Conservatives stand for freedom, liberty, individual responsibility, honest prosperity, and peace.
Small government conservatism is personified by Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan, and is also represented by libertarians. However, there are other types of conservatives. You have social conservatives, who deeply belive in the government protection of morality. (That strand of conservatism flies in the face of Goldwater conservatism; Goldwater's catchphrase is "You can't legislate morality," after all). You also have neoconservatives; this article best describes neoconservatives. There are also paleoconservatives; the article desribes it well.
Small government conservatism isn't the only form of conservatism out there. Our current Republican administration is a mixture of neoconservatism and social conservatism, which combined, completely flies in the face of small government conservative beliefs. The combination of neoconservatism and social conservatism leads to a government policy that expands government power both in economic issues and in the issues of personal liberties.
Does it surprises you? Conservatives and right-wingers aren't especially noted for broad intelligence nor education.
Eh? What about Milton Friedman, Ayn Rand, Ron Paul, Barry Goldwater, Lew Rockwell, and tons of other people that I've forgot to list? There are a ton of conservatives, libertarians, and other right-wingers who are intelligent and educated. You might want to read more about them. You might not like all of their beliefs, but they are educated in their beliefs and are not spewing garbage.
Quite nothing compared to the right-wing brain-washing that occurs every sunday in a church near to you.
Newsflash, troll. Going to church doesn't even compare to the years of brainwashing and indoctrination that Communists have done over the past century, as well as the push for "political correctness" that the left has been doing for about 30 years. And how is going to church "right-wing brainwashing?" I haven't gone to a church that used Milton Friedman and Hayek books as a Bible and preached the virtures of free-markets. Do you even understand what right-wing means?
You ever wonder whether it might just not be a coincidence that the more learned members of society disagree with conservative values?
So, you think that conservatives are uneducated, eh?
I am a libertarian (a.k.a. small government conservative). There is a lot of theory and books written by all sorts of conservatives, and many of them have valid arguments to back up their beliefs. I disagree with social conservatives and neoconservatives, but I wouldn't say something like "the more learned members of society disagree with conservative values."
Just because you're not a leftist doesn't mean that you're uneducated.
Hey. I know it's a joke, but the US has lots of tough colleges. The quality of secondary education may be bad, overall, but the US have some of the best colleges in the world. My university is one of the best public schools in the country, and its computer science department is well known. You should also remember universities such as Berkeley, MIT, Stanford, Caltech, Carnegie Mellon, and Georgia Tech (among others), who will also give you an academic butt-whipping (at least in the engineering and science disciplines).
I'm so confused. I always thought left-wing meant they advocated the right to do whatever you wanted, but they wanted to take all your money and redistribute it to the poor people, and their buddies in industry who got them elected. I thought right-wing meant they wanted to pass laws based on an arbitrary religion about how you must live your live, but let you keep your money.
I follow a different political chart. Left and right are about economics to me. You're right (economically) about the left; the left ranges from social democrats (known as "liberals" in the US), to socialists and communists. They are sceptical of free markets in general. Social democrats only wish to construct safety nets (social security, welfare, universal health care, public schools, etc.), whereas socialists and communists want to completely eliminate free markets all together. Right wing is about free markets; the stronger you support free market economics, the farther right wing you are. Conservatives, classical liberals, (right-)libertarians, and anarchocapitalists fall under this category.
Left and right can be further differentiated by another scale; the authoritarian-libertarian scale. Authoritarians are those who want the government to control your life, whereas libertarians want very little (or no) government in your life. On the left, this can range from Stalin's communism (authoritarian-left) to a libertarian socialist nation (libertarian-left). On the right, this can range from fascism and a religious-right utopia (authoritarian-right) to right-libertarianism and anarchocapitalism (libertarian-right). You can read more about the chart here.
Keep in mind that when most people say libertarian, they talk of the right-wing variety.
The thing is, I want (old school) social liberalism and (old school) fiscal conservatism, which are two things I simply can't have. Oh, and I don't want privatized sidewalks, so I guess the libertarians are out of the question too.
Not all libertarians support privatized sidewalks (me, for example). However, it is hard to even get two libertarians to agree on every issue. A libertarian is somebody who supports small government and individual freedoms. You do seem to have a libertarian streak in you; you just don't want to go on a full-fledged anarchocapitalist route.
And really, no one in the past five years bought an Apple because of the PowerPC processor. They bought one despite it, because the hardware was great otherwise, and because the OS was great.
Wrong. Maybe people didn't buy Macs solely because of the PowerPC processor in the last 5 years (because during the last 5 years, OS X has been released). However, the PowerPC has always been a key reason for buying a Mac. The PowerPC has always been a great performing chip (even now, the Power Mac G5 is one of the fastest personal computers available), is of workstation and server quality, and (for computer science people) has a great architecture. The only reason why Apple switched to x86 is because there wasn't a laptop version of the G5 coming out very soon, and because of production issues. Besides, Apple wants to be consumer electronics company. They're not too interested in selling wicked-fast workstations and servers with the best architectures, they're interested in selling iPods and cool-looking desktops and laptops with commodity chips. Architecture and *nix geeks aren't Apple's target market. The switch has nothing to do with the quality of the Intel processors; the x86 sucks, if you ask most architecture people. Most architecture people want the x86 to die.
I agree with the original poster. Who would pay $$$ for an Apple Intel server, when they can pay far less money for a similarly configured server running Linux or BSD? Just for OS X? OS X is not worth the premium hardware price, IMO.
With the migration to Intel the "Mac Tax" is more evident. This puts pressure on the geek market. Many of us would like to have a machine to run OS/X. That word "machine" is key. I'm not buying an Apple unless I can use another OS on it. My first preference is that it boot Windows as that is what I need at work and for home use. Next is Linux. So why would these new machines appeal to me? Outside of the mini the new ones will be too expensive for something just to play with.
Exactly. Most regular users don't know or care about operating systems and computers, so to them a Mac is something unique. A Mac to geek users, however, is now just a PC with OS X and a pretty case. I am under the "geek user " category. I love OS X (heck, I'd install Rhapsody on my PC if I had a Rhapsody disk), but I'm not going to shell out $$$ for new hardware that is exactly the same as what I currently have.
