I think it will be one of those breakthroughs where you won't even realize how cool it is until you start seeing people wandering around with wireless devices that "just work", anywhere, without much thought of how or why.
If they make a car that will accept only Ford tires, the marketplace will shun it. Unless, of course, the marketplace is doiminated by Ford. That's the whole gist of the problem. Antitrust law props up power-hungry politicians and squashes innovation by putting fear into corporations that need to innovate in an ever-changing landscape of business and technology.
Nobody can keep competitors from entering the marketplace, except the government. The government frequently does this by virtue of special legislation, grants, franchises and zoning.
Microsoft dominates because so many people choose it. Other OS vendors like Apple, Sun, HP, IBM, various Linux vendors all compete with Microsoft. In certain market segments, those companies dominate Microsoft, because people choose them over Microsoft. But in overall gross terms, Microsoft dominates - by the vote of people's dollars.
Maybe Company X wants to make money by being able to subsume Function Y from Microsoft's OS, but so what? There is nothing in life that tells you that just because you want something means someone else must accommodate you.
Microsoft has had a good run for awhile, but with converging technologies and changing lifestyles, they will have to change as well, and if they don't, people will change their dollar votes.
In the meantime, those of you who don't like something about Microsoft and want to impose your will on the rest of us through political force - I think you need to go get a life. When I decide I don't like Microsoft, I will stop buying Microsoft. Microsoft doesn't force me, and I know what I am getting. The transaction was between me and Microsoft.
If you have something relevant to discuss, I will listen.
But those of you who wish to substitute your opinion for my own by virtue of political force can go take a flying leap. Nobody puts guns to people's heads and forces them to buy Microsoft products.
Altruism is not the same thing as cooperation. Altruism is the doctrine that anything you do for yourself is evil, and anything you do for other people at the expense of yourself is good.
This is in contrast to cooperation, which can very often be in your self-interest, is not necessarily a self-sacrifice, and therefore not the same as altruism.
Pollution is not "bad". It is a natural byproduct of various industries. In fact, pollution is a natural byproduct of life itself.
Putting a tax on pollution is like putting a tax on production. It would inevitable drive up prices (bad for the consumer) and drive people out of business, destroying jobs.
The proper way to deal with pollution is through the exercising of rights. If someone is polluting and it can be proven to be detrimental to your life or property, then you should be able to sue and recover damages. That would deal with the actual harmful issues of pollution.
What good is the right to life if you can't afford food? Where is liberty if all land is private, and you own none?
The purpose of rights is not to provide food or property, but to protect whatever food or property you doacquire. It tells a poor person, for example, that whatever property they manage to acquire will not be forcibly taken from them by the government or other private citizens (as used to happen in civilizations prior to the codification of 'property rights').
That's the beauty of open-source! If you want to maintain the current, lighter version of the browser, all you have to do is fork the source, manage an maintain security patch merges, compile from source, avoid legal entanglements by making the source available to requesters, and try to avoid fracturing the user/developer-community!
My point is that you should move to a higher-salary area as soon as you can afford to do so. But if you are pumping your entire savings into interest on a $1.5 million dollar mortgage, then you may very well be better off staying in "Kansas", until you can save up enough to get the mortgage payment reduced.
No - we have democratic elections - that is different than a democracy. A democracy is unlimited majority rule - if 51% of the people want to kill you, they can.
A $100k job in New York City is the same as a $25k job in Kansas- that's how different the prices really are. Except for the fact that $100k in New York City is worth exactly $100k in Kansas. Just because you can by more with your money in Kansas doesn't mean the money is worth more, it just means the property, etc. is just worth less.
This is an important distinction because if you work in Kansas for 15 years, save up $500k, then move to New York City, you could actually afford to buy a decent property with your $500k (yes you'd have to commute), and you wouldn't be stuck with a high mortgage, but you would still be raking in the higher salary. Then 15 years later, take all your higher savings, sell your higher value NYC property, and move back to Kansas with a couple mil - you'll be set for retirement.
Your country is third-world because you don't have liberty, or the philosophical underpinnings required for liberty (I direct you to the work of Ayn Rand for more on that subject).
