Yes, they can't, provided they take their decisions rationally and only after pondering all the options carefully. In practice, this doesn't happen because they are too susceptible to brainwash by the media, advertisements and, of course, "what everyone else does". This is another premise in which the free market theory fails spectacularly (in my opinion).
So you propose a system where the enlightened tell the masses what are best for them, and of course, you are such an enlightened person.:) The function of government cannot and should not be to protect a person from themselves, only from others doing that which is actually wrong (for instance, threatening, stealing, attacking, etc.) When government steps in to do for us what we should be doing for ourselves, we actually demonstrably weaken society, regardless of how pure the motives for the original intervention were.
This is easily demonstrated by the public education system which has slowly been made more and more responsible for bringing up our children as parents have elected to spend less and less time doing it themselves. This was not the intended purpose of the system, but that is what it has become, and we all pay for it every day (both through taxes and through building a society which is less capable individually.)
In order for a free market system OR a democracy to function properly, the individual MUST be vigilant about protecting their own self interests AND ensuring society doesn't try to do it for them. As soon as we, as individuals, start to abdicate responsibility for our decisions to others, we necessarily start to sacrifice our individual rights and liberties. And I am sure you and I can both agree that is a bad thing.
True. But I also feel, without wanting to be too self-centered, that the interests I'm talking about are those of humanity as a whole.:)
Most people who think [their] government would solve problems do. Bush certainly thinks his interests are those of humanity as a whole, for example, but his interests definitely do not mirror mine - maybe they mirror yours, and that's good for you, bad for me. The shoe could easily be on the other foot though.
I do understand that a market governed at the government's whim is no better than one governed at the corporations' whim. But some regulation is needed. To say the contrary is akin to saying we shouldn't have police forces at all, because any action the police take to protect the citizens is completely unacceptable and puts the society at the whim of the policemen.
I have not suggested that there be no police force - there has to be a method to enforce contracts and to protect the rights of citizens that may require the use of force, in some cases beyond what an individual is capable of doing for themselves.
What I mean is that certain components of a functional and progressive society (such as healthcare and education, for instance) are better served by the public sector because of their extreme importance to the well-being of the people.
You are correct in that certain essential services might best be handled by the government. Services such as a legal system, fire system, and the like, may be most suitably handled by the government. I do not agree that healthcare and education are such systems, however.
As for space exploration, what I feel is that the risks involved and the need to ensure effort is being put on the right things (i.e. actually exploring space and not, for instance, putting expensive billboards in space or creating lunar resorts for millionaires) are an indicator that the interests in question are best served by the public sector (parallel private sector investments notwithstanding).
If people wish to spend their own money to place billboards into space, then that is their peroggative, much like it is yours to spend your money to
Competition works out in the interests of the consumers, who provide the funds for continued corporate operations. You may recall that corporations are operating in the interests of their shareholders, who want money, and that money comes from consumers who purchase the products _voluntarily_. While it is POSSIBLE that a company could, for a time, hold a monopoly, without the force of government on its side, it can only do so as long as consumers are convinced to _voluntarily_ purchase its products over those of a competitor. Presumably consumers cannot be actively coerced into this purchase. Even if it were the case, such coercion is likely expensive, and therefore less attractive to shareholders.
I suspect that much of the trouble you feel exists within the current market (excepting those cases where direct government regulation causes issues) is that the majorty of consumers, for whatever reason, continue to send their money towards corporations which do not, in your opinion, work in your best interests. This is to be expected in a free market, since the market goes where the money is, not where the ideology is. If you wish to cause an ideological change in the way a free market behaves, you need to get consumers to shift where they spend their money. Crying out for the 'public sector' solution is to FORCE consumers to make your choice (or the choice of whomever happens to be at the public sector head) which is great when it favors you, bad when it doesn't, and ultimately is more expensive, less efficient and less responsive to the needs of the very consumers it supposedly serves than the free market alternative.
All your measures to avoid "cartel-like" behavior involve you using the enforcement powers of government to reshape society to your whims. And if the 'public whims' do not match yours, then you will be back here decrying how unjust/unfair/unresponsive/inefficient/monopolisti c the government is, but without an option to purchase a competitor's product, putting you in a worse-off position than when you started.