And to those Mac users who say that the point of a Mac is OS X, what if you're using OS X on your Dell or eMachines box (especially if the drivers work well)? Is that the Macintosh experience?
Finally, I still have some animosity toward Apple's switch to the x86 in general. Yes...IBM G5 sucks heat...Intel's laptop's chips are cooler...G4 sucks...users don't care...OS X is still shiny and snappy....blah blah blah, but I'm still disappointed with the switch. The x86 architecture sucks from a architectural standpoint compared to most of the other architectures out there, but I recommend that you read printed pages 10 and 16 of Rob Pike's Systems Software Research is Irrelevant (PDF warning). It best discusses the lack of diversity and innovation in hardware, in words better than I describe.
Right on. Read my post about an idea for a new OS, even though I don't think it is as radical of an idea as yours.
I would just like to see Rob Pike being proved wrong about his essay (PDF warning) made six years ago talking about the sorry state of operating systems research. There are a lot of good ideas out there, yet unfortunately we haven't seen make it past the drawing board. Imagine if more research was being performed on systems programming. Then we'll see all sorts of new and interesting operating systems and other ideas come out.
But free-market capitalism does have aspects for compassion (voluntary donations to various causes), especially cooperation (through voluntary trading of goods and exchanging of services; capitalism will fail if people didn't cooperate), and reason (it is based off of most general economic theories, and it has been proven to work). Free markets do not demote society to barbarism. In fact, it has improved the lot of society. Sure, free markets doesn't take care of inequality of wealth and other social issues, but free markets promote individual freedom. Socialism (mix between capitalism and communism) and communism completely paves over freedom in favor of "social" issues, which is the biggest reason why I'm an anti-socialist and anti-communist. To those philosophies, individuals don't matter, only society or the government matters, which I find fundamentally wrong.
Free markets haven't sent society into barbarism. In fact, the biggest problem with the world is that the markets need to be more free. Socialism and communism have still not gone away. The wall might have came down, the Cold War might be over, the USSR may be gone, but the socialists and communists still remain in power, even in countries that fought against them. Chile just elected another socialist a few days ago. Policies in Europe still largely remain in the hands of socialists. My country, the United States, is still far from being an ideal free market country. Even so, the markets are still fairly free, and free market ideas have been proven to work. I don't see barbarians running on my streets, do you?
Since the IBM PC first came out, the acronym PC has become equivalent to a x86 box instead of just any personal computer. It doesn't matter what OS I'm running on an x86 box; DOS, Windows, Linux, BSD, OS X, Plan 9; it is still just a PC. Macs have always been personal computers, and Apple has always referred to them as such (but never with the acronym PC), but they never architecturally became plain PCs until the new Intel Macs came out. Now the Macs are just plain, boring x86 PCs now, but of course Apple will never come out and say, "We now make PCs like everybody else now." Instead, they still want people to feel that there is still something special about the insides of the Mac (and for the umpteenth time, the operating system doesn't count), that demands paying the Apple premium.
I still maintain that Apple has made a mistake with its switch to Intel. It is only a matter of time before customers realize that a Mac is now just another PC (the only difference is the operating system), and it is only a matter of time before somebody with a lot of time on his/her hands gets OS X running on their $299 Dell Celeron machine. As soon as people add two and two together and figure that it is cheaper to buy a 64-bit Sempron box at $399 ($349 with rebate + $129 for OS X = $478) compared to a $499 Mac Mini that will most likely have a 32-bit Core Solo processor with a case that isn't as expandable, and with somewhat underpowered stats (the current Mac Mini only has a 40GB hard drive, whereas the eMachines box has a 100GB hard drive), Apple will have a harder time justifying its prices and specifications, unless Apple diversifies its offerings and sells its offerings at competitive prices.
Don't get me wrong, I still like Apple and the Mac, but I still mourn the loss of the PowerPC, especially the G5. I am personally not a fan of the x86, and I wish that crufty architecture will just die and lead to new innovations in other architectures, such as the Cell processor. Sure, the new Intel chips are nice and run cooler, but I was waiting for something that was truly compelling, like a Cell computer or in 2008 or so a PowerBook G5. Oh well, c'est la vie. Guess I'll save up for a dual dual-core Power Mac G5 while they still exist....
Exactly. I would love to buy a copy of OS X for x86 on my PC, even if it cost me $400 to do so. It is worth the price, IMO. I will kill for an operating system on plain vanilla x86 machines that is almost perfect. Windows is insecure and needs to be scrapped, and Linux is just too hard to use for an everyday user. OS X is the perfect operating system. It is easy to use for both regular users and is great for computer science majors and other people who need Unix. But, as I see it, Apple will never give in and sell Mac OS X to people with vanilla x86 boxes, or collaborate with Dell and HP and bundle OS X with their machines. Once that happens, we can kiss Apple and OS X goodbye.
The time is ripe for a brand new operating system on the x86 platform. I would love to see something with the architecture and/or the ideas of Plan 9 or something like the L4 microkernel, the compatibility of *nix and Windows (via Wine) so that way we don't all have to start from scratch, the security of OpenBSD, a kick-butt windowing system like Aqua (except better), radical new ideas for user interfaces, rapid software development, and overall just knocks the socks off of everything else that we have seen so far. It will be much like NeXTSTEP back in the day or Mac OS X is currently. I would love to see an operating system that solves nearly all of the technical problems, security issues, and usability issues that we face today. Mac OS X does well in all of these regards, but it isn't available for everybody. Imagine if we had an operating system that was not only better than OS X is, but is also available for all computers that can handle it. Regular users who desperately want to leave Windows must either shell out $$$ for a Macintosh (which requires that they buy a new computer), or endure the learning curve that switching to Linux entails. My ideal OS will have no restrictive licensing that tells me that I can only install it on a Pear x86 box, and no DRM that sends the helicopters flying over my house when I install PearPC OS on my vanilla x86 box. Any volunteers?
[Windows] is also the operating system that users find the easiest to use, and it is also the operating system that (in my opinion) has the most flexibility for programmers and software corporations of all sizes.
