this base understanding of relative importance of things and the valuation of our relative contributions to life which makes this particular failure of the supposed meritocracy and a demonstration of the devastating excesses such failure can produce so jarring.
In short, everytime you see a billionaire, you are seeing a failure of the system as in a properly functioning capitalist society, its fundamental cornerstone mechanism, called "competition", should, according to the theory, render such accumulation near impossible. As any time one company were to realize such gains as to make such earnings possible, it means that there is an unfulfilled need in the marketplace wich should immediately attract a vast number of competitors. Since in a properly functioning, efficient market there is no way to create a "barrier to entry", be it legal or technical, such massive competiton would immediately result in a spread of the accumulated wealth accross that large number of competitors. In short, in a properly functioning capitalist society, a bult-in equalization mechanism exists which should prevent formation of large companies and large fortunes. And only when things function that way, a contribution-reward scheme becomes functional. Just look around and tell me how well is this thing working. And then look at Bill Gates and his fortune exceeding that of most developing countries.
What competitors? I am not sure if you are familiar with the history of this but the "success" of Microsoft is a result of confluence of several factors: a) IBM's irrational decision to tie its fortunes to Microsoft's on an exclusive basis, b) general public's lack of understanding of principles of computing, leading it to treat everything and anything PC-related as a brand-new, never before heard of discovery, never you mind not realizing that Microsoft was doing them great disservice by reinventing 20 year-old principles, poorly and c) Bill's ability to create a vendor lock in, by unethical and morally repugnant manouvers both legal and technical. One leading to exclusions of all competitors by forming essentially a protection racket with major vendors and the other by creating great obstacles for users and developers should they consider a competing product. This is a text book example of failure of capitalism, the dangers of trusts and cartels and the limitations of the contribution-reward scheme when the consumers are deprived of sufficient information to make an informed purchase.
I am afraid that "reputation" is no way a thing that you can risk in business, other in extreme cases of graft or failure so great that it becomes common knowledge of every layman. Bernie Ebbers of WorldCom is an example of that rare case. Bill Gates was never ever in a position to risk anything in that regard. Should his venture fail, he had a vast multitude of others opened to him, and I know it from personal experience that the business community's memory is shorter than that of a particularly forgetful goldfish. And when you add to this the fact that IBM (in an error that should never be forgoten) has essentially provided their then rather substantial resources in backing Microsoft's venture, and even managed to tie their own to his, leaving themselves no choice but to assist him. As far as Gates was concerned, there was no risk involved, ever. Then, once he had a fortune so substantial that a loong series of mistakes was not even able to make a dent in it, the rest of the "risk" argument is not only moot but rather comical.
I just hate when I hear fellow geeks blast him for being a shitty programmer. It took more than BASIC donkeys to make Microsoft what it is.
He actually is not that good. I had the opportunity to examine his early work in some detail and it was competent, to a degree, but nothing extraordinary for the time it was written. I know programmers who were far more talented and inspired at that time then Gates could ever dream of, doing similar things but whose far superior work is now not even a history footnote. Gate's only strengh was his unrelenting self-centered pursuit of money and power by legal manouvers (inspired by his father who was a high-powered lawyer), and on that front he was indeed rather effective.
Thank you. I am not sure that it is that cool (and the ID was not exactly my doing - the credit goes to the fairies of Perl and Slashcode on that one) but I selected it after some thought. The nickname is a pun on, and a conundrum all in one, based on both, Socrates' "I am the wisest man alive, for I know one thing, and that is that I know nothing." and Einstein's "The more I learn the more realize I don't know". I am glad you like it.
Hey, you're smart. Or at least you can sound that way.
Although my ego finds platitudes pleasureable, I must confess that it is easier then it looks for the art of oration and general discourse seems to be somewhat diminishing throughout society in general and in technical circles in particular. So where I would be found rather wanting and mediocre just a few centuries back, now I appear above the norm. A sad state of affairs indeed.
I base it upon what you yourself have said.
It does not gall me at all, you were the one whining about it, not me.
Whining? About my name? As far as I recall I was replying to an accusation of me using hyperbole. My name had nothing to do with it. It is you who brought it into the discussion. Can you understand what you read at all?
My reading comprehension is quite high, where's your evidence for this?
