become part of a city's infrastructure, like roads and garbage service.
Please, no.
Hmm... the roads in my city are hopelessly broken (save for the ones in the west part of town where all the yuppies live). We joke about putting a sign up saying "Closed for the season" - perpetual construction, engineered by under-the-table deals between our city council and their construction industry buddies. (Thankfully our newspaper did an article this weekend about how outsiders never get the same info the insiders get about bids, and other nonsense).
City-administered garbage service? You mean the scam where they miss my cans one week out of four, and throw them all over when they do? I've videotaped them on windless days letting recycle trash drop more than hit the trucks, and leaving cans in streets. Don't like it? Tough.
Yea, we need Internet service like this. Oh, and I'm sure everyone wants to pay $120/month for $30 Internet. That's the best part of city/municipal administration. We can shift funds from other areas to subsidize it, so we can hide the ineffeciencies.
Eliminate competition and engineer perpetual inefficiency, laziness and unaccountability.
it'd get rid of silly little disputes over 'stealing' or redistributing bandwidth
Do you get unlimited electricity, just because it comes from a municipality? Can you dump anything you want in your trash? Theft is still theft, and rules tend to optimize to the extreme with unaccountable government-run operations.
I've had trash missed because my cans weren't curbside - they were two feet away from curbside. At least once a month, I'll have my entire trash pickup skipped because I have "yard waste" (meaning a neighbor has tossed a twig on top of my trash can, or I've put a scoop of street garbage that has a half-dozen leaves in it).
You can bet your Internet will quickly become universally miserable too. What's that maxim about socialism making everyone equal - equally miserable?
it makes little sense for Apple to design and build its own phone
And even less sense for them to dillute their focus. This annoying "I wanna be a Cowboy when I grow up... no, a Fireman... no, an Astronaut..." peter pan vision of Apple is greatly responsible for their marketshare decimation over years (and is directly responsible for why I ban their products in my company).
Purists might trace it back to how the Apple II line was killed (yes, I bought a IIgs and was foolish enough to buy Macs after that).
Then there was the Quicktake camera. "We're an imaging company" said Apple, playing line extension on its command of the graphic design world. Oh, except they killed that too. I've got one in my desk drawer downstairs.
Then there was the Newton, which I bought unit #2 in my state (second in line behind my friend who got #1). Personal computing to the nth degree. One man, one Newton. Nice ads. Nice vision. Then they killed it.
And yet I still wanted to believe. Yes, I bought NeXTStep Intel, honestly believing Jobs was brilliant and it was the Apple corporate bozos that were fools. And I also bought WebObjects, another overpriced and undersupported product (6 months and zero support... dropped it and shifted to a Microsoft platform and we shipped in 3 months).
After personally experiencing numerous cases of product infanticide, and getting tired of wasted funds on an structurally immature and disfunctional company, I booted my Macs and left Apple.
I'd expect an Apple IP Phone to last no longer than a Newton (before Jobs gets bored and decides to take another course). Another pile of Apple-branded junk for the computer salvege lot...
partnership with Sony and Ericson would be more reasonable
or Nokia. Actually, Sony's recent efforts (outside of their audio products like walkman) have been disappointing. Sony laptops, schlocked up in what is supposed to be 'applianceware' design, have none of the ruggedness and reliability one would expect from the makers of the Walkman. In fact, having assumed a few dozen of the laptops from a previous corporate buyer, not one of them lasted more than a year from normal year. Compaqs and HP laptops did just fine.
If Apple wants to play it right (they won't), try licensing the product from one of these folks and putting their pretty sticker on it for the 2% marketshare that buys Imacs, Icars (VW Beetle) and other items of its class.
Don't know what planet you're on, chicks_hate_me. I'm one of those evil capitalists you refer to:
I hate these fuckers that sit on their asses all day in an office and think they're something fucking special.
Who? government bureaucrats? people at the department of motor vehicles? The only people I ever see sitting around all day are in government offices or large corporations - both bastions of socialism. And why not? They're safe. Unions, cushy protected jobs, etc. Why work harder? It gets them nothing more.
They think they are hard at work, and actually earning money.
Hmm... I work 12 hour days at my business. Then work four more in my orchard, roofing my house, helping my service organization, etc. Is this a bad thing?
While someone else is working their ass off, stressing, worrying about if they can pay the bills
Who's going to worry more - someone with a guaranteed, protected job, or an entrepreneur who's wondering if all the money he risked, all the money he pays out every month, the wage he gets which is less than minimum wage when factored for his hours, is going to pay the bills and feed his children? And you want to talk about going into debt? You have no clue, small fry.
this fucker can get another $20 million to buy a new mansion
Hmm... you referring to Jesse "Shakedown" Jackson's mansion? Bill "I'll speak for $10 million" Clinton's place? Robert "Where's Waldo" Rubin's pad? John "That's Billion, with a B" Kerrey's humble home?
There's obviously more money in screwing others than there is in honest labor.
God Bless Capitalism! Yes indeed. Too bad it's not practiced in our major corporations or government.
The problem is, the plunders are starting to out number the producers.
There are lots of parallels to this experience. Limited readings I've done in the evolution of multicellular creatures, for instance, has shown recurring blossoming of producers, only to show a sudden rise in parasites, which obliterate most of the producers, and they then are wiped out with nothing to live off of, and we return to a new cycle (albeit with many less critters alive).
This cycle repeats until a balance is reached - usually occuring when the producers evolve to possess the ability to recognize and kill the parasites. The parasites also need to do their part in becoming less deadly and coexisting better, or they simply accelerate the collapse of the system.
Looking at the status in most of the world today (from US, EU, etc. to Africa and "lesser developed" nations), parasitism is at a peak. 60% taxes, domination of all governmental and economic circles, etc. shows the parasites have broken loose and are readying the world for collapse. In fact, we came close in the 20th century with the rise of exceptional parasites in Germany, Russia, China, etc - sort of Ebola-like forms. Now they've moderated to AIDS like forms - slower to kill but much more effective - such as EU and US government and business. Even major religions like Islam and Christianity have been converted to parasitic forms.
So will the producers recognize and terminate their parasites? Or will we see yet another collapse of civilization and a half-millenium to recovery as we did the last time we had such a rise (from Roman to barbarian parasitism)?
