I wrote about this all the way back in April 2004. There is no reason to be a Luddite if DRE is done right. It just very simply is a systemic political problem and not a technological one.
You reminded me of a quote: "If to please the people, we offer what we ourselves disapprove, how can we afterward defend our work? Let us raise a standard to which the wise and the honest can repair." - George Washington
If you consider a monopoly ( http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/monopoly ): "A situation in which solely one company exclusively provides a particular product or service, dominating that market and generally exerting powerful control over it." Then Microsoft most certainly is not a monopoly because if the product in question is a computer Operating System then you have both Linux and Mac OSX as great examples of choice in the market. Again, people have choice, if they wish to get locked into a Microsoft product that is their prerogative. However, you may say that many people don't have a choice and must use the Microsoft OS as a kind of standard technological commodity in which case: "An exclusive control over the trade or manufacture of a commodity" However if the Microsoft OS is to be designated as a commodity then one must ask what grants Microsoft the control over this commodity. Patents and Copyright law. Both examples of government backed monopoly. Without these laws anyone could have an "unlicensed" copy Windows and even freely use the source code if they got their hands on it. Thus even if Microsoft is a monopoly, I'm still right, the government did it.
Economies of scale definitely bring down prices. Price is one aspect that a consumer uses when buying an item, quality is another. A smaller company may perhaps offer more quality, or maybe not. Are you telling me that when a company produces a cheaper and better product and a consumer chooses to buy it that that's a bad thing? Oh wait they're a really big company too... but wait the size issue doesn't really factor into this augment at all. Who cares how big or small they are. Let me reiterate, when a company, any company, produces a cheaper and better product then a consumer chooses to buy it.
You want the real world? Two Nobel prize winning economists with opposite theories, guess who won? (Hint: It wasn't socialism/communism) http://reason.com/hayekint.shtml
Your example case is representative of a negative externality in land property rights and therefore is a case of "the commons". In this case public easements should be allowed. The commons area of economics exists as the only exception to properties rights in the free market. The few cases of the commons are the only reason to have a need of government. However the commons cases are only an exception to the otherwise prevailing rule that the free market is always the most adept solution. What aspects may be governed over as a case for "the commons" however is always changing and open for discussion. According to the common's game theory I would say that today the need for easements, national defense, controling air pollution, and controling overfishing in the ocean are good examples of cases for the commons. However as an example I would say that for instance healthcare is not at all a case of the commons, and therefore government should not be involved in it at all. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_common s
it's fraught with hundreds of billions of miles of red tape
What entity creates red tape? Government. And that is why monopolies cannot exist without government intervention/regulation supporting the propping up of the monopoly. Therefore in a truly free market without regulation there are no monopolies; there is only what the consumer chooses.
And what is the definition of a local monopoly? How does one become a local monopoly? And industry standard agreements, why must a competitor follow those? Keep in mind that the only one who may use force in free markets is the government, for instance if a company "forces" another company or individual to do something then that is already illegal. There is no need for a specialized law in that instance. In a free market nobody can force anyone to do anything.
nice try, no dice, it is zero sum.. every dollar is accounted for.. most of it goes to profiteer capitalists right now when it shouldnt.
You are wrong sir.
"Trade is a non-zero-sum activity because all parties to a voluntary transaction believe that they will be better off after the trade than before, otherwise they would not participate." - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero_sum
You fool! For surely the first candidates would be us here on Slashdot because we are freethinking individuals. You'd be getting rid of the trolls, moderators, grammar nazis, mac elitists, and linux zealots all at once!... on second thought... you're right, let's round them up.
Do tell me dear fellow, how exactly is one able to "rob consumers" and "rob labor"? I would very much like you to explain to me how people doing willful transactions of trade may be "robbed" during the process. It's ok if you stumble while trying to answer this question, it's only because your argument is based on an economic fallacy; the fallacy that trade is zero sum.