Besides the above, you accused me of presenting a "theme" compatible with that of what a potential "RIAA lawyer" and proposed me becoming one. To anyone familiar with my position, any of my past posts and most importantly the very posts on this thread, that suggestion can only mean that you have not read anything prior to posting or are unable to comprehend that what you did. Hence my diagnosis.
We can keep this crap up all night, but I'm not willing to waste my time on the likes of you unless you can come up with supporting evidence (right or wrong, just something other than insulting remarks), so as I said- get a clue....you are FAR MORE important in your own mind than you are in anyone elses.....get over it.
Sure, although this is a rather unoriginal manouver: come to the thread, fire a broadside, and when the other side responds and the going gets tough, excuse yourself for the "discussion is beneath you" and go away braying indignantly all the way out.
The name has its meaning and history but explaining them to you would be a waste of time.
If it galls you, tough shit...you made your bed, now you can sleep in it.
Galls me? It would appear to gall others, like you, far more then me.
My theme? Not much of a surpirse, really, but it appears that reading comprehension is not what one could call your strong suit.
Other then simply defying logic, and a wee little problem of attempts to enforce this idea in any degree leading to lovely implications of totalitarian control of all channels of information, crippling of science and eventually creating a new type of feudalism whereby most of the humanity is enslaved to a few lords who happened to manage to lock down the body of human knowledge amassed through generations, it is a reasonable idea, no?
As comprehensive, eloquent, well-researched, logical, meticulously detailed responses go, this one is a doozie.
Shrewd? Bill was an efficient abuser of others and quick to exploit any disadvantages, like say, a conscience, they might have had for his profit. I guess you could call that "shrewd" although I have more choice words for it. Lucky? Certainly. But if luck is to be the cornerstone of the capitalist system then it is simply feudalism in a fancy dress. Risk? You gotta be kidding. We are talking about a spoiled, already rich brat whose entire early operation was underwritten (foolishly) by IBM.
I hope you realise that it shows that something is profoundly wrong with America. Since the capitalist system is supposed to be a meritocracy, whereby individual, haphazard transactions of consumers magically even out over time to reward contributors in direct proportion to their contributions (a.k.a. The Invisible Hand), this can only be construded as a total and complete failure of the capitalist system. Neither Bill Gates nor Paul Allen did ivented anything novel or unique, they merely happened to be, by happy circumstance at the right place and knew the right people. Add to it the supremely tenacious and boundless selfish greed of Gates and the rest is history. Unless of course you are going to suggest that a progression of work of others these two appropriated over time and an 8080 rendition of BASIC (a language neither of those two invented) was worth all those untold billions.
Obviously that depends on what amuses you. I suspect Bill was at one time amused by climbing over backs of others to show how "superior" he was to all those around him. And just like swimming in a pool full of money that probably got old quickly. As to buying a country, there still appear to be some barriers present in the form of the local inhabitants, otherwise the Pentagon would have bought Iraq instead of going to all that trouble. And a space station appears to have a problem of feasibilty. A slave harem of Eastern European women might have worked, alas it was apparently incompatible with the image Billy was trying to present of himself. Probably a tactical error.
His actual argument, like all those wishing to own and trade "intellectual property" disintegrates upon the examination of what it is that they wish to trade and then accuse others of stealing. Information is not, under any possible definition that can withstand even a most cursory test of logic, an object which can be traded. All principles of mercantile trade and also that of capitalism which is built on that trade are constructed upon the premise that the only things valid for trade are either physical (private property) or labour. An attemt to use law to redefine esoterical thought representations and large numbers into physical objects are not only morally repugnant but also a dire warning, a clear demonstration that the legal system is dangerously out of control and no longer subject to rules of decency and logic.
That is also a wholly independent and separate issue of that of how to reward artists and inventors for their creative works. To which a question many answers exist which do not require a totalitarian regime and a wholesale crippling of our freedoms to accomplish. However those who are enemies of those freedoms as they see them in the way of their boundless greed and therefore those who our mortal enemies, enemies of the human kind, enemies like Bill Gates or the so-called "music industry", would stop at nothing in order to use perversions of law to reap "rewards" so out of proportion with their contributions that soon their fortunes exceed that of 99% of their fellow citizens individually and probably good 30% of global population combined. There is no possible justification for that state of affairs, other then out-of control rule of greed and wholesale subjegations of law and the society to it.
