Here's a clue: if everybody in China did get rich, they would be earning more than $6000, and the average for USA+China would be higher.
Not if most of China's riches come from USA. Then the average he posted simply would not change much. Which is the point I believe the GP was trying to make.
Oh, so the only way to become rich is to make some one else poor? The whole world is richer today than it was just 50 years ago. Sure some got wealthier than others but even the poor can eat today in the US. I know, like many others, some of whom I worked with I worked out of a day labor pool and took almost any odd job I could get. I had a roof over my head but some of those I worked with didn't, they instead lived on the street or in the woods. But after a day of work for the labor pool there was enough money to eat.
As for those unable to work much if at all there's help out there, the problem is in finding it. I was disabled more than 10 years ago and since the accident that caused my disability I've been collecting disability income. However this past year I've had my disability income fucked with. A couple of days ago I told someone working with my doctor, paid for with Medicare and Medical Assistance, I was at the point where I could either buy food and eat or buy my medication. She left the office and brought back a printout of dozens of places in my area where I can go get free food. So I can eat and take my medicine. Yesterday I was with a therapist and said the same thing but added something, I could eat, take my medicine, or wash my clothes while what little cash I have still exists. I said the washer and dryer where I live are both coin fed. She suggested I hand wash my clothes. So this morning I did in the bath tub. I then hanged most of my clothes in the shower to dry, some I put on heaters.
It was just as pointless as this rant. Like it this one does not provide any facts. You want facts, the protectionist laws you'd advocate like the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act lead to a bad economy. When one nation enacts protectionist laws that leads other to enact them too which shuts down the economy. In the case of the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act it made the Great Depression worse than it would have been otherwise and led to World War II.
If you're so concerned about the poor then you should be trying to increase trade not reduce it. You should also support cuts in taxes, the more money people can keep the more they are likely to buy and invest thus creating jobs.
Which article? Neither one is about what you say. The first one is about "Why intellectual property is a vital trade for the English-speaking world" and the second "What the iPod tells us about Britain's economic future".
- aren't we here at slashdot opposed to some/most copyrights/patents...
Some are, some aren't. Some believe in copyrights but not patents, some believe in both some in neither. Myself, I still believe in copyrights but not patents. I however would change the duration of copyrights. I'd have copyright last not more than 5 or 7 years. From the publication date.
False. Modifying software ("creating an adaptation") to make it work on your hardware is explicitly allowed by 17 USC 117.
False, 17 USC 117 only allows adaptation only with the authorization of the copyright holder. Specifically see "(b) Lease, Sale, or Other Transfer of Additional Copy or Adaptation.-- Any exact copies prepared in accordance with the provisions of this section may be leased, sold, or otherwise transferred, along with the copy from which such copies were prepared, only as part of the lease, sale, or other transfer of all rights in the program. Adaptations so prepared may be transferred only with the authorization of the copyright owner." I put the pertinent part in bold.
I refuse to believe that imaginary property is an acceptable replacement for real manufacturing capacity.
It sounds like you find the concept immoral in some way, rather than impossible.
I don't find intellectual property so much immoral as it holds back progress. Even the father of the Free Market Adam Smith didn't like patents. He called them a necessary evil. That may of been true in his tyme but I don't believe is still true. Take the case with the iPhone. Apple probably has an exclusive contract with Foxconn and other manufactures to assemble iPhones and other contractors to manufacture the parts. If someone else has those parts somewhere along the lines someone is violating one or more contracts. And the Chinese government cares a lot about that.
As for progress, I believe today patents hold back progress. If someone makes an improvement in an item that is protected by a patent yet they don't hold the patent themself they can not make and market it. Without that patent though in order to continue making money from an invention a business has to provide something others are willing to pay for. A better quality product can be offered, the product can be sold at a lower price, and or improvements (ie progress) need to be made.
Now there are cases where I find IP immoral such as with biopiracy, for instance company X gets a patent for some rice Y or another one gets a patent on the use of a plant as a drug or pesticide even though others have used it in those ways for centuries.
How many of those "counterfeit" iPhones are really counterfeit iPhones?
Well the "Economist" article uses the term "grey market" also. Those iPhones sold on the grey market are real iPhones and not counterfeits. They were sold in other countries then imported back into China and therefore their sale is not authorized by Apple. TFA doesn't break down the figures for counterfeit vs grey market iPhones, I'd be interested in those.
If I don't want OS X why should I have to pay for it simple as that.
