A couple years ago my parents purchased a really nice pair of laptops. Really nice ones.. They're used 90% of the time to play solitaire while watchint TV/movies. I guess that's one way to manage hollywood greats like Titanic or Pearl Harbor.. Kinda wish I had thought of it.
Anyway, it seems to me a tablet PC would be perfect for solitaire. No clumsy built in touch pad, you can use a pen. You don't need a keyboard.
The new Journaled File System, on which the Linux port was based, was
first shipped in OS/2 Warp Server for eBusiness in April, 1999, after
several years of designing, coding, and testing. It also shipped with
OS/2 Warp Client in October, 2000. In parallel to this effort, some
of the JFS development team returned to the AIX Operating System
Development Group in 1997 and started to move this new JFS source base
to the AIX operating system. In May, 2001, a second journaled file
system, Enhanced Journaled File System (JFS2), was made available for
AIX 5L. In December of 1999, a snapshot of the original OS/2 JFS
source was taken and work was begun to port JFS to Linux.
well, reading what you pasted, "JFS2" sounds like something linux doesn't have, but rather is available for AIX. Of course, the JFS on linux would be the second version of JFS1 (JFS1-2?) which wasn't developed on AIX.. However, SCO's theory of "all your base are belong to us" is probably trying to claim since jfs1-2 was moved into the AIX operating system starting in 1997, that is, it code later touched AIX, all earlier versions of the code instantly became property of SCO.
I wouldn't worry about it. Yeah, they'll likely roll it out initially in 2 cities that noone has ever heard of, but by 2037 they'll be rolling it out in your neighborhood.
Your argument makes sense, if both companies are in the same country.
The cost of the finished goods is made up of manufacturing overhead & direct libor/materials. Direct labor increases, and the book price for finished goods increases.
The country has to rearrange it's resources. More resources are used for the labors, so less is used elsewhere. (assuming country is operating somewhere on it's maximum production curve.)
GDP for the country falls. Without a reduction in the money supply, inflation occurs.
US can purchase more of countries currency with same amount of USD, and prices for US stay nearly the same.
I guess if a country is at maximum output and does away with slavery, they will realize lower profits. I'm not aware of any impoverished countries that are operating at maximum output though.
Total export income wouldn't change for countries not operating at maximum output, since they could simply apply more unused resources to production.
PS: I'm beginning to think I too should get a random bold word thing going on in my posts. Does it help?
What's with you people who think that capitalism is the end goal? Capitalism is a means to an end. That end should be freedom
I agree, and I see capitalism as a means to freedom.
As for countries with fair labor laws competing with countries that don't have them, you have to remember trade isn't about the exchange of pieces of paper. It's about the exchange of goods. The paper only comes into place to facilitate 3+ way trades, and confuse people who can't see past it.
A country trades what it can make more efficiently for what it costs more to make. If the US can make either 5 tons of corn or 3 tons of bananas using the same resources, and mexico can make 5 tons of bananas or 3 tons of corn using the same resources, a trade makes sense. Both countries benefit. Nowhere does slave labor make any difference, because we're not trading people, but goods.
So, let's assume we want to buy bananas. We have a choice between country A and country B. One uses slave labor, and one doesn't. Which is more expensive? It depends how much corn/other goods they want in exchange for it.
If country B mandates a minimum wage, country A can't come in and steal their resources. They still have the raw materials and the people, their production curve doesn't change, and the US isn't more likely to buy from country A.
Now, my reasoning. Slaves get wages. They get their wages in the form of shelter, food, etc.. Perhaps they don't get pieces of paper that have money marks on them.
When the US buys from companies in other countries that use slave labor, company profit goes up. I don't think there will be much dispute on this, but here's a brief explanation.
Either the company was producing at less than full capacity, or it is able to sell at higher prices to the US. If the company was producing at lower than full capacity, increased company profit is obvious. If it was at full capacity, the only reason it would sell to us and not it's previous customers is higher prices. Simple supply/demand there.
So, the debateable question is whether that money gets passed to workers. Three possibilities:
1) Employee wages increase
2) Employee wages stay the same
3) Employee wages decrease
First, let's tackle 3. It doesn't really make sense, why would a company decrease it's wages (in the form of food, healthcare, shelter, etc..) when it earns more money?
Now, 2 is plausible. If the company gets more money, why would it spend it on the employees? Just keep it and the big boss guys get more money!
Now 1, which I believe would happen. Slaves aren't free, generally there's a cost to acquire them and a cost to keep them. If you don't feed them, they die, and that's not very good business sense. So, assuming you want your slaves to be useful for as long a time as possible, you give them proper maintenance. This is similar to changing the oil in your car. The conditions slaves are in currently are less than ideal. So, to increase the useful life of your slaves, you could use part of your increased profits to provide better food/shelter/healthcare/clothing etc.