So now you see how it is possible for our shining, towering example of Greed Personified to think that way.
Incidentally, beware of a minor drawback of this new way of thinking: in your old age, when the novelty of vast fortunes you have meticulously conned and abused out of others wears out and when that 340500sq ft. mansion feels cold and univiting despite of 350 maids and 250 buttlers, you might find that nasty affliction, called "conscience", starting to ache you here and there. Like some other illnesses of age the medicine has apparently failed to produce a cure. So you might find it useful and a form of a short-term relief to give away some parts of the loot you hoarded. Just keep telling yourself "I am a Good Man, I am a Good Man" over and over and the pain will soon go away.
"Far away" was never a consideration as the spies could have used telephoto lenses and thus avoid being in proximity to the object they photographed. You could also use larger cameras concealed in purses and similar at closer proximity. Besides, the button cameras used special, significantly less granular then normal film and thus were capable of very high resolutions even with their small apretures and short focal lengths. Also one could simply observe with a trained eye and record the desired features in writing. The point still stands: a determined spy finds such prohibitions laughable and futile and therefore their existence serves other, more logical purposes.
I am arguing that acts of terrorism are fundamentally unpreventable in a free society and only marginally so in a totalitarian one. Therefore the intelligence services in a free state should confine themselves to operating within confines of the law, respecting due process and citizen rights, otherwise the outcome is the loss of the very freedom they are supposedly defending and any moral authority the state had for no substantial practical gain, other than incurred by would-be tyrants, small and large, wishing to end such freedom to further their own designs. Furthermore, combined acts of terror globally for the last 50 years account for less then 10% of the casualties on both sides in the Iraq and Afghanistan campaigns alone, or less then 20% of the yearly death toll due to car accidents in the US. The whole point of terror is that it is conducted by weak enemies who, lacking any significant military strength, resort to psychological warfare aiming to frighten hundrends of millions of people out of their mind, to the point of them ceasing any logical thought, to the point of them reverting to their most base animal instincts, to the point of them giving up all their rights and freedoms for which their ancestors fought and died, to the point of bigotry and xenophobia becoming the standard in their relations with others, to the point of welcoming totalitarian police-state complete with intrusive surveilance which would boil the blood of any of the patriots of any decade past, to the point of where their fear becomes an all-encompassing world-view which can only be satisfied by bloodshed and military dominance of all who might be a source of that fear -- all of it by an inexpensive act of killing at most few thousands and making sure hysterical media enlarges that act until it surpasses the opening battles of WWII in preceived importance.
The way to fight terror is courage and resolve, not panic, not random lashing out at random targets and definitely not cowardice exemplified by pathetic bargraining of one's sniveling subservience to authority figures in exchange for a comforting but empty promise of protection by the state.
The most potent anti-terror weapon ever devised, one that makes Osama cringe, is a simple refusal to be indimidated by him and the corresponding responsibility of the media of reporting any terror attacks matter of factly, briefly and immediately de-emphasizing them without any hint of fear or hysteria. Conversely, fueled by fear mongering, crazed, out-of control activities of zealots on a power-mad binge of destruction of the cornerstone elements of the democratic legacy, under the cloak of "war on terror", most certainly please Osama greatly as the actions of these lunatics only legitimize his position in the view of many moderates in his audience and drive them to his cause. That is how the phony "patriots" whose contempt for the principles of democracy is only surpassed by their hate for all who would challenge their power make Osama's terror campain such a success.
As I already explained, it has nothing to do with "security" whatsoever and everything to do with police state tactics and propaganda.
But also, for what it's worth, McCarthy was actually 100% CORRECT in his inquiries. Tactics not withstanding, he was right.