Perhaps the most telling predictor is seeing how many naive producers willingly give themselves up to parasites, like happy hogs walking to slaughter. From reading the posts on/., we've got no shortage of these in what one would hope would be a more educated, aware community. Just remember, the hogs are usually the first casualties...
*scoove*
Re:How capitalism can indeed serve social interest
on
Reclaiming the Commons
·
· Score: 2
Isn't the citizen being altruistic then, something Ayn Rand was dead set against?
Glad you mention you don't know (rather than presume otherwise). It's a shame that so many people argue against something while never understanding what they're arguing against isn't what they thought it was.
Objectivism (the philosophy Ayn Rand helped recognize) has no unique claim on kindness, giving, etc. However, Rand wrote many essays about the topic of giving, trying to help people understand that the best kind of giving has two important elements to it:
1. it is an individual choice: If you're in the US and have ever worked for a big company, you've probably had your paycheck looted by the United Way. How did you feel about being rounded up and told by managers "you will give part of your paycheck to the United Way because our company wants to look good to others"? If this is "capitalism" operationally defined, then these capitalists are no different than the socialists in government who steal in the same manner.
Compare that to how you felt when you saw someone truly in need and helped them - like changing a tire for an elderly person, painting a handicapped neighbor's house, etc. (hint: giving your time and labor is much more impressive than tossing careless unneeded dollars). When it is your choice to give, the gift means so much more to the other party. And fundamentally, no other has a right to demand you give your time, money, labor, property, etc. just so they can feel good or improve their public image.
2. there are rewards besides monetary gain: Nearly every critic of capitalism screams about the evils of money. Yet so many true capitalists work on a more fundamental level. I've seen farmers work in perhaps the purist capitalist system - one will help the other repair a tractor. Then the other helps lend a hand bringing the crop in during a time of need. Each man is self-compelled to honor his contract - it is part of his definition and character. Rewards in this system are much greater. From increased reputation in one's community to enhanced knowledge, you'll find that true objectivists look at money as a hygiene factor rather than a motivational (e.g. it's there to pay the basics; there is much more to life per enrichment than accumulating money). It's probably for this reason objectivists don't rule the world, and looting socialists (in government and big business alike) do.
Really, the examples relativists set of "evil capitalists" are not capitalists at all. Enron, Global Crossing, Citigroup, etc. are much better examples of relativists pursuing theft, parasitism, forced redistribution, etc. It is sad, subsequently, that the battle being fought in the United States today is between two socialist camps - one in control of government and the other controlling big business (any surprise that Robert Rubin, a top Democrat advisor, left his government post to chair a Fortune 100 company? It happens everywhere). You have to visit a farm or small merchant to see any evidence of real capitalism.
The only problem you've got with your statement is the pesky word "altruism." As defined by relativists, it is an intellectual virus that serves as a guilt trip, hopefully motivating others to buy into the con game. "Altruism" to them means "working hard but giving the product of your work to me so I can figure out who deserves it, while keeping a bunch for myself." Again, United Way, most governments, large corporations, etc. all fall into this category. Altruism does not mean "care about other people" - this happens in all sorts of people of all sorts of philosophies.
Think about the people you know for a moment. I'm sure we've all experienced exceptional kindness from people of all sorts of backgrounds - priests, merchants, teachers, farmers, etc. At the same time, I'm sure we can find examples of horrible people who've been priests, merchants, teachers, etc. as well. The same goes for social ideology - there are socialists that aren't conspiring robbers and murders, and there are capitalists who are cheats and killers.
So if you want to understand objectivism, just recognize that it is an ethic system that says that it is the individual's decision, not a coercive other party, to give, to create, to love, to produce, to hate, etc., and the individual's role to accept the consequence (good or bad) for those decisions.
*scoove*
Re:How capitalism can indeed serve social interest
on
Reclaiming the Commons
·
· Score: 2
WHAT social consequences? You're making that part up.
Of course, the Soviets have no monopoly on such crimes. China's record with population control, Cambodian adventures in building mountains using human body parts, and other socialist 20th century achievements are plenty.
So when rational Americans hear Europeans whine about the evils of capitalism, we're thankful that we have two world wars and Vietnam to remind us that the Europeans don't know crap about how the world really works.
Is there any surprise the only part of Europe that has growing individual liberty and capitalism are former nations terrorized by the Soviets (e.g. Czech Republic, Latvia, Ukraine, etc.)?
*scoove*
"There will be no war in our time" - Tony Blair to George Bush last week regarding recent promises by EU friend Saddam Hussain.
were still the default password installed by Nortel
Had the same problem with a bunch of calling card switches installed by PCM (Priority Call Management - somewhat of a bigger name in that world).
Root passwords were "root", no OS patches (SCO & QNX) were ever applied since "they hadn't tested whether their software would interoperate with a patched version of the OS",.rhosts were common between systems to enable trusting, all the usual sockets were wide open, etc.
Course, then there's the time we were paying Lucent $75,000 to install voice access concentrators and they complained that they couldn't telnet to them. Lucent set 200.200.200.0/24 addresses on all the systems they built - just made up a number - and couldn't figure out why the numbers wouldn't route across the open Internet. Boy did I get a stupid look when I asked the Lucent people what the Comite Gestor no Brasil thought about their address scheme... (whois 200.200.200.0@whois.arin.net)
Exactly. Now, if the inventors had written that they were going to launch a fleet of wireless-equipped zepplins, piloted by former telecommunication industry executives (they're a dime a dozen right now), the story would have been more plausible.
It's interesting how a certain relativist crowd tends to incorrectly mod down posts they disagree with politically. Read the mod FAQ folks. Troll has a definition, and it's not just stuff that is contrary to your sociopolitical bent.
*scoove* It may be that the only purpose of your life is to serve as a warning to others.
And more importantly (too me, anyway) is there anyway this could be rigged up to provide wireless internet access, 802.11b or otherwise?
There's a reason we call it "fixed wireless" - making it mobile at 50,000 feet would require omni antennas with *much* greater transmitting power than even contemplated today.
