The irony is that that of the "monopolies" that drove this policy, Standard Oil and American Tobacco, neither of the accused firms monopolized or "restrained" trade;
Standard oil, under Rockefeller's direction, made deals with railroads such as Henry Flagler's who was a partner of Standard Oil, to charge higher rates for shipping competitor's oil. At one tyme "the railroad company at Rockefeller's direction denied the association permission to run the pipeline across railway land,[citation needed] forcing consortium staff to laboriously decant the oil into barrels, carry them over the railway crossing in carts, and pump the oil manually into the pipeline on the other side. When Rockefeller learned of this tactic, he instructed the railway company to park empty rail cars across the line, thereby preventing the carts from crossing his property."
If that is not anti-competitive behavior then what is? Especially when the railroads were given other people's land?
we as a society have decided that we value a competitive market more than a free market
No we didn't. We have not had a free market since before the Civil War. Even then because there were slaves there wasn't a free market but other than that it was freer than it is now.
We have economic evidence that competitive markets are better for both consumers, corporations, and innovation than free markets
A competitive market is a freer market than a non-competitive market. Free markets mean there is competition. If you don't know that then you need to learn economics.
Yea, in a free market anybody can set any terms they within limits but nobody would enjoy a monopoly either. And MS most certainly does enjoy a monopoly.
Anti-trust legislation is force, and violates the rights of those at Microsoft to set the terms of their agreements.
Despite the fact that people like you have fallen for it, corporations are not people and they have no rights. Only individuals, people, have rights. Not only that but corporations exist at the whim of government, and government can revoke their corporate charters.
That would be like JK Rowling using her "monopoly position" on Harry Potter to overcharge for her books. They made it, they should be able to set the price for their product.
Amassing isn't it? A person on welfare could become one of the world's richest people via their own work.
In the last three years my Exchange environment has had better uptime than Google Mail. I spent less than $50k on the setup and I'm getting better than 99.999% uptime too - actually closer to 99.9999%. That's something that Google has not been able to match yet.
I use Yahoo! mail instead of Gmail but I've never had problems accessing either Yahoo! or Google while I still had access to the net through my ISP. I've had problems with my web access from my ISP though. Of course I am not a business.
There just wasn't enough bandwidth to do this in the past.
But the bandwidth exists now? You didn't get the memo from the GAO saying the Fatherland, er Motherland, er Homeland Security Department hasn't been doing enough to save the nations bandwidth in case of the pandemic have you? They say there's not enough and some net access will have to be cut off.
Of course if we depend on corporations that enjoy monopolies to deliver broadband and high bandwidth access we'll never get it. We'll only get it by having competition.
They still have quite a good lock on business productivity software (i.e. office).
MS has a lock on the perception that businesses need their productivity software. But while some may actually need MS Office most can use something else.
Don't forget, Microsoft has a ton of cash and they are probably not sitting on their hands waiting for Google to decapitate their cash cow.
Yea, like Google and others MS is moving to Software as a Service. Me, I want to run most of my apps locally as well as store what I'm currently working on locally.
But, see, you keep talking about Gmail's downtime which I've tried to explain is relatively arbitrary to me.
Ah but GP is acknowledging both ways whereas you're concentrating on what works for you. I'd prefer to keep local access and control myself but I can understand why others may prefer to use cloud computing.
Even assuming the Google govcloud servers will be satisfactorily stable, which seems a big assumption, if Internet access were to go out your cut off.
That's why I wouldn't willingly run apps or store data on an offsite server, while users may find cloud computing useful I want both my apps and the data I'm currently using local. I'll use a server, my own, for archiving and testing but otherwise I want local access and control.
there is a reason you are not allowed to withdraw your 401k dollars and that the government gives you a tax advantage to invest via 401k instead of your own trading account. It increases the amount of money in mutual funds and thus gives a greater liquidity to the market.