I disagree. Mac OS X is considered by many much easier to use than Windows (in fact, the classic Mac OS, IMO, is considered by some to be the hallmark of usability; memory management issues aside, in some ways it is more "user-friendly" than OS X is), even though I do agree that Windows is easier to use than Linux is (I'm talking more than just the interface; even though KDE and GNOME have reached Windows as far as usability (IMO), it is the whole package that counts, and some things such as installing certain drivers are tougher in Linux than in Windows. That's why I still have a Windows partition). I also find the Unix-based OSes to be more flexible for programming than Windows is; Unix has tons of command-line based programming tools at your disposal, and programming GUIs in Unix has gotten better with GTK+ and QT (even though Mac OS X leads the pack here with Carbon/Cocoa). Unix has widespread support for nearly all programming languages and programming styles, as well.
I do agree with you on the rest of your points, however. Spyware isn't necessarily a security issue (even though Microsoft's security issues don't help the issue); it is about users who don't know any better. It doesn't matter if Microsoft creates a version of Windows built on top of BSD or Linux. Nothing in Unix prevents a user from running a script that says "rm -rf ~", which ends up deleting all of their files. After all, part of the Unix philosophy is not holding the hands of users;). It doesn't matter if that script is a program saying "Download FREE revealing pictures of Pamela Anderson" or "Click this icon and win an iPod" or something else that many people will fall for.
Even the most secure OpenBSD system will fall victim to *nix spyware if you let the most foolish (l)user mess around with the system.
Exactly; somebody finally says it. I hate it when people use Thatcher's quote out of context. Thatcher was talking about a common problem with society these days; individuals don't want to take responsibility for themselves, and always want to find someone else ("society" or "the government," your pick) to carry their load.
Obviously, our fellow users and programmers in the F/OSS community are equivalent to the "neighbors" Thatcher was referring to. And if there's a bug in F/OSS, you don't (I hope) spam message boards saying "the F/OSS community needs to fix this bug!" Instead, you'd probably fix it if it directly affected you, or if you felt concerned about the users of that software (your neighbors) you'd fix it for them.
I generally agree, but there is a difference between the FOSS community and society. If I found a bug in my FOSS software and I didn't know how to fix it (I am a programmer, but only a CS college freshman), I would send off a professional bug report, without insulting the FOSS community like some people do whenever something wrongs happen to their software. However, if I made some mistake in life (committing a crime, impregnating somebody, drop out of school and refuse to gain employment, etc.), I do not (and should not) expect "society" to fly down, pick me up, brush off my back, and fix all of my problems. That is the only difference between requesting bug fixes and requesting society to solve all of your problems.
Well, personally I vehemothly hate the x86 instruction set. It is woefully inelegant, backwards, and should have been replaced with something much better 20 years ago before everybody jumped on the bandwagon. I am dreaming of a brand new computer with a brand new, elegant architecture and with a brand new operating system, but I don't think that will ever happen, thanks to compatibility and other issues.
I also disagree with the Mac users saying that the core of the Mac is ONLY the operating system, as if the architecture and hardware meant nothing. To me, nothing is further from the truth. Let's say that you can buy a Dell with OS X for $299. Is it a Mac? Well, under your definition of a Macintosh, it is. Are those AMD64s with cracked versions of OS X for x86 Macs, too? Under that definition, they're Macs, too. The Mac, to me, is much more than an operating system. The Mac (and the NeXT computers; I'll include them here) not only had the best overall operating system, but was also equipped great hardware and they were different. That nice, sleek looking Mac 128k, Mac SE/30, NeXTSTATION, Quadra 640, PowerBook G3 Pismo, iMac G4, or Power Mac G5 on your desk weren't just your typical PCs; they had some of the best and most innovative hardware that you can find. The Mac is more than just an operating system; it is the sum of all parts. It is not only a very good operating system, but it had very good and unique hardware and very good design (especially of Macs made from 1998 onward). Unfortunately, that uniqueness is now gone.
However, I'll credit to Intel when credit is due. Intel did do a few things right in the last few years. Sure, their instruction set is a heaping pile of crap, and they went down the wrong road with their Pentium 4 and their Itanic^WItaninum fiascal. However, instead of Intel sticking to their Pentium 4s and promoting the megahertz myth, they decided to do work on processors that didn't heat your house yet performed just as well. The end result? The Pentium M and the Yonah chips. They run cool and they perform well, to the point that the beat out the G5 in performance, which is a very great chip. The only thing that sucks about these Intel processors now is their instruction set (which doesn't reflect its internal architecture; ever since the Pentium Pro days, Intel learned that they can design RISC-like processors yet keep a compatibility layer for their old instruction set). And the instruction set is only of importance to programmers and computer scientists; how many Joe Average types need to interact with the x86 assembler to get their work done?
Apple chose Intel because the PowerPC architecture wasn't getting them what Apple wanted. Apple needed cooler chips that performed well, and that wasn't on IBM's roadmap.
Yes, some of the unique characteristics of the Mac are gone now. I still feel, just like you, that an Apple Macintosh computer has now turned into just another x86 PC. I wish that there were more choices on the market; instead of having to buy an x86, I can buy from a selection of architectures. I still feel that the worst architecture (x86) won out (look at Alpha, SPARC, and the PowerPC now), and many of us x86-haters feel like we lost our last friend to the x86 giant. However, Apple's switch had nothing to do with marketing numbers, Intel bunnies, or anything like that. It had to do simply with Apple's needs.
In the meanwhile, we can dream of Cell machines running an operating system that is superior to OS X in every way. If only....
I think the even bigger question is the reverse: can you install Apple's new OS X on your PC?
I know that they probably used the best DRM available in order to prevent this from happening, but just like all other attempts, somebody will figure it out.
Price reductions in their older G4 lines may cannibalize the sales of their shiny new Intel macs. If I can pick up a brand new iBook for $799, a new Mac Mini for $399, a PowerBook G4 for $1299, or a new (old?) iMac G5 for $999, then why would I buy a brand spanking-new Intel Mac?
