Fair enough - so, we actually have 2 problems. The government & large corporations attempt to hide, distort, or outright lie, and the bulk of the public is too apathetic to seek the truth and apply critical thinking.
And for what its worth, while I do think (based on materials I've read and my own perceptions) that the Bush administration is one of the more secretive administrations we've had (at least in the last couple decades), I certainly do not think the Democrats are significantly better. Overall, I believe the government needs a much larger area of transparency so that voters can make intelligent, informed decisions based upon their personal philosophies. Assuming, of course (like you implied), that they actually want to do so.
Of course - that assumes the DMCA gets challenged in a federal courts, possibly working its way up to the Supreme Court.
And freedom of speech isn't absolute - you don't have the freedom to yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater, for example. You don't have the freedom to say or publish whatever you want about people (aka slander or libel). Freedoms have responsibilities, and it all depends on which way the courts are leaning when the challenge to the DMCA is raised.
In short, the issue is not as simple as "well, Constitution trumps DMCA" - it might, but it's a LONG process to get there. Much damage can be (and has been) done in the meantime.
Of course, not very realistic at all. There might be some outcry on/. or other tech-sites, but the spin that the mass-media public hears (assuming it hears anything at all, which is a big assumption) is that you were just another computer hacker-terrorist making threats & advocating "evil things on the interweb".
That is what is so scary about the Bush administration and the issue in general - in a perfect world, people would be fully informed. But in this significantly-less-than-perfect world, the public is kept in the dark, deprived of factual knowledge and fed whatever lies or spin people in power (governments, corporations) decide. It's not total control, but it works well enough for the majority of the people that it takes mountains moving before John Q Public hears and seriously considers alternate viewpoints.
Whoah - just as a quick note, I am *not*, in any way shape or form, a Bush supporter. I can't think of a single one of his policies that I agreed with. My arguments were meant to be more generic, rather than specific to this administration...
1. The out-of-work engineer won't be able to afford that cheaper DVD-changer, but some part of the other 93% (or so) working Americans will be more able to afford it.
2. Quick point - you didn't disprove my argument. You argued about "some of the richest counties in the nation", which I would estimate are only a few % of the total number of counties. In the late 90s, lots of places had a budget surplus; now everywhere there's a deficit, and it's not due to outsourcing (unless you care to make the argument the dot-com-bust was due to outsourcing).
3. Outsourcing *will* have an effect upon tax revenue, but I don't think it will be significant enough (on the national scale) to affect taxes. On the local scale, it could have a pretty big impact (large companies leaving town usually does), but budget deficits in this case are usually made up by a combination of decreased government spending (such as for education) and slightly increased taxes (because increasing taxes is very a dangerous political move, so most politicians are loathe to do it). As for the the two teachers you know - I hope they DO have jobs next year! I didn't say I *liked* this system - it always pisses me off when governments (local & state) decide to trim a little more from the educational budgets because hey, American kids don't need no stinkin' education anyway, right? *grumble* *grumble*
4. Like I said, I don't like Bush, I didn't like him cutting taxes & I don't like his increased federal gov't spending. As for raising taxes - as much as I hate to say it, it's far more likely that the American people will shoulder that increased tax burden, rather than businesses. That's been the ugly trend in the last few decades - shifting the tax burden to the individual tax payers, away from corporations. I don't agree with it, but that's what's been happening. Because who buys politicians? Corporations do. (I'm reading "The Buying of the President: 2004 edition" right now... ugh, so depressing.)
Unless, of course, you are willing to sacrifice some things for others.
You have to eat - but you could support a local farmer's market and buy fresh vegetables & produce instead of Megasized Overpackaged Instant Something-or-Other. Or maybe you save money by canceling cable, or selling an extra car. Perhaps you could purchase clothing at a second-hand or thrift shop instead of Walmart.
There are plenty of ways to avoid patronizing businesses you don't agree with. You just have to be willing to make the necessary sacrifices. That's known as 'opportunity cost'.
