Don't forget Scribus, it's excellent for DP! My company switched for all our new publications (to avoid the Quark mafia, $900 yearly or publishers can't read your files.) It saves directly to PDF with perfect color, fonts, embedded icc profiles etc. Oh, and it's Open Source!
> No, that's what you're told by the vested interests. The idea behind it is nothing similar. Go read a history book.
So you're saying that I shouldn't have the right to something I create? The work of my own hands? I don't have a right to profit from it? Why? I don't think some boogie man "vested interests" will do much to help your position. You're suggesting a man does not have a right to his own work - that you own it somehow and can tell him what to do with it. Wow.
> Amtrak or the European rail system are not monopolies either. After all, you can ride a bike, drive your car or walk!
Now you got it!
> Make up your mind.
Learn to use yours. Linus has a monopoly on Linux in the same sense that I agreed Microsoft has a monopoly on Windows. In fact the GPL, BSD license, MIT license and all OSS licenses rely on this same monopoly to protect software freedom. This is because you have a right to say that your work shall be freely distributed - because it's YOUR work. So yes Microsoft has a monopoly - so does Linus in the same sense. It's just that it's the only monopoly Microsoft has and it's not the kind you can get convicted by the Sherman act for.
Very nice of you. What the hell is thefreedictionary.com? Why not The American Heritage Dictionary? monopoly(m-np'-l) pl.monopolies
Exclusive control by one group of the means of producing or selling a commodity or service: "Monopoly frequently... arises from government support or from collusive agreements among individuals"(Milton Friedman).
Law A right granted by a government giving exclusive control over a specified commercial activity to a single party.
A company or group having exclusive control over a commercial activity.
A commodity or service so controlled.
Exclusive possession or control: arrogantly claims to have a monopoly on the truth.
Something that is exclusively possessed or controlled: showed that scientific achievement is not a male monopoly.
Exclusive possession or control: arrogantly claims to have a monopoly on the truth.
Something that is exclusively possessed or controlled: showed that scientific achievement is not a male monopoly.
[Latin monoplium, from Greek monoplion : mono-, mono- + plein, to sell; see pel-4 in Indo-European roots.]
monop'olism n., monop'olist n., monop'olis'tic adj., monop'olis'tically adv.
And if you actually read the links you quote you'd find that "It is only necessary to prove the business had the "power" to raise prices or exclude competitors... from the market."
Microsoft has never had the power to exclude competitors from the market - in the sense that the Sherman act means. Microsoft can only raise prices according to what the market will bare. Granted this is a high price indeed ($400 for office?). But if Microsoft started selling Office for $40,000 a copy there would be no sales because the market will not bare it. Office is not worth that much. Microsoft is only guilty of charging what Office is worth (i.e. what a businessman will pay for it in order to get the benefits that it provides.) All businesses have the power to raise prices to what the market will bare, that's the idea behind business. Rock prices go up if you call them "Pet Rocks" and charge $20 for them. That's what the market will bare - even if it's a crazy price.
As far as preventing competitors to enter the industry? That's nuts. Ever heard of Linux? It's a FREE operating system! I'll give you a copy. Slackware 11 rocks! Every company I've ever worked for didn't use MS software - calling it a monopoly is just nuts. And I wonder why people want to do it so much. Politics and money, I fear, is the answer. Think about it.
So your problem is with anyone who has intellectual property then - not just Microsoft. Copyright is a true monopoly (the second kind I mentioned). The idea behind it is that if you spend your life creating something then you should have the exclusive right to profit from it for a period of time. So they do have a true monopoly - on the sale of their own product.
Unfortunately, this legal interpretation would make nearly all booksellers, software developers, movie makers and musicians in the world into monopolists. In fact - I can become a monopolist on this very comment:
In fact, according to Slashdot you have a monopoly on your comment as well (it's owned by you.) So in that sense, you and I are just as much a monopolist as Microsoft.
But interestingly enough, you can still go out and buy another operating system or write your own (like Linus did.) Or choose a different book, comment, song or movie. You have that right.
So Microsoft is not a monopolist in the sense that Amtrak or the European rail system are. You can go out and choose from probably at least 30 operating systems today. If you count all the Linux distributions it's probably thousands. So as much as it may not be popular - Microsoft is not a monopoly.
Anyone else notice the link is pointing to the Democratic Leadership Council?
Wouldn't an alternate news source be more appropriate? That's like linking to an article in the Republican Quarterly (Washington Times?) claiming that Hillary Clinton refused to kiss some child because his parents were Republican. It's not exactly unbiased.
This entire discussion feels a little like the 5 minutes hate. Maybe, just maybe, the Union of Concerned Scientists are concerned about more than science. Is it possible that they have a political agenda as well? Could it be there are other scientists out there who disagree with them on scientific issues? Maybe the EPA is cancelling these programs out of scientific validity or duplication of resources. I'm only saying these things because every damn comment in this article's thread has been a party line establishmentarian pile of arrogance. Just maybe we could do without funding these idiots.
Case in point. Look at the Ab entry. I'm DEFINITELY no fan of abstinence education but I find quotes like this to be questionable "with abstinence-only programs in place, the state ranked last in the nation in the decline of teen birth rates among 15- to 17-year-old females." (Emphasis is mine.) Why quote the decline of teen birth rates. Why not teen birth rates per-capita? That's right out of How to Lie With Statistics.
The whole article stinks of political bias even as they claim to be unbiased. We all hate President Bush but gimme a break - try some critical thinking.
You appear to be speaking literally out of your ass. The Big Evil Corporations generally don't like paying billions of dollars in class action law suits and individual damages. Notice all the lawyers with infomercials begging you to call if you took cialis, viagra or countless other drugs? Yeah, that's why. So no, the whole Big-Evil-Corporations-just-want-to murder-people-to-get-a-quick-buck just doesn't fly. They spend more on settlements than they make. Take Zyprexa for example, the company (Eli Lilly) paid out $700 million to a class action lawsuit. It cost them $1 billion and 15 years to produce the drug. It's utter paranoia to think that companies don't have an interest in making safe drugs. Not to mention that CEO's hate it when their brand is associated with killing people - but they LOSE MONEY WHEN THEY MAKE DRUGS THAT DO THAT!