You don't have to pay for OS X, you only pay if you buy a Mac. And haven't you heard Macs are overpriced?
when I get a new laptops, I hate have to dodge the windows tax
What? Do you hate dodging the Windows Tax? You don't have to, just buy a laptop with Windows. Or do you mean you have to buy another laptop so you avoid paying for Window when you buy a laptop? There are a number of laptops with Linux not Windows. For instance Dell sells them.
but by your reasoning Psystar should be able to continue business by installing the copies individually from CDs and then introduce their modifications.
Not even. Psystar doesn't make Apple hardware, only Apple and their contractors make Apple hardware. As for modifications, that breaks copyright.
Can you imagine a car company saying "you can buy our car, but only if you use Brand X gasoline.
I have a Mac and I can install Linux or Windows on it. A more appropriate car analogue would be to say Brand X Gas could only be used in Brand Y vehicle. That however is plainly stated on on the packaging. The label on the box of my Snow Leopard DVD states "Requirements, Mac computer with Intel processor". I was able to read that before I bought it, and if I did not want to live up to that I did not have to buy it.
I may build a hackintosh and give it to someone as a gift if only as a protest to Apple's hostility toward their customers.
Boo hoo, Apple won't give me what I want so I'll break the law.
Many people would like to use OS X. Many people do not want an overpriced mac.
1999 calling, it wants its mime back. For years Mac prices have been comparable to Windows PC prices. The problem with Macs is that Apple does not offer a midrange upgradeable and expandable Mac. However Steve Jobs has said he does not want to enter that market. While I disagree with it it is his, and Apple's board as well as Apple stockholder's, decision. The fact that Apple was dying, while licensing Mac clones, when Jobs was asked to come back and is now making profits under his leaderships shows he's doing something right.
I hereby declare I will never ever buy anything from Apple again, for me, or even encourage anybody to buy something from them.
After using Windows PCs for years I bought a Mac because Apple offered me something I was willing to pay for. If they don't offer you what you want then don't buy from them.
Pretty sure he was referring to Apple buying "Logic Studio" and then cutting off the Windows line.
Think about that, Apple discontinues Logic Studio for Windows. But Apple did not prevent people from using other music production software, on Macs or Windows. Sonar, Cubase, and Reaper all run on Windows. The free and open source Audacity runs on *unix, OS X, and Windows.
most people that don't do graphics/audio processing really just need a powerful computer for gaming.
Gaming, where Windows rules, isn't a need it's a want.
I'd still recommend iMacs to anyone who needs a nice working machine with good design, but to be honest regarding the pure functionality Ubuntu does just as well.
As I said in the post you replied to I plan on installing Ubuntu on my Mac, but I don't think I'll get the functionality from it I want. See I don't work right now, I'm disabled, but I'm hoping to start a photography business. I can't afford Photoshop CS and GIMP does not cut it for what I want. I am willing to try KDE's Krita though, so when I install Ubuntu I'll install KDE as well as Gnome. If Krita does not work, GIMP is good for web work and so is Krita but I want to print, then I'll have to try to get Photoshop. Perhaps by buying an old upgradeable version on eBay.
Quite simply I may not get the functionality I am looking for in Ubuntu, if not then I'll be stuck with Photoshop in OS X. And forget CS4, some people can get CS2 to run in WINE and or CrossOver but it's not really for those without the skills.
I use Microsoft operating systems because getting 3D acceleration and reliable sound / wireless networking is too much of a hassle in Linux.
I use Linux and Macs because I like being able to use what I paid for and because I hate spyware and being treated like a criminal and have my OS call home to make sure it is authorized to run.
One is that Apple has done a good job of setting themselves up as the anti-MS underdog. Well, you get lots of geeks who hate MS. Thus if Apple is anti-MS, they like Apple. They never bother to examine if Apple's tactics are any better than MS's. It is a simple case of "I hate MS, these guys hate MS, so I like these guys."
You get anti-Apple geeks who make up any reason to justify their dislike for Apple. They never examine their tactics to see if it's any better than Apple's.
Sound familiar? Switch some words and presto. Fact is is people like or use Macs because it does what they want without a lot of hassle. Before switching from Windows to, first Linux then a Mac, I got sick and tired of all the hassles I had with bad hardware and software. Since switching after using Windows 10 years, I have not had many problems with my setup in 3 years. While I have had only one PC last more than a year without hardware problems and no PCs without software problems within a year, I have had Macs last years without problems, other than not being able to expand or upgrade them.
Along those lines is the worry that if another company replicates what Apple is doing, then they'll no longer be special. Despite their talk about OS-X being superior, the fanboys don't want everyone to have it because then they aren't special anymore, they are just normal.
I have repeatedly stated I want Apple to offer midrange expandable Macs for a lot less money than Mac Pros costs. I've also said I'd like Apple to license OS X and allow clones. However Apple did try Mac clones, and lost money on them.