However, since the Mac is a PC (the only difference between a Mac and a PC now is OS X vs. Windows/Linux/BSD, since they're both x86 now), I wonder what will happen when somebody figures out how to get OS X for x86 working on their Dell or Sony box? Don't get me wrong, I like these new Intel Macs and they are very good (I want one!), but isn't Apple a bit worried about PC users buying OS X and installing it on their $299 Dells?
It's just a matter of time before somebody gets it working. The drivers might not work, but they'll be singing in Aqua-land.
Apple will soon be announcing the Big MacBook Pro. It will feature a larger screen, two all-beef patties, a sesame seed bun, and be cross advertised with McDonalds.
One problem with Linux vs. Windows comparisons is that Linux is just a kernel, whereas Windows is a kernel + desktop environment + userland + web browser + more. Linux can run on legacy hardware; even the latest Linux kernel will run decently even on an old 386 with 8MB RAM, along with the latest versions of the GNU userland, X, a text editor like vim or emacs, and maybe even lynx. (Just don't think about doing anything more complex, such as use a graphical web browser, Java, GTK or QT application, fancy desktops, etc.) On the flipside, can Windows XP even install on an 386? You'll have to revert to DOS 6.22 and Windows 3.11 if you want a decently-performing Windows config with those specs. And who'd use that in 2006? (You'd have to pay me to use DOS 6.22 and Windows 3.11, and give me copies of WordPerfect 5.1 and Lotus 1-2-3 2.4, as well;).) Windows 95 can technically run on that machine, but you'll be in swap city....
If you are a hardcore Unix user, you can be very comfortable with a 386 or 486 with 8-16MB RAM, as long as you love the command line (and are not even considering any intensive GUI applications). Heck, 386 and 486 users got it much better than Thompson and Ritchie did;). However, once you start adding GUI toolkits, multimedia applications, quality web browsers like Firefox and Konqueror, full-blown desktops, office suites, VMs for all of these languages supported by the developers (like Java, Python, Ruby, Perl,...), libraries for oodles of functions, transparent graphics, and all of those other features, Linux, just like any other OS, needs much more processor speed and much more memory. You'll need at least a 233MHz processor with a minimum of 256MB RAM in order to avoid much of Swap City, and you'll need 500MHz and at least 384MB RAM to completely avoid all of it (unless your work is truly computer-intensive). Windows XP works the same way.
All that I'm saying with these comparisons is that many people quickly forget that all Linux is is a kernel. Linux, along with the GNU tools, can be ran from specifications as little as a 386SX with 4MB RAM to 96-node Beowulf clusters each featuring the fastest chips on the market, along with tens of gigabytes of RAM. Just don't come crying when your OpenOffice takes a year to compile on your 386, and a day to open;).
As long as we have bureaucrats and people that think consumers are too dumb to decide for themselves and regulate everything, we will be waaay behind what the market could provide for us.
Exactly. I firmly believe that our fuel and automobile choices should be determined by the market instead of by Congress. Look at the gas prices here, for example. We don't know what the true cost of oil is because of oil subsidies and other factors. With all of those factors removed, then we will finally see the true cost of gas is, which is (undoubtely) much higher than the prices now. Since the gas will be at market prices instead of artificially low prices, this will cause people to look for alternatives (such as biodiesel and hydrogen fuel cells), and the demand for alternatives will cause automobile manufacturers to develop new types of cars, and would cause companies to start selling biodiesel and hydrogen fuels.
Environmentalists will like the idea because the government is no longer using their tax dollars to subsidize oil companies, which they claim that they are pollutive and harmful to the environment. (And don't worry about environmentalists complaining about agricultural subsidies, either; I would get rid of those, too. Business should not rely on government subsidies to make a profit). Environmentalists will also like the increased research on more "eco-friendly" fuels, which may be cheaper and are much more helpful to the environment.
Automobile businesses and investors in alternative fuels (except for the oil companies, that is) will also like the idea. They can take advantage of the new demand for cleaner, cheaper alternate fuels and make a big profit.
In the end, I believe that the market should determine what we drive and how we fuel our cars, not the government. Eliminating subsidies is just one way of letting the market in control again, and it will drive innovation in automobile design and alternate fuels.
Go and reread the causes of the Great Depression before you start dissing capitalism. The Great Depression started out as a normal recession, but became catastrophic due to the government's mismanagement of the money supply, as well as very high tariffs placed by the United States government and other governments. If you want to learn more, read from Milton Friedman and from the Mises Institute.
Go and reread the constitution and the founding fathers papers again. The federal government should not control or subsidize businesses. That's not the purpose of the federal government. The federal's government only purpose, IMO, is to enforce interstate contracts, defend its people, manage the money supply (and even with that, I prefer a gold standard to a centralized bank), protect the environment (prefarably in the form of free market environmentalism), and provide interstate infrastructure (such as the Interstate Highway System). Everything else should be either privatized or be in control of each individual state, county, or city.
Free markets aren't a religion. They're not perfect, and they're not an utopia. Recessions and depressions happen. Inequality of wealth, poverty, and hunger exist. Free markets don't guarantee me anything. However, free markets not only promote freedom of the economy, but they simply work. Free markets allow people to take themselves out of a bad class standing, provided that they do the work to get themselves out. Free markets allow people and businesses to exchange goods and services freely, without the government forcing people to do so. Free markets simply work. Free markets are simply better and more moral than any mixed, socialist or communist system that I've seen. In fact, I wish that the United States would adapt policies of federalism and economic liberalism and start embracing the free market again, just like back in the 1920s (minus the protectionism). Free markets aren't perfect, but they're free, as in freedom.
Most UNIX-people use Apple because it still is UNIX but with a better GUI. Perhaps KDE will convince Apple to make the GUI Free Software.
And don't forget about the ability to run commercial applications such as MS Office and Photoshop. I believe Macs are preferred to a standard Linux or BSD desktop configuration mainly because of mainstream application and hardware support; the GUI just makes the experience more worthwhile.
Any recommendations where one can still live free and unobserved in a non-nanny state?
The moon, I guess (assuming that nobody else owns it). Let's face it, liberty is dying. Unless some libertarians, Goldwater conservatives, Ron Paul, socially liberal Democrats and Republicans (in the true sense of the word liberal; somebody who advocates freedom), and other liberty-minded people band together to take control from our power-hungry authoritarian leaders, the USA is going to turn into "1984" as well.