Sometimes mistakes are made. Sometimes sample sizes are too small. Sometimes greedy scientists deny reality and ignore results. Because it's THEIR fault when drugs kill people. If you're a scientist and you KNOW a drug will kill people you should tell someone - loudly. All it takes in ONE research scientist coming forward and serious doubt and a strong foundation for a class action lawsuit will be laid.
I am no fan of Microsoft. In fact I've always been an MS Hater (2003 Edition). However, just because some people or even governments call Microsoft a monopoly does not make them one. Monopolies can only be created when there is no choice in an industry. This can be because of real physical limitations (like railroads or power lines) or artificial physical limitations (someone will arrest you if try to buy an alternate product). Microsoft does not qualify for either of these types of monopolies. Just because it's expensive for a company to choose an alternate company for their software needs does not equal a monopoly. And even that argument (higher cost) is debatable.
I've worked in both the multimedia and software development industries for the past 15 years and I've never worked at a Microsoft shop - ever. Even now I type this on a Slackware 11 machine nestled between two other Linux boxes on a network of computers at my office that does not include a single Windows machine (I think I've got a copy of Windows 98 and VMWare player on one system to play old DOS games.)
So no, Microsoft is not a monopoly by any definition of the word - regardless whether or not it's politically correct to say so.
It is my opinion that this should be modded Off Topic. The subject matter is freedom of speech, not Katrina or the equitable redistribution of wealth. It may also be a Troll, although that may be debatable. I'll respond none the less.
"FEMA outsourced all their equipment to the former head of FEMA....just gets the profits."
So FEMA get's the profits? FEMA is making a profit? It is my understanding that FEMA does not have a CEO or stockholders.
"but the actual fact was that buses were planned and ordered but never arrived."
Unfortunately, these buses were under the control of Mayor Ray Nagin and he refused to send them. Why he would do this nobody knows. But this was not FEMA's problem, it was Ray Nagin's problem. See article here.
Although this is a perfect example of government failing. People entrust something important to a large bureaucracy thousands of miles away and are surprised when it fails. The National Weather Service did not fail in provided radar images and a forecast but FEMA certainly failed to act on them. This is why local communities are much better at organizing things like this. A community watch type program would go much further in helping people evacuate than some faceless government project composed of people with no vested interest in helping people because they don't know them.
"I'm sick of the mentality that accepts 100% corporate control or it's Communism. Our drug companies make huge profits on drugs our government subsidized to research... but above on beyond the argument that "profits=progress" why is it every woman in this country must spend about $35 a month for birth control? Wouldn't it make sense, that the government research this basic need, and provide it for free or perhaps a $1 month? Where did the Public Good, change to "someone needs to profit?" There is no inherent right to profit or even existence for corporations -- yet that's how our government now acts."
The main reason for this is something called human rights. We in this country have traditionally believed that a man deserves the fruits of his own labor. And that he deserves to be paid according to what his labor is worth. Nothing in the world is free. For your free services to exist there must be someone to provide them.
There are three different ways they can be provided. People can be held at gunpoint and forced to work to create theses "free" products (which is what Marx and Lenin suggested), other people in other industries can be held at gunpoint and forced to pay the people who create these free products (mixed economy) or people who believe anyone should have access to birth control pills can voluntarily give money to the cause (Capitalism.) So if you like the idea of free birth control pills it may be a good idea to start a charity and get out and convince people that they should give to your cause. Although it will be hard to convince many people since they have worked all their lives and bought birth control pills themselves. It's hard to imagine a case outside of disability or insanity where a person would be unable to save $35 over a course of a month.
"what people earn or "work for" is an arbitrary value"
On the contrary, it is a very specific value whether it is 12,000 or 12,000,000. It is exactly the amount that that person will work for.
From this point onward you seem to collect a few different claimed problems and present them. The exact point of all these escape me, you're saying the country is bad off? Yes, we all know that. Bush has been a complete fool. But some of the problems you mention cannot be fixed, many should not be fixed (I can eat what I choose to) and some simply do not exist.
I can't believe posts like this still happens. The entire remainder of the post seems to be a plea for central planning. For anyone who is interested in historical analysis of the subject matter, I sug
Atheist governments have killed more people than all the wars and diseases in history. So that is a very untenable position. Not counting casualties of the war (which would include at least 20 million Russians from WW2 at least, not to mention the U.S., U.K. etc.)
Pol Pot (killing fields): 2 million+ Stalin (gulags, starvation): 20 million+ Hitler (death camps): 11 million+ Che Guavara (pistol shots to back of the head): 2-4000
And that's just the numbers I could find in a short Google search.
Che's true legacy is simply one of terror and murder. That dreaded midnight knock. Wives and daughters screaming in rage and panic as Che's goons drag off their dads and husbands - that's the real Che legacy.
Desperate crowds of weeping daughters and shrieking mothers clubbed with rifle butts outside La Cabana as Che's firing squads murder their dads and sons inside - that's the real Che legacy.
Thousands of heroes yelling "Viva Cuba Libre!" and "Viva Christo Rey!" before firing squads of murderous drunks whom they'd have stomped in open battle - that's the real Che legacy.
Secret graves and crude boxes with bullet-riddled corpses delivered to ashen-faced loved ones - that's the real Che legacy.
Don't insult a decent Czech brew accidentally. It's best to qualify the name like "American Budweiser". Since Czech Budweiser is actually a nice beer. And I like fine Belgian beer (brune, not the light stuff.)
Don't generalize with things like "The U.S.". Bullshit. The U.S. cannot be easily summarized in simple aphorisms. It's very nearly as complex and varied in it's customs and practices as Russia or China.
-I like Belgian beer. -I have paintings hanging all over my house. -I go to the little place down the street for every meal.