And you claim this would be the case without patents (government granted monopolies) and without copyright-in-perprtuity (see Disney?) Are you certain you have sufficiently removed government intervention in markets from your view of a truly free market to continue to make the claims you do? You have several assumptions built in to your argument, such as significant first mover advantage (significantly reduced without government granted monopolies such as the current patent system) or high cost-of-entry (how much of this is due to the current regulatory structure?)
A proper treatment of this subject cannot occur on Slashdot, but suffice it to say out-of-hand dismissals of the free market system are fraught with hidden assumptions which significantly impact the soundness of the arguments.
The public sector has no competition, and thus will ultimately end up inferior to a good private sector implementation. Because of competition, it is possible to build a business selling a 'safer' implementation (see Volvo) alongside unsafe implementations which appeal to other consumers for different reasons (some people are willing to risk safety for other things they consider important.) Much like you can't paint the private sector with a broad brush, neither can you paint consumers in the same fashion.
But the public sector... government IS monopoly. The only way to hold them accountable is by electing new representatives (you don't have the option of using someone else's product because they are the only purveyors) and maybe convincing them to fire the offenders after 5 years and three commissions which cost you, the public, millions of dollars.
It's not a free market, in case you did not notice:) It's a REGULATED market, which means special interests can influence the money with government to FORCE behavior on what would otherwise be an unregulated system. In a true free market, money cannot be used to cause a government to enforce market behaviors.
Actually, it does matter. We should be outraged at ineffective or unrealistic laws such as this which only serve to penalize businesses because they go against the political whims of the day. Just because Congress wants a thing doesn't mean that thing is feasable or that we should be burdened with their unrealistic views of how things should be.
The problem is unnecessary government intervention in the free market. This man did nothing wrong, it just happens that what he did is illegal currently. Which is why law is never the measure of morality, since it can (and does) change with the wind. People need to do a better job of distinguishing between what is merely illegal, and what is immoral/unethical. They often do not coincide.
And there's no concentration of wealth and power now, in our democracy? Maybe you've missed the consistent erosion of our rights lately, and fail to realize that the people eroding those rights also have the power to use force (as in they can lock you up and/or kill you) to further their ends AND it's perfectly legal so long as the right people are paid off (or themselves coerced.)
Oh, the fight is still ongoing and the pirates are definitely losing. As you can see here our efforts to raise the global temperature, thereby killing off pirates, as met with substantial success. Unfortunately for us, however, we will soon feel the lash of his noodly appendage for annihilating his chosen people.
1) "Appease" them through negotiation 2) Annihilate them through force
Both options run into a problem called reality, which essentially dictates than neither by themselves can hope to accomplish their stated means. You can't appease them because they aren't interested in appeasement, and you can't kill them because you can't find them.
Instead, I think we should simply drop the matter, to the extend possible. Specifically, stop propping up Israel by *giving* them money, remove security restrictions on our own people and allow them to protect themselves (i.e. carry their own weapons, even on aircraft) and above all come to the realization that the world is NOT safe and CANNOT be made safe.
I bet for the 300 *BILLION* we have spent promoting "democracy" in Iraq and attempting to crush terrorists elsewhere we could have saved a lot more lives through various scientific research initiatives than will *ever* be saved by the most perfect military outcome possible. Hell, for that much money, we probably could have bought Iraq, the Taliban and Al Qaeda and saved ourselves a lot of time and trouble.
...and hang out with him. He won't be worried about harassment charges because his orientation makes such charges hard to bring, and you won't have to worry about him hitting on you. Of course don't hit on him or you might find yourself on the other side of the HR department.
Well, this is how science works. Hypothesis, experiment, conclusion, rinse and repeat. I personally think calling it 'dark matter' tends to cause confusion that it is somehow like normal matter. From TFA, it sounds like dark matter's only shared trait with normal matter is that it causes a gravitational effect. But then maybe that is the physics definition of 'matter' in general.