The privatized roads still have to compete against rail transportation, airports, and city- and county-maintained roads (not all roads will be privatized; just the Interstate and state highways). If the maintainers of those private roads rest on their laurels, then commuters and travelers will switch to other forms of transportation that don't require those roads, which means that the roads will lose money until they improve their conditions.
The government, on the other hand, can't be fired. Sure, the government can change leadership every four years, and new Congresspeople can be elected every so many years, but you still can't fire the government. If there are some potholes on the government road, then it may take a while before they get fixed. If the road is congested and needs to be widened, the government now has to deal with lengthy bureaucratic processes of getting the funding, securing right of way, dealing with NIMBYs and environmentalists, and it may take many years to widen that road. And even then, the tax dollars quickly add up. If a private road wanted to be widened and if profits are going strong, then they would widen it, one way or another (even if they had to double deck it or build underground; whatever's good for their customers and their wallets).
This is a nice (but long) essay about privatizing our roads, and some of the efforts that have already been made in building private roads. Once again, I'm not a huge road privatization fan, but it is feasible if push came to shove.
Slashdot Mirror
Small government conservatism is personified by Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan, and is also represented by libertarians. However, there are other types of conservatives. You have social conservatives, who deeply belive in the government protection of morality. (That strand of conservatism flies in the face of Goldwater conservatism; Goldwater's catchphrase is "You can't legislate morality," after all). You also have neoconservatives; this article best describes neoconservatives. There are also paleoconservatives; the article desribes it well.
Small government conservatism isn't the only form of conservatism out there. Our current Republican administration is a mixture of neoconservatism and social conservatism, which combined, completely flies in the face of small government conservative beliefs. The combination of neoconservatism and social conservatism leads to a government policy that expands government power both in economic issues and in the issues of personal liberties.
Eh? What about Milton Friedman, Ayn Rand, Ron Paul, Barry Goldwater, Lew Rockwell, and tons of other people that I've forgot to list? There are a ton of conservatives, libertarians, and other right-wingers who are intelligent and educated. You might want to read more about them. You might not like all of their beliefs, but they are educated in their beliefs and are not spewing garbage.
Newsflash, troll. Going to church doesn't even compare to the years of brainwashing and indoctrination that Communists have done over the past century, as well as the push for "political correctness" that the left has been doing for about 30 years. And how is going to church "right-wing brainwashing?" I haven't gone to a church that used Milton Friedman and Hayek books as a Bible and preached the virtures of free-markets. Do you even understand what right-wing means?
So, you think that conservatives are uneducated, eh?
I am a libertarian (a.k.a. small government conservative). There is a lot of theory and books written by all sorts of conservatives, and many of them have valid arguments to back up their beliefs. I disagree with social conservatives and neoconservatives, but I wouldn't say something like "the more learned members of society disagree with conservative values."
Just because you're not a leftist doesn't mean that you're uneducated.
Hey. I know it's a joke, but the US has lots of tough colleges. The quality of secondary education may be bad, overall, but the US have some of the best colleges in the world. My university is one of the best public schools in the country, and its computer science department is well known. You should also remember universities such as Berkeley, MIT, Stanford, Caltech, Carnegie Mellon, and Georgia Tech (among others), who will also give you an academic butt-whipping (at least in the engineering and science disciplines).
I follow a different political chart. Left and right are about economics to me. You're right (economically) about the left; the left ranges from social democrats (known as "liberals" in the US), to socialists and communists. They are sceptical of free markets in general. Social democrats only wish to construct safety nets (social security, welfare, universal health care, public schools, etc.), whereas socialists and communists want to completely eliminate free markets all together. Right wing is about free markets; the stronger you support free market economics, the farther right wing you are. Conservatives, classical liberals, (right-)libertarians, and anarchocapitalists fall under this category.
Left and right can be further differentiated by another scale; the authoritarian-libertarian scale. Authoritarians are those who want the government to control your life, whereas libertarians want very little (or no) government in your life. On the left, this can range from Stalin's communism (authoritarian-left) to a libertarian socialist nation (libertarian-left). On the right, this can range from fascism and a religious-right utopia (authoritarian-right) to right-libertarianism and anarchocapitalism (libertarian-right). You can read more about the chart here.
Keep in mind that when most people say libertarian, they talk of the right-wing variety.
Not all libertarians support privatized sidewalks (me, for example). However, it is hard to even get two libertarians to agree on every issue. A libertarian is somebody who supports small government and individual freedoms. You do seem to have a libertarian streak in you; you just don't want to go on a full-fledged anarchocapitalist route.
Wrong. Maybe people didn't buy Macs solely because of the PowerPC processor in the last 5 years (because during the last 5 years, OS X has been released). However, the PowerPC has always been a key reason for buying a Mac. The PowerPC has always been a great performing chip (even now, the Power Mac G5 is one of the fastest personal computers available), is of workstation and server quality, and (for computer science people) has a great architecture. The only reason why Apple switched to x86 is because there wasn't a laptop version of the G5 coming out very soon, and because of production issues. Besides, Apple wants to be consumer electronics company. They're not too interested in selling wicked-fast workstations and servers with the best architectures, they're interested in selling iPods and cool-looking desktops and laptops with commodity chips. Architecture and *nix geeks aren't Apple's target market. The switch has nothing to do with the quality of the Intel processors; the x86 sucks, if you ask most architecture people. Most architecture people want the x86 to die.
I agree with the original poster. Who would pay $$$ for an Apple Intel server, when they can pay far less money for a similarly configured server running Linux or BSD? Just for OS X? OS X is not worth the premium hardware price, IMO.
Exactly. Most regular users don't know or care about operating systems and computers, so to them a Mac is something unique. A Mac to geek users, however, is now just a PC with OS X and a pretty case. I am under the "geek user " category. I love OS X (heck, I'd install Rhapsody on my PC if I had a Rhapsody disk), but I'm not going to shell out $$$ for new hardware that is exactly the same as what I currently have.
And to those Mac users who say that the point of a Mac is OS X, what if you're using OS X on your Dell or eMachines box (especially if the drivers work well)? Is that the Macintosh experience?