Your attitude of calling people in suits "idiots" is exactly the attitude that is causing your problems. Being in a "suit" represents being successful, and if people look at success and spit on it, what do you think will happen to that country? Do you think its citizens are motivated to be successful?
If you damn "profit", then humanity is doomed. Profit means creating more value than you consume. It means having a "net gain" of value. It is good for people to profit, because it means they can sustain their lives better, which is good for humanity. If you damn profit, you are damning human production, and you are damning humanity to ruin.
If the Brazilian government would get out of the way, the geniuses and hard-workers of Brazil would have unlimited potential to create new business, create inventions, etc. (A side-effect of this would be to raise the standard-of-living and well-being of everyone, including the least productive in society). If the Brazilian government takes people's property any time it wants, then there is no incentive for hard-working people to try create anything new. As soon as they create something, the Brazilian government will steal it in the name of helping the needy. So the Brazilian government is sacrificing the best, hardworking people in the name of rewarding the least productive, non-working people. Sounds like a Christian wet-dream to me.
When I say survival of a human a being, I mean "continue to live". People survive longer today, and their quality of life is much higher. I'm sure there is a way to make this... plain enough.
Principles that lead to longer, healthier, happier lives are pro-survival. Principles that lead to misery, suffering and early death are anti-survival.
The U.S. today is much more supportive of human survival than any other civilization over the past 5k years.
Although I do agree with you that government should not be funding R&D for corporations there is something to add to your discussion:
Merck's do not grow on trees. If they did, Brazil could pick one off and have free lifesaving drugs.
Instead, every individual in Merck is an individual who entered the profession for their own reason - but probably all of them expect to get paid to do the work they believe in. And most of them would probably like to get paid as much as possible. They are not in it for charity. They expect to work hard, they expect make hard-fought breakthroughs blazing trails through medical science where nobody has ever gone before. They expect to put an end to medical conditions that otherwise would be unstoppable in nature. But they also expect to get paid. They do not WANT to work for free. The shareholders who invest in Merck's mission do not WANT to take a loss on their investment.
Intellectual properties rights are either respected, or they are not. If they are not, society will not succeed, because the best among people who create value will have that value stolen from them. If IP rights are respected, then a company like Merck has the right to negotiate as it sees fit. You, I, or the government can not dictate what Merck must do with it's property.
If you do have profit, please send it immediately to Africa where people are dying of AIDS, otherwise you are depriving them of medical treatment for the sake of your own profit, you evil sack of shit.
Why the hell are you messing about on a computer when you could be sacrificing your time at a hospital, or growing food in a garden for Africans, you Evil son-of-a-bitch?;)
Slashdot Mirror
However, I'm actually looking to Sprint's WiMax wireless broadband in major metropolitan areas! Sometime next year (2008)
I think "protecting children" is just a modern-day smokescreen for government censorship.
I think it will be one of those breakthroughs where you won't even realize how cool it is until you start seeing people wandering around with wireless devices that "just work", anywhere, without much thought of how or why.
Nobody can keep competitors from entering the marketplace, except the government. The government frequently does this by virtue of special legislation, grants, franchises and zoning.
Microsoft dominates because so many people choose it. Other OS vendors like Apple, Sun, HP, IBM, various Linux vendors all compete with Microsoft. In certain market segments, those companies dominate Microsoft, because people choose them over Microsoft. But in overall gross terms, Microsoft dominates - by the vote of people's dollars.
Maybe Company X wants to make money by being able to subsume Function Y from Microsoft's OS, but so what? There is nothing in life that tells you that just because you want something means someone else must accommodate you.
Microsoft has had a good run for awhile, but with converging technologies and changing lifestyles, they will have to change as well, and if they don't, people will change their dollar votes.
In the meantime, those of you who don't like something about Microsoft and want to impose your will on the rest of us through political force - I think you need to go get a life. When I decide I don't like Microsoft, I will stop buying Microsoft. Microsoft doesn't force me, and I know what I am getting. The transaction was between me and Microsoft.
If you have something relevant to discuss, I will listen.
But those of you who wish to substitute your opinion for my own by virtue of political force can go take a flying leap. Nobody puts guns to people's heads and forces them to buy Microsoft products.