A high profit margin indicates there's something wrong with the market, in the form of not enough competition. In this case, it's particularly bad, because the lack of competition is not due to others not wanting to get in the market
There's plenty of competition. There are a few different versions of Windows, the dominate OS, and dozens of distros of Linux. And Linux is free.
When it comes to OS X, if you don't like the terms of use then don't use it. Nobody's holding a firearm to your head forcing you to use OS X. You can choose to use one of the versions of Windows, a distro of Linux, Solaris, or you can even write your own OS. If you have the skill. No government agent is going to force you to hand money over to Apple. Instead you want to force others to give you something you want. While Apple has no right to make a profit you have no right to take someone else's work.
Apple is the only company I know that attempts to restrict where it's software will run
You don't know many PC OEMs then do you? I can't take the version of Windows that came with my Gateway and install it on my HP, nor can I install the Windows that came with my HP on a Gateway, or any PC other than that HP. Microsoft has PC OEMs create their own Windows install disk that only work on the PC it was made for.
So why are Apple special? If people aren't expecting Apple to provide any support and there are no technical reasons for the software not running, why can't people do what they want? Every single other company works that way.
Apple is a hardware and a software company, that's why. What is hard to understand about that?
According to the latest reliability charts, Apple hardware is the expensive and unreliable choice.
Citation needed!
Let's see what Google returns. Apple's laptops rate 'Better than Average' in reliability study. Macs not all that for reliability. That article puts Dells in the middle with laptop reliability with Macs above them. "For the first time, Apple Inc. dropped out of the top spot in the computer-reliability ranking of Rescuecom Corp., a Syracuse, N.Y.-based chain of service shops, and ended in third place behind a pair of Asian computer makers that specialize in laptops."
Slashdot Mirror
Here's a clue: if everybody in China did get rich, they would be earning more than $6000, and the average for USA+China would be higher.
Not if most of China's riches come from USA. Then the average he posted simply would not change much. Which is the point I believe the GP was trying to make.
Oh, so the only way to become rich is to make some one else poor? The whole world is richer today than it was just 50 years ago. Sure some got wealthier than others but even the poor can eat today in the US. I know, like many others, some of whom I worked with I worked out of a day labor pool and took almost any odd job I could get. I had a roof over my head but some of those I worked with didn't, they instead lived on the street or in the woods. But after a day of work for the labor pool there was enough money to eat.
As for those unable to work much if at all there's help out there, the problem is in finding it. I was disabled more than 10 years ago and since the accident that caused my disability I've been collecting disability income. However this past year I've had my disability income fucked with. A couple of days ago I told someone working with my doctor, paid for with Medicare and Medical Assistance, I was at the point where I could either buy food and eat or buy my medication. She left the office and brought back a printout of dozens of places in my area where I can go get free food. So I can eat and take my medicine. Yesterday I was with a therapist and said the same thing but added something, I could eat, take my medicine, or wash my clothes while what little cash I have still exists. I said the washer and dryer where I live are both coin fed. She suggested I hand wash my clothes. So this morning I did in the bath tub. I then hanged most of my clothes in the shower to dry, some I put on heaters.
Falcon
It was just as pointless as this rant. Like it this one does not provide any facts. You want facts, the protectionist laws you'd advocate like the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act lead to a bad economy. When one nation enacts protectionist laws that leads other to enact them too which shuts down the economy. In the case of the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act it made the Great Depression worse than it would have been otherwise and led to World War II.
If you're so concerned about the poor then you should be trying to increase trade not reduce it. You should also support cuts in taxes, the more money people can keep the more they are likely to buy and invest thus creating jobs.
Falcon
Which article? Neither one is about what you say. The first one is about "Why intellectual property is a vital trade for the English-speaking world" and the second "What the iPod tells us about Britain's economic future".
Falcon
- aren't we here at slashdot opposed to some/most copyrights/patents...
Some are, some aren't. Some believe in copyrights but not patents, some believe in both some in neither. Myself, I still believe in copyrights but not patents. I however would change the duration of copyrights. I'd have copyright last not more than 5 or 7 years. From the publication date.
Falcon
False. Modifying software ("creating an adaptation") to make it work on your hardware is explicitly allowed by 17 USC 117.
False, 17 USC 117 only allows adaptation only with the authorization of the copyright holder. Specifically see "(b) Lease, Sale, or Other Transfer of Additional Copy or Adaptation.-- Any exact copies prepared in accordance with the provisions of this section may be leased, sold, or otherwise transferred, along with the copy from which such copies were prepared, only as part of the lease, sale, or other transfer of all rights in the program. Adaptations so prepared may be transferred only with the authorization of the copyright owner." I put the pertinent part in bold.