Seriously, you don't know much about 401ks or mutual funds. In a 401k investors are not restricted to just investing in mutual funds. Perhaps you don't recall it but many Enron workers lost money because they had their 401ks invested in Enron stocks. But even if people have money in mutual funds, the funds are not of a single mind. There are aggressive growth, growth, income, and value funds. Aggressive growth funds invest in businesses that growing fast whereas income funds invest in corporations that pay dividends for income. Funds may invest in stocks, bonds, or both. Then there are also SRI, Socially Responsible Investing, funds. These funds use various screens to decide what to invest in. Some screen for companies that they feel treat their employees and or the locations they are located in well. Some focus on the environment, and others will not invest is so called sin industries. Such as military contractors or weapons makers, alcohol businesses, or tobacco companies.
All that 401k money (and the proxy votes) are controlled by an elite class of money managers who then wield enormous leverage over corporate boards.
Every one who owns stocks can decide for themselves who will vote as their their proxy, or can vote for themselves. There is such a thing as activist shareholders. Apartheid in South Africa very well may of ended in part because of shareholder activism, shareholders in the US as well as around the world pressured their companies to not invest in or pull out from South Africa in efforts to end apartheid. Now activist shareholders are pressuring their corporations to oppose Israel's construction of the Apartheid, er Separation, Wall. Chief among them are funds and groups that invest on a religious basis.
The owners of companies are changing so rapidly that it is nearly impossible to tell who actually owns what.
After more than 10 years Steve Jobsis still a member of Walt Disney's board. Ted Turner spent years on Time Warner's board. And as of 2001 and 2002 the Packard and Hewlett families still had seats on the HP board.
There was even a poster on/. who said he made ~10,000/yr, worked 2hrs/wk and that supported his wife, 2 kids and himself and had his house paid off. They grow their food and have some animals like chickens I believe.
I'm hoping to buy my own apartment building, a quadraplex would work. I could have my renters pay my mortgage while I lived in one of the apartments. I'd convert most if not all of the yard into a garden so I could grow some of my own food. The hard part is converting the roof into a garden or green roof as well.
For the rest, work wise, I want to create a home office and photography studio.
Look at all the fluff and shit science we read about on here, coming from "career" minded science folk. Work less and focus on quality over quantity
Though it doesn't apply to all or even most people I bet work has more quality for some. I love photography so I want to spend tyme with it. Of course that's not all I like so I don't want to just shoot photos. Of course a lot of what I like doing I can also shoot photographs. I love gardening and that hands itself well to photography. I love to hike which lends itself to nature photography, and scuba diving to underwater photography.
if everybody did what they loved, there would be a severe shortage of janitors.
Having worked as a janitor, and garbageman, I have worked with people who loved doing it. Depending on where they work the work isn't demanding and you can drift through the day. The pay wasn't well but if you watched your spending you could have survived on it. Take college classes when not working and in a few years you could start your own janitorial or cleaning services business if you have the drive. Of course you'd then be an accountant, manager, and or salesman depending on if you took on partners.
And of course if fewer, less, people worked as janitors then their pay would go up.
And I would bet that in practice, it ends up being one of the last factors considered. Whether or not you can make enough money to buy food and pay rent is going to be a much more important part of the decision.
In high school I was split between majoring in Computer Engineering and a Marine Science, perhaps marine bio. I chose CE but if I had known then what I know now I would have done a double major, both CE and MS.
The free market has spoken.
No, the free market has not spoken. There is no free market.
The American Dental Association has it right and very tightly controls the number of dental students schools can accept in order to keep demand for dentists high and salaries in the very comfortable range.
The ADA has it absolutely wrong! We supposedly live in a free society not a dictatorship.
I wish Science did that.
I wish anyone who has the inclination and ability as well as desire to learn could do so. Live free or die, not live as a slave.
Piracy in the case of copyright infringement is about redistributing works that are under copyright protection.
The more copyright is extended to questionable terms, the more people will rebel against the concept entirely.
I believe in copyrights but I totally disagree with how long they last now. Copyright protection is meant to encourage creation, but you can't create anymore once you're dead. You are encouraged to continue the act of creation by keeping money coming in. I no longer do, other than here on slashdot and elsewhere online, but I used to write and now I want to start a business as a photographer and I believe in copyrights but I would make a copyright term about 5 to 7 years. If you can't make enough money in that tyme then you should consider doing other work. Of course if you're creating things as a hobby, and have another income, then the length of copyright terms shouldn't matter.
I believe in copyright as a premise, same with patents, just not how they are now applied.