-I am from "The U.S.".
Please choose a suitable minority group to pin those on. Like rednecks. They drink American Budweiser, they got that mirror from their Uncle Joe and they squish Fireflies and laugh when the goo inside comes out. Chances are they'll be buying a new PS3 with their Aunt Sue's welfare check.
Corporations are collections of individuals acting toward a common cause (legally they're separate entities but effectively that's all they are in reality.) If you ban corporate contributions then you'd have to ban political parties. The only reason I can imagine why someone would want to deny "corporations" (collections of individuals united by common business purposes) from making political contributions; they are more likely to have money.
Some individuals are more equal than others, when it comes to political contributions. We can't let Corporations donate to political causes, I mean, they won't like my cause. I mean, my party's cause. I mean, my PAC's cause.
That's the fundamental argument. Because otherwise that's all a corporation is. It's a group of human beings (and pointy haired bosses) who act in unison by a process of reason (or irrationality, or boredom.)
So there's no difference from a corporation and your local rotary club. Just different goals. Which you (as an individual may or may not like.)
I don't think NCSA mosaic was touted using such crap marketspeak - it was just so good the potential was obvious (I remember first using and thinking "this is the next big thing".) It didn't need lots of "paradigm shifting" type reviews.
Furthermore, I don't think this will ever take off until an Open Source server is available. There must be a free market to develop on the platform. If we didn't learn anything from the Amiga/Macintosh vs IBM PC story then we should've learned this. Closed platforms widespread use do not make. No company in their right mind would dedicate all their E-Commerce hosting to ONE provider with no alternative choice.
Ever since I saw VRML back in the mid ninties It thought this was where everything was going to head eventually - given the right video cards. I still think it will eventually. The thing is, we need a good general 3d pear to peer hosted open source platform to build the next web. If you want to have a full 3d world of your own it could be hosted on your own system. IPv6 will make this even easier.
There are already several open source projects trying to accomplish this, the Interverse project being one of them (btw, this avatar chick is hot.) As well as the VRML stuff from the mid-ninties.
BTW, I'm not affiliated with the Interverse project, I just think it's cool. Anyone know anything else similar?
It's another attempt at linked 3d worlds. It's based on the Crystal3d engine and looks a little quake3-ish but it does work, is fast and the tools to build worlds are already there. I had very high hopes for this project but the last update was January of last year. So I suppose the developers got tired of developing it without support. Anyone wast a cool 3d programming project?
It's free as in speech and has many of the capabilities of the metaverse. I had high hopes for the project but it looks like it's on stand by now. Cool development project anyone?
Well the the thing is, I and most people in the I.T. industry can't sympathize with symantec or mcaffee. In fact, quite frankly, we'd probably key their car if given the chance. They both produce annoying bloatware that attempts to notify the users of it's presence on every occasion possible.
That said, this is a stark reminder that Microsoft can bundle your company out of existence if you develop on their platform. They have done this in the past and they will do this again. I would be worried in several years if I was developing anything like OCR software (like TextBridge), speech recognition software (like ViaVoice) or other as-yet-unbundled mass market products. Because these will be bundled eventually.
They bundled I.E. and killed Netscape, bundled WMP and reduced most other media players and they added the "thumbnails" feature in Explorer (as well as Windows Picture and Fax Viewer) and killed a significant portion of the market for picture browsing software. So Microsoft has a track record (more extensive that this) in doing this.
But on the other hand the notion that Microsoft should never add anything to their O.S. if somebody already sells a product that has the feature is just crazy. I mean, their O.S. would never be able to add anything at all. By definition generally useful features would be prohibited from being added. Or Microsoft would have to come up with some kind of completely new software that was unimagined by any other software developer on earth. Furthermore, it would have to be solving a problem that no one ever perceived before - because those generally already have products out there (i.e. need to manage and view pictures, need to browse the Internet, need protection from viruses.)
Furthermore, most other O.S.es have bundled the same products as Microsoft. My Slackware CD came with several bundled solutions, I sure as hell would have a problem competing with any of them commercially. In fact every Linux distro I've ever used came with a tightly bundled web browser (Konquerer, Epiphany etc.) Much less so than Windows but it would still be very hard to write a successful commercial browser. Same thing with picture browsing software and media players.
Mac OSX bundles these features too. (i.e. Safari)
I guess the final solution is - if you write a program that solves a very common need it's functionality will eventually be bundled into operating systems. So make money from it quickly - if you can. And have eternal fear of MS if you develop for their platform. Because they can release your product for free - pre-installed - at any time.
You will still have a market, but it will be smaller and you'll have to keep on improving your product and you might even need to give it away free and find other ways to make money from it. For example FireFox, Picasa etc.
Or perhaps they're doing it because a little pink fairy shows up and tells them to? Who the fsck knows? They're black hats. They're clearly not rational.:)
I suppose this is one of those cases where we can respectfully agree to disagree. It seems to be one of those cultural differences. I can't understand your position no matter how hard I try. Why are you so invested in the notion that people cannot throw off their bonds? If they are "living paycheck to paycheck" then they must switch jobs or save money by lowering expenses. Precious few in the world are living paycheck to paycheck in the way that you mean. In the sense that they are utterly helpless and can only make their expenses each week or month. If they really are they need to find a new job pronto. That's what you missed "you find another employer". I didn't say they had to become employers but they sure as hell don't have to remain in a low-skill job (or the same job for that matter.) Anyone can afford to buy a $15 USD Audel's Guide to X Skill, even if it takes them a year to save up the money (and plenty of folks in developing countries are doing just that.) You're pretending that there's only one employer possible for a "worker". This is exactly what I'm talking about. No one can own the means of production because the means of production is all of humanity. You entrench the very king you abhor. You claim that he rules the peasant, I do not. What's more, you fight for this belief saying "most people just cannot escape his rule". It's simply not true.
In any case. It's been a fascinating conversation!