On the other hand, if profits decrease, who gets hurt? If the US stopped purchasing all goods from slave labor using countries, those companies couldn't afford to "pay" their slaves and they would be far worse off, at least not at the same level.
History shows us wealthier countries are more likely to do away with slavery. So, I argue the best way to get rid of slavery is to trade with slave using countries and increase their per capita income.
Imposing tariffs on imported goods in order to (for example) reduce the demand for goods produced by slave labor is a good thing, even though it means your people are paying more for the goods they buy.
Yup, the best way to help these poor countries is to deny them higher wages, I'm down with that.
Another good analogy would be comparing Gates view to that of politicians who want to raise tariffs to "protect" our manufacturing jobs.
In capitalism, whomever can make the goods at the lowest cost is gonna get the business. If you can't compete, you shouldn't be making those goods.
To give unefficient businesses, either through government subsidies or law, guaranteed income is a bad thing. You waste resources that could be put to something else while the competition can do the same job using less resources.
[them] Hello?
[you] Hi, I'm having some problems with my cable modem connection. My name is Papa Smurf, account number 1234567, and the mac address on my NIC is 00:00:00:00:00:00.
[them] Uh, what? This is Joanne's Haircare?
Or, I decided to talk about movies in theaters.. Sure, if you wait long enough you can get screeners and dvdrips, but the parent I replied to specifically said theaters, and most movies in theaters don't get high quality downloads until they're either out of theaters or almost out.. do I want to wait?
Slashdot Mirror
A couple years ago my parents purchased a really nice pair of laptops. Really nice ones.. They're used 90% of the time to play solitaire while watchint TV/movies. I guess that's one way to manage hollywood greats like Titanic or Pearl Harbor.. Kinda wish I had thought of it.
Anyway, it seems to me a tablet PC would be perfect for solitaire. No clumsy built in touch pad, you can use a pen. You don't need a keyboard.
The new Journaled File System, on which the Linux port was based, was first shipped in OS/2 Warp Server for eBusiness in April, 1999, after several years of designing, coding, and testing. It also shipped with OS/2 Warp Client in October, 2000. In parallel to this effort, some of the JFS development team returned to the AIX Operating System Development Group in 1997 and started to move this new JFS source base to the AIX operating system. In May, 2001, a second journaled file system, Enhanced Journaled File System (JFS2), was made available for AIX 5L. In December of 1999, a snapshot of the original OS/2 JFS source was taken and work was begun to port JFS to Linux.
Since when did stocks have anything to do with the assets of the company?
well, reading what you pasted, "JFS2" sounds like something linux doesn't have, but rather is available for AIX. Of course, the JFS on linux would be the second version of JFS1 (JFS1-2?) which wasn't developed on AIX.. However, SCO's theory of "all your base are belong to us" is probably trying to claim since jfs1-2 was moved into the AIX operating system starting in 1997, that is, it code later touched AIX, all earlier versions of the code instantly became property of SCO.
Yeah, it's a load of BS.
When was the last time SCO compiled anything?
smile
They could put into place a file distribution system similar to bittorrent and sell movies and music online with very small server overhead costs.
.. yah, I'm being dumbass, this is MPAA/RIAA..
Wait,
I wouldn't worry about it. Yeah, they'll likely roll it out initially in 2 cities that noone has ever heard of, but by 2037 they'll be rolling it out in your neighborhood.
15mbps for $45.. that's pretty darn good! Not $1 per mbps, but I'd buy it anyway.
2x the transport of FTP
Whatever happened to the 60's notion that technology would have us working less?
Politicians have "protected" our jobs by keeping machines from "stealing" them.
Japan theater release date was July 5th. I'll back that up with a link.
hmm.. I must have used a time machine to get an advance copy about a year ago..
The whole world isn't out to screw you over.
That's yet to be proven.
I've noticed the ATMS I use now ask if you want a receipt (just like the gas pumps.)
Will xboxes be given to voters, or do they have to provide their own?
Your argument makes sense, if both companies are in the same country.
The cost of the finished goods is made up of manufacturing overhead & direct libor/materials. Direct labor increases, and the book price for finished goods increases.
The country has to rearrange it's resources. More resources are used for the labors, so less is used elsewhere. (assuming country is operating somewhere on it's maximum production curve.)
GDP for the country falls. Without a reduction in the money supply, inflation occurs.
US can purchase more of countries currency with same amount of USD, and prices for US stay nearly the same.
