But once people have Google toolbar they don't need FireFox anymore. Believe me, my girlfriend will have nothing to do with Opera now that she has that toolbar.
Way back when, Microsoft poured tons of money into IE to kill of Netscape, Netscape was simply too entrenched. "Bundling" helped but people would have downloaded Netscape if it was indeed a significantly better product.
Fast forward to today. The only looming threats are Opera and Firefox. The problem with all Open Source is that they have absolutely no marketing. It solely relies on word of mouth. 1 person tells another, who tells his friends, etc. and the usage theoretically increases exponentially (subject to gross errors of course). But even exponential growth is tiny if the current user base is small. Until the Firefox usage rates increases to a threatening rate MS will sit on its shoddy browser and milk it for all its worth.
I'm sure MS knows FireFox is better, but why spend money to update their browser when the competition can't effectively communicate to a target market? A great product is no good if no one knows about it. Eventually the 'diffusion' of FireFox will increase enough to cause MS to grudgingly update. Then you will see a TRUE browser war.
Ill informed? 4 years of undergrad experience in 3 separate universities including lab experience is ill informed? I didn't mean to make it sound like the bulk of teachers could careless about students, I have of course had good profs.
But the sad truth is I have had courses with profs who read off pre-packaged powerpoint slides, courses of no relevance, exams regurgitated from last year, or worse, exams that have no correlation with what was taught in class.
I agree about the ratings, or 'rantings' as they can often become. Most of these now have a comments section. But even the most vile and critical of evaluations will not oust a prof. The same applies to the public education system.
The 1st Amendment is a very popular amendment to trump with various legislation. One of the most common is the old "libel/slander" suits. And yes, it is stupid, just ask Somethingawful.com
Once profs have tenure their incentive to teach better is dramatically reduced. If they can get more grants doing research with no chance of being fired for imcompentent teaching then you can believe the grants will come first.
This becomes especially easy if the students can't voice their discretions publically. I don't think a single university publically displays the stats of student reviews after a semester with a prof. The profs can complain all they want but in the long run it's the students who will suffer.
Promoting your own site via third party sources from a SOCIALIST PROPAGANDA site is hardly the basis for an argument. Communism/socialism has tried and failed. Get over it.
Oops sorry, I meant maximizing employment and welfare. In economic terms, welfare does not mean government transfers, but more like standard of living.
The fact that these stocks are insoluble is irrelevent. They still require companies to do well in order for them to pay off. If these companies are restricted from 'unconscienable profits' than everyone is hurt by it.
Half of all Americans have stock, either in mutual funds or in directly. Just because you lost your job, doesn't mean everyone else did. In fact, quite the opposite. Free trade has a history of maximizing welfare and unemployment. The costs of lowering barriers is concetrated, but the benefits are greater and very widespread.
... we would have increased the GDP by 400 trillion dollars, which is about 4000%.
Wrong, you would have increased it by 2000%. GDP does not include the sale of used goods.
That's the problem with trying to promote free trade. It's obvious what jobs will be saved by putting up barriers. But the jobs that will be lost' (read: not be created) because of protection is impossible to determine. Of course any economist knows that such a result can and does happen.
Oh really? I didn't know Adam Smith and Milton Friedman were "bought and paid for". And if they were, where can I get one of these time machines for myself?
Yours links are propaganda from left-wing sites, especially citizen.org. If you can find a report with any journalistic integrity you will have a better argument. But interest groups are never credible.
Absolutely. Standard f living isn't measured by how much you make, but how much stuff you can buy with your work hours. The lower prices are, the better your standard of living.
Like I said, this is a long run thing. The VAST majority of people will benefit in the short and longterm, whereas the a miniority will have a short term loss.
Standard of living has much less to do with how much you make, compared to how much you can purchase. When jobs go overseas, those products become cheaper and the majority of people benefit.
Who says you have to work at fucking McDonalds?! Do you think the only businesses that will expand from increased consumer spending will be fastfood?
Ideally, yes. But the more people that get hired there the higher their wages will go up. Eventually they will lose their advantage.