Yes, that's true. In the old sense of the word anyway. Today, at least in the U.S., once a union is formed it is a government mandated monopoly on labor for an organization. So indeed, I'm advocating unions. Just not the modern ones.
And why would the jobs pay better?
Because with fewer people in the job economy scarcity would drive up prices. But that's beside the point. The solution to such a problem is for "workers" to learn new skills and leave jobs in an industry where there's no money to be made. In the early 1900s this was much harder than today (but not impossible), today there is no excuse.
I think it your view which is Victorian.
How so? I don't believe "workers" must always remain "workers". I don't believe they (we) need anyone to care for them (us.) When I was an employee I treated my employer like a customer. Now that I run my own business (with one employee, myself) things are exactly the same. Only now I have many employers. No matter what the field, if you do a good job it's incredibly easy to get customers. It's suprising just how many companies get away with doing a crappy job in their respective fields.
Unions are the organizational manifestation of the belief that some of us are employers (by birth) and some of us are employees (and are incapable of becoming employers.) The belief that they are necessary is rooted in this false pretense. That somehow a monopolistic organization is required to negotiate with an employer or an industry because employees have no other choice. Notice how this plays into the kings and peasants idealogy? You need a union because you are a "worker" and you'll never be anything else. That's hogwash. In the real world if your employer doesn't pay you enough then you find another employer. Even better, start a company in the same industry and put your employer out of business.
I'll rephrase my previous post and mention that if your highest aspiration is ditch digger then hope that few others have such aspirations because it takes very little skill. If enough people stop wishing to only dig ditches then pay for ditch diggers would skyrocket. It doesn't require a union it just requires higher goals. In other words if you want to get paid $5.35 USD an hour then go work at McDonalds - otherwise find a differnt job, learn a skill, get a degree or start a business. Don't lobby your government to put in place an organization with a monopoly in the hamburger-flipping labor market. Then claim that your time is worth $79 USD an hour. Then make them give you a pension. Then force your employer to only operate 30 hours a week. Then force them to give you health care benifits. Then cry and whine that they can't pay your pension because they're in bankruptsy court.
Unions are fundamentally an exercise in the denial of reality.
That's the point, they shouldn't. Did you read my post at all?
I appreciate your point of view. I am not suggesting that employers and employees have the same interests. On the contrary I think that the exact opposite is the case. In most cases employers and employees have conflicting interests. Namely that employees wish to be paid the maximum possible (which is a good philosophy to have) and employers wish to pay them the minimum possible (which is also a good philosophy.) There is nothing wrong with this situation, this is a free market. The customer (employer) wishes to get the lowest price for the work. The seller (employee) wishes to get the highest. If you'd read my previous post you'd see that that was my point. If an employer pays you poorly then quit your job and encourage others to do the same.
As for GM case, how is that helping your point?
I'll refer you to LWATCDR's excellent response here.
I also provided a few more examples in this post in this thread.
Thank you! I was going for a well known case (and trying to document it) but I appreciate the criticism. Some other examples might be comparing JetBlue or SkyWest and United Airlines and other unionized airlines. Albeit there are other obstacles to running an airline business, unions are only one. But these non-unionized airlines are showing consistent profit while their unionized competitors aren't seeing profit even with massive government support (similar non audio link here.)
I might also mention various problems with teachers unions. But that's an entirely different story.
I think most competitive industries that have unions display these tendencies. A government enforced monopoly always seems to be a bad deal for everyone, not just unions. Besides, the main point of my post was not that unions are bad, merely that Carnegie was not an imbecile.
I'll bite. I consider your comment a troll. Calling Carnagie a fool must be a troll. By virtue of the fact of his success he is not a fool. His philanthropy afterwards can be considered either a moral good or a poor substitution for his actions in life. Either way he was no fool.
As far as the unions being benign this, this, this and this seem to say otherwise. Just using GM as an example.
Not only do unions cripple companies against competition, they do a poor job protecting workers. The best protection workers can have is high standards. If all you want to do in life is work in a coal mine or work a hydraulic press then you may get paid highly or poorly depending on how many other people also want those jobs. Even in the greatest of depressions there is always a way for an enterprising individual to avoid working a shit job. And the more people who do that, the higher the guy who does it gets paid.
Furthermore, there is an underlying undercurrent of Victorian philosophy behind a pro-union position. It presumes that some are born to be kings and some are peasants. Well, that's bullshit. In a free society any one of us can get a good job or even become a millionaire. There is nothing preventing a person from striking out on their own, with their own business. There never has been. Even with zero capital starting out (in a service based business.) The thing that has always kept people subservient is the rink associated with doing so. As long as people are fearful then they will remain the peasants they consider themselves.
Modern India, China and Brazil are perfect examples. Look at the number of people who are rising out of poverty by refusing to work the jobs their father's did. Their pay scale remains lower than some places but that is strictly contingent upon the risk they take in a chosen occupation or business. The business owners are the ones making the money because they are the ones taking all the risk. Just as Andrew Carnagie once did.
Read his Wikipedia entry. He had nothing handed to him. He started out making $1.20 a week and ended up the richest man in the world. So he was most certainly not a fool. The fools were the ones who decided to work for him for so little. If half of them had decided it wasn't worth it there would've been no need for unions and their jobs wouldv'e paid much better.
So were you joking with the Bill Parish article? Was that a joke. I'm just not getting it. (If it was, Huzzah, deliciously ironic.) I read the article and he doesn't say a single way Microsoft is creating a "pyramid", he just says a lot of conspiratorial allegations and never backs them up. He even goes as far as to pull some numbers out of his ass for the barchart up top. It's a prime example of propaganda technique and poor critical thinking. He even bothers to chide the company for talking up it's own stock. It's a true Michael Moore meets Microsoft, story at 11.
This is a hilarious article. I'm liking it more the further I read. This is BRILLIANT! Check out the pie chart titled "Microsoft is a Cash Machine" there's a 36% chunk labeled "Tax Loophole/Corporate Welfare". No references are provided, no method of calculation given. This has to be a parody.