* Company X's products & services are now cheaper, allowing consumers and/or Company Y to purchase more of them
* Funding almost always falls short of needs, and it's not simply because workers are paying less in taxes. In many cases it is also due in large part to financial irresponsibility on the part of the levels of government
* Some taxes do go up, but it is much more common to cut or reduce various government programs to make up the shortfalls
* Company X saves far more money from outsourcing than they end up paying in increased taxes, if indeed taxes are increased at all (which is very doubtful, particularly in this economic climate)
I've done extensive development work in the area of audio watermarking and audio fingerprinting, and I'm amazed that AT&T can make this happen, given the reduced fidelity of a wireless phone connection. Music fingerprinting technology is a smaller (and more approachable) problem domain than open-ended speech recognition, but still this is quite an achievement.
How hard can it be? The radio stations all play the same 10-15 songs over & over again - even with the over-produced, sound-alike pop crap I'm sure cell phone bandwidth is sufficient to tell from which animal that steaming pile spewed forth.
Not that I dislike (& have completely given up on) commercial radio or anything...;-)
Hmmm.... can I choose which 9.17% of my bits go to Florida's dept of revenue? I'm sure they could make a MINT off of helping all those poor, oppressed people in Nigeria recover their thousands of US dollars!
And pop-ups - I would like to send all of my pop-ups to Sharon Fox. Even if that means I end up paying more than 9.17%.
Hell, I don't even live in Florida - I'm just trying to do my part for a state so obviously in need:-)
There's a difference between running Windows XP as an OS, and running the full suite of MS applications (ie Outlook).
I receive virus-laden emails all the time - but Thunderbird has a junk email folder that promptly takes care of them. I use Fire{bird|fox|juggernaut} as my primary browser, so I'm not worried about web viruses (and I have IE set to more restrictive security, so if something WERE to try & invoke IE manually to do its dirty work, the security is restricted on it). I use OpenOffice.org so I'm not worried about macro viruses. I run free AVG anti-virus software on the off-chance I pick up something in a downloaded file, and I've got a broadband hardware firewall (with a few openings for P2P clients & gaming).
So, yes, you can use XP in a safe manner - like I'm doing at home. The problem, of course, is user education. I've got my sister using Thundermail too, but that didn't stop her from getting infected with an "official-looking" email virus containing an encrypted zip file. She had to go through a lot of work to infect herself, but she did it!
You make a lot of good points - particularly about the increased value of a car having lower miles on it.
But those arguments are hard to apply to a short commute. For example, I live about 2 miles from work (I try & bike in the summer, which is of course the MOST ecomonical option!). Commuting only adds about 1,000 miles a year (2 miles * 2 times a day * 5 days a week * 50 weeks / yr). So the marginal cost of routine maintenance (oil, tires, etc) is neglible (in my case). Gas is the single largest expense, because the fuel economy really sucks on short trips. And I totally agree gas is far too cheap - unfortunately, if gas went up then mass transit (buses here in Madison) would become more expensive as well, so I'm not sure that helps the cause.
This TEA-21 - is that a CA law, or federal? Because that's a GREAT idea, IMHO - give people the choice!
Of course, I'm a single young man with one vehicle - my transportation costs are already pretty low. So I'm not a great example for mass transit being economical. You make some great points, however!
The problem is, unless you are willing to forgo the car completely, you can't factor in the price of the car, repairs, depreciation, etc (any more than the amount of miles used for commuting).
If I was willing to sell my vehicle and use mass transit exclusively, then yes, it would be much cheaper to pay $40 for a monthly pass then the $400-$500 I pay for auto loan, insurance, and vehicle maintenance. But I use my vehicle for more than just commuting - I drive to visit friends & family on the weekends, for example.
Since I'm going to have a vehicle anyway, the marginal cost of using it to commute is far cheaper than taking mass transit.
And when calculating costs, you have to factor in the value of your time, too - in most cases, taking mass transit takes longer (as in the grandparent's post). So you need to take that into the cost considerations, as well.
The point is, mass transit is expensive if you own a vehicle anyway. That's not to say people shouldn't use it - I still occassionally use it for the reduced environmental effects and less wear & tear on my own personal vehicle. I just realize that those reasons cost me an extra $0.50 (or whatever) a mile.
Yeah, you've pretty much hit the issue - Americans want cheap shit.