While I believe in copyrights I don't believe in patents. Though not everything invented is expensive to manufacture it is a barrier to a lot. Not just anyone can build a fabrication plant and make Intel CPUs, such a plant can cost billions of dollars. No, with the First mover advantage inventors have an incentive to get quality products out of the door as well as constantly improving designs. Some economic studies have actually concluded patents reduce innovation and inventions. Here's a brief article from Business Wire, "Study Finds Patent Systems May Not Be an Effective Incentive to Encourage Invention of New Technologies".
Every university you can think of now has a program where you can graduate with a bachelors in science. It used to be that top schools were the only ones producing anyone who can reasonably call themselves scientists, but now everyone is doing it.
Yea, poor Joe Smuck who doesn't have the money to go to MIT doesn't deserve to get a science degree. We only need wealthy scientists.
I know people who went into engineering programs that had required entrance averages a full 20% lower than mine!
That's where testing and certification comes in. Don't reduce the number of places a person can go to learn, instead require testing to prove students have mastered the subject.
and you see why it is best to have a stable career, albeit low paying.
No, it's better to get that $100 million Wall Street bonus.
With a stable career I can plan things long ahead, and have my own signature project on the side.
Once he gets that bonus he can do whatever work he wants. If he wants to he can plan ahead, if he doesn't he doesn't need to. And if he wants he can take the rest of his life as a signature project.
The *EOs are appointed by the board, who are their good buddies who they golf with every weekend. And only the largest shareholders have any effect on the board's makeup. The whole thing is a big good-old-boy system, which is why CEOs get giant pay packages even when they drive the company into the ground. If they were paid on merit, they would get paid according to their performance, and not get squat if they don't do a good job, but that's obviously not the case.
So, the largest shareholders really want to lose money? How did they get all that money then?
Instead of paying scientists more, could we just pay CEOs and bankers less?
It's not the pay amount that matters so much as the pay differential, the differences in pay. Those creating the technology, and jobs, of tomorrow shouldn't be paid less than bankers.
but from a lack of incentives that would make science and technology careers attractive
Incentives? You mean like paying graduates more when you're saying that the market is saturated with them already? How does that make sense?
Yea, the market is so saturated "We need H1-B professionals". Microsoft and other large companies get to hire foreign workers and pay them half what US workers get paid. Boo hoo, without cheap labor they can't rake in billions of dollars.
You obviously know jack squat about Air Force and general defense protocols to think that would be allowed to happen.
Just as you've shown you know jack squat about the Air Force and what it's radar is capable of.
Remember, we are talking about an autonomous vehicle capable of carrying a rather heavy payload a VERY long distance. So that means a LARGE vehicle, close to the size of your average light airplane (Think Cessna single engine plane sized or slightly smaller).
And they can easily evade radar.
A vehicle that size flying over the border WILL NOT go unnoticed! If you think it will you are utterly ignorant about just how tightly controlled our airspace is.
HAHA!!! The government can't stop people walking across the border, there's no way they can stop low flying aircraft either.
That, and the fact that the "semi-sub" was a flop and CAUGHT with it's load on it's maiden voyage.
I'm sorry if that bursts your "romantic" bubble of clever drug dealers getting your blow across the border with oh-so-cool technology and beating "the man" so you can get high, but it's the truth.
And I'm sorry you're bubble was busted.
Falcon
OH and BTW, though I did not serve in the Air Force my father retired from the USAF and an uncle is a licensed pilot who built his own plane, which I've wanted to do for ages myself. I want to build an ultralight.
Slashdot Mirror
The irony is that that of the "monopolies" that drove this policy, Standard Oil and American Tobacco, neither of the accused firms monopolized or "restrained" trade;
Standard oil, under Rockefeller's direction, made deals with railroads such as Henry Flagler's who was a partner of Standard Oil, to charge higher rates for shipping competitor's oil. At one tyme "the railroad company at Rockefeller's direction denied the association permission to run the pipeline across railway land,[citation needed] forcing consortium staff to laboriously decant the oil into barrels, carry them over the railway crossing in carts, and pump the oil manually into the pipeline on the other side. When Rockefeller learned of this tactic, he instructed the railway company to park empty rail cars across the line, thereby preventing the carts from crossing his property."