Falcon
I refuse to believe that imaginary property is an acceptable replacement for real manufacturing capacity.
It sounds like you find the concept immoral in some way, rather than impossible.
I don't find intellectual property so much immoral as it holds back progress. Even the father of the Free Market Adam Smith didn't like patents. He called them a necessary evil. That may of been true in his tyme but I don't believe is still true. Take the case with the iPhone. Apple probably has an exclusive contract with Foxconn and other manufactures to assemble iPhones and other contractors to manufacture the parts. If someone else has those parts somewhere along the lines someone is violating one or more contracts. And the Chinese government cares a lot about that.
As for progress, I believe today patents hold back progress. If someone makes an improvement in an item that is protected by a patent yet they don't hold the patent themself they can not make and market it. Without that patent though in order to continue making money from an invention a business has to provide something others are willing to pay for. A better quality product can be offered, the product can be sold at a lower price, and or improvements (ie progress) need to be made.
Now there are cases where I find IP immoral such as with biopiracy, for instance company X gets a patent for some rice Y or another one gets a patent on the use of a plant as a drug or pesticide even though others have used it in those ways for centuries.
Falcon
How many of those "counterfeit" iPhones are really counterfeit iPhones?
Well the "Economist" article uses the term "grey market" also. Those iPhones sold on the grey market are real iPhones and not counterfeits. They were sold in other countries then imported back into China and therefore their sale is not authorized by Apple. TFA doesn't break down the figures for counterfeit vs grey market iPhones, I'd be interested in those.
Falcon
If I don't want OS X why should I have to pay for it simple as that.
You don't have to pay for OS X, you only pay if you buy a Mac. And haven't you heard Macs are overpriced?
when I get a new laptops, I hate have to dodge the windows tax
What? Do you hate dodging the Windows Tax? You don't have to, just buy a laptop with Windows. Or do you mean you have to buy another laptop so you avoid paying for Window when you buy a laptop? There are a number of laptops with Linux not Windows. For instance Dell sells them.
Falcon
but by your reasoning Psystar should be able to continue business by installing the copies individually from CDs and then introduce their modifications.
Not even. Psystar doesn't make Apple hardware, only Apple and their contractors make Apple hardware. As for modifications, that breaks copyright.
Falcon
The point is that they are shieding their hardware sales with their OS, not the other way round.
What? Fact is is Apple is a hardware and a software business. Apple designs their hardware and software to work well together.
Falcon
Yea, because people want to stay in business they're a bunch of dicks.
Falcon
I think corporations exists for the shareholders not us...no?
Corporations exist for the common or public good. If a corporation does not benefit them it's charter can be revoked.
Falcon
Can you imagine a car company saying "you can buy our car, but only if you use Brand X gasoline.
I have a Mac and I can install Linux or Windows on it. A more appropriate car analogue would be to say Brand X Gas could only be used in Brand Y vehicle. That however is plainly stated on on the packaging. The label on the box of my Snow Leopard DVD states "Requirements, Mac computer with Intel processor". I was able to read that before I bought it, and if I did not want to live up to that I did not have to buy it.
I may build a hackintosh and give it to someone as a gift if only as a protest to Apple's hostility toward their customers.
Boo hoo, Apple won't give me what I want so I'll break the law.
Falcon
Many people would like to use OS X. Many people do not want an overpriced mac.
1999 calling, it wants its mime back. For years Mac prices have been comparable to Windows PC prices. The problem with Macs is that Apple does not offer a midrange upgradeable and expandable Mac. However Steve Jobs has said he does not want to enter that market. While I disagree with it it is his, and Apple's board as well as Apple stockholder's, decision. The fact that Apple was dying, while licensing Mac clones, when Jobs was asked to come back and is now making profits under his leaderships shows he's doing something right.
Falcon
and resold it?
I see you didn't answer my question. Could that be because you don't have a good counter argument?
Falcon
I hereby declare I will never ever buy anything from Apple again, for me, or even encourage anybody to buy something from them.
After using Windows PCs for years I bought a Mac because Apple offered me something I was willing to pay for. If they don't offer you what you want then don't buy from them.
Falcon
Pretty sure he was referring to Apple buying "Logic Studio" and then cutting off the Windows line.
Think about that, Apple discontinues Logic Studio for Windows. But Apple did not prevent people from using other music production software, on Macs or Windows. Sonar, Cubase, and Reaper all run on Windows. The free and open source Audacity runs on *unix, OS X, and Windows.