Every time I read one of these pie in the sky (or balloon in this case) stories, I can't believe the reporter didn't ask what I'd think would be the basic question: What is all this junk going to end up?
We've had environmentalist complaints about PCs and all the toxic components they possess. Now some not-yet-defunct VC is pushing disposal cell sites and nobody's curious? What about when a 747 sucks one of these floating cell sites into an engine? And they complain about use of personal electronics on the plane...
Heck, in high school we were told we couldn't launch balloon projects anymore (you know, where you'd put a note on it and ask the finder to call you and let you know where it ended up at) because the environmentalists said some sea critters mistook the deflated balloons for fish, ate them and choked to death.
This is why it is imperative that with like 802.11[a|b] start becoming more prevalent.
And other wireless point-to-point and point-multipoint technologies. When I see articles like this one in Salon, it actually encourages me more about competitive service. Being responsible for a broadband network covering half of a state now, here's why the ploys by Congressfolks on incumbent telco payroll doesn't work:
- it encourages greater ILEC (incumbent local exchance carrier; e.g. your Bell or other quasi-monopoly entity) laziness. Competition is the only thing that gets these inefficient sloths to move, and these recent regs make them feel even safer and lazier. Let their managers spend their days at the golf course, not worrying about CLECs or such sneaking up on them. I can't tell you how many towns I've dealt with which have been told for years by their local carrier or cable TV provider that "broaband is just too expensive for your little town," only to scramble and race to provide broadband service when we activate our service.
- it forces the competitors to develop a competitive alternate local/regional backbone and last mile: Fixed wireless vendors we work with cannot keep product on the shelf now. The money is pouring into this segment (even though it hasn't caught the attention of Wall Street very much). Manufacturers are racing along with non-line of sight innovations, conversion of multipath into a benefit instead of a problem, etc. Costs for equipment are spiraling downward. This all creates an opportunity for a cost-effective alternative network. Incidentally, futurist talks of "radically cheap fiber" never did explain what catalyst would force carriers to slash their fiber capacity pricing - here's your answer. My microwave backbone covers half a state and costs me a hundredth or less what the same capacity would run leased on a carrier's fiber.
Bet on more local incumbant and longhaul fiber carrier bankrupcies, as more and more capacity fires up that has costs at a fraction the retail rate offered. And per Salon's worries, regulation of this sort has only fueled circumvention before. People want reasonable cost broadband and no fat, dumb and happy incumbant is going to tell them otherwise.
All this talk about China's attempt to control content coming in, but nothing about its traffic going out, is amusing.
China's AS's are great candidates for blocking given the hourly scans from chinanet.cn and other notorious abusers. Scans, relentless spam, and other ilk seems to be the primary product of China's information technology society (and we thought their manufacturing created garbage!).
Then there's last week's article about China launching attacks on US Internet networks in order to "balance the world order" or such. And I want AS connectivity to China for what again?
The supply of tech professionals for operations, non-development, is far outpaced by the demand.
Tell me about it... try seeking any position in telecommunications now. With Worldcom's downfall, Level3's collapse, Global Crossing's disappearance, Qwest's troubles, etc., it's hiring freezes and layoffs.
applicant: Hi, I'm network engineer with 15 years of experience. Have my CCIE certification, as well as countless dozens of certifications and training programs in all areas of telecommunications. I'm willing to relocate, work cheap and come with exceptional references from CEOs of Fortune 100 companies.
interviewer: Yea, but how handy are you with a floor polisher?
Yes,.pro does sound like it will be a "kind of upper class boys club". So what?
Except that upper class boys club uses my network and my customers to make it of any value. As a Internet service provider, they need my subscribers eyeballs and my infrastructure for.pro to have any value.
Sounds like I want $10.00 per month per subscriber to enable.pro to be visible on my network. If Bill O'Reilly has to pay radio stations for getting his new program out to listeners, I expect some sharing of revenue as well.
*scoove*
Re:Of course there's the most obvious way to benef
on
Sharing Doesn't Hurt
·
· Score: 2
I've fallen sucker to this marketing technique over and over again.
Just a few years ago, I had never heard of trance. Tag's Trance came on the scene, got me hooked with shoutcast streams of incredible music, and now I've got a shelf of Sasha, Digweed, Oakenfold, etc. that I've spent over two thousand bucks on.
Yet according to the RIAA, nobody who has a broadband connection and can pull streams buys music anymore. They're dying to kill off shoutcast broadcasters with absurd new requirements.
Incidentally, no broadcaster in my major metro or any nearby in this part of the country plays trance. I guess the RIAA would rather trance artists die of obscurity than admit they're wrong?
Seems to me that there should be enough regulations from other industries that they'd be able to be nailed.
For instance, a taxi driver that takes you to a hotel he gets a kickback from when you specifically tell him "the airport hilton" will lose his license and could even risk kidnapping charges.
Or imagine the postal service looking at the address of your mail. While that envelope says "Lands End," they route it to JC Penny for processing and get a cut.
Likewise, telephone providers are prohibited from intercepting legit numbers and rerouting them to favored partners.
Perhaps the simplist charge is one of fraud and theft by deception, levied by those thrifty class action boys looking for a buck...
I agree a great deal with Hangtime's comments. As a paying subscriber to wsj.com (who spends as much time here), there's $5 a month that probably belongs to/. out of my budget.
Not only am I troubled with the odd "ad-free views" system which is counterproductive to better customers (hey, do I get credits for metamoding?) ("don't make us show you this ad! really! pay up or it'll be the X10 cam, animated in a 2 Mbps flash download! bawahaha!"), but I think the fact that a revenue source such as advertising is being used as a threat to Slashdot's subscribers represents a serious lack of sound business judgement.
So here are a couple more suggestions:
Don't make ads the enemy
Really, either ads are good or they're bad - let's not get into a false duality like the taxation of cigarettes ("let's raise taxes to increase revenues and stop people from smoking").
In my case, I find myself clicking on one and looking at a vendor about once a week on Slashdot - this is more than I do on wsj.com. In fact, because wsj.com has so many ads, I tend to tune them out, but Slashdot's ad commands a bit more attention. Litter the page with popups, minimizable side-banners and other garbage and you'll quickly see people tune out. Are your sponsors paying you more for your placement than wsj.com? I'd bet you get more readers, but even more important to your advertiser, they're not competeting with 10 other ads on the screen.