I guess if a country is at maximum output and does away with slavery, they will realize lower profits. I'm not aware of any impoverished countries that are operating at maximum output though.
Total export income wouldn't change for countries not operating at maximum output, since they could simply apply more unused resources to production.
PS: I'm beginning to think I too should get a random bold word thing going on in my posts. Does it help?
What's with you people who think that capitalism is the end goal? Capitalism is a means to an end. That end should be freedom
I agree, and I see capitalism as a means to freedom.
As for countries with fair labor laws competing with countries that don't have them, you have to remember trade isn't about the exchange of pieces of paper. It's about the exchange of goods. The paper only comes into place to facilitate 3+ way trades, and confuse people who can't see past it.
A country trades what it can make more efficiently for what it costs more to make. If the US can make either 5 tons of corn or 3 tons of bananas using the same resources, and mexico can make 5 tons of bananas or 3 tons of corn using the same resources, a trade makes sense. Both countries benefit. Nowhere does slave labor make any difference, because we're not trading people, but goods.
So, let's assume we want to buy bananas. We have a choice between country A and country B. One uses slave labor, and one doesn't. Which is more expensive? It depends how much corn/other goods they want in exchange for it.
If country B mandates a minimum wage, country A can't come in and steal their resources. They still have the raw materials and the people, their production curve doesn't change, and the US isn't more likely to buy from country A.
Now, my reasoning. Slaves get wages. They get their wages in the form of shelter, food, etc.. Perhaps they don't get pieces of paper that have money marks on them.
When the US buys from companies in other countries that use slave labor, company profit goes up. I don't think there will be much dispute on this, but here's a brief explanation.
Either the company was producing at less than full capacity, or it is able to sell at higher prices to the US. If the company was producing at lower than full capacity, increased company profit is obvious. If it was at full capacity, the only reason it would sell to us and not it's previous customers is higher prices. Simple supply/demand there.
So, the debateable question is whether that money gets passed to workers. Three possibilities:
1) Employee wages increase
2) Employee wages stay the same
3) Employee wages decrease
First, let's tackle 3. It doesn't really make sense, why would a company decrease it's wages (in the form of food, healthcare, shelter, etc..) when it earns more money?
Now, 2 is plausible. If the company gets more money, why would it spend it on the employees? Just keep it and the big boss guys get more money!
Now 1, which I believe would happen. Slaves aren't free, generally there's a cost to acquire them and a cost to keep them. If you don't feed them, they die, and that's not very good business sense. So, assuming you want your slaves to be useful for as long a time as possible, you give them proper maintenance. This is similar to changing the oil in your car. The conditions slaves are in currently are less than ideal. So, to increase the useful life of your slaves, you could use part of your increased profits to provide better food/shelter/healthcare/clothing etc.
On the other hand, if profits decrease, who gets hurt? If the US stopped purchasing all goods from slave labor using countries, those companies couldn't afford to "pay" their slaves and they would be far worse off, at least not at the same level.
History shows us wealthier countries are more likely to do away with slavery. So, I argue the best way to get rid of slavery is to trade with slave using countries and increase their per capita income.
Imposing tariffs on imported goods in order to (for example) reduce the demand for goods produced by slave labor is a good thing, even though it means your people are paying more for the goods they buy.
Yup, the best way to help these poor countries is to deny them higher wages, I'm down with that.
Another good analogy would be comparing Gates view to that of politicians who want to raise tariffs to "protect" our manufacturing jobs.
In capitalism, whomever can make the goods at the lowest cost is gonna get the business. If you can't compete, you shouldn't be making those goods.
To give unefficient businesses, either through government subsidies or law, guaranteed income is a bad thing. You waste resources that could be put to something else while the competition can do the same job using less resources.
You dial the number, with all info in hand.
*ring*
*ring*
*ring*
[them] Hello?
[you] Hi, I'm having some problems with my cable modem connection. My name is Papa Smurf, account number 1234567, and the mac address on my NIC is 00:00:00:00:00:00.
[them] Uh, what? This is Joanne's Haircare?
Or, I decided to talk about movies in theaters.. Sure, if you wait long enough you can get screeners and dvdrips, but the parent I replied to specifically said theaters, and most movies in theaters don't get high quality downloads until they're either out of theaters or almost out.. do I want to wait?
Seeing as fansubs are still illegal, I don't see it any more (or less) ethical than downloading any other video..
Sure, but when you go to a movie theater
All in all, I'd go to the theater.
No worries mate!
Step 1: Create password harvesting server.
Step 2: Offer harvested information to highest bidder
Steps 3-5: ???
Step 6: Profit!