Slashdot Mirror
Don't forget Scribus, it's excellent for DP! My company switched for all our new publications (to avoid the Quark mafia, $900 yearly or publishers can't read your files.) It saves directly to PDF with perfect color, fonts, embedded icc profiles etc. Oh, and it's Open Source!
> No, that's what you're told by the vested interests. The idea behind it is nothing similar. Go read a history book.
So you're saying that I shouldn't have the right to something I create? The work of my own hands? I don't have a right to profit from it? Why? I don't think some boogie man "vested interests" will do much to help your position. You're suggesting a man does not have a right to his own work - that you own it somehow and can tell him what to do with it. Wow.
> Amtrak or the European rail system are not monopolies either. After all, you can ride a bike, drive your car or walk!
Now you got it!
> Make up your mind.
Learn to use yours. Linus has a monopoly on Linux in the same sense that I agreed Microsoft has a monopoly on Windows. In fact the GPL, BSD license, MIT license and all OSS licenses rely on this same monopoly to protect software freedom. This is because you have a right to say that your work shall be freely distributed - because it's YOUR work. So yes Microsoft has a monopoly - so does Linus in the same sense. It's just that it's the only monopoly Microsoft has and it's not the kind you can get convicted by the Sherman act for.
monopoly(m-np'-l)
pl. monopolies
[Latin monoplium, from Greek monoplion : mono-, mono- + plein, to sell; see pel-4 in Indo-European roots.]
monop'olism n., monop'olist n., monop'olis'tic adj., monop'olis'tically adv.
And if you actually read the links you quote you'd find that "It is only necessary to prove the business had the "power" to raise prices or exclude competitors
Microsoft has never had the power to exclude competitors from the market - in the sense that the Sherman act means. Microsoft can only raise prices according to what the market will bare. Granted this is a high price indeed ($400 for office?). But if Microsoft started selling Office for $40,000 a copy there would be no sales because the market will not bare it. Office is not worth that much. Microsoft is only guilty of charging what Office is worth (i.e. what a businessman will pay for it in order to get the benefits that it provides.) All businesses have the power to raise prices to what the market will bare, that's the idea behind business. Rock prices go up if you call them "Pet Rocks" and charge $20 for them. That's what the market will bare - even if it's a crazy price.
As far as preventing competitors to enter the industry? That's nuts. Ever heard of Linux? It's a FREE operating system! I'll give you a copy. Slackware 11 rocks! Every company I've ever worked for didn't use MS software - calling it a monopoly is just nuts. And I wonder why people want to do it so much. Politics and money, I fear, is the answer. Think about it.
So your problem is with anyone who has intellectual property then - not just Microsoft. Copyright is a true monopoly (the second kind I mentioned). The idea behind it is that if you spend your life creating something then you should have the exclusive right to profit from it for a period of time. So they do have a true monopoly - on the sale of their own product.
Unfortunately, this legal interpretation would make nearly all booksellers, software developers, movie makers and musicians in the world into monopolists. In fact - I can become a monopolist on this very comment:
© 2006 Jonathan Jeffus
In fact, according to Slashdot you have a monopoly on your comment as well (it's owned by you.) So in that sense, you and I are just as much a monopolist as Microsoft.
But interestingly enough, you can still go out and buy another operating system or write your own (like Linus did.) Or choose a different book, comment, song or movie. You have that right.
So Microsoft is not a monopolist in the sense that Amtrak or the European rail system are. You can go out and choose from probably at least 30 operating systems today. If you count all the Linux distributions it's probably thousands. So as much as it may not be popular - Microsoft is not a monopoly.
Anyone else notice the link is pointing to the Democratic Leadership Council?
Wouldn't an alternate news source be more appropriate? That's like linking to an article in the Republican Quarterly (Washington Times?) claiming that Hillary Clinton refused to kiss some child because his parents were Republican. It's not exactly unbiased.
This entire discussion feels a little like the 5 minutes hate. Maybe, just maybe, the Union of Concerned Scientists are concerned about more than science. Is it possible that they have a political agenda as well? Could it be there are other scientists out there who disagree with them on scientific issues? Maybe the EPA is cancelling these programs out of scientific validity or duplication of resources. I'm only saying these things because every damn comment in this article's thread has been a party line establishmentarian pile of arrogance. Just maybe we could do without funding these idiots.
Case in point. Look at the Ab entry. I'm DEFINITELY no fan of abstinence education but I find quotes like this to be questionable "with abstinence-only programs in place, the state ranked last in the nation in the decline of teen birth rates among 15- to 17-year-old females." (Emphasis is mine.) Why quote the decline of teen birth rates. Why not teen birth rates per-capita? That's right out of How to Lie With Statistics.
The whole article stinks of political bias even as they claim to be unbiased. We all hate President Bush but gimme a break - try some critical thinking.
You appear to be speaking literally out of your ass. The Big Evil Corporations generally don't like paying billions of dollars in class action law suits and individual damages. Notice all the lawyers with infomercials begging you to call if you took cialis, viagra or countless other drugs? Yeah, that's why. So no, the whole Big-Evil-Corporations-just-want-to murder-people-to-get-a-quick-buck just doesn't fly. They spend more on settlements than they make. Take Zyprexa for example, the company (Eli Lilly) paid out $700 million to a class action lawsuit. It cost them $1 billion and 15 years to produce the drug. It's utter paranoia to think that companies don't have an interest in making safe drugs. Not to mention that CEO's hate it when their brand is associated with killing people - but they LOSE MONEY WHEN THEY MAKE DRUGS THAT DO THAT!
Sometimes mistakes are made. Sometimes sample sizes are too small. Sometimes greedy scientists deny reality and ignore results. Because it's THEIR fault when drugs kill people. If you're a scientist and you KNOW a drug will kill people you should tell someone - loudly. All it takes in ONE research scientist coming forward and serious doubt and a strong foundation for a class action lawsuit will be laid.