Avoid measured use models
Measured use minimizes participation and drives your customer out the door. Look at US West's Citynet in Minneapolis and Omaha as a very important lesson for Slashdot - they created a BBS with dozens of local merchant-sponsored portals for chat, news, etc., and charged $0.10 or more a minute to subscribers. It died a very ugly death. Consumer perspective was "like hell I'm going to pay a dime a minute to chat with people on the XYZ radio station's board."
"Boot Katz" and other creative programs
Let subscribers pay money in dollar votes to select a destination to send Katz to for a year. Will it be a cannibal-infested island in Indonesia? A cave labeled "Osama is here" in Afghanistan? A Turkish prison? Let us vote with our bucks and split the take with Katz's travel expenses.
Pay for frills?
How about putting anonymous posting into the premium category? Moderating ought to require premium level too, but metamoderating should be free.
Get a fuzzy head in there with you
You really need to get yourself a marketing ace (your ad attitude and susbcriber program screams as if it was written by techgeeks - understand that both types of personalities have their purpose). Push the edge beyond the common send-us-money pleas. Ebay auction off Taco's first monitor. Sell sponsorship on your "Post Comment" and subject bars. Why not have the "IBM Metamoderation Machine" and other sponsor items?
Really, the approach I saw being taken was a certain path to failure chosen by technical guys who mean well but really don't understand consumers. Perhaps you stumbled across your success, but don't screw up a free lunch now.
There is no doubt in my mind that India is the next big superpower.
Good arguments, but I'm not sold (as much as I'm impressed with India's efforts and potential).
Is there really any good evidence of the emergence of a superpower from a ethnically diverse and incompatible populace, absent significant suppression by the elite minority of the other groups?
China and South Africa are good examples of the potential for advancement under suppression.
I'm really more curious than serious on my argument - I'd have to believe there's a/.'er polysci major that knows of some good material on the topic.
Umm, should the indians worry about feeding their own and eliminating bubonic plague as a major cause of death before they build stuff like this?
God do I hope that's a silly European and not a stupid American saying something like that. (It's probably a stupid American aspiring to be a silly European, in all likelyhood).
Actually, I think this is an exceptional move to help get people out of poverty (not that all people in India are in poverty - another rather myopic view). Besides the usual opportunities represented in such a move, technology tends to bring in a tremendous opportunity for entrepreneurship (read: a way for poor blokes to move up in the world).
Because of the rate of change with technology, rapid obsolescence, intellectual demands (brain vs brawn), the expansion of technology in any economy really helps young adults create new businesses which in turn feed more money into channels outside of the status quo.
I hope India explores liberal licensing of 2.4 and 5.8 GHz frequencies as well, ensuring this backbone has room to grow. India's telecom network has been terribly restricted, corrupt and ineffective in past years and a wireless broadband framework could serve as an excellent spur network to feed all this new commerce into the backbone.
eliminating bubonic plague
Er... we still have it in the US, buddy! It lives in prairie dogs (which have become recent animal preservationist favorites because they're so cute). Folks still come down with it from other rodent population that comes in contact with the prairie dogs (which are unaffected by the disease).
I think we're arguing Microsoft 1990-1999 vs. Microsoft 2000-forward. I'd agree with you on selective enforcement, press releases funnelled by SPA about "billions in sales lost," and other indirect efforts.
XP's licensing model changes things. Intrusive monitoring of every piece of software sold, planned expirations of software, etc.
Perhaps this is Balmer's making his mark - any MSofters care to comment?
they don't have licenses that give people the opportunity to learn their product
They also seem to misunderstand the laffer curve component of software economics - e.g. you'll never have 100% compliance, and if you push to enforce 100% compliance to maximize revenues, you'll actually end up with less revenues.
There are a few approaches Microsoft can take:
Accepting Noncomplaince: This involves realizing that some people will never become paying customers in their present status (e.g. a broke college student, a startup new business without funds, a home user who won't justify paying license fees for something so significant). Write these folks off and focus on making them paying customers when they have the ability to do so - e.g. when the small business gets larger.
Promote Compliance by lowering barriers: Borland's done a great job with this by creating single-user versions of their products to allow people to get their feet wet. Free home use, free college student use, etc. gets the product out there and creates an upgrade path when people grow. This is something increasingly foreign to Microsoft these days.
Promote Compliance by increasing policing: The strategy chosen by XP, this approach relies upon making your software increasingly time consuming and hassling for your users, takes it out of the hands of the entry level market folks (who are future customers), and causes so much market resistance that it only works to encourage people to adopt competitive platforms.
I doubt Microsoft will get it until they experience failure at the levels witnessed by Novell - and by then, it'll be too late.
I just reloaded my home PC this weekend. Replaced a slowly dying Pentium II with a newer AMD box, which required reinstalling everything on the new box.
Everything went fine until I got to Outlook 2002, which won't accept my serial number (since it's "registered to another computer" - no kidding. That box is headed towards the dumpster).
Apparently my only choice (besides tossing the piece of junk software out with the old PC) is to call microsoft and try to get it re-registered through that process. I wouldn't be surprised if they tried to get me to buy a new copy since the old one was tied to that processor.
Microsoft, you sure are making it easy to break up with you...
It's actually up to the sender to provide the proof, as the "return receipt" represents the return of the green postcard with a signature of it being received as proof.
If you're ever in a situation where this comes up, demand to inspect it. I had one where the other party waived up the certified letter as proof I was aware (which I never received). The little green card was sent to an address not within 10 miles of anywhere I've ever lived, and apparently some idiot with a different name signed for it. Took care of that matter.
Slashdot Mirror
become part of a city's infrastructure, like roads and garbage service.
Please, no.
Hmm... the roads in my city are hopelessly broken (save for the ones in the west part of town where all the yuppies live). We joke about putting a sign up saying "Closed for the season" - perpetual construction, engineered by under-the-table deals between our city council and their construction industry buddies. (Thankfully our newspaper did an article this weekend about how outsiders never get the same info the insiders get about bids, and other nonsense).