Re:Insightful? Schizo.
on
iPods at War
·
· Score: 1
I do not consider war ethical except in direct self defense, if that helps you to understand, much like I do not consider the personal use of force against others ethical except in self defense. When it comes to war, it is VERY easy for our populace to remain entirely detached from the conflict, especially as we bear no real direct cost here at home to remind ourselves that we are killing people to promote our political agenda and a rather nebulous defensive objective. For those who are not directly involved in the war effort, the only real taste they will ever get is from the tales received from our men and women abroad. I think it important for war to have a lasting impact on those who return so that they can impart that to us.
If my wish of nightmares on those who actively engage in war is too harsh for you, have you considered the very real effect of the deaths of thousands of civilians on Iraqi families? Far more of their blood has been spilled attempting to stomp out terrorist activity in Iraq than has ever been lost by Americans to the same. And that's a nightmare those people can never wake up from.
As for sympathy for our soldiers, I say that because these people nominally volunteered to defend our country, but are, in my opinion, being asked to advance a political agenda which has little if anything to do with what they have signed up for. I sympathize for their predicament because they have chosen to uphold the chain of command and do as they are asked. But there is a heavy price for them to pay, a price which will not be shared in the slightest by those who have asked them to pay it.
Re:I'm reminded of what Colnel Kurtz said
on
iPods at War
·
· Score: 1
No, I don't want humans to suffer, but suffering is the entire point. When we resort to force as our primary solution to problems, we must be constantly reminded of the heavy costs. Otherwise, we are more likely to resort to force in the future. Force is, after all, the easiest way out, though often not the best, and certainly not the one which reduces suffering the most.
Don't be so reactionary next time. Read the comment entirely and consider it fully.
Re:I'm reminded of what Colnel Kurtz said
on
iPods at War
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
The real trouble here isn't figuring out how to win these wars more quickly, it's about figuring out how to avoid getting into them in the first place, especially ones where we end up occupying foreign territory. Such situations always end poorly, especially when it's not crystal clear to our soldiers who the bad guys are and why they need to die. I have nothing but sympathy for our soldiers and the horrid situation they are in, and nothing but contempt for the leadership who put them in that situation.
Besides, I'd rather have them flying back with nightmares that haunt them for the rest of their lives. It's a reminder to them and to the rest of us who speak with them of the horrors of war, and should serve as an object lesson in why it must be avoided.
One does not become entitled to breaking the law (no matter how insane/stupid the law is) just because they are fighting for our country. Rather they are entitled, along with the rest of us, to live in a free country because they are fighting for it.
Most people don't have a core philosophy that they actually fully comprehend, so they cannot honestly answer this question. How many people do you know who have actually taken the time out of their lives to question themselves and really get to the foundations of what they believe? Most just wing it.
I plan on doing this myself, moving from dual 20" monitors to a 37" or 42" Sceptre running 1920x1080 (Full HD res.)
Fortunately, the modern HDTVs are getting pretty good with respect to repsonse time, brightness and contrast. While you may not want to use them for certain kinds of imaging work (photo editing, where you need to calibrate the screen may not be possible due to limited TV calibration options or imperfect color reproduction,) for most applications this will be fine. Additionally, the larger screen will nominally be easier on the eyes, assuming you pick an appropriate viewing distance, as the individual pixels are larger making normal text easier to read.
Unfortunately perhaps, these monitors do not provide more resoultion for the space. If you are used to a dual monitor setup, you will sacrifice a lot of available pixels for the same physical space. At my home, my dual monitor system has 3.2M available pixels, whereas the HD res TV will only have 2.1M pixels. If you do a lot of coding or word processing where you like to have multiple pages of text available, you'll either want to continue to run another monitor alongside the TV, or stick with the existing higher-res setup. However, if you already only run a single monitor system at 1600x1200, you actually get MORE screen real estate with the HDTVs, and the widescreen layout is, in my opinion, more conducive to multiple documents open simultaneously.
If you are considering moving to a big screen, you are probably also considering the ultra high resolution displays available from Apple and Dell. The 30" screens running 2500x1600 give the benefits of both large display size AND a large number of pixels. However, remember that the individual pixels will be quite small, and eye strain is something you should think about if you deal with applications that are rendering a lot of text. If your answer to this is to just increase the text size, consider whether it's really worth it to have more resolution (and thus more pixels to push) if you aren't going to be showing any additional useful information with them. Ultimately, that is what drove me away from those displays, since I do a lot of text reading, and the pixel pitch would be a killer. These monitors also require special cards capable of linked DVI output, so be aware of that potential upgrade requirement. Also, you will find that the HDTVs cost less than these big monitors.