Are you crazy? E-mailing all those internets to Anonymous Coward will just clog gluck's tubes! All you need to do for a modern DDOS is be sure that in each internet that you send set the evil bit broadcast flag and then pay the ISPs to QOS for rush delivery.
I got your simple analogy right here: Net Neutrality is Affirmative Action for the internet.
Once you accept that analogy you can then start drawing your political conclusions. At that point the Democrats will start meddling with the economics of this up-until-now unregulated and, might I add, up-until-now highly successful entity. While on the other end of the spectrum the Republicans will continue with their fetish of shaping up what a God fearing society should be like by enforcing warning labels on porn pages. Can't people see that it's all the same? Maybe a side by side view might help? http://news.com.com/2100-1083_3-6089925.html The internet is under attack by the lizzards! http://politics.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=12653 4&cid=10586063 The government is using force to change things that are fine as they are. There is a french word that correlates to this sentiment, it's called laissez faire.
Wow! Is that like when you exploit Apple to lower it's prices on it's goods? When you pay Apple for it's competitive products you *are* exploiting them you know. Exploit cheep goods! Just like how Apple is exploiting its workers by paying them to help build their products. Why, in fact, I would say any kind of trade must indeed be exploitation! Of course! That's it! Trade is inherently evil because you of course are taking something away from someone else. Trade is of course zero sum after all... minus one for you, plus one for me, hahhahaa! And of course that is exactly why everyone *willingly* trades, including the "loser" in the trade because he/she/it must obviously be the really stupid one in the trade. For instance those poor Chinese women for example, they don't even know they're being exploited! Obviously they must not know, I mean why are they willingly working at this factory anyway? I mean can you actually believe that they *want* to work in this factory? Obviously they just don't see that they are the losers in trade and that that paycheck Apple is giving them is apparently not "worth" it. After all there are plenty of other places to work in China and better pay and better conditions... such as..... damn that Apple for giving those Chinese people a place to work!
What's that you say, trade is not zero sum? What's that you say, no one is forcing these people to work? What's that you say, the only thing in this world that actually forces people into compliance are in fact governments and not laizes fair corporations? Pissh, someone who states such things must actually have a reason and logic based thought process. Either that or be Objective Libertarian or something... the horrors!
Now that's how to gain customers! Insult them in FORTUNE magazine!
He wasn't directing that (IMHO realistic) sentiment toward MySQL customers. He was making a generalization relating to how employees would like to behave if given a managerial reprieve as a result of their obvious distance from the main office.
Ah you do have a valid point, but that's when you start to go from 2D math to 3D math or beyond with the more variables. However I'll entertain the added notion of time value of money but if I put forth any more effort in the calculations to attain more accuracy I might as well publish my counter article:-)
$5,012 is the the initial borrowed principal in the the time value of money "account" $24.35 - $35 hybrid gas vs reg gas per a week = $10.65 payed back every week into the time value of money "account"
Assuming a 3% average yearly inflation rate we're going to see the "account's" left over value after 8 years and 417.419656 payments of $10.65 have been made using a Loan balance equation.
3% interest a year is.0574961% per a week, so i = 0.000574961
Using this equation after 10 years you paid $286.63 more over time for your hybrid car.
P.S. Also as an interesting aside for my example calculations above. The car traveled 187,004 miles in 8 years and 233,755 in 10 years. Actually though I think the Civic has a little less than a 14 gal tank, but yeah there are a lot of variables.
I don't like this article's arbitrary numbers so I'll make my own with a more apples to apples comparison.
Current Kelly Blue Book:
Honda Civic Reg Manual 2005 15,029.00 at 32MPG
Honda Civic Hybrid Manual 2005 20,041.00 at 46MPG
Difference in price $5,012
Assume the 32MPG fills up for gas once a week
14 Gal * $2.50 per gal * 52.177457 weeks = $1826.21 for gas per year at 32MPG
Assume the 46MPG fills up for gas once every 46/32 = 1.4375 weeks
14 Gal * $2.50 per gal * 52.177457/1.4375 weeks = $1270.41 for gas per year at 46MPG
That's $555.80 savings in gas a year for the Hybrid
Assume a car lifetime/battery lifetime of 8 years
That's $4446.40 in gas savings
You paid $5012-$4446.40 = $565.6 more over time for your hybrid car.