Ummm, didn't we revolt against Britain? With ... guns?
This is in contrast to cooperation, which can very often be in your self-interest, is not necessarily a self-sacrifice, and therefore not the same as altruism.
Putting a tax on pollution is like putting a tax on production. It would inevitable drive up prices (bad for the consumer) and drive people out of business, destroying jobs.
The proper way to deal with pollution is through the exercising of rights. If someone is polluting and it can be proven to be detrimental to your life or property, then you should be able to sue and recover damages. That would deal with the actual harmful issues of pollution.
Simple!
:D
That's what all the Lemmings here are posting!
You are saying that warmer temperature are good for the bugs but bad for the trees. Why would you rather have trees live than bugs?
My point is that you should move to a higher-salary area as soon as you can afford to do so. But if you are pumping your entire savings into interest on a $1.5 million dollar mortgage, then you may very well be better off staying in "Kansas", until you can save up enough to get the mortgage payment reduced.
No - we have democratic elections - that is different than a democracy. A democracy is unlimited majority rule - if 51% of the people want to kill you, they can.
This is an important distinction because if you work in Kansas for 15 years, save up $500k, then move to New York City, you could actually afford to buy a decent property with your $500k (yes you'd have to commute), and you wouldn't be stuck with a high mortgage, but you would still be raking in the higher salary. Then 15 years later, take all your higher savings, sell your higher value NYC property, and move back to Kansas with a couple mil - you'll be set for retirement.
Why do you think altruism is good?
However, the spectrum ought to be private property. This is an old, but easy to understand, argument
Your attitude of calling people in suits "idiots" is exactly the attitude that is causing your problems. Being in a "suit" represents being successful, and if people look at success and spit on it, what do you think will happen to that country? Do you think its citizens are motivated to be successful?
If the Brazilian government would get out of the way, the geniuses and hard-workers of Brazil would have unlimited potential to create new business, create inventions, etc. (A side-effect of this would be to raise the standard-of-living and well-being of everyone, including the least productive in society). If the Brazilian government takes people's property any time it wants, then there is no incentive for hard-working people to try create anything new. As soon as they create something, the Brazilian government will steal it in the name of helping the needy. So the Brazilian government is sacrificing the best, hardworking people in the name of rewarding the least productive, non-working people. Sounds like a Christian wet-dream to me.
When I say survival of a human a being, I mean "continue to live". People survive longer today, and their quality of life is much higher. I'm sure there is a way to make this ... plain enough.
Principles that lead to longer, healthier, happier lives are pro-survival. Principles that lead to misery, suffering and early death are anti-survival. The U.S. today is much more supportive of human survival than any other civilization over the past 5k years.
Simple - I don't consider pestilence-ridden, high-mortality rate, short-life spans, doing sun-up to sun-down backbreaking labor, to be "survival".
Merck's do not grow on trees. If they did, Brazil could pick one off and have free lifesaving drugs.
Instead, every individual in Merck is an individual who entered the profession for their own reason - but probably all of them expect to get paid to do the work they believe in. And most of them would probably like to get paid as much as possible. They are not in it for charity. They expect to work hard, they expect make hard-fought breakthroughs blazing trails through medical science where nobody has ever gone before. They expect to put an end to medical conditions that otherwise would be unstoppable in nature. But they also expect to get paid. They do not WANT to work for free. The shareholders who invest in Merck's mission do not WANT to take a loss on their investment.
Intellectual properties rights are either respected, or they are not. If they are not, society will not succeed, because the best among people who create value will have that value stolen from them. If IP rights are respected, then a company like Merck has the right to negotiate as it sees fit. You, I, or the government can not dictate what Merck must do with it's property.
Sounds like you are now the tiniest smidgen less ignorant now of how the Merck is managed. Congratulations to you. Ouch.
If you do have profit, please send it immediately to Africa where people are dying of AIDS, otherwise you are depriving them of medical treatment for the sake of your own profit, you evil sack of shit.
Why the hell are you messing about on a computer when you could be sacrificing your time at a hospital, or growing food in a garden for Africans, you Evil son-of-a-bitch? ;)