City-administered garbage service? You mean the scam where they miss my cans one week out of four, and throw them all over when they do? I've videotaped them on windless days letting recycle trash drop more than hit the trucks, and leaving cans in streets. Don't like it? Tough.
Yea, we need Internet service like this. Oh, and I'm sure everyone wants to pay $120/month for $30 Internet. That's the best part of city/municipal administration. We can shift funds from other areas to subsidize it, so we can hide the ineffeciencies.
Eliminate competition and engineer perpetual inefficiency, laziness and unaccountability.
it'd get rid of silly little disputes over 'stealing' or redistributing bandwidth
Do you get unlimited electricity, just because it comes from a municipality? Can you dump anything you want in your trash? Theft is still theft, and rules tend to optimize to the extreme with unaccountable government-run operations.
I've had trash missed because my cans weren't curbside - they were two feet away from curbside. At least once a month, I'll have my entire trash pickup skipped because I have "yard waste" (meaning a neighbor has tossed a twig on top of my trash can, or I've put a scoop of street garbage that has a half-dozen leaves in it).
You can bet your Internet will quickly become universally miserable too. What's that maxim about socialism making everyone equal - equally miserable?
*scoove*
it makes little sense for Apple to design and build its own phone
And even less sense for them to dillute their focus. This annoying "I wanna be a Cowboy when I grow up... no, a Fireman... no, an Astronaut..." peter pan vision of Apple is greatly responsible for their marketshare decimation over years (and is directly responsible for why I ban their products in my company).
Purists might trace it back to how the Apple II line was killed (yes, I bought a IIgs and was foolish enough to buy Macs after that).
Then there was the Quicktake camera. "We're an imaging company" said Apple, playing line extension on its command of the graphic design world. Oh, except they killed that too. I've got one in my desk drawer downstairs.
Then there was the Newton, which I bought unit #2 in my state (second in line behind my friend who got #1). Personal computing to the nth degree. One man, one Newton. Nice ads. Nice vision. Then they killed it.
And yet I still wanted to believe. Yes, I bought NeXTStep Intel, honestly believing Jobs was brilliant and it was the Apple corporate bozos that were fools. And I also bought WebObjects, another overpriced and undersupported product (6 months and zero support... dropped it and shifted to a Microsoft platform and we shipped in 3 months).
After personally experiencing numerous cases of product infanticide, and getting tired of wasted funds on an structurally immature and disfunctional company, I booted my Macs and left Apple.
I'd expect an Apple IP Phone to last no longer than a Newton (before Jobs gets bored and decides to take another course). Another pile of Apple-branded junk for the computer salvege lot...
partnership with Sony and Ericson would be more reasonable
or Nokia. Actually, Sony's recent efforts (outside of their audio products like walkman) have been disappointing. Sony laptops, schlocked up in what is supposed to be 'applianceware' design, have none of the ruggedness and reliability one would expect from the makers of the Walkman. In fact, having assumed a few dozen of the laptops from a previous corporate buyer, not one of them lasted more than a year from normal year. Compaqs and HP laptops did just fine.
If Apple wants to play it right (they won't), try licensing the product from one of these folks and putting their pretty sticker on it for the 2% marketshare that buys Imacs, Icars (VW Beetle) and other items of its class.
*scoove*
Don't know what planet you're on, chicks_hate_me. I'm one of those evil capitalists you refer to:
I hate these fuckers that sit on their asses all day in an office and think they're something fucking special.
Who? government bureaucrats? people at the department of motor vehicles? The only people I ever see sitting around all day are in government offices or large corporations - both bastions of socialism. And why not? They're safe. Unions, cushy protected jobs, etc. Why work harder? It gets them nothing more.
They think they are hard at work, and actually earning money.
Hmm... I work 12 hour days at my business. Then work four more in my orchard, roofing my house, helping my service organization, etc. Is this a bad thing?
While someone else is working their ass off, stressing, worrying about if they can pay the bills
Who's going to worry more - someone with a guaranteed, protected job, or an entrepreneur who's wondering if all the money he risked, all the money he pays out every month, the wage he gets which is less than minimum wage when factored for his hours, is going to pay the bills and feed his children? And you want to talk about going into debt? You have no clue, small fry.
this fucker can get another $20 million to buy a new mansion
Hmm... you referring to Jesse "Shakedown" Jackson's mansion? Bill "I'll speak for $10 million" Clinton's place? Robert "Where's Waldo" Rubin's pad? John "That's Billion, with a B" Kerrey's humble home?
There's obviously more money in screwing others than there is in honest labor.
God Bless Capitalism!
Yes indeed. Too bad it's not practiced in our major corporations or government.
*scoove*
The problem is, the plunders are starting to out number the producers.
/., we've got no shortage of these in what one would hope would be a more educated, aware community. Just remember, the hogs are usually the first casualties...
There are lots of parallels to this experience. Limited readings I've done in the evolution of multicellular creatures, for instance, has shown recurring blossoming of producers, only to show a sudden rise in parasites, which obliterate most of the producers, and they then are wiped out with nothing to live off of, and we return to a new cycle (albeit with many less critters alive).
This cycle repeats until a balance is reached - usually occuring when the producers evolve to possess the ability to recognize and kill the parasites. The parasites also need to do their part in becoming less deadly and coexisting better, or they simply accelerate the collapse of the system.
Looking at the status in most of the world today (from US, EU, etc. to Africa and "lesser developed" nations), parasitism is at a peak. 60% taxes, domination of all governmental and economic circles, etc. shows the parasites have broken loose and are readying the world for collapse. In fact, we came close in the 20th century with the rise of exceptional parasites in Germany, Russia, China, etc - sort of Ebola-like forms. Now they've moderated to AIDS like forms - slower to kill but much more effective - such as EU and US government and business. Even major religions like Islam and Christianity have been converted to parasitic forms.
So will the producers recognize and terminate their parasites? Or will we see yet another collapse of civilization and a half-millenium to recovery as we did the last time we had such a rise (from Roman to barbarian parasitism)?
Perhaps the most telling predictor is seeing how many naive producers willingly give themselves up to parasites, like happy hogs walking to slaughter. From reading the posts on
*scoove*
Isn't the citizen being altruistic then, something Ayn Rand was dead set against?