America is far too advanced to concetrate on grunt manufacturing. People don't go to school for 12 years to work at a steel mill. If after 12 years of school you don't have the skills you needed, don't blame China, blame the public education system and teacher's unions.
I wish for ONCE someone would show concern for the INDIANS who will become impoverished again if protectionist policies are instituted, all out of blatant ignorance.
Ecomomists DO see the big picture. But the big picture does not mean seeing all the nit-picky details. Case in point:
General consumer: Jobs will be lost because they are going overseas.
Economists: Jobs will be gained because consumers the money that they save on cheaper imports can be spent/invested at home.
In the long run, shipping jobs overseas will increase employment in the home country.
Why? Because when products are made overseas, they are made for a whole lot cheaper. Consumers not only can buy more, but they use their excess cash to spend on other goods or to invest in other business, both of which stimulate the economy and the very people who 'lost' their jobs get hired back.
I don't have time to dig up a source at the moment, but the US produces the lion's share of new drugs. In countries that have price ceilings (Canada) drugs are rarely produced.
It seems we're at odds with our sources: http://www.phrma.org/issues/intprop/ Of course this is from a pharmacy trade group, but then yours is a liberal group.
There's no question that Universities have research on their own. But this research is not as highly focused as the pharmaceutical companies. Scientists crave "knowledge for the sake of knowledge". Pharmaceutical companies get knowledge as a means to an end: a useful product. Once again I can't dig up a source but I'm sure the drugs per billions dollars invested is much greater for pharmacy companies than for biology research groups.
For every dollar spent on advertising, companies ensure that it will generate more than $1 in profits. This means that by advertising, more people are aware of their product and more lives are saved.
Slashdot Mirror
But once people have Google toolbar they don't need FireFox anymore. Believe me, my girlfriend will have nothing to do with Opera now that she has that toolbar.
Way back when, Microsoft poured tons of money into IE to kill of Netscape, Netscape was simply too entrenched. "Bundling" helped but people would have downloaded Netscape if it was indeed a significantly better product.
Fast forward to today. The only looming threats are Opera and Firefox. The problem with all Open Source is that they have absolutely no marketing. It solely relies on word of mouth. 1 person tells another, who tells his friends, etc. and the usage theoretically increases exponentially (subject to gross errors of course). But even exponential growth is tiny if the current user base is small.
Until the Firefox usage rates increases to a threatening rate MS will sit on its shoddy browser and milk it for all its worth.
I'm sure MS knows FireFox is better, but why spend money to update their browser when the competition can't effectively communicate to a target market? A great product is no good if no one knows about it. Eventually the 'diffusion' of FireFox will increase enough to cause MS to grudgingly update. Then you will see a TRUE browser war.
Ill informed? 4 years of undergrad experience in 3 separate universities including lab experience is ill informed? I didn't mean to make it sound like the bulk of teachers could careless about students, I have of course had good profs.
But the sad truth is I have had courses with profs who read off pre-packaged powerpoint slides, courses of no relevance, exams regurgitated from last year, or worse, exams that have no correlation with what was taught in class.
I agree about the ratings, or 'rantings' as they can often become. Most of these now have a comments section. But even the most vile and critical of evaluations will not oust a prof. The same applies to the public education system.
The 1st Amendment is a very popular amendment to trump with various legislation. One of the most common is the old "libel/slander" suits. And yes, it is stupid, just ask Somethingawful.com
Once profs have tenure their incentive to teach better is dramatically reduced. If they can get more grants doing research with no chance of being fired for imcompentent teaching then you can believe the grants will come first.
This becomes especially easy if the students can't voice their discretions publically. I don't think a single university publically displays the stats of student reviews after a semester with a prof. The profs can complain all they want but in the long run it's the students who will suffer.
Promoting your own site via third party sources from a SOCIALIST PROPAGANDA site is hardly the basis for an argument. Communism/socialism has tried and failed. Get over it.