It's our consumeristic, throw-away society. When it becomes cheaper to throw away a broken piece of equipment and buy new (TV / VCR / computer / microwave / etc) than to repair it, we've got a self-perpetuating problem:
1. People buy cheap stuff 2. Companies that have the lowest prices get more business 3. These companies cut costs even more by integrating everything and greatly reducing the possibility of repair 4. People's cheap stuff breaks 5. Goto line 1.
Regarding NoseSocks' suggestions, I think we need to do a little of both - get rid of the screwy tax system and replace it with something simple that has fewer ways to game the system (so the tax burden is spread more evenly), and then reign in the massive healthcare insurance industry.
That gives more money to the people, but then we also need some kind of a fundamental cultural shift to say, "Hey - maybe if I saved and invested a little more, and spent less on frivolous goods, then I might actually have a solid financial future!"
I hope it is proven wrong in this case, as well. We are in a very different world from 1900, with very different challenges. That's not to say the end result won't be similar (ie we transition to a new energy source), but it doesn't guarantee it, either. "Past performance does not guarantee future success" and all that jazz.
I think the real problem is we aren't letting economics work - I think the price Americans pay for oil is kept artificially low (and no, I don't have any objective, factual sources to back that up, that's just my perception of it). The problem will be, there won't be a gradual increase in price that people will perceive as "the end of cheap oil" - I think once the US can't afford to keep the price for oil down, then it's going to jump way up to it's "real" price. And that jump is what's going to cause a lot of problems.
Of course, we won't know what's going to happen until it happens, but... caveat emptor!
I initially thought like you did, as well... but there's a problem with that thinking. We don't currently have ANY alternative energy sources as abundant and efficient as oil. Oil is a HUGE energy gain for us, because we're not putting the energy into it - that was done over millions of years by natural processes. So we can take the energy out with relatively minimal energy expense, for a huge energy profit.
Other energy sources, like fuel cells, still have to be produced somehow - you have to put the energy into them. And you can't get more out than you put in - that runs afoul of the second law of thermodynamics. So, eventually, we still need a root source of energy. I see 3 choices:
1. Nuclear (still a nonrenewable resource, but probably the most efficient we currently have)
2. Solar (technology to make this a high-production, efficient energy source still has a ways to go I think)
3. Wind (gaining more mainstream use, but not a reliable energy source)
Not to mention the fact that oil is insanely cheap (particularly in the US), relative to other energy sources, and I think that we'll see massive economic effects when the oil prices start to increase. I think it'll be a good thing in the long run, but it'll be some rough changes during the transition period...
The problem, of course, is that most people take all of these things for granted - until we don't have them anymore. And of course, planning ahead and providing fault-tolerant systems is extremely expensive, at a time when most government budgets are already extremely tight.
And we're not talking about simple solutions, either. For example, to provide local water storage for apartments would be a HUGE expense and a massive project. I live in a 200+ unit complex, and to provide enough water storage to last a day (with conservative usage), would probably require massive underground tanks, which would have to be installed beneath the underground parking level - no small feat of construction. And there are about 7-8 complexes very similar to mine on this 1/2 stretch of road. That's just one example - other, similar examples could be made for other infrastructure.
I think fault tolerance is a great idea, but in many cases just not practical. And besides, services are often repaired (or compromises made) relatively quickly after an accident. Sure, Manchester will have lost some phone service for hours, maybe even days. But its not like they're time-warped back to the stone age!
However, I do not wish to be seen as the 800 pound ogre in this market, so I am now offering licenses for my IP to all Scoria customers at the low rate of $699.00 per brain.
I take it there are significant discounts for SCO & RIAA directors, then?
Slashdot Mirror
Fair enough - so, we actually have 2 problems. The government & large corporations attempt to hide, distort, or outright lie, and the bulk of the public is too apathetic to seek the truth and apply critical thinking.
And for what its worth, while I do think (based on materials I've read and my own perceptions) that the Bush administration is one of the more secretive administrations we've had (at least in the last couple decades), I certainly do not think the Democrats are significantly better. Overall, I believe the government needs a much larger area of transparency so that voters can make intelligent, informed decisions based upon their personal philosophies. Assuming, of course (like you implied), that they actually want to do so.