Glad you mention you don't know (rather than presume otherwise). It's a shame that so many people argue against something while never understanding what they're arguing against isn't what they thought it was.
Objectivism (the philosophy Ayn Rand helped recognize) has no unique claim on kindness, giving, etc. However, Rand wrote many essays about the topic of giving, trying to help people understand that the best kind of giving has two important elements to it:
1. it is an individual choice: If you're in the US and have ever worked for a big company, you've probably had your paycheck looted by the United Way. How did you feel about being rounded up and told by managers "you will give part of your paycheck to the United Way because our company wants to look good to others"? If this is "capitalism" operationally defined, then these capitalists are no different than the socialists in government who steal in the same manner.
Compare that to how you felt when you saw someone truly in need and helped them - like changing a tire for an elderly person, painting a handicapped neighbor's house, etc. (hint: giving your time and labor is much more impressive than tossing careless unneeded dollars). When it is your choice to give, the gift means so much more to the other party. And fundamentally, no other has a right to demand you give your time, money, labor, property, etc. just so they can feel good or improve their public image.
2. there are rewards besides monetary gain: Nearly every critic of capitalism screams about the evils of money. Yet so many true capitalists work on a more fundamental level. I've seen farmers work in perhaps the purist capitalist system - one will help the other repair a tractor. Then the other helps lend a hand bringing the crop in during a time of need. Each man is self-compelled to honor his contract - it is part of his definition and character. Rewards in this system are much greater. From increased reputation in one's community to enhanced knowledge, you'll find that true objectivists look at money as a hygiene factor rather than a motivational (e.g. it's there to pay the basics; there is much more to life per enrichment than accumulating money). It's probably for this reason objectivists don't rule the world, and looting socialists (in government and big business alike) do.
Really, the examples relativists set of "evil capitalists" are not capitalists at all. Enron, Global Crossing, Citigroup, etc. are much better examples of relativists pursuing theft, parasitism, forced redistribution, etc. It is sad, subsequently, that the battle being fought in the United States today is between two socialist camps - one in control of government and the other controlling big business (any surprise that Robert Rubin, a top Democrat advisor, left his government post to chair a Fortune 100 company? It happens everywhere). You have to visit a farm or small merchant to see any evidence of real capitalism.
The only problem you've got with your statement is the pesky word "altruism." As defined by relativists, it is an intellectual virus that serves as a guilt trip, hopefully motivating others to buy into the con game. "Altruism" to them means "working hard but giving the product of your work to me so I can figure out who deserves it, while keeping a bunch for myself." Again, United Way, most governments, large corporations, etc. all fall into this category. Altruism does not mean "care about other people" - this happens in all sorts of people of all sorts of philosophies.
Think about the people you know for a moment. I'm sure we've all experienced exceptional kindness from people of all sorts of backgrounds - priests, merchants, teachers, farmers, etc. At the same time, I'm sure we can find examples of horrible people who've been priests, merchants, teachers, etc. as well. The same goes for social ideology - there are socialists that aren't conspiring robbers and murders, and there are capitalists who are cheats and killers.
So if you want to understand objectivism, just recognize that it is an ethic system that says that it is the individual's decision, not a coercive other party, to give, to create, to love, to produce, to hate, etc., and the individual's role to accept the consequence (good or bad) for those decisions.
*scoove*
WHAT social consequences? You're making that part up.
Just like all the social consequences Soviet leadership faced for committing crimes unthinkable to capitalists, like the Polish holocaust, Ukranian slaughters, unthinkable nuclear disasters, popular Soviet motivational management techniques, and countless other crimes committed by socialists. Gorbachav and his predecessors laughed every time European media fools screamed about "capitalist atrocities" - even Europeans know better from their own blood crimes about what evil can be committed.
Of course, the Soviets have no monopoly on such crimes. China's record with population control, Cambodian adventures in building mountains using human body parts, and other socialist 20th century achievements are plenty.
So when rational Americans hear Europeans whine about the evils of capitalism, we're thankful that we have two world wars and Vietnam to remind us that the Europeans don't know crap about how the world really works.
Is there any surprise the only part of Europe that has growing individual liberty and capitalism are former nations terrorized by the Soviets (e.g. Czech Republic, Latvia, Ukraine, etc.)?
*scoove*
"There will be no war in our time" - Tony Blair to George Bush last week regarding recent promises by EU friend Saddam Hussain.
were still the default password installed by Nortel
.rhosts were common between systems to enable trusting, all the usual sockets were wide open, etc.
Had the same problem with a bunch of calling card switches installed by PCM (Priority Call Management - somewhat of a bigger name in that world).
Root passwords were "root", no OS patches (SCO & QNX) were ever applied since "they hadn't tested whether their software would interoperate with a patched version of the OS",
Course, then there's the time we were paying Lucent $75,000 to install voice access concentrators and they complained that they couldn't telnet to them. Lucent set 200.200.200.0/24 addresses on all the systems they built - just made up a number - and couldn't figure out why the numbers wouldn't route across the open Internet. Boy did I get a stupid look when I asked the Lucent people what the Comite Gestor no Brasil thought about their address scheme... (whois 200.200.200.0@whois.arin.net)
Really, how do these folks stay in business?
*scoove*
Watch the investor's money go BOOM!
Exactly. Now, if the inventors had written that they were going to launch a fleet of wireless-equipped zepplins, piloted by former telecommunication industry executives (they're a dime a dozen right now), the story would have been more plausible.
*scoove*
Someone modded that post troll?
It's interesting how a certain relativist crowd tends to incorrectly mod down posts they disagree with politically. Read the mod FAQ folks. Troll has a definition, and it's not just stuff that is contrary to your sociopolitical bent.
*scoove*
It may be that the only purpose of your life is to serve as a warning to others.
And more importantly (too me, anyway) is there anyway this could be rigged up to provide wireless internet access, 802.11b or otherwise?
There's a reason we call it "fixed wireless" - making it mobile at 50,000 feet would require omni antennas with *much* greater transmitting power than even contemplated today.
*scoove*
Every time I read one of these pie in the sky (or balloon in this case) stories, I can't believe the reporter didn't ask what I'd think would be the basic question: What is all this junk going to end up?