Oops sorry, I meant maximizing employment and welfare. In economic terms, welfare does not mean government transfers, but more like standard of living.
The fact that these stocks are insoluble is irrelevent. They still require companies to do well in order for them to pay off. If these companies are restricted from 'unconscienable profits' than everyone is hurt by it.
Half of all Americans have stock, either in mutual funds or in directly. Just because you lost your job, doesn't mean everyone else did. In fact, quite the opposite. Free trade has a history of maximizing welfare and unemployment. The costs of lowering barriers is concetrated, but the benefits are greater and very widespread.
... we would have increased the GDP by 400 trillion dollars, which is about 4000%.
Wrong, you would have increased it by 2000%. GDP does not include the sale of used goods.
That's the problem with trying to promote free trade. It's obvious what jobs will be saved by putting up barriers. But the jobs that will be lost' (read: not be created) because of protection is impossible to determine. Of course any economist knows that such a result can and does happen.
Oh really? I didn't know Adam Smith and Milton Friedman were "bought and paid for". And if they were, where can I get one of these time machines for myself?
Yours links are propaganda from left-wing sites, especially citizen.org. If you can find a report with any journalistic integrity you will have a better argument. But interest groups are never credible.
Hmm, exactly what I would have said, except articulated better. Thank you my good man.
Absolutely. Standard f living isn't measured by how much you make, but how much stuff you can buy with your work hours. The lower prices are, the better your standard of living.
Like I said, this is a long run thing. The VAST majority of people will benefit in the short and longterm, whereas the a miniority will have a short term loss.
Standard of living has much less to do with how much you make, compared to how much you can purchase. When jobs go overseas, those products become cheaper and the majority of people benefit.
Who says you have to work at fucking McDonalds?! Do you think the only businesses that will expand from increased consumer spending will be fastfood?
Outsourcing = profits, profits = better bottom line, better bottom line = growth, growth = more job
This should be your sig. Most people only see that first or second equation. I just wish you weren't a coward so I could add you to my friends list.
Ideally, yes. But the more people that get hired there the higher their wages will go up. Eventually they will lose their advantage.
America is far too advanced to concetrate on grunt manufacturing. People don't go to school for 12 years to work at a steel mill. If after 12 years of school you don't have the skills you needed, don't blame China, blame the public education system and teacher's unions.
I wish for ONCE someone would show concern for the INDIANS who will become impoverished again if protectionist policies are instituted, all out of blatant ignorance.
Ecomomists DO see the big picture. But the big picture does not mean seeing all the nit-picky details. Case in point: General consumer: Jobs will be lost because they are going overseas. Economists: Jobs will be gained because consumers the money that they save on cheaper imports can be spent/invested at home.
In the long run, shipping jobs overseas will increase employment in the home country.
Why? Because when products are made overseas, they are made for a whole lot cheaper. Consumers not only can buy more, but they use their excess cash to spend on other goods or to invest in other business, both of which stimulate the economy and the very people who 'lost' their jobs get hired back.
But can it run a self-diagnostic?
Does it have an emotion chip?
Does it have an evil twin?
Now THAT'S an android.
... it's in the memory. How a 4.0 MB program takes up 8 times as much RAM I will never know.
krona, kroner is the plural. :)
Not to be pedantic or anything
I don't have time to dig up a source at the moment, but the US produces the lion's share of new drugs. In countries that have price ceilings (Canada) drugs are rarely produced.
f course this is from a pharmacy trade group, but then yours is a liberal group.
It seems we're at odds with our sources:
http://www.phrma.org/issues/intprop/
O
There's no question that Universities have research on their own. But this research is not as highly focused as the pharmaceutical companies. Scientists crave "knowledge for the sake of knowledge". Pharmaceutical companies get knowledge as a means to an end: a useful product. Once again I can't dig up a source but I'm sure the drugs per billions dollars invested is much greater for pharmacy companies than for biology research groups.
For every dollar spent on advertising, companies ensure that it will generate more than $1 in profits. This means that by advertising, more people are aware of their product and more lives are saved.