Finally, I still have some animosity toward Apple's switch to the x86 in general. Yes...IBM G5 sucks heat...Intel's laptop's chips are cooler...G4 sucks...users don't care...OS X is still shiny and snappy....blah blah blah, but I'm still disappointed with the switch. The x86 architecture sucks from a architectural standpoint compared to most of the other architectures out there, but I recommend that you read printed pages 10 and 16 of Rob Pike's Systems Software Research is Irrelevant (PDF warning). It best discusses the lack of diversity and innovation in hardware, in words better than I describe.
Right on. Read my post about an idea for a new OS, even though I don't think it is as radical of an idea as yours.
I would just like to see Rob Pike being proved wrong about his essay (PDF warning) made six years ago talking about the sorry state of operating systems research. There are a lot of good ideas out there, yet unfortunately we haven't seen make it past the drawing board. Imagine if more research was being performed on systems programming. Then we'll see all sorts of new and interesting operating systems and other ideas come out.
But free-market capitalism does have aspects for compassion (voluntary donations to various causes), especially cooperation (through voluntary trading of goods and exchanging of services; capitalism will fail if people didn't cooperate), and reason (it is based off of most general economic theories, and it has been proven to work). Free markets do not demote society to barbarism. In fact, it has improved the lot of society. Sure, free markets doesn't take care of inequality of wealth and other social issues, but free markets promote individual freedom. Socialism (mix between capitalism and communism) and communism completely paves over freedom in favor of "social" issues, which is the biggest reason why I'm an anti-socialist and anti-communist. To those philosophies, individuals don't matter, only society or the government matters, which I find fundamentally wrong.
Free markets haven't sent society into barbarism. In fact, the biggest problem with the world is that the markets need to be more free. Socialism and communism have still not gone away. The wall might have came down, the Cold War might be over, the USSR may be gone, but the socialists and communists still remain in power, even in countries that fought against them. Chile just elected another socialist a few days ago. Policies in Europe still largely remain in the hands of socialists. My country, the United States, is still far from being an ideal free market country. Even so, the markets are still fairly free, and free market ideas have been proven to work. I don't see barbarians running on my streets, do you?
Since the IBM PC first came out, the acronym PC has become equivalent to a x86 box instead of just any personal computer. It doesn't matter what OS I'm running on an x86 box; DOS, Windows, Linux, BSD, OS X, Plan 9; it is still just a PC. Macs have always been personal computers, and Apple has always referred to them as such (but never with the acronym PC), but they never architecturally became plain PCs until the new Intel Macs came out. Now the Macs are just plain, boring x86 PCs now, but of course Apple will never come out and say, "We now make PCs like everybody else now." Instead, they still want people to feel that there is still something special about the insides of the Mac (and for the umpteenth time, the operating system doesn't count), that demands paying the Apple premium.
I still maintain that Apple has made a mistake with its switch to Intel. It is only a matter of time before customers realize that a Mac is now just another PC (the only difference is the operating system), and it is only a matter of time before somebody with a lot of time on his/her hands gets OS X running on their $299 Dell Celeron machine. As soon as people add two and two together and figure that it is cheaper to buy a 64-bit Sempron box at $399 ($349 with rebate + $129 for OS X = $478) compared to a $499 Mac Mini that will most likely have a 32-bit Core Solo processor with a case that isn't as expandable, and with somewhat underpowered stats (the current Mac Mini only has a 40GB hard drive, whereas the eMachines box has a 100GB hard drive), Apple will have a harder time justifying its prices and specifications, unless Apple diversifies its offerings and sells its offerings at competitive prices.
Don't get me wrong, I still like Apple and the Mac, but I still mourn the loss of the PowerPC, especially the G5. I am personally not a fan of the x86, and I wish that crufty architecture will just die and lead to new innovations in other architectures, such as the Cell processor. Sure, the new Intel chips are nice and run cooler, but I was waiting for something that was truly compelling, like a Cell computer or in 2008 or so a PowerBook G5. Oh well, c'est la vie. Guess I'll save up for a dual dual-core Power Mac G5 while they still exist....
Exactly. I would love to buy a copy of OS X for x86 on my PC, even if it cost me $400 to do so. It is worth the price, IMO. I will kill for an operating system on plain vanilla x86 machines that is almost perfect. Windows is insecure and needs to be scrapped, and Linux is just too hard to use for an everyday user. OS X is the perfect operating system. It is easy to use for both regular users and is great for computer science majors and other people who need Unix. But, as I see it, Apple will never give in and sell Mac OS X to people with vanilla x86 boxes, or collaborate with Dell and HP and bundle OS X with their machines. Once that happens, we can kiss Apple and OS X goodbye.
The time is ripe for a brand new operating system on the x86 platform. I would love to see something with the architecture and/or the ideas of Plan 9 or something like the L4 microkernel, the compatibility of *nix and Windows (via Wine) so that way we don't all have to start from scratch, the security of OpenBSD, a kick-butt windowing system like Aqua (except better), radical new ideas for user interfaces, rapid software development, and overall just knocks the socks off of everything else that we have seen so far. It will be much like NeXTSTEP back in the day or Mac OS X is currently. I would love to see an operating system that solves nearly all of the technical problems, security issues, and usability issues that we face today. Mac OS X does well in all of these regards, but it isn't available for everybody. Imagine if we had an operating system that was not only better than OS X is, but is also available for all computers that can handle it. Regular users who desperately want to leave Windows must either shell out $$$ for a Macintosh (which requires that they buy a new computer), or endure the learning curve that switching to Linux entails. My ideal OS will have no restrictive licensing that tells me that I can only install it on a Pear x86 box, and no DRM that sends the helicopters flying over my house when I install PearPC OS on my vanilla x86 box. Any volunteers?