Of course - that assumes the DMCA gets challenged in a federal courts, possibly working its way up to the Supreme Court.
And freedom of speech isn't absolute - you don't have the freedom to yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater, for example. You don't have the freedom to say or publish whatever you want about people (aka slander or libel). Freedoms have responsibilities, and it all depends on which way the courts are leaning when the challenge to the DMCA is raised.
In short, the issue is not as simple as "well, Constitution trumps DMCA" - it might, but it's a LONG process to get there. Much damage can be (and has been) done in the meantime.
'Tis a noble thought.
/. or other tech-sites, but the spin that the mass-media public hears (assuming it hears anything at all, which is a big assumption) is that you were just another computer hacker-terrorist making threats & advocating "evil things on the interweb".
Of course, not very realistic at all. There might be some outcry on
That is what is so scary about the Bush administration and the issue in general - in a perfect world, people would be fully informed. But in this significantly-less-than-perfect world, the public is kept in the dark, deprived of factual knowledge and fed whatever lies or spin people in power (governments, corporations) decide. It's not total control, but it works well enough for the majority of the people that it takes mountains moving before John Q Public hears and seriously considers alternate viewpoints.
Whoah - when did IE start getting included in Linux distributions?
(Yes, you may groan now...)
Well, he did say she thanked them....
Whoah - just as a quick note, I am *not*, in any way shape or form, a Bush supporter. I can't think of a single one of his policies that I agreed with. My arguments were meant to be more generic, rather than specific to this administration...
1. The out-of-work engineer won't be able to afford that cheaper DVD-changer, but some part of the other 93% (or so) working Americans will be more able to afford it.
2. Quick point - you didn't disprove my argument. You argued about "some of the richest counties in the nation", which I would estimate are only a few % of the total number of counties. In the late 90s, lots of places had a budget surplus; now everywhere there's a deficit, and it's not due to outsourcing (unless you care to make the argument the dot-com-bust was due to outsourcing).
3. Outsourcing *will* have an effect upon tax revenue, but I don't think it will be significant enough (on the national scale) to affect taxes. On the local scale, it could have a pretty big impact (large companies leaving town usually does), but budget deficits in this case are usually made up by a combination of decreased government spending (such as for education) and slightly increased taxes (because increasing taxes is very a dangerous political move, so most politicians are loathe to do it). As for the the two teachers you know - I hope they DO have jobs next year! I didn't say I *liked* this system - it always pisses me off when governments (local & state) decide to trim a little more from the educational budgets because hey, American kids don't need no stinkin' education anyway, right? *grumble* *grumble*
4. Like I said, I don't like Bush, I didn't like him cutting taxes & I don't like his increased federal gov't spending. As for raising taxes - as much as I hate to say it, it's far more likely that the American people will shoulder that increased tax burden, rather than businesses. That's been the ugly trend in the last few decades - shifting the tax burden to the individual tax payers, away from corporations. I don't agree with it, but that's what's been happening. Because who buys politicians? Corporations do. (I'm reading "The Buying of the President: 2004 edition" right now... ugh, so depressing.)
Unless, of course, you are willing to sacrifice some things for others.
You have to eat - but you could support a local farmer's market and buy fresh vegetables & produce instead of Megasized Overpackaged Instant Something-or-Other. Or maybe you save money by canceling cable, or selling an extra car. Perhaps you could purchase clothing at a second-hand or thrift shop instead of Walmart.
There are plenty of ways to avoid patronizing businesses you don't agree with. You just have to be willing to make the necessary sacrifices. That's known as 'opportunity cost'.
You left out some key points...
* Company X's products & services are now cheaper, allowing consumers and/or Company Y to purchase more of them
* Funding almost always falls short of needs, and it's not simply because workers are paying less in taxes. In many cases it is also due in large part to financial irresponsibility on the part of the levels of government
* Some taxes do go up, but it is much more common to cut or reduce various government programs to make up the shortfalls
* Company X saves far more money from outsourcing than they end up paying in increased taxes, if indeed taxes are increased at all (which is very doubtful, particularly in this economic climate)
While I agree with the parent (Minneapolis/St. Paul REALLY needs a light-rail system), I have to point out... it's spelled MINNESOTA.