We've had environmentalist complaints about PCs and all the toxic components they possess. Now some not-yet-defunct VC is pushing disposal cell sites and nobody's curious? What about when a 747 sucks one of these floating cell sites into an engine? And they complain about use of personal electronics on the plane...
Heck, in high school we were told we couldn't launch balloon projects anymore (you know, where you'd put a note on it and ask the finder to call you and let you know where it ended up at) because the environmentalists said some sea critters mistook the deflated balloons for fish, ate them and choked to death.
So where's the uproar from the ELF/ALF folks?
*scoove*
This is why it is imperative that with like 802.11[a|b] start becoming more prevalent.
And other wireless point-to-point and point-multipoint technologies. When I see articles like this one in Salon, it actually encourages me more about competitive service. Being responsible for a broadband network covering half of a state now, here's why the ploys by Congressfolks on incumbent telco payroll doesn't work:
- it encourages greater ILEC (incumbent local exchance carrier; e.g. your Bell or other quasi-monopoly entity) laziness. Competition is the only thing that gets these inefficient sloths to move, and these recent regs make them feel even safer and lazier. Let their managers spend their days at the golf course, not worrying about CLECs or such sneaking up on them. I can't tell you how many towns I've dealt with which have been told for years by their local carrier or cable TV provider that "broaband is just too expensive for your little town," only to scramble and race to provide broadband service when we activate our service.
- it forces the competitors to develop a competitive alternate local/regional backbone and last mile: Fixed wireless vendors we work with cannot keep product on the shelf now. The money is pouring into this segment (even though it hasn't caught the attention of Wall Street very much). Manufacturers are racing along with non-line of sight innovations, conversion of multipath into a benefit instead of a problem, etc. Costs for equipment are spiraling downward. This all creates an opportunity for a cost-effective alternative network. Incidentally, futurist talks of "radically cheap fiber" never did explain what catalyst would force carriers to slash their fiber capacity pricing - here's your answer. My microwave backbone covers half a state and costs me a hundredth or less what the same capacity would run leased on a carrier's fiber.
Bet on more local incumbant and longhaul fiber carrier bankrupcies, as more and more capacity fires up that has costs at a fraction the retail rate offered. And per Salon's worries, regulation of this sort has only fueled circumvention before. People want reasonable cost broadband and no fat, dumb and happy incumbant is going to tell them otherwise.
*scoove*
All this talk about China's attempt to control content coming in, but nothing about its traffic going out, is amusing.
China's AS's are great candidates for blocking given the hourly scans from chinanet.cn and other notorious abusers. Scans, relentless spam, and other ilk seems to be the primary product of China's information technology society (and we thought their manufacturing created garbage!).
Then there's last week's article about China launching attacks on US Internet networks in order to "balance the world order" or such. And I want AS connectivity to China for what again?
Snip the cables and let them spam themselves...
*scoove*
The supply of tech professionals for operations, non-development, is far outpaced by the demand.
Tell me about it... try seeking any position in telecommunications now. With Worldcom's downfall, Level3's collapse, Global Crossing's disappearance, Qwest's troubles, etc., it's hiring freezes and layoffs.
applicant: Hi, I'm network engineer with 15 years of experience. Have my CCIE certification, as well as countless dozens of certifications and training programs in all areas of telecommunications. I'm willing to relocate, work cheap and come with exceptional references from CEOs of Fortune 100 companies.
interviewer: Yea, but how handy are you with a floor polisher?
*scoove*
Yes, .pro does sound like it will be a "kind of upper class boys club". So what?
.pro to have any value.
.pro to be visible on my network. If Bill O'Reilly has to pay radio stations for getting his new program out to listeners, I expect some sharing of revenue as well.
Except that upper class boys club uses my network and my customers to make it of any value. As a Internet service provider, they need my subscribers eyeballs and my infrastructure for
Sounds like I want $10.00 per month per subscriber to enable
*scoove*
I've fallen sucker to this marketing technique over and over again.
Just a few years ago, I had never heard of trance. Tag's Trance came on the scene, got me hooked with shoutcast streams of incredible music, and now I've got a shelf of Sasha, Digweed, Oakenfold, etc. that I've spent over two thousand bucks on.
Yet according to the RIAA, nobody who has a broadband connection and can pull streams buys music anymore. They're dying to kill off shoutcast broadcasters with absurd new requirements.
Incidentally, no broadcaster in my major metro or any nearby in this part of the country plays trance. I guess the RIAA would rather trance artists die of obscurity than admit they're wrong?
*scoove*
Seems to me that there should be enough regulations from other industries that they'd be able to be nailed.
For instance, a taxi driver that takes you to a hotel he gets a kickback from when you specifically tell him "the airport hilton" will lose his license and could even risk kidnapping charges.
Or imagine the postal service looking at the address of your mail. While that envelope says "Lands End," they route it to JC Penny for processing and get a cut.
Likewise, telephone providers are prohibited from intercepting legit numbers and rerouting them to favored partners.
Perhaps the simplist charge is one of fraud and theft by deception, levied by those thrifty class action boys looking for a buck...
*scoove*
I agree a great deal with Hangtime's comments. As a paying subscriber to wsj.com (who spends as much time here), there's $5 a month that probably belongs to /. out of my budget.
Not only am I troubled with the odd "ad-free views" system which is counterproductive to better customers (hey, do I get credits for metamoding?) ("don't make us show you this ad! really! pay up or it'll be the X10 cam, animated in a 2 Mbps flash download! bawahaha!"), but I think the fact that a revenue source such as advertising is being used as a threat to Slashdot's subscribers represents a serious lack of sound business judgement.
So here are a couple more suggestions:
Don't make ads the enemy
Really, either ads are good or they're bad - let's not get into a false duality like the taxation of cigarettes ("let's raise taxes to increase revenues and stop people from smoking").
In my case, I find myself clicking on one and looking at a vendor about once a week on Slashdot - this is more than I do on wsj.com. In fact, because wsj.com has so many ads, I tend to tune them out, but Slashdot's ad commands a bit more attention. Litter the page with popups, minimizable side-banners and other garbage and you'll quickly see people tune out. Are your sponsors paying you more for your placement than wsj.com? I'd bet you get more readers, but even more important to your advertiser, they're not competeting with 10 other ads on the screen.