I disagree. Mac OS X is considered by many much easier to use than Windows (in fact, the classic Mac OS, IMO, is considered by some to be the hallmark of usability; memory management issues aside, in some ways it is more "user-friendly" than OS X is), even though I do agree that Windows is easier to use than Linux is (I'm talking more than just the interface; even though KDE and GNOME have reached Windows as far as usability (IMO), it is the whole package that counts, and some things such as installing certain drivers are tougher in Linux than in Windows. That's why I still have a Windows partition). I also find the Unix-based OSes to be more flexible for programming than Windows is; Unix has tons of command-line based programming tools at your disposal, and programming GUIs in Unix has gotten better with GTK+ and QT (even though Mac OS X leads the pack here with Carbon/Cocoa). Unix has widespread support for nearly all programming languages and programming styles, as well.
I do agree with you on the rest of your points, however. Spyware isn't necessarily a security issue (even though Microsoft's security issues don't help the issue); it is about users who don't know any better. It doesn't matter if Microsoft creates a version of Windows built on top of BSD or Linux. Nothing in Unix prevents a user from running a script that says "rm -rf ~", which ends up deleting all of their files. After all, part of the Unix philosophy is not holding the hands of users ;). It doesn't matter if that script is a program saying "Download FREE revealing pictures of Pamela Anderson" or "Click this icon and win an iPod" or something else that many people will fall for.
Even the most secure OpenBSD system will fall victim to *nix spyware if you let the most foolish (l)user mess around with the system.
Exactly; somebody finally says it. I hate it when people use Thatcher's quote out of context. Thatcher was talking about a common problem with society these days; individuals don't want to take responsibility for themselves, and always want to find someone else ("society" or "the government," your pick) to carry their load.
I generally agree, but there is a difference between the FOSS community and society. If I found a bug in my FOSS software and I didn't know how to fix it (I am a programmer, but only a CS college freshman), I would send off a professional bug report, without insulting the FOSS community like some people do whenever something wrongs happen to their software. However, if I made some mistake in life (committing a crime, impregnating somebody, drop out of school and refuse to gain employment, etc.), I do not (and should not) expect "society" to fly down, pick me up, brush off my back, and fix all of my problems. That is the only difference between requesting bug fixes and requesting society to solve all of your problems.
Well, personally I vehemothly hate the x86 instruction set. It is woefully inelegant, backwards, and should have been replaced with something much better 20 years ago before everybody jumped on the bandwagon. I am dreaming of a brand new computer with a brand new, elegant architecture and with a brand new operating system, but I don't think that will ever happen, thanks to compatibility and other issues.
I also disagree with the Mac users saying that the core of the Mac is ONLY the operating system, as if the architecture and hardware meant nothing. To me, nothing is further from the truth. Let's say that you can buy a Dell with OS X for $299. Is it a Mac? Well, under your definition of a Macintosh, it is. Are those AMD64s with cracked versions of OS X for x86 Macs, too? Under that definition, they're Macs, too. The Mac, to me, is much more than an operating system. The Mac (and the NeXT computers; I'll include them here) not only had the best overall operating system, but was also equipped great hardware and they were different. That nice, sleek looking Mac 128k, Mac SE/30, NeXTSTATION, Quadra 640, PowerBook G3 Pismo, iMac G4, or Power Mac G5 on your desk weren't just your typical PCs; they had some of the best and most innovative hardware that you can find. The Mac is more than just an operating system; it is the sum of all parts. It is not only a very good operating system, but it had very good and unique hardware and very good design (especially of Macs made from 1998 onward). Unfortunately, that uniqueness is now gone.
However, I'll credit to Intel when credit is due. Intel did do a few things right in the last few years. Sure, their instruction set is a heaping pile of crap, and they went down the wrong road with their Pentium 4 and their Itanic^WItaninum fiascal. However, instead of Intel sticking to their Pentium 4s and promoting the megahertz myth, they decided to do work on processors that didn't heat your house yet performed just as well. The end result? The Pentium M and the Yonah chips. They run cool and they perform well, to the point that the beat out the G5 in performance, which is a very great chip. The only thing that sucks about these Intel processors now is their instruction set (which doesn't reflect its internal architecture; ever since the Pentium Pro days, Intel learned that they can design RISC-like processors yet keep a compatibility layer for their old instruction set). And the instruction set is only of importance to programmers and computer scientists; how many Joe Average types need to interact with the x86 assembler to get their work done?
Apple chose Intel because the PowerPC architecture wasn't getting them what Apple wanted. Apple needed cooler chips that performed well, and that wasn't on IBM's roadmap.
Yes, some of the unique characteristics of the Mac are gone now. I still feel, just like you, that an Apple Macintosh computer has now turned into just another x86 PC. I wish that there were more choices on the market; instead of having to buy an x86, I can buy from a selection of architectures. I still feel that the worst architecture (x86) won out (look at Alpha, SPARC, and the PowerPC now), and many of us x86-haters feel like we lost our last friend to the x86 giant. However, Apple's switch had nothing to do with marketing numbers, Intel bunnies, or anything like that. It had to do simply with Apple's needs.
In the meanwhile, we can dream of Cell machines running an operating system that is superior to OS X in every way. If only....
Don't you mean LaTeX?
I think the even bigger question is the reverse: can you install Apple's new OS X on your PC?
I know that they probably used the best DRM available in order to prevent this from happening, but just like all other attempts, somebody will figure it out.
Price reductions in their older G4 lines may cannibalize the sales of their shiny new Intel macs. If I can pick up a brand new iBook for $799, a new Mac Mini for $399, a PowerBook G4 for $1299, or a new (old?) iMac G5 for $999, then why would I buy a brand spanking-new Intel Mac?
However, since the Mac is a PC (the only difference between a Mac and a PC now is OS X vs. Windows/Linux/BSD, since they're both x86 now), I wonder what will happen when somebody figures out how to get OS X for x86 working on their Dell or Sony box? Don't get me wrong, I like these new Intel Macs and they are very good (I want one!), but isn't Apple a bit worried about PC users buying OS X and installing it on their $299 Dells?
It's just a matter of time before somebody gets it working. The drivers might not work, but they'll be singing in Aqua-land.
Can you super-size that?