Maybe you just happen to really get a car lifetime/battery lifetime of 10 years?
That's $5558 in gas savings
You paid $5558-$5012 = $546 LESS over time for your hybrid car.
hahaha rofl
"Such a pity, comrade."
Forbes wrongly thinks that Linux is anti capitalism. The fact is that communism is an extreme of socialism and Linux is more like socialism. The laws of natural selection favor neither extreme of laissez-fair nor socialism but rather a balance. This is the same reason the cells in your body are communist until you get cancer. With everything you must have a balance and GNU/Linux is a nice balance of capitalism and socialism with companies like RedHat, SuSE, Lindows on one hand, and organizations like kernel.org, GNU, FSF, etc. on the other.
Slashdot Mirror
lure.me was deemed too obvious.
The idea of reading bills is currently being championed by this group:
http://www.downsizedc.org/read_the_laws.shtml
I wrote about this all the way back in April 2004. There is no reason to be a Luddite if DRE is done right. It just very simply is a systemic political problem and not a technological one.
f ile=article&sid=3
http://www.perquisitum.com/modules.php?name=News&
You reminded me of a quote:
"If to please the people, we offer what we ourselves disapprove, how can we afterward defend our work? Let us raise a standard to which the wise and the honest can repair."
- George Washington
Beutiful, you get the government to end its support of telecom monopolies and I'll stop supporting Net Neutrality.. Deal?
what a tangled web we weave...
If you consider a monopoly ( http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/monopoly ):
"A situation in which solely one company exclusively provides a particular product or service, dominating that market and generally exerting powerful control over it."
Then Microsoft most certainly is not a monopoly because if the product in question is a computer Operating System then you have both Linux and Mac OSX as great examples of choice in the market. Again, people have choice, if they wish to get locked into a Microsoft product that is their prerogative. However, you may say that many people don't have a choice and must use the Microsoft OS as a kind of standard technological commodity in which case:
"An exclusive control over the trade or manufacture of a commodity"
However if the Microsoft OS is to be designated as a commodity then one must ask what grants Microsoft the control over this commodity. Patents and Copyright law. Both examples of government backed monopoly. Without these laws anyone could have an "unlicensed" copy Windows and even freely use the source code if they got their hands on it. Thus even if Microsoft is a monopoly, I'm still right, the government did it.
Economies of scale definitely bring down prices. Price is one aspect that a consumer uses when buying an item, quality is another. A smaller company may perhaps offer more quality, or maybe not. Are you telling me that when a company produces a cheaper and better product and a consumer chooses to buy it that that's a bad thing? Oh wait they're a really big company too... but wait the size issue doesn't really factor into this augment at all. Who cares how big or small they are. Let me reiterate, when a company, any company, produces a cheaper and better product then a consumer chooses to buy it.
You want the real world? Two Nobel prize winning economists with opposite theories, guess who won? (Hint: It wasn't socialism/communism) http://reason.com/hayekint.shtml
Your example case is representative of a negative externality in land property rights and therefore is a case of "the commons". In this case public easements should be allowed. The commons area of economics exists as the only exception to properties rights in the free market. The few cases of the commons are the only reason to have a need of government. However the commons cases are only an exception to the otherwise prevailing rule that the free market is always the most adept solution. What aspects may be governed over as a case for "the commons" however is always changing and open for discussion. According to the common's game theory I would say that today the need for easements, national defense, controling air pollution, and controling overfishing in the ocean are good examples of cases for the commons. However as an example I would say that for instance healthcare is not at all a case of the commons, and therefore government should not be involved in it at all. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_common s
it's fraught with hundreds of billions of miles of red tape
What entity creates red tape? Government. And that is why monopolies cannot exist without government intervention/regulation supporting the propping up of the monopoly. Therefore in a truly free market without regulation there are no monopolies; there is only what the consumer chooses.