Falcon
most people that don't do graphics/audio processing really just need a powerful computer for gaming.
Gaming, where Windows rules, isn't a need it's a want.
I'd still recommend iMacs to anyone who needs a nice working machine with good design, but to be honest regarding the pure functionality Ubuntu does just as well.
As I said in the post you replied to I plan on installing Ubuntu on my Mac, but I don't think I'll get the functionality from it I want. See I don't work right now, I'm disabled, but I'm hoping to start a photography business. I can't afford Photoshop CS and GIMP does not cut it for what I want. I am willing to try KDE's Krita though, so when I install Ubuntu I'll install KDE as well as Gnome. If Krita does not work, GIMP is good for web work and so is Krita but I want to print, then I'll have to try to get Photoshop. Perhaps by buying an old upgradeable version on eBay.
Quite simply I may not get the functionality I am looking for in Ubuntu, if not then I'll be stuck with Photoshop in OS X. And forget CS4, some people can get CS2 to run in WINE and or CrossOver but it's not really for those without the skills.
Falcon
I use Microsoft operating systems because getting 3D acceleration and reliable sound / wireless networking is too much of a hassle in Linux.
I use Linux and Macs because I like being able to use what I paid for and because I hate spyware and being treated like a criminal and have my OS call home to make sure it is authorized to run.
Falcon
One is that Apple has done a good job of setting themselves up as the anti-MS underdog. Well, you get lots of geeks who hate MS. Thus if Apple is anti-MS, they like Apple. They never bother to examine if Apple's tactics are any better than MS's. It is a simple case of "I hate MS, these guys hate MS, so I like these guys."
You get anti-Apple geeks who make up any reason to justify their dislike for Apple. They never examine their tactics to see if it's any better than Apple's.
Sound familiar? Switch some words and presto. Fact is is people like or use Macs because it does what they want without a lot of hassle. Before switching from Windows to, first Linux then a Mac, I got sick and tired of all the hassles I had with bad hardware and software. Since switching after using Windows 10 years, I have not had many problems with my setup in 3 years. While I have had only one PC last more than a year without hardware problems and no PCs without software problems within a year, I have had Macs last years without problems, other than not being able to expand or upgrade them.
Along those lines is the worry that if another company replicates what Apple is doing, then they'll no longer be special. Despite their talk about OS-X being superior, the fanboys don't want everyone to have it because then they aren't special anymore, they are just normal.
I have repeatedly stated I want Apple to offer midrange expandable Macs for a lot less money than Mac Pros costs. I've also said I'd like Apple to license OS X and allow clones. However Apple did try Mac clones, and lost money on them.
Falcon
A high profit margin indicates there's something wrong with the market, in the form of not enough competition. In this case, it's particularly bad, because the lack of competition is not due to others not wanting to get in the market
There's plenty of competition. There are a few different versions of Windows, the dominate OS, and dozens of distros of Linux. And Linux is free.
When it comes to OS X, if you don't like the terms of use then don't use it. Nobody's holding a firearm to your head forcing you to use OS X. You can choose to use one of the versions of Windows, a distro of Linux, Solaris, or you can even write your own OS. If you have the skill. No government agent is going to force you to hand money over to Apple. Instead you want to force others to give you something you want. While Apple has no right to make a profit you have no right to take someone else's work.
Falcon
Apple is the only company I know that attempts to restrict where it's software will run
You don't know many PC OEMs then do you? I can't take the version of Windows that came with my Gateway and install it on my HP, nor can I install the Windows that came with my HP on a Gateway, or any PC other than that HP. Microsoft has PC OEMs create their own Windows install disk that only work on the PC it was made for.
So why are Apple special? If people aren't expecting Apple to provide any support and there are no technical reasons for the software not running, why can't people do what they want? Every single other company works that way.
Apple is a hardware and a software company, that's why. What is hard to understand about that?
Falcon
I can't do whatever I want with a piece of software I legally own?
As if that's only true with Apple. NOT!!!
Falcon
According to the latest reliability charts, Apple hardware is the expensive and unreliable choice.
Citation needed!
Let's see what Google returns. Apple's laptops rate 'Better than Average' in reliability study. Macs not all that for reliability. That article puts Dells in the middle with laptop reliability with Macs above them. "For the first time, Apple Inc. dropped out of the top spot in the computer-reliability ranking of Rescuecom Corp., a Syracuse, N.Y.-based chain of service shops, and ended in third place behind a pair of Asian computer makers that specialize in laptops."
Falcon
My problem is when these fools try and convince me they are not fools or worse yet try and convince non foolish people to follow their foolishness.
And of course you or those who think like you get to define who and what fools are?
Falcon