Why should Google do this? If the advertisers don't like the way a site renders and feel it will not lead to a sale, then they should simply not advertise there. Having Google make that decision for them is unnecessary. Further, it might lead Google to decide it has the right to make other such decisions which we may not agree with. I'd rather not give them that green light.
The purpose of a search engine is to return relevant search results, not just search results which Google, in its not so infinite wisdom, believes will render properly. Consider what happens if someone wrote a plugin for IE that fixed some of the browsing issues, or Google made a mistake and flagged a version of certain browsers as not showing pages properly when it actually does. At that point, Google is actually assuming more than they should about the browser. User Agent strings as an indication of compability suffer from the same flaws as using OS version numbers to determine the capabilities of the system. And we know where that got us.
The proper arbitrator of what is and is not correct is going to be the end user, who will select the product most appropriate to their needs. Second guessing them only leads to sorrow.
So they will intentionally reduce the revenue of their advertisers? Sounds a bit daft to me. Is this what you would do if you were running a business? Understand - no one likes malware, and advertisers don't want to be associated with it because it can color them by association. But style sheets and browser compliance? That's a tough one to make an argument for. Too arcane for most people, including advertisers.
You may also have fubared a golden opportunity to work at MS on the CSS team and address the very issues you complain about. While you can glorify the Firefox and Opera teams all you want, if you really wanted to improve the lot of most web users, you would do well to be in that position at MS with the ability to influence that development work.
Just as a suggestion from someone who still remembers what it was like to get into a new job out of college, idealism in development is useful for guiding how you do your work, but not so useful for selecting a place to work or even necessarily which work you do. I felt and thought a lot of the same things you expressed in your post above (and I worked for MS right out of college) but over the years I have found it's MUCH more useful to weave your principles into your code and attitude than it is to wear them on your sleeve.
Notwithstanding the few people touched by the Slashdot crowd, a mass exodus of people to Firefox or any other free browser seems unlikely, simply because MS has a better distribution channel. Our goals as developers is to figure out how to deal with multiple inconsistent browsers as efficiently as possible, and let the market do as it will to determine who the 'winner' of the new browser wars is. But like it or not, I bet you can guess who has the most market share at the end of the day, and wishing it otherwise is just an exercise in frustration.
The documents mean nothing if we don't stand up to defend them. Teach her that, and teach her to be completely uncompromising about it. Maybe then her generation will have it better than ours.
Slashdot Mirror
So you propose a system where the enlightened tell the masses what are best for them, and of course, you are such an enlightened person. :) The function of government cannot and should not be to protect a person from themselves, only from others doing that which is actually wrong (for instance, threatening, stealing, attacking, etc.) When government steps in to do for us what we should be doing for ourselves, we actually demonstrably weaken society, regardless of how pure the motives for the original intervention were.
This is easily demonstrated by the public education system which has slowly been made more and more responsible for bringing up our children as parents have elected to spend less and less time doing it themselves. This was not the intended purpose of the system, but that is what it has become, and we all pay for it every day (both through taxes and through building a society which is less capable individually.)
In order for a free market system OR a democracy to function properly, the individual MUST be vigilant about protecting their own self interests AND ensuring society doesn't try to do it for them. As soon as we, as individuals, start to abdicate responsibility for our decisions to others, we necessarily start to sacrifice our individual rights and liberties. And I am sure you and I can both agree that is a bad thing.
Most people who think [their] government would solve problems do. Bush certainly thinks his interests are those of humanity as a whole, for example, but his interests definitely do not mirror mine - maybe they mirror yours, and that's good for you, bad for me. The shoe could easily be on the other foot though.
I have not suggested that there be no police force - there has to be a method to enforce contracts and to protect the rights of citizens that may require the use of force, in some cases beyond what an individual is capable of doing for themselves.
You are correct in that certain essential services might best be handled by the government. Services such as a legal system, fire system, and the like, may be most suitably handled by the government. I do not agree that healthcare and education are such systems, however.