One problem with Linux vs. Windows comparisons is that Linux is just a kernel, whereas Windows is a kernel + desktop environment + userland + web browser + more. Linux can run on legacy hardware; even the latest Linux kernel will run decently even on an old 386 with 8MB RAM, along with the latest versions of the GNU userland, X, a text editor like vim or emacs, and maybe even lynx. (Just don't think about doing anything more complex, such as use a graphical web browser, Java, GTK or QT application, fancy desktops, etc.) On the flipside, can Windows XP even install on an 386? You'll have to revert to DOS 6.22 and Windows 3.11 if you want a decently-performing Windows config with those specs. And who'd use that in 2006? (You'd have to pay me to use DOS 6.22 and Windows 3.11, and give me copies of WordPerfect 5.1 and Lotus 1-2-3 2.4, as well ;).) Windows 95 can technically run on that machine, but you'll be in swap city....
If you are a hardcore Unix user, you can be very comfortable with a 386 or 486 with 8-16MB RAM, as long as you love the command line (and are not even considering any intensive GUI applications). Heck, 386 and 486 users got it much better than Thompson and Ritchie did ;). However, once you start adding GUI toolkits, multimedia applications, quality web browsers like Firefox and Konqueror, full-blown desktops, office suites, VMs for all of these languages supported by the developers (like Java, Python, Ruby, Perl, ...), libraries for oodles of functions, transparent graphics, and all of those other features, Linux, just like any other OS, needs much more processor speed and much more memory. You'll need at least a 233MHz processor with a minimum of 256MB RAM in order to avoid much of Swap City, and you'll need 500MHz and at least 384MB RAM to completely avoid all of it (unless your work is truly computer-intensive). Windows XP works the same way.
All that I'm saying with these comparisons is that many people quickly forget that all Linux is is a kernel. Linux, along with the GNU tools, can be ran from specifications as little as a 386SX with 4MB RAM to 96-node Beowulf clusters each featuring the fastest chips on the market, along with tens of gigabytes of RAM. Just don't come crying when your OpenOffice takes a year to compile on your 386, and a day to open ;).
Exactly. I firmly believe that our fuel and automobile choices should be determined by the market instead of by Congress. Look at the gas prices here, for example. We don't know what the true cost of oil is because of oil subsidies and other factors. With all of those factors removed, then we will finally see the true cost of gas is, which is (undoubtely) much higher than the prices now. Since the gas will be at market prices instead of artificially low prices, this will cause people to look for alternatives (such as biodiesel and hydrogen fuel cells), and the demand for alternatives will cause automobile manufacturers to develop new types of cars, and would cause companies to start selling biodiesel and hydrogen fuels.
Environmentalists will like the idea because the government is no longer using their tax dollars to subsidize oil companies, which they claim that they are pollutive and harmful to the environment. (And don't worry about environmentalists complaining about agricultural subsidies, either; I would get rid of those, too. Business should not rely on government subsidies to make a profit). Environmentalists will also like the increased research on more "eco-friendly" fuels, which may be cheaper and are much more helpful to the environment.
Automobile businesses and investors in alternative fuels (except for the oil companies, that is) will also like the idea. They can take advantage of the new demand for cleaner, cheaper alternate fuels and make a big profit.
In the end, I believe that the market should determine what we drive and how we fuel our cars, not the government. Eliminating subsidies is just one way of letting the market in control again, and it will drive innovation in automobile design and alternate fuels.
Go and reread the causes of the Great Depression before you start dissing capitalism. The Great Depression started out as a normal recession, but became catastrophic due to the government's mismanagement of the money supply, as well as very high tariffs placed by the United States government and other governments. If you want to learn more, read from Milton Friedman and from the Mises Institute.
Go and reread the constitution and the founding fathers papers again. The federal government should not control or subsidize businesses. That's not the purpose of the federal government. The federal's government only purpose, IMO, is to enforce interstate contracts, defend its people, manage the money supply (and even with that, I prefer a gold standard to a centralized bank), protect the environment (prefarably in the form of free market environmentalism), and provide interstate infrastructure (such as the Interstate Highway System). Everything else should be either privatized or be in control of each individual state, county, or city.
Free markets aren't a religion. They're not perfect, and they're not an utopia. Recessions and depressions happen. Inequality of wealth, poverty, and hunger exist. Free markets don't guarantee me anything. However, free markets not only promote freedom of the economy, but they simply work. Free markets allow people to take themselves out of a bad class standing, provided that they do the work to get themselves out. Free markets allow people and businesses to exchange goods and services freely, without the government forcing people to do so. Free markets simply work. Free markets are simply better and more moral than any mixed, socialist or communist system that I've seen. In fact, I wish that the United States would adapt policies of federalism and economic liberalism and start embracing the free market again, just like back in the 1920s (minus the protectionism). Free markets aren't perfect, but they're free, as in freedom.
And don't forget about the ability to run commercial applications such as MS Office and Photoshop. I believe Macs are preferred to a standard Linux or BSD desktop configuration mainly because of mainstream application and hardware support; the GUI just makes the experience more worthwhile.
The moon, I guess (assuming that nobody else owns it). Let's face it, liberty is dying. Unless some libertarians, Goldwater conservatives, Ron Paul, socially liberal Democrats and Republicans (in the true sense of the word liberal; somebody who advocates freedom), and other liberty-minded people band together to take control from our power-hungry authoritarian leaders, the USA is going to turn into "1984" as well.
The privatized roads still have to compete against rail transportation, airports, and city- and county-maintained roads (not all roads will be privatized; just the Interstate and state highways). If the maintainers of those private roads rest on their laurels, then commuters and travelers will switch to other forms of transportation that don't require those roads, which means that the roads will lose money until they improve their conditions.
The government, on the other hand, can't be fired. Sure, the government can change leadership every four years, and new Congresspeople can be elected every so many years, but you still can't fire the government. If there are some potholes on the government road, then it may take a while before they get fixed. If the road is congested and needs to be widened, the government now has to deal with lengthy bureaucratic processes of getting the funding, securing right of way, dealing with NIMBYs and environmentalists, and it may take many years to widen that road. And even then, the tax dollars quickly add up. If a private road wanted to be widened and if profits are going strong, then they would widen it, one way or another (even if they had to double deck it or build underground; whatever's good for their customers and their wallets).
This is a nice (but long) essay about privatizing our roads, and some of the efforts that have already been made in building private roads. Once again, I'm not a huge road privatization fan, but it is feasible if push came to shove.