I am no fan of Microsoft. In fact I've always been an MS Hater (2003 Edition). However, just because some people or even governments call Microsoft a monopoly does not make them one. Monopolies can only be created when there is no choice in an industry. This can be because of real physical limitations (like railroads or power lines) or artificial physical limitations (someone will arrest you if try to buy an alternate product). Microsoft does not qualify for either of these types of monopolies. Just because it's expensive for a company to choose an alternate company for their software needs does not equal a monopoly. And even that argument (higher cost) is debatable.
I've worked in both the multimedia and software development industries for the past 15 years and I've never worked at a Microsoft shop - ever. Even now I type this on a Slackware 11 machine nestled between two other Linux boxes on a network of computers at my office that does not include a single Windows machine (I think I've got a copy of Windows 98 and VMWare player on one system to play old DOS games.)
So no, Microsoft is not a monopoly by any definition of the word - regardless whether or not it's politically correct to say so.
"they have no choice but to depend on the government for everything."
Bravo, right on. One thing though, you seem to've misspelled "working people".
It is my opinion that this should be modded Off Topic. The subject matter is freedom of speech, not Katrina or the equitable redistribution of wealth. It may also be a Troll, although that may be debatable. I'll respond none the less.
"FEMA outsourced all their equipment to the former head of FEMA....just gets the profits."
So FEMA get's the profits? FEMA is making a profit? It is my understanding that FEMA does not have a CEO or stockholders.
"but the actual fact was that buses were planned and ordered but never arrived."
Unfortunately, these buses were under the control of Mayor Ray Nagin and he refused to send them. Why he would do this nobody knows. But this was not FEMA's problem, it was Ray Nagin's problem. See article here.
Although this is a perfect example of government failing. People entrust something important to a large bureaucracy thousands of miles away and are surprised when it fails. The National Weather Service did not fail in provided radar images and a forecast but FEMA certainly failed to act on them. This is why local communities are much better at organizing things like this. A community watch type program would go much further in helping people evacuate than some faceless government project composed of people with no vested interest in helping people because they don't know them.
"I'm sick of the mentality that accepts 100% corporate control or it's Communism. Our drug companies make huge profits on drugs our government subsidized to research... but above on beyond the argument that "profits=progress" why is it every woman in this country must spend about $35 a month for birth control? Wouldn't it make sense, that the government research this basic need, and provide it for free or perhaps a $1 month? Where did the Public Good, change to "someone needs to profit?" There is no inherent right to profit or even existence for corporations -- yet that's how our government now acts."
The main reason for this is something called human rights. We in this country have traditionally believed that a man deserves the fruits of his own labor. And that he deserves to be paid according to what his labor is worth. Nothing in the world is free. For your free services to exist there must be someone to provide them.
There are three different ways they can be provided. People can be held at gunpoint and forced to work to create theses "free" products (which is what Marx and Lenin suggested), other people in other industries can be held at gunpoint and forced to pay the people who create these free products (mixed economy) or people who believe anyone should have access to birth control pills can voluntarily give money to the cause (Capitalism.) So if you like the idea of free birth control pills it may be a good idea to start a charity and get out and convince people that they should give to your cause. Although it will be hard to convince many people since they have worked all their lives and bought birth control pills themselves. It's hard to imagine a case outside of disability or insanity where a person would be unable to save $35 over a course of a month.
"what people earn or "work for" is an arbitrary value"
On the contrary, it is a very specific value whether it is 12,000 or 12,000,000. It is exactly the amount that that person will work for.
From this point onward you seem to collect a few different claimed problems and present them. The exact point of all these escape me, you're saying the country is bad off? Yes, we all know that. Bush has been a complete fool. But some of the problems you mention cannot be fixed, many should not be fixed (I can eat what I choose to) and some simply do not exist.
I can't believe posts like this still happens. The entire remainder of the post seems to be a plea for central planning. For anyone who is interested in historical analysis of the subject matter, I sug
Atheist governments have killed more people than all the wars and diseases in history. So that is a very untenable position. Not counting casualties of the war (which would include at least 20 million Russians from WW2 at least, not to mention the U.S., U.K. etc.)
4 /212049.shtml
Pol Pot (killing fields): 2 million+
Stalin (gulags, starvation): 20 million+
Hitler (death camps): 11 million+
Che Guavara (pistol shots to back of the head): 2-4000
And that's just the numbers I could find in a short Google search.
Found an interesting article on Che here:
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/6/2
An excerpt:
Che's true legacy is simply one of terror and murder. That dreaded midnight knock. Wives and daughters screaming in rage and panic as Che's goons drag off their dads and husbands - that's the real Che legacy.
Desperate crowds of weeping daughters and shrieking mothers clubbed with rifle butts outside La Cabana as Che's firing squads murder their dads and sons inside - that's the real Che legacy.
Thousands of heroes yelling "Viva Cuba Libre!" and "Viva Christo Rey!" before firing squads of murderous drunks whom they'd have stomped in open battle - that's the real Che legacy.
Secret graves and crude boxes with bullet-riddled corpses delivered to ashen-faced loved ones - that's the real Che legacy.
Don't insult a decent Czech brew accidentally. It's best to qualify the name like "American Budweiser". Since Czech Budweiser is actually a nice beer. And I like fine Belgian beer (brune, not the light stuff.)
Don't generalize with things like "The U.S.". Bullshit. The U.S. cannot be easily summarized in simple aphorisms. It's very nearly as complex and varied in it's customs and practices as Russia or China.
-I like Belgian beer.
-I have paintings hanging all over my house.
-I go to the little place down the street for every meal.
-I am from "The U.S.".
Please choose a suitable minority group to pin those on. Like rednecks. They drink American Budweiser, they got that mirror from their Uncle Joe and they squish Fireflies and laugh when the goo inside comes out. Chances are they'll be buying a new PS3 with their Aunt Sue's welfare check.
Apologies.