I am getting tired of this new neo-con meme. McCarthy was 100% WRONG as McCarthy believed that anyone with any contact with the Communists was a Soviet (not a communist) spy. For your information, the American Communist Party still exists and is still legal. It was also far more popular in the 1930-1940s. That is why there is no surprise that McCarthy "found" some of its then members and former members. Incindentally, most of the US communists (and many others) had nothing whatsover to do with the Soviets and many were anything but, like, for example, Trotskyists (who Stalin considered traitors and a mortal threat). Also, most famous Soviet spies were never even remotely close to any of the communist movements and hailed from typical all-american families, some complete with Republican party memberships and did their deeds out of greed and lust for power. Walker, Ames, Pelton etc. Most experts believe that the last of the major "ideological" (i.e. communist-leaning out of principle) spies were the Rosenbergs who were active primarily during WWII. That is what makes a good spy: being beyond an easily cast suspicion. But all of this of course is beyond some imbecillic neo-con propaganda hacks busy trying to ressurect McCarthyism and trying hard to reshape that vile, self-aggrandising psycho into a national hero.And of course the spies would have never thought of hidden, miniature cameras in buttons, purses, books and what not, yes? The actual purposes this (and many other equally ridiculous) prohibitions served were to: intimidate the population, empower the police to arrest people wantonly on a multitude of pretexts and to create a false impression that the state vigilantly guards you against the Emmanuel Goldsteins of the world. I feel rather sad that so many people fall for such obvious psych-ops manouvers.
I believe "Do not photograph under pain of severe penalties" was at one point a standard sign on 1950s era train stations and other installations in the USSR and Warsaw Pact countries. As the saying goes: "Check you hate at the door or you will become that what you hate most"....
You might as well discuss the likelyhood of the Moon turning into a gigiantic green face and proceeding to spit out hordes of winged toasters which then proceed to smother the US under 60 foot thick layer of toasted Pumpernickel. I'd say, start preparing secret underground caches of butter to deal with this "imminent" threat.
Seriously, the Iranians are about 5 years away from producing a most primitive, dumpster-truck-sized uranium pistol-type nuke. It will take them years to produce enough uranium just for a single one using their gas centrifuge enrichment process. Before they can start making anything a wee bit more practical, they will need plutonium and therefore a fast-breeder reactor to feed their U235 and U238 into. A decade before they have anything even remotely streamlined to put on a missile after that. Suitcase? Pure comedy. The same by the way applies to Pakistan and India. You did not seriously fall for all that comical posturing about "nuclear capable missiles", did you? They'd need a Saturn V sized one to deliver their current generation of nukes anywhere. Their test ones had to be assembled in-place at the test site and weighted a feather-like 5 tons or so. They are far behind in many ways of the stage where the US was with the Manhattan project in 1944.
With tactics such as manipulating the press? Collective punishment involving levelling whole cities? Wholesale graft and theft of the so-called "reconstruction" money in addition to other Iraqi funds and local valuables? And earlier on, death-squads in South America and destruction of secular democracy in Iran to install the Shah? And now whipping up open hostility against the same, theocratic but for the most part democratic Iran (you did know that, didn't you)? You are kidding, right?
That is the past. That is exactly what Iraq was like under Saddam Hussein.
Whom incidentally, US supported when he was doing his weak Adolf impression. Speaking of victims, high end estimates indicate that Hussain killed around 300 thousands of Iraqis during his 20-year reign. High end estimates of the result of the US invasion run at 100 thousands of casualties. As the result of the invasion, factional militias now control much of the "police" in the country and are routinely kidnapping, torturing and executing people or otherwise "disappear" them. And that is just a bonus on top of the regular daily insurgent activities. If you add to that the catastrofic failure of the Iraqi post-Saddam economy, which is still at the levels lower then the sanctions-ravaged pre-war time, one can only conclude that this whole crusade is one gigiantic improvement for the Iraqis, no?
The actions of the United States and a large number of allies have put a stop to much of this
No, they have merely replaced Saddam's goons with a combination of their own and those of sectarian militias, killing tens of thousands in the process.
and are pursuing the remaining terrorists who are still dedicated to Saddam's dream.
You are woefully mis-informed. "Saddam supporters" are long since gone from the scene, replaced by both fanatical religious maniacs and by sectarian supremacists and there is no end in sight to the activities of both, nor to their numbers. The only thing all of these groups share in common is the hate of the US and the support of the local populace long since dis-illusioned and wise to the US propaganda.
The Nazi war machine problem is dwindling.
Apparently not from the Arab (and much of the rest of the world) perspective, where the US is the Nazi war machine.