And what is the definition of a local monopoly? How does one become a local monopoly? And industry standard agreements, why must a competitor follow those? Keep in mind that the only one who may use force in free markets is the government, for instance if a company "forces" another company or individual to do something then that is already illegal. There is no need for a specialized law in that instance. In a free market nobody can force anyone to do anything.
nice try, no dice, it is zero sum.. every dollar is accounted for.. most of it goes to profiteer capitalists right now when it shouldnt.
You are wrong sir.
"Trade is a non-zero-sum activity because all parties to a voluntary transaction believe that they will be better off after the trade than before, otherwise they would not participate." - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero_sum
You fool! For surely the first candidates would be us here on Slashdot because we are freethinking individuals. You'd be getting rid of the trolls, moderators, grammar nazis, mac elitists, and linux zealots all at once! ... on second thought... you're right, let's round them up.
Do tell me dear fellow, how exactly is one able to "rob consumers" and "rob labor"? I would very much like you to explain to me how people doing willful transactions of trade may be "robbed" during the process. It's ok if you stumble while trying to answer this question, it's only because your argument is based on an economic fallacy; the fallacy that trade is zero sum.
Are you crazy? E-mailing all those internets to Anonymous Coward will just clog gluck's tubes! All you need to do for a modern DDOS is be sure that in each internet that you send set the evil bit broadcast flag and then pay the ISPs to QOS for rush delivery.
I got your simple analogy right here: Net Neutrality is Affirmative Action for the internet.
3 4&cid=10586063 The government is using force to change things that are fine as they are . There is a french word that correlates to this sentiment, it's called laissez faire.
Once you accept that analogy you can then start drawing your political conclusions. At that point the Democrats will start meddling with the economics of this up-until-now unregulated and, might I add, up-until-now highly successful entity. While on the other end of the spectrum the Republicans will continue with their fetish of shaping up what a God fearing society should be like by enforcing warning labels on porn pages. Can't people see that it's all the same? Maybe a side by side view might help? http://news.com.com/2100-1083_3-6089925.html The internet is under attack by the lizzards! http://politics.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1265
exploit cheap labour
Wow! Is that like when you exploit Apple to lower it's prices on it's goods? When you pay Apple for it's competitive products you *are* exploiting them you know. Exploit cheep goods! Just like how Apple is exploiting its workers by paying them to help build their products. Why, in fact, I would say any kind of trade must indeed be exploitation! Of course! That's it! Trade is inherently evil because you of course are taking something away from someone else. Trade is of course zero sum after all... minus one for you, plus one for me, hahhahaa! And of course that is exactly why everyone *willingly* trades, including the "loser" in the trade because he/she/it must obviously be the really stupid one in the trade. For instance those poor Chinese women for example, they don't even know they're being exploited! Obviously they must not know, I mean why are they willingly working at this factory anyway? I mean can you actually believe that they *want* to work in this factory? Obviously they just don't see that they are the losers in trade and that that paycheck Apple is giving them is apparently not "worth" it. After all there are plenty of other places to work in China and better pay and better conditions... such as..... damn that Apple for giving those Chinese people a place to work!
What's that you say, trade is not zero sum? What's that you say, no one is forcing these people to work? What's that you say, the only thing in this world that actually forces people into compliance are in fact governments and not laizes fair corporations? Pissh, someone who states such things must actually have a reason and logic based thought process. Either that or be Objective Libertarian or something... the horrors!
Now that's how to gain customers! Insult them in FORTUNE magazine!
He wasn't directing that (IMHO realistic) sentiment toward MySQL customers. He was making a generalization relating to how employees would like to behave if given a managerial reprieve as a result of their obvious distance from the main office.