- Jonathan
Corporations are collections of individuals acting toward a common cause (legally they're separate entities but effectively that's all they are in reality.) If you ban corporate contributions then you'd have to ban political parties. The only reason I can imagine why someone would want to deny "corporations" (collections of individuals united by common business purposes) from making political contributions; they are more likely to have money.
Some individuals are more equal than others, when it comes to political contributions. We can't let Corporations donate to political causes, I mean, they won't like my cause. I mean, my party's cause. I mean, my PAC's cause.
That's the fundamental argument. Because otherwise that's all a corporation is. It's a group of human beings (and pointy haired bosses) who act in unison by a process of reason (or irrationality, or boredom.)
So there's no difference from a corporation and your local rotary club. Just different goals. Which you (as an individual may or may not like.)
Somebody mod parent up! This is exactly the kind of cool stuff that will be the next Big Thing(tm).
I don't think NCSA mosaic was touted using such crap marketspeak - it was just so good the potential was obvious (I remember first using and thinking "this is the next big thing".) It didn't need lots of "paradigm shifting" type reviews.
Furthermore, I don't think this will ever take off until an Open Source server is available. There must be a free market to develop on the platform. If we didn't learn anything from the Amiga/Macintosh vs IBM PC story then we should've learned this. Closed platforms widespread use do not make. No company in their right mind would dedicate all their E-Commerce hosting to ONE provider with no alternative choice.
Ever since I saw VRML back in the mid ninties It thought this was where everything was going to head eventually - given the right video cards. I still think it will eventually. The thing is, we need a good general 3d pear to peer hosted open source platform to build the next web. If you want to have a full 3d world of your own it could be hosted on your own system. IPv6 will make this even easier.
There are already several open source projects trying to accomplish this, the Interverse project being one of them (btw, this avatar chick is hot.) As well as the VRML stuff from the mid-ninties.
BTW, I'm not affiliated with the Interverse project, I just think it's cool. Anyone know anything else similar?
It's another attempt at linked 3d worlds. It's based on the Crystal3d engine and looks a little quake3-ish but it does work, is fast and the tools to build worlds are already there. I had very high hopes for this project but the last update was January of last year. So I suppose the developers got tired of developing it without support. Anyone wast a cool 3d programming project?
The site is here.
Check out the interverse:
http://www.interverse.org/
It's free as in speech and has many of the capabilities of the metaverse. I had high hopes for the project but it looks like it's on stand by now. Cool development project anyone?
Well the the thing is, I and most people in the I.T. industry can't sympathize with symantec or mcaffee. In fact, quite frankly, we'd probably key their car if given the chance. They both produce annoying bloatware that attempts to notify the users of it's presence on every occasion possible.
That said, this is a stark reminder that Microsoft can bundle your company out of existence if you develop on their platform. They have done this in the past and they will do this again. I would be worried in several years if I was developing anything like OCR software (like TextBridge), speech recognition software (like ViaVoice) or other as-yet-unbundled mass market products. Because these will be bundled eventually.
They bundled I.E. and killed Netscape, bundled WMP and reduced most other media players and they added the "thumbnails" feature in Explorer (as well as Windows Picture and Fax Viewer) and killed a significant portion of the market for picture browsing software. So Microsoft has a track record (more extensive that this) in doing this.
But on the other hand the notion that Microsoft should never add anything to their O.S. if somebody already sells a product that has the feature is just crazy. I mean, their O.S. would never be able to add anything at all. By definition generally useful features would be prohibited from being added. Or Microsoft would have to come up with some kind of completely new software that was unimagined by any other software developer on earth. Furthermore, it would have to be solving a problem that no one ever perceived before - because those generally already have products out there (i.e. need to manage and view pictures, need to browse the Internet, need protection from viruses.)
Furthermore, most other O.S.es have bundled the same products as Microsoft. My Slackware CD came with several bundled solutions, I sure as hell would have a problem competing with any of them commercially. In fact every Linux distro I've ever used came with a tightly bundled web browser (Konquerer, Epiphany etc.) Much less so than Windows but it would still be very hard to write a successful commercial browser. Same thing with picture browsing software and media players.
Mac OSX bundles these features too. (i.e. Safari)
I guess the final solution is - if you write a program that solves a very common need it's functionality will eventually be bundled into operating systems. So make money from it quickly - if you can. And have eternal fear of MS if you develop for their platform. Because they can release your product for free - pre-installed - at any time.
You will still have a market, but it will be smaller and you'll have to keep on improving your product and you might even need to give it away free and find other ways to make money from it. For example FireFox, Picasa etc.
And this is a good thing for all O.S. users.
Or perhaps they're doing it because a little pink fairy shows up and tells them to? Who the fsck knows? They're black hats. They're clearly not rational. :)
I suppose this is one of those cases where we can respectfully agree to disagree. It seems to be one of those cultural differences. I can't understand your position no matter how hard I try. Why are you so invested in the notion that people cannot throw off their bonds? If they are "living paycheck to paycheck" then they must switch jobs or save money by lowering expenses. Precious few in the world are living paycheck to paycheck in the way that you mean. In the sense that they are utterly helpless and can only make their expenses each week or month. If they really are they need to find a new job pronto. That's what you missed "you find another employer". I didn't say they had to become employers but they sure as hell don't have to remain in a low-skill job (or the same job for that matter.) Anyone can afford to buy a $15 USD Audel's Guide to X Skill, even if it takes them a year to save up the money (and plenty of folks in developing countries are doing just that.) You're pretending that there's only one employer possible for a "worker". This is exactly what I'm talking about. No one can own the means of production because the means of production is all of humanity. You entrench the very king you abhor. You claim that he rules the peasant, I do not. What's more, you fight for this belief saying "most people just cannot escape his rule". It's simply not true.
In any case. It's been a fascinating conversation!
The half that quit would be called a 'union'.
Yes, that's true. In the old sense of the word anyway. Today, at least in the U.S., once a union is formed it is a government mandated monopoly on labor for an organization. So indeed, I'm advocating unions. Just not the modern ones.