If people wish to spend their own money to place billboards into space, then that is their peroggative, much like it is yours to spend your money to
Competition works out in the interests of the consumers, who provide the funds for continued corporate operations. You may recall that corporations are operating in the interests of their shareholders, who want money, and that money comes from consumers who purchase the products _voluntarily_. While it is POSSIBLE that a company could, for a time, hold a monopoly, without the force of government on its side, it can only do so as long as consumers are convinced to _voluntarily_ purchase its products over those of a competitor. Presumably consumers cannot be actively coerced into this purchase. Even if it were the case, such coercion is likely expensive, and therefore less attractive to shareholders.
i c the government is, but without an option to purchase a competitor's product, putting you in a worse-off position than when you started.
I suspect that much of the trouble you feel exists within the current market (excepting those cases where direct government regulation causes issues) is that the majorty of consumers, for whatever reason, continue to send their money towards corporations which do not, in your opinion, work in your best interests. This is to be expected in a free market, since the market goes where the money is, not where the ideology is. If you wish to cause an ideological change in the way a free market behaves, you need to get consumers to shift where they spend their money. Crying out for the 'public sector' solution is to FORCE consumers to make your choice (or the choice of whomever happens to be at the public sector head) which is great when it favors you, bad when it doesn't, and ultimately is more expensive, less efficient and less responsive to the needs of the very consumers it supposedly serves than the free market alternative.
All your measures to avoid "cartel-like" behavior involve you using the enforcement powers of government to reshape society to your whims. And if the 'public whims' do not match yours, then you will be back here decrying how unjust/unfair/unresponsive/inefficient/monopolist
And you claim this would be the case without patents (government granted monopolies) and without copyright-in-perprtuity (see Disney?) Are you certain you have sufficiently removed government intervention in markets from your view of a truly free market to continue to make the claims you do? You have several assumptions built in to your argument, such as significant first mover advantage (significantly reduced without government granted monopolies such as the current patent system) or high cost-of-entry (how much of this is due to the current regulatory structure?)
A proper treatment of this subject cannot occur on Slashdot, but suffice it to say out-of-hand dismissals of the free market system are fraught with hidden assumptions which significantly impact the soundness of the arguments.
The public sector has no competition, and thus will ultimately end up inferior to a good private sector implementation. Because of competition, it is possible to build a business selling a 'safer' implementation (see Volvo) alongside unsafe implementations which appeal to other consumers for different reasons (some people are willing to risk safety for other things they consider important.) Much like you can't paint the private sector with a broad brush, neither can you paint consumers in the same fashion.
But the public sector... government IS monopoly. The only way to hold them accountable is by electing new representatives (you don't have the option of using someone else's product because they are the only purveyors) and maybe convincing them to fire the offenders after 5 years and three commissions which cost you, the public, millions of dollars.
It's not a free market, in case you did not notice :) It's a REGULATED market, which means special interests can influence the money with government to FORCE behavior on what would otherwise be an unregulated system. In a true free market, money cannot be used to cause a government to enforce market behaviors.
Actually, it does matter. We should be outraged at ineffective or unrealistic laws such as this which only serve to penalize businesses because they go against the political whims of the day. Just because Congress wants a thing doesn't mean that thing is feasable or that we should be burdened with their unrealistic views of how things should be.
The problem is unnecessary government intervention in the free market. This man did nothing wrong, it just happens that what he did is illegal currently. Which is why law is never the measure of morality, since it can (and does) change with the wind. People need to do a better job of distinguishing between what is merely illegal, and what is immoral/unethical. They often do not coincide.
And there's no concentration of wealth and power now, in our democracy? Maybe you've missed the consistent erosion of our rights lately, and fail to realize that the people eroding those rights also have the power to use force (as in they can lock you up and/or kill you) to further their ends AND it's perfectly legal so long as the right people are paid off (or themselves coerced.)
Oh, the fight is still ongoing and the pirates are definitely losing. As you can see here our efforts to raise the global temperature, thereby killing off pirates, as met with substantial success. Unfortunately for us, however, we will soon feel the lash of his noodly appendage for annihilating his chosen people.