If that is not anti-competitive behavior then what is? Especially when the railroads were given other people's land?
Falcon
When did we give them the 'right' to a free market?
Or, to put it another way, when did we give them the right to remove *our* right to a competitive market?
When did we have a free market? Free markets by definition are competitive markets.
Why is it socialists, including the corporate aristocracy, and communists don't know economics?
Falcon
we as a society have decided that we value a competitive market more than a free market
No we didn't. We have not had a free market since before the Civil War. Even then because there were slaves there wasn't a free market but other than that it was freer than it is now.
We have economic evidence that competitive markets are better for both consumers, corporations, and innovation than free markets
A competitive market is a freer market than a non-competitive market. Free markets mean there is competition. If you don't know that then you need to learn economics.
Falcon
This is not a free market.
Yea, in a free market anybody can set any terms they within limits but nobody would enjoy a monopoly either. And MS most certainly does enjoy a monopoly.
Anti-trust legislation is force, and violates the rights of those at Microsoft to set the terms of their agreements.
Despite the fact that people like you have fallen for it, corporations are not people and they have no rights. Only individuals, people, have rights. Not only that but corporations exist at the whim of government, and government can revoke their corporate charters.
Falcon
That would be like JK Rowling using her "monopoly position" on Harry Potter to overcharge for her books. They made it, they should be able to set the price for their product.
Amassing isn't it? A person on welfare could become one of the world's richest people via their own work.
Falcon
In the last three years my Exchange environment has had better uptime than Google Mail. I spent less than $50k on the setup and I'm getting better than 99.999% uptime too - actually closer to 99.9999%. That's something that Google has not been able to match yet.
I use Yahoo! mail instead of Gmail but I've never had problems accessing either Yahoo! or Google while I still had access to the net through my ISP. I've had problems with my web access from my ISP though. Of course I am not a business.
Falcon
There just wasn't enough bandwidth to do this in the past.
But the bandwidth exists now? You didn't get the memo from the GAO saying the Fatherland, er Motherland, er Homeland Security Department hasn't been doing enough to save the nations bandwidth in case of the pandemic have you? They say there's not enough and some net access will have to be cut off.
Of course if we depend on corporations that enjoy monopolies to deliver broadband and high bandwidth access we'll never get it. We'll only get it by having competition.
Falcon
Cloud computing also saves companies from massive spending sprees to upgrade hardware and software as well as the IT needed to support them.
Falcon
Google is the main one that tries to associate itself with OSS for marketing purposes.
Google does more than just that. Google releases software as well as sponsors Open Source projects.
Falcon
They still have quite a good lock on business productivity software (i.e. office).
MS has a lock on the perception that businesses need their productivity software. But while some may actually need MS Office most can use something else.
Don't forget, Microsoft has a ton of cash and they are probably not sitting on their hands waiting for Google to decapitate their cash cow.
Yea, like Google and others MS is moving to Software as a Service. Me, I want to run most of my apps locally as well as store what I'm currently working on locally.
Falcon
But, see, you keep talking about Gmail's downtime which I've tried to explain is relatively arbitrary to me.
Ah but GP is acknowledging both ways whereas you're concentrating on what works for you. I'd prefer to keep local access and control myself but I can understand why others may prefer to use cloud computing.
Falcon
Even assuming the Google govcloud servers will be satisfactorily stable, which seems a big assumption, if Internet access were to go out your cut off.
That's why I wouldn't willingly run apps or store data on an offsite server, while users may find cloud computing useful I want both my apps and the data I'm currently using local. I'll use a server, my own, for archiving and testing but otherwise I want local access and control.
Falcon
Given that the largest shareholders are mutual funds and hedge funds, they got their money from the rest of us.
And how long do you think investors will stay invested in funds that lose money?
Falcon
there is a reason you are not allowed to withdraw your 401k dollars and that the government gives you a tax advantage to invest via 401k instead of your own trading account. It increases the amount of money in mutual funds and thus gives a greater liquidity to the market.