:)
At least you were consistent in your misspelling
'Course, that assumes the design engineers (or more importantly, their managers) actually CARED about true randomness.
I've done extensive development work in the area of audio watermarking and audio fingerprinting, and I'm amazed that AT&T can make this happen, given the reduced fidelity of a wireless phone connection. Music fingerprinting technology is a smaller (and more approachable) problem domain than open-ended speech recognition, but still this is quite an achievement.
;-)
How hard can it be? The radio stations all play the same 10-15 songs over & over again - even with the over-produced, sound-alike pop crap I'm sure cell phone bandwidth is sufficient to tell from which animal that steaming pile spewed forth.
Not that I dislike (& have completely given up on) commercial radio or anything...
LOL!
Wow... that's a scary, scary thought...
Hmmm.... can I choose which 9.17% of my bits go to Florida's dept of revenue? I'm sure they could make a MINT off of helping all those poor, oppressed people in Nigeria recover their thousands of US dollars!
:-)
And pop-ups - I would like to send all of my pop-ups to Sharon Fox. Even if that means I end up paying more than 9.17%.
Hell, I don't even live in Florida - I'm just trying to do my part for a state so obviously in need
In other news, the tax auditor's estate was assessed a tax for possession of the network cable, in accordance with Florida tax code.
There's a difference between running Windows XP as an OS, and running the full suite of MS applications (ie Outlook).
I receive virus-laden emails all the time - but Thunderbird has a junk email folder that promptly takes care of them. I use Fire{bird|fox|juggernaut} as my primary browser, so I'm not worried about web viruses (and I have IE set to more restrictive security, so if something WERE to try & invoke IE manually to do its dirty work, the security is restricted on it). I use OpenOffice.org so I'm not worried about macro viruses. I run free AVG anti-virus software on the off-chance I pick up something in a downloaded file, and I've got a broadband hardware firewall (with a few openings for P2P clients & gaming).
So, yes, you can use XP in a safe manner - like I'm doing at home. The problem, of course, is user education. I've got my sister using Thundermail too, but that didn't stop her from getting infected with an "official-looking" email virus containing an encrypted zip file. She had to go through a lot of work to infect herself, but she did it!
You make a lot of good points - particularly about the increased value of a car having lower miles on it.
But those arguments are hard to apply to a short commute. For example, I live about 2 miles from work (I try & bike in the summer, which is of course the MOST ecomonical option!). Commuting only adds about 1,000 miles a year (2 miles * 2 times a day * 5 days a week * 50 weeks / yr). So the marginal cost of routine maintenance (oil, tires, etc) is neglible (in my case). Gas is the single largest expense, because the fuel economy really sucks on short trips. And I totally agree gas is far too cheap - unfortunately, if gas went up then mass transit (buses here in Madison) would become more expensive as well, so I'm not sure that helps the cause.
This TEA-21 - is that a CA law, or federal? Because that's a GREAT idea, IMHO - give people the choice!
Of course, I'm a single young man with one vehicle - my transportation costs are already pretty low. So I'm not a great example for mass transit being economical. You make some great points, however!
I've considered this in my own situation.
The problem is, unless you are willing to forgo the car completely, you can't factor in the price of the car, repairs, depreciation, etc (any more than the amount of miles used for commuting).
If I was willing to sell my vehicle and use mass transit exclusively, then yes, it would be much cheaper to pay $40 for a monthly pass then the $400-$500 I pay for auto loan, insurance, and vehicle maintenance. But I use my vehicle for more than just commuting - I drive to visit friends & family on the weekends, for example.
Since I'm going to have a vehicle anyway, the marginal cost of using it to commute is far cheaper than taking mass transit.
And when calculating costs, you have to factor in the value of your time, too - in most cases, taking mass transit takes longer (as in the grandparent's post). So you need to take that into the cost considerations, as well.
The point is, mass transit is expensive if you own a vehicle anyway. That's not to say people shouldn't use it - I still occassionally use it for the reduced environmental effects and less wear & tear on my own personal vehicle. I just realize that those reasons cost me an extra $0.50 (or whatever) a mile.