So the two options being proposed here are to:
1) "Appease" them through negotiation
2) Annihilate them through force
Both options run into a problem called reality, which essentially dictates than neither by themselves can hope to accomplish their stated means. You can't appease them because they aren't interested in appeasement, and you can't kill them because you can't find them.
Instead, I think we should simply drop the matter, to the extend possible. Specifically, stop propping up Israel by *giving* them money, remove security restrictions on our own people and allow them to protect themselves (i.e. carry their own weapons, even on aircraft) and above all come to the realization that the world is NOT safe and CANNOT be made safe.
I bet for the 300 *BILLION* we have spent promoting "democracy" in Iraq and attempting to crush terrorists elsewhere we could have saved a lot more lives through various scientific research initiatives than will *ever* be saved by the most perfect military outcome possible. Hell, for that much money, we probably could have bought Iraq, the Taliban and Al Qaeda and saved ourselves a lot of time and trouble.
...and hang out with him. He won't be worried about harassment charges because his orientation makes such charges hard to bring, and you won't have to worry about him hitting on you. Of course don't hit on him or you might find yourself on the other side of the HR department.
Are you suggesting that some of the anti-Microsoft people on Slashdot might also be hypocrites???
Well, this is how science works. Hypothesis, experiment, conclusion, rinse and repeat. I personally think calling it 'dark matter' tends to cause confusion that it is somehow like normal matter. From TFA, it sounds like dark matter's only shared trait with normal matter is that it causes a gravitational effect. But then maybe that is the physics definition of 'matter' in general.
I do not consider war ethical except in direct self defense, if that helps you to understand, much like I do not consider the personal use of force against others ethical except in self defense. When it comes to war, it is VERY easy for our populace to remain entirely detached from the conflict, especially as we bear no real direct cost here at home to remind ourselves that we are killing people to promote our political agenda and a rather nebulous defensive objective. For those who are not directly involved in the war effort, the only real taste they will ever get is from the tales received from our men and women abroad. I think it important for war to have a lasting impact on those who return so that they can impart that to us.
If my wish of nightmares on those who actively engage in war is too harsh for you, have you considered the very real effect of the deaths of thousands of civilians on Iraqi families? Far more of their blood has been spilled attempting to stomp out terrorist activity in Iraq than has ever been lost by Americans to the same. And that's a nightmare those people can never wake up from.
As for sympathy for our soldiers, I say that because these people nominally volunteered to defend our country, but are, in my opinion, being asked to advance a political agenda which has little if anything to do with what they have signed up for. I sympathize for their predicament because they have chosen to uphold the chain of command and do as they are asked. But there is a heavy price for them to pay, a price which will not be shared in the slightest by those who have asked them to pay it.
No, I don't want humans to suffer, but suffering is the entire point. When we resort to force as our primary solution to problems, we must be constantly reminded of the heavy costs. Otherwise, we are more likely to resort to force in the future. Force is, after all, the easiest way out, though often not the best, and certainly not the one which reduces suffering the most.
Don't be so reactionary next time. Read the comment entirely and consider it fully.
The real trouble here isn't figuring out how to win these wars more quickly, it's about figuring out how to avoid getting into them in the first place, especially ones where we end up occupying foreign territory. Such situations always end poorly, especially when it's not crystal clear to our soldiers who the bad guys are and why they need to die. I have nothing but sympathy for our soldiers and the horrid situation they are in, and nothing but contempt for the leadership who put them in that situation.
Besides, I'd rather have them flying back with nightmares that haunt them for the rest of their lives. It's a reminder to them and to the rest of us who speak with them of the horrors of war, and should serve as an object lesson in why it must be avoided.
One does not become entitled to breaking the law (no matter how insane/stupid the law is) just because they are fighting for our country. Rather they are entitled, along with the rest of us, to live in a free country because they are fighting for it.
Most people don't have a core philosophy that they actually fully comprehend, so they cannot honestly answer this question. How many people do you know who have actually taken the time out of their lives to question themselves and really get to the foundations of what they believe? Most just wing it.
I plan on doing this myself, moving from dual 20" monitors to a 37" or 42" Sceptre running 1920x1080 (Full HD res.)