Seriously, you don't know much about 401ks or mutual funds. In a 401k investors are not restricted to just investing in mutual funds. Perhaps you don't recall it but many Enron workers lost money because they had their 401ks invested in Enron stocks. But even if people have money in mutual funds, the funds are not of a single mind. There are aggressive growth, growth, income, and value funds. Aggressive growth funds invest in businesses that growing fast whereas income funds invest in corporations that pay dividends for income. Funds may invest in stocks, bonds, or both. Then there are also SRI, Socially Responsible Investing, funds. These funds use various screens to decide what to invest in. Some screen for companies that they feel treat their employees and or the locations they are located in well. Some focus on the environment, and others will not invest is so called sin industries. Such as military contractors or weapons makers, alcohol businesses, or tobacco companies.
All that 401k money (and the proxy votes) are controlled by an elite class of money managers who then wield enormous leverage over corporate boards.
Every one who owns stocks can decide for themselves who will vote as their their proxy, or can vote for themselves. There is such a thing as activist shareholders. Apartheid in South Africa very well may of ended in part because of shareholder activism, shareholders in the US as well as around the world pressured their companies to not invest in or pull out from South Africa in efforts to end apartheid. Now activist shareholders are pressuring their corporations to oppose Israel's construction of the Apartheid, er Separation, Wall. Chief among them are funds and groups that invest on a religious basis.
The owners of companies are changing so rapidly that it is nearly impossible to tell who actually owns what.
After more than 10 years Steve Jobsis still a member of Walt Disney's board. Ted Turner spent years on Time Warner's board. And as of 2001 and 2002 the Packard and Hewlett families still had seats on the HP board.
Falcon
You don't NEED a lot to survive.
You don't need to survive.
There was even a poster on /. who said he made ~10,000/yr, worked 2hrs/wk and that supported his wife, 2 kids and himself and had his house paid off. They grow their food and have some animals like chickens I believe.
I'm hoping to buy my own apartment building, a quadraplex would work. I could have my renters pay my mortgage while I lived in one of the apartments. I'd convert most if not all of the yard into a garden so I could grow some of my own food. The hard part is converting the roof into a garden or green roof as well.
For the rest, work wise, I want to create a home office and photography studio.
Look at all the fluff and shit science we read about on here, coming from "career" minded science folk. Work less and focus on quality over quantity
Though it doesn't apply to all or even most people I bet work has more quality for some. I love photography so I want to spend tyme with it. Of course that's not all I like so I don't want to just shoot photos. Of course a lot of what I like doing I can also shoot photographs. I love gardening and that hands itself well to photography. I love to hike which lends itself to nature photography, and scuba diving to underwater photography.
Falcon
if everybody did what they loved, there would be a severe shortage of janitors.
Having worked as a janitor, and garbageman, I have worked with people who loved doing it. Depending on where they work the work isn't demanding and you can drift through the day. The pay wasn't well but if you watched your spending you could have survived on it. Take college classes when not working and in a few years you could start your own janitorial or cleaning services business if you have the drive. Of course you'd then be an accountant, manager, and or salesman depending on if you took on partners.
And of course if fewer, less, people worked as janitors then their pay would go up.
And I would bet that in practice, it ends up being one of the last factors considered. Whether or not you can make enough money to buy food and pay rent is going to be a much more important part of the decision.
In high school I was split between majoring in Computer Engineering and a Marine Science, perhaps marine bio. I chose CE but if I had known then what I know now I would have done a double major, both CE and MS.
The free market has spoken.
No, the free market has not spoken. There is no free market.
Falcon
The American Dental Association has it right and very tightly controls the number of dental students schools can accept in order to keep demand for dentists high and salaries in the very comfortable range.
The ADA has it absolutely wrong! We supposedly live in a free society not a dictatorship.
I wish Science did that.
I wish anyone who has the inclination and ability as well as desire to learn could do so. Live free or die, not live as a slave.
Falcon
Piracy in the case of copyright infringement is about redistributing works that are under copyright protection.
The more copyright is extended to questionable terms, the more people will rebel against the concept entirely.
I believe in copyrights but I totally disagree with how long they last now. Copyright protection is meant to encourage creation, but you can't create anymore once you're dead. You are encouraged to continue the act of creation by keeping money coming in. I no longer do, other than here on slashdot and elsewhere online, but I used to write and now I want to start a business as a photographer and I believe in copyrights but I would make a copyright term about 5 to 7 years. If you can't make enough money in that tyme then you should consider doing other work. Of course if you're creating things as a hobby, and have another income, then the length of copyright terms shouldn't matter.