There are a total of 2,819 US civilian fatalities as a result of the September 11th attacks. There were more than 50,000 Kurds killed by chemical agents and this is but one single instance of the price of Saddam's tyrannical rule. As of today there are a total of 2,222 US military fatalities in Iraq since the war began. You may now decide by the numbers. The rest of my article...
I made up my own article
f ile=article&sid=40
Same Car, Same Options, New Formulas
http://www.perquisitum.com/modules.php?name=News&
Ah you do have a valid point, but that's when you start to go from 2D math to 3D math or beyond with the more variables. However I'll entertain the added notion of time value of money but if I put forth any more effort in the calculations to attain more accuracy I might as well publish my counter article :-)
.0574961% per a week, so i = 0.000574961
/ CurrentInflation.asp
$5,012 is the the initial borrowed principal in the the time value of money "account"
$24.35 - $35 hybrid gas vs reg gas per a week = $10.65 payed back every week into the time value of money "account"
Assuming a 3% average yearly inflation rate we're going to see the "account's" left over value after 8 years and 417.419656 payments of $10.65 have been made using a Loan balance equation.
3% interest a year is
Balance = A(1+i)^n (P/i)[(1+i)^n 1]
Balance = 5012*1.000574961^417.419656 - (10.65/0.000574961)*(1.000574961^417.419656-1)
Balance = 5012*1.271161506 - 18522.995472736*0.271161506
Balance = 6371.061468072 - 5022.723348018
Balance = 1348.338120054
Using this new equation after 8 years you paid $1348.34 more over time for your hybrid car.
Balance = A(1+i)^n (P/i)[(1+i)^n 1]
Balance = 5012*1.000574961^521.77457 - (10.65/0.000574961)*(1.000574961^521.77457-1)
Balance = 5012*1.349742478 - 18522.995472736*0.349742478
Balance = 6764.909299736 - 6478.278336617
Balance = 286.630963119
Using this equation after 10 years you paid $286.63 more over time for your hybrid car.
P.S. Also as an interesting aside for my example calculations above. The car traveled 187,004 miles in 8 years and 233,755 in 10 years. Actually though I think the Civic has a little less than a 14 gal tank, but yeah there are a lot of variables.
References:
http://inflationdata.com/Inflation/Inflation_Rate
http://oakroadsystems.com/math/loan.htm
I don't like this article's arbitrary numbers so I'll make my own with a more apples to apples comparison.
Current Kelly Blue Book:
Honda Civic Reg Manual 2005 15,029.00 at 32MPG
Honda Civic Hybrid Manual 2005 20,041.00 at 46MPG
Difference in price $5,012
Assume the 32MPG fills up for gas once a week
14 Gal * $2.50 per gal * 52.177457 weeks = $1826.21 for gas per year at 32MPG
Assume the 46MPG fills up for gas once every 46/32 = 1.4375 weeks
14 Gal * $2.50 per gal * 52.177457/1.4375 weeks = $1270.41 for gas per year at 46MPG
That's $555.80 savings in gas a year for the Hybrid
Assume a car lifetime/battery lifetime of 8 years
That's $4446.40 in gas savings
You paid $5012-$4446.40 = $565.6 more over time for your hybrid car.
Maybe you just happen to really get a car lifetime/battery lifetime of 10 years?
That's $5558 in gas savings
You paid $5558-$5012 = $546 LESS over time for your hybrid car.
hahaha rofl "Such a pity, comrade." Forbes wrongly thinks that Linux is anti capitalism. The fact is that communism is an extreme of socialism and Linux is more like socialism. The laws of natural selection favor neither extreme of laissez-fair nor socialism but rather a balance. This is the same reason the cells in your body are communist until you get cancer. With everything you must have a balance and GNU/Linux is a nice balance of capitalism and socialism with companies like RedHat, SuSE, Lindows on one hand, and organizations like kernel.org, GNU, FSF, etc. on the other.