Fortunately, the modern HDTVs are getting pretty good with respect to repsonse time, brightness and contrast. While you may not want to use them for certain kinds of imaging work (photo editing, where you need to calibrate the screen may not be possible due to limited TV calibration options or imperfect color reproduction,) for most applications this will be fine. Additionally, the larger screen will nominally be easier on the eyes, assuming you pick an appropriate viewing distance, as the individual pixels are larger making normal text easier to read.
Unfortunately perhaps, these monitors do not provide more resoultion for the space. If you are used to a dual monitor setup, you will sacrifice a lot of available pixels for the same physical space. At my home, my dual monitor system has 3.2M available pixels, whereas the HD res TV will only have 2.1M pixels. If you do a lot of coding or word processing where you like to have multiple pages of text available, you'll either want to continue to run another monitor alongside the TV, or stick with the existing higher-res setup. However, if you already only run a single monitor system at 1600x1200, you actually get MORE screen real estate with the HDTVs, and the widescreen layout is, in my opinion, more conducive to multiple documents open simultaneously.
If you are considering moving to a big screen, you are probably also considering the ultra high resolution displays available from Apple and Dell. The 30" screens running 2500x1600 give the benefits of both large display size AND a large number of pixels. However, remember that the individual pixels will be quite small, and eye strain is something you should think about if you deal with applications that are rendering a lot of text. If your answer to this is to just increase the text size, consider whether it's really worth it to have more resolution (and thus more pixels to push) if you aren't going to be showing any additional useful information with them. Ultimately, that is what drove me away from those displays, since I do a lot of text reading, and the pixel pitch would be a killer. These monitors also require special cards capable of linked DVI output, so be aware of that potential upgrade requirement. Also, you will find that the HDTVs cost less than these big monitors.
Why should Google do this? If the advertisers don't like the way a site renders and feel it will not lead to a sale, then they should simply not advertise there. Having Google make that decision for them is unnecessary. Further, it might lead Google to decide it has the right to make other such decisions which we may not agree with. I'd rather not give them that green light.
The purpose of a search engine is to return relevant search results, not just search results which Google, in its not so infinite wisdom, believes will render properly. Consider what happens if someone wrote a plugin for IE that fixed some of the browsing issues, or Google made a mistake and flagged a version of certain browsers as not showing pages properly when it actually does. At that point, Google is actually assuming more than they should about the browser. User Agent strings as an indication of compability suffer from the same flaws as using OS version numbers to determine the capabilities of the system. And we know where that got us.
The proper arbitrator of what is and is not correct is going to be the end user, who will select the product most appropriate to their needs. Second guessing them only leads to sorrow.
So they will intentionally reduce the revenue of their advertisers? Sounds a bit daft to me. Is this what you would do if you were running a business? Understand - no one likes malware, and advertisers don't want to be associated with it because it can color them by association. But style sheets and browser compliance? That's a tough one to make an argument for. Too arcane for most people, including advertisers.
You may also have fubared a golden opportunity to work at MS on the CSS team and address the very issues you complain about. While you can glorify the Firefox and Opera teams all you want, if you really wanted to improve the lot of most web users, you would do well to be in that position at MS with the ability to influence that development work.
Just as a suggestion from someone who still remembers what it was like to get into a new job out of college, idealism in development is useful for guiding how you do your work, but not so useful for selecting a place to work or even necessarily which work you do. I felt and thought a lot of the same things you expressed in your post above (and I worked for MS right out of college) but over the years I have found it's MUCH more useful to weave your principles into your code and attitude than it is to wear them on your sleeve.
Notwithstanding the few people touched by the Slashdot crowd, a mass exodus of people to Firefox or any other free browser seems unlikely, simply because MS has a better distribution channel. Our goals as developers is to figure out how to deal with multiple inconsistent browsers as efficiently as possible, and let the market do as it will to determine who the 'winner' of the new browser wars is. But like it or not, I bet you can guess who has the most market share at the end of the day, and wishing it otherwise is just an exercise in frustration.
What is the business case for Google/Yahoo to do this?
The documents mean nothing if we don't stand up to defend them. Teach her that, and teach her to be completely uncompromising about it. Maybe then her generation will have it better than ours.