And why would the jobs pay better?
Because with fewer people in the job economy scarcity would drive up prices. But that's beside the point. The solution to such a problem is for "workers" to learn new skills and leave jobs in an industry where there's no money to be made. In the early 1900s this was much harder than today (but not impossible), today there is no excuse.
I think it your view which is Victorian.
How so? I don't believe "workers" must always remain "workers". I don't believe they (we) need anyone to care for them (us.) When I was an employee I treated my employer like a customer. Now that I run my own business (with one employee, myself) things are exactly the same. Only now I have many employers. No matter what the field, if you do a good job it's incredibly easy to get customers. It's suprising just how many companies get away with doing a crappy job in their respective fields.
How is this a pro-union position?
Unions are the organizational manifestation of the belief that some of us are employers (by birth) and some of us are employees (and are incapable of becoming employers.) The belief that they are necessary is rooted in this false pretense. That somehow a monopolistic organization is required to negotiate with an employer or an industry because employees have no other choice. Notice how this plays into the kings and peasants idealogy? You need a union because you are a "worker" and you'll never be anything else. That's hogwash. In the real world if your employer doesn't pay you enough then you find another employer. Even better, start a company in the same industry and put your employer out of business.
I'll rephrase my previous post and mention that if your highest aspiration is ditch digger then hope that few others have such aspirations because it takes very little skill. If enough people stop wishing to only dig ditches then pay for ditch diggers would skyrocket. It doesn't require a union it just requires higher goals. In other words if you want to get paid $5.35 USD an hour then go work at McDonalds - otherwise find a differnt job, learn a skill, get a degree or start a business. Don't lobby your government to put in place an organization with a monopoly in the hamburger-flipping labor market. Then claim that your time is worth $79 USD an hour. Then make them give you a pension. Then force your employer to only operate 30 hours a week. Then force them to give you health care benifits. Then cry and whine that they can't pay your pension because they're in bankruptsy court.
Unions are fundamentally an exercise in the denial of reality.
Why the hell should employees bend over?
That's the point, they shouldn't. Did you read my post at all?
I appreciate your point of view. I am not suggesting that employers and employees have the same interests. On the contrary I think that the exact opposite is the case. In most cases employers and employees have conflicting interests. Namely that employees wish to be paid the maximum possible (which is a good philosophy to have) and employers wish to pay them the minimum possible (which is also a good philosophy.) There is nothing wrong with this situation, this is a free market. The customer (employer) wishes to get the lowest price for the work. The seller (employee) wishes to get the highest. If you'd read my previous post you'd see that that was my point. If an employer pays you poorly then quit your job and encourage others to do the same.
As for GM case, how is that helping your point?
I'll refer you to LWATCDR's excellent response here. I also provided a few more examples in this post in this thread.
In any case, thank you for your comments.
Cheers.
Thank you! I was going for a well known case (and trying to document it) but I appreciate the criticism. Some other examples might be comparing JetBlue or SkyWest and United Airlines and other unionized airlines. Albeit there are other obstacles to running an airline business, unions are only one. But these non-unionized airlines are showing consistent profit while their unionized competitors aren't seeing profit even with massive government support (similar non audio link here.)
I might also mention various problems with teachers unions. But that's an entirely different story.
I think most competitive industries that have unions display these tendencies. A government enforced monopoly always seems to be a bad deal for everyone, not just unions. Besides, the main point of my post was not that unions are bad, merely that Carnegie was not an imbecile.
I'll bite. I consider your comment a troll. Calling Carnagie a fool must be a troll. By virtue of the fact of his success he is not a fool. His philanthropy afterwards can be considered either a moral good or a poor substitution for his actions in life. Either way he was no fool.
As far as the unions being benign this, this, this and this seem to say otherwise. Just using GM as an example.
Not only do unions cripple companies against competition, they do a poor job protecting workers. The best protection workers can have is high standards. If all you want to do in life is work in a coal mine or work a hydraulic press then you may get paid highly or poorly depending on how many other people also want those jobs. Even in the greatest of depressions there is always a way for an enterprising individual to avoid working a shit job. And the more people who do that, the higher the guy who does it gets paid.
Furthermore, there is an underlying undercurrent of Victorian philosophy behind a pro-union position. It presumes that some are born to be kings and some are peasants. Well, that's bullshit. In a free society any one of us can get a good job or even become a millionaire. There is nothing preventing a person from striking out on their own, with their own business. There never has been. Even with zero capital starting out (in a service based business.) The thing that has always kept people subservient is the rink associated with doing so. As long as people are fearful then they will remain the peasants they consider themselves.
Modern India, China and Brazil are perfect examples. Look at the number of people who are rising out of poverty by refusing to work the jobs their father's did. Their pay scale remains lower than some places but that is strictly contingent upon the risk they take in a chosen occupation or business. The business owners are the ones making the money because they are the ones taking all the risk. Just as Andrew Carnagie once did.
Read his Wikipedia entry. He had nothing handed to him. He started out making $1.20 a week and ended up the richest man in the world. So he was most certainly not a fool. The fools were the ones who decided to work for him for so little. If half of them had decided it wasn't worth it there would've been no need for unions and their jobs wouldv'e paid much better.
So were you joking with the Bill Parish article? Was that a joke. I'm just not getting it. (If it was, Huzzah, deliciously ironic.) I read the article and he doesn't say a single way Microsoft is creating a "pyramid", he just says a lot of conspiratorial allegations and never backs them up. He even goes as far as to pull some numbers out of his ass for the barchart up top. It's a prime example of propaganda technique and poor critical thinking. He even bothers to chide the company for talking up it's own stock. It's a true Michael Moore meets Microsoft, story at 11.
This is a hilarious article. I'm liking it more the further I read. This is BRILLIANT! Check out the pie chart titled "Microsoft is a Cash Machine" there's a 36% chunk labeled "Tax Loophole/Corporate Welfare". No references are provided, no method of calculation given. This has to be a parody.
I love this article!
Cheers.