I believe in copyright as a premise, same with patents, just not how they are now applied.
While I believe in copyrights I don't believe in patents. Though not everything invented is expensive to manufacture it is a barrier to a lot. Not just anyone can build a fabrication plant and make Intel CPUs, such a plant can cost billions of dollars. No, with the First mover advantage inventors have an incentive to get quality products out of the door as well as constantly improving designs. Some economic studies have actually concluded patents reduce innovation and inventions. Here's a brief article from Business Wire, "Study Finds Patent Systems May Not Be an Effective Incentive to Encourage Invention of New Technologies".
Falcon
Every university you can think of now has a program where you can graduate with a bachelors in science. It used to be that top schools were the only ones producing anyone who can reasonably call themselves scientists, but now everyone is doing it.
Yea, poor Joe Smuck who doesn't have the money to go to MIT doesn't deserve to get a science degree. We only need wealthy scientists.
I know people who went into engineering programs that had required entrance averages a full 20% lower than mine!
That's where testing and certification comes in. Don't reduce the number of places a person can go to learn, instead require testing to prove students have mastered the subject.
Of course elitists don't like that.
Falcon
and you see why it is best to have a stable career, albeit low paying.
No, it's better to get that $100 million Wall Street bonus.
With a stable career I can plan things long ahead, and have my own signature project on the side.
Once he gets that bonus he can do whatever work he wants. If he wants to he can plan ahead, if he doesn't he doesn't need to. And if he wants he can take the rest of his life as a signature project.
Hey, didn't Jimmy Wales do that?
Falcon
The *EOs are appointed by the board, who are their good buddies who they golf with every weekend. And only the largest shareholders have any effect on the board's makeup. The whole thing is a big good-old-boy system, which is why CEOs get giant pay packages even when they drive the company into the ground. If they were paid on merit, they would get paid according to their performance, and not get squat if they don't do a good job, but that's obviously not the case.
So, the largest shareholders really want to lose money? How did they get all that money then?
Falcon
Instead of paying scientists more, could we just pay CEOs and bankers less?
It's not the pay amount that matters so much as the pay differential, the differences in pay. Those creating the technology, and jobs, of tomorrow shouldn't be paid less than bankers.
Falcon
but from a lack of incentives that would make science and technology careers attractive
Incentives? You mean like paying graduates more when you're saying that the market is saturated with them already? How does that make sense?
Yea, the market is so saturated "We need H1-B professionals". Microsoft and other large companies get to hire foreign workers and pay them half what US workers get paid. Boo hoo, without cheap labor they can't rake in billions of dollars.
Falcon
If I were to have an "electronic intelligence agency" I would call it "Unit 2600".
I think Blacklisted!411 is better.
Falcon
You obviously know jack squat about Air Force and general defense protocols to think that would be allowed to happen.
Just as you've shown you know jack squat about the Air Force and what it's radar is capable of.
Remember, we are talking about an autonomous vehicle capable of carrying a rather heavy payload a VERY long distance. So that means a LARGE vehicle, close to the size of your average light airplane (Think Cessna single engine plane sized or slightly smaller).
And they can easily evade radar.
A vehicle that size flying over the border WILL NOT go unnoticed! If you think it will you are utterly ignorant about just how tightly controlled our airspace is.
HAHA!!! The government can't stop people walking across the border, there's no way they can stop low flying aircraft either.
That, and the fact that the "semi-sub" was a flop and CAUGHT with it's load on it's maiden voyage.
That was just the first result googling personal submarines drug smuggling. There are more than 20,000 more.
I'm sorry if that bursts your "romantic" bubble of clever drug dealers getting your blow across the border with oh-so-cool technology and beating "the man" so you can get high, but it's the truth.
And I'm sorry you're bubble was busted.
Falcon
OH and BTW, though I did not serve in the Air Force my father retired from the USAF and an uncle is a licensed pilot who built his own plane, which I've wanted to do for ages myself. I want to build an ultralight.