Wow - excellent post! That has to be one of the most accurate and succinct explanations of our system that I've ever read.
:(
Wish I had mod points
Yeah, you've pretty much hit the issue - Americans want cheap shit.
It's our consumeristic, throw-away society. When it becomes cheaper to throw away a broken piece of equipment and buy new (TV / VCR / computer / microwave / etc) than to repair it, we've got a self-perpetuating problem:
1. People buy cheap stuff
2. Companies that have the lowest prices get more business
3. These companies cut costs even more by integrating everything and greatly reducing the possibility of repair
4. People's cheap stuff breaks
5. Goto line 1.
Regarding NoseSocks' suggestions, I think we need to do a little of both - get rid of the screwy tax system and replace it with something simple that has fewer ways to game the system (so the tax burden is spread more evenly), and then reign in the massive healthcare insurance industry.
That gives more money to the people, but then we also need some kind of a fundamental cultural shift to say, "Hey - maybe if I saved and invested a little more, and spent less on frivolous goods, then I might actually have a solid financial future!"
You've been out of high school awhile, haven't you?
I mean, who's gonna trust their homemade guided missle to VB code??
Well, actually you'll find that alot of people in the UK will say "Meet me on the 17th of April, 2004". There is a world outside the US, you know.
.... oh wait, you weren't joking.
Hahahahaha! April Fool's!! Good one!
I hope it is proven wrong in this case, as well. We are in a very different world from 1900, with very different challenges. That's not to say the end result won't be similar (ie we transition to a new energy source), but it doesn't guarantee it, either. "Past performance does not guarantee future success" and all that jazz.
I think the real problem is we aren't letting economics work - I think the price Americans pay for oil is kept artificially low (and no, I don't have any objective, factual sources to back that up, that's just my perception of it). The problem will be, there won't be a gradual increase in price that people will perceive as "the end of cheap oil" - I think once the US can't afford to keep the price for oil down, then it's going to jump way up to it's "real" price. And that jump is what's going to cause a lot of problems.
Of course, we won't know what's going to happen until it happens, but... caveat emptor!
I initially thought like you did, as well... but there's a problem with that thinking. We don't currently have ANY alternative energy sources as abundant and efficient as oil. Oil is a HUGE energy gain for us, because we're not putting the energy into it - that was done over millions of years by natural processes. So we can take the energy out with relatively minimal energy expense, for a huge energy profit.
Other energy sources, like fuel cells, still have to be produced somehow - you have to put the energy into them. And you can't get more out than you put in - that runs afoul of the second law of thermodynamics. So, eventually, we still need a root source of energy. I see 3 choices:
1. Nuclear (still a nonrenewable resource, but probably the most efficient we currently have)
2. Solar (technology to make this a high-production, efficient energy source still has a ways to go I think)
3. Wind (gaining more mainstream use, but not a reliable energy source)
Not to mention the fact that oil is insanely cheap (particularly in the US), relative to other energy sources, and I think that we'll see massive economic effects when the oil prices start to increase. I think it'll be a good thing in the long run, but it'll be some rough changes during the transition period...
The problem, of course, is that most people take all of these things for granted - until we don't have them anymore. And of course, planning ahead and providing fault-tolerant systems is extremely expensive, at a time when most government budgets are already extremely tight.
And we're not talking about simple solutions, either. For example, to provide local water storage for apartments would be a HUGE expense and a massive project. I live in a 200+ unit complex, and to provide enough water storage to last a day (with conservative usage), would probably require massive underground tanks, which would have to be installed beneath the underground parking level - no small feat of construction. And there are about 7-8 complexes very similar to mine on this 1/2 stretch of road. That's just one example - other, similar examples could be made for other infrastructure.
I think fault tolerance is a great idea, but in many cases just not practical. And besides, services are often repaired (or compromises made) relatively quickly after an accident. Sure, Manchester will have lost some phone service for hours, maybe even days. But its not like they're time-warped back to the stone age!
However, I do not wish to be seen as the 800 pound ogre in this market, so I am now offering licenses for my IP to all Scoria customers at the low rate of $699.00 per brain.
I take it there are significant discounts for SCO & RIAA directors, then?