Avoid measured use models
Measured use minimizes participation and drives your customer out the door. Look at US West's Citynet in Minneapolis and Omaha as a very important lesson for Slashdot - they created a BBS with dozens of local merchant-sponsored portals for chat, news, etc., and charged $0.10 or more a minute to subscribers. It died a very ugly death. Consumer perspective was "like hell I'm going to pay a dime a minute to chat with people on the XYZ radio station's board."
"Boot Katz" and other creative programs
Let subscribers pay money in dollar votes to select a destination to send Katz to for a year. Will it be a cannibal-infested island in Indonesia? A cave labeled "Osama is here" in Afghanistan? A Turkish prison? Let us vote with our bucks and split the take with Katz's travel expenses.
Pay for frills?
How about putting anonymous posting into the premium category? Moderating ought to require premium level too, but metamoderating should be free.
Get a fuzzy head in there with you
You really need to get yourself a marketing ace (your ad attitude and susbcriber program screams as if it was written by techgeeks - understand that both types of personalities have their purpose). Push the edge beyond the common send-us-money pleas. Ebay auction off Taco's first monitor. Sell sponsorship on your "Post Comment" and subject bars. Why not have the "IBM Metamoderation Machine" and other sponsor items?
Really, the approach I saw being taken was a certain path to failure chosen by technical guys who mean well but really don't understand consumers. Perhaps you stumbled across your success, but don't screw up a free lunch now.
*scoove*
There is no doubt in my mind that India is the next big superpower.
/.'er polysci major that knows of some good material on the topic.
Good arguments, but I'm not sold (as much as I'm impressed with India's efforts and potential).
Is there really any good evidence of the emergence of a superpower from a ethnically diverse and incompatible populace, absent significant suppression by the elite minority of the other groups?
China and South Africa are good examples of the potential for advancement under suppression.
I'm really more curious than serious on my argument - I'd have to believe there's a
Need some bedtime reading this weekend!
*scoove*
Umm, should the indians worry about feeding their own and eliminating bubonic plague as a major cause of death before they build stuff like this?
God do I hope that's a silly European and not a stupid American saying something like that. (It's probably a stupid American aspiring to be a silly European, in all likelyhood).
Actually, I think this is an exceptional move to help get people out of poverty (not that all people in India are in poverty - another rather myopic view). Besides the usual opportunities represented in such a move, technology tends to bring in a tremendous opportunity for entrepreneurship (read: a way for poor blokes to move up in the world).
Because of the rate of change with technology, rapid obsolescence, intellectual demands (brain vs brawn), the expansion of technology in any economy really helps young adults create new businesses which in turn feed more money into channels outside of the status quo.
I hope India explores liberal licensing of 2.4 and 5.8 GHz frequencies as well, ensuring this backbone has room to grow. India's telecom network has been terribly restricted, corrupt and ineffective in past years and a wireless broadband framework could serve as an excellent spur network to feed all this new commerce into the backbone.
eliminating bubonic plague
Er... we still have it in the US, buddy! It lives in prairie dogs (which have become recent animal preservationist favorites because they're so cute). Folks still come down with it from other rodent population that comes in contact with the prairie dogs (which are unaffected by the disease).
*scoove*
grid of supercomputers for mammoth applications.
No, you must not have seen the network diagram. It's very explicit, as it has an elephant standing on the back of a turtle (and so on).
Check your Visio2000 India Symbols pack. It's all there.
*scoove*
Piracy suits them under some circumstances,
I think we're arguing Microsoft 1990-1999 vs. Microsoft 2000-forward. I'd agree with you on selective enforcement, press releases funnelled by SPA about "billions in sales lost," and other indirect efforts.
XP's licensing model changes things. Intrusive monitoring of every piece of software sold, planned expirations of software, etc.
Perhaps this is Balmer's making his mark - any MSofters care to comment?
*scoove*
they don't have licenses that give people the opportunity to learn their product
They also seem to misunderstand the laffer curve component of software economics - e.g. you'll never have 100% compliance, and if you push to enforce 100% compliance to maximize revenues, you'll actually end up with less revenues.
There are a few approaches Microsoft can take:
Accepting Noncomplaince: This involves realizing that some people will never become paying customers in their present status (e.g. a broke college student, a startup new business without funds, a home user who won't justify paying license fees for something so significant). Write these folks off and focus on making them paying customers when they have the ability to do so - e.g. when the small business gets larger.
Promote Compliance by lowering barriers: Borland's done a great job with this by creating single-user versions of their products to allow people to get their feet wet. Free home use, free college student use, etc. gets the product out there and creates an upgrade path when people grow. This is something increasingly foreign to Microsoft these days.
Promote Compliance by increasing policing: The strategy chosen by XP, this approach relies upon making your software increasingly time consuming and hassling for your users, takes it out of the hands of the entry level market folks (who are future customers), and causes so much market resistance that it only works to encourage people to adopt competitive platforms.
I doubt Microsoft will get it until they experience failure at the levels witnessed by Novell - and by then, it'll be too late.
*scoove*
I just reloaded my home PC this weekend. Replaced a slowly dying Pentium II with a newer AMD box, which required reinstalling everything on the new box.
Everything went fine until I got to Outlook 2002, which won't accept my serial number (since it's "registered to another computer" - no kidding. That box is headed towards the dumpster).
Apparently my only choice (besides tossing the piece of junk software out with the old PC) is to call microsoft and try to get it re-registered through that process. I wouldn't be surprised if they tried to get me to buy a new copy since the old one was tied to that processor.
Microsoft, you sure are making it easy to break up with you...
*scoove*
the USPS should have a record of delivery.
It's actually up to the sender to provide the proof, as the "return receipt" represents the return of the green postcard with a signature of it being received as proof.
If you're ever in a situation where this comes up, demand to inspect it. I had one where the other party waived up the certified letter as proof I was aware (which I never received). The little green card was sent to an address not within 10 miles of anywhere I've ever lived, and apparently some idiot with a different name signed for it. Took care of that matter.
*scoove*