are you on crack? we had this thing in america called "slavery" for a while, maybe you heard about it? not exactly a win for democracy. and clearly you think women's suffrage was a mistake? and you think assassination is likely to produce less abusive leadership? good luck with that one, buddy.
the fact that you can use "moral" to describe assassination says quite a bit.
they're not bad guys, really. they're interested in making money, but that doesn't inherently make them evil. IBM and PWC simply have more foresight and long-term vision than most other companies. we hate the DMCA and friends because they're bad for innovation, which means it's harder for us to do our jobs and we have less interesting toys to play with. they hate the DMCA and friends because they're bad for innovation, which means less stuff for them to make money on. there's no conflict here. and you're right, it gives them a lot more weight, since governments are much more interested in people who make (for themselves, and generate) money than people who want nifty toys to play with.
As an aside, the reason communism failed was not government involvement, it was lack of personal incentive.
well, that's the most commonly cited flaw in the basic design, yes. the reasons most of the known examples of communism in reality have failed, however, are more varied and complicated. probably the biggest one is corruption in the systems. russia, in particular, had a significant upper-class early on, in contradiction of the goals of communism. note also that Marx and Engles, the ideological fathers of communism, didn't think it could work in primarily-agricultural societies, as existed at the time in Russia and China; rather, they looked for it to take over in industrialized countries, specifically Germany and England. we have arguably never seen an example of communism in the style Marx and Engles envisioned.
note also that (other obvious flaws aside) communism has worked reasonably well for Castro's Cuba. they've managed to survive with reasonable (although not tremendous) prosperity despite occasional blockades and the closert of its significant potential trade partner (the US). they also have a health care system unparalleled, in many respects, in the western hemisphere.
Thanks for correcting my grammar. Would you like me to tell you about capital letters?
heh.
actually, since you mentioned it: it is, in fact, intentional. i initially stopped the special-case capitalization of the first-person singular pronoun "i". i believe language has a certain psychological character to it, and impact on its speakers, and this special-casing of the self, placing it above all other referents, says bad things about ours, i believe. i am not aware of any language that has a similar special case (but would very much appreciate pointers!). initially, i treated it as normal when beginning a sentence, but eventually stopped that in the interest of adding emphasis. it then spread mostly unconsciously to dropping capitalization leading sentences generally. when i noticed, i noticed a time savings, increased consistency in the look of the writing (as compared to the transitional period, not as compared to normal sentence-starting capitalization style, which i find to be aesthetically similar in terms of consistency), and a stronger emphasis of proper nouns (which i think is appropriate). downsides include needing to remember to "switch modes" when writing professionally, occasionally mixing modes when writing non-professionally at work or shortly after being in "work mode" for a while (which looks really bad), and occasionally being dismissed when i make comments on grammar or punctuation (compounded by my often quite poor spelling).;-) this impact is similar to my (again, conscious) use of the second-person plural contraction "y'all", as a useful disambiguation not normally present in the more common use of "you" in standard english.
but i suspect you were really just trying to make the humorous point, for which i applaud you.;-)
i am intrigued. references? i wasn't aware google had an editorial policy; i've always understood them to be a mostly-robotic simple (in concept, not implementation) aggregator.
i'm talking about ethics as well, but noting that a financial attack on a company will most likely prompt them only to protect their finances, not reform their ethics. i have a hard time figuring how you could read any of my posts and come up with the idea that i condone the current situation. i have - repeatedly - stated that my only interest is to point out that the situation - and thus, what to do to improve it - is much more complicated than most people tend to realize. i point you, for example, to my opening sentence in this thread. my interest is certainly not in perpetuating the current situation, but in finding an effective approach to improving it, rather than a simple one that doesn't have any lasting effect.
and of course i don't know you. i'm responding only based on what you've written. in particular response to your complaint:
The "we" was not a mistake, I was speaking for me and the people who like what I say. You seem to understand that concept judging from your sig.
my original post explicitly and intentionally lumped all of the anti-sweatshop folks together; you responded using a "we", which, based on how conversations work and lacking any explicit redefinition, keeps the same antecedent. you were, therefor, assuming a position of spokesperson for all such activity. either you didn't mean to do so - in which case the "we" without redefinition was, in fact, a mistake - or you are subsequently redefining your scope.
you are correct that my reply has not added anything of substance to my initial post (although i do think it provided further clarification on my position), mainly because your response did not contain any useful or well-formed criticism of my points, thus not giving me anything to work with.
and i'm not sure anything in my response qualifies as condescending. arguably dismissive, maybe. and you mean "condescend to me".
good points, and i encourage anyone with mod points to mod you up one or two. however i think your points mainly point to the fact that sanctions would need to be more nuanced than simple trade bans. i whole-heartedly agree that such things would be unproductive, but UN sanctions have had positive effect in the past. whether they could on a country the size of China is an open question (and i'm afraid i agree with your implied answer of "no"). Iraq is a good example of how trade sanctions can fail horribly. i'm afraid a detailed analysis of when the do and don't work, and the reasons why, is beyond my attention span for/. and a very large topic, anyway. and, honestly, probably outside the scope of my ability to adequately address. i will, therefor, concede the point that the UN is not in a position dramatically affect the state of affairs in China, and that UN sanctions are neither a blanket remedy nor always appropriate, and can often have negative effects for the exact people they're intended to aid.
i have no problem being off track, and it's a worthwhile place to go.:-)
if i misunderstood your earlier comment, i apologize. i suppose it is, at some level, a reasonable question, so i'll give it a shot.
the US government has, since at least the middle of the last century, publicly maintained that it is important to America to promote freedom and democracy. china, of course, is the largest communist country ever (by population, not land mass), and one of the most oppressive of modern times. if we are serious about this stated goal (which was used as at least partial justification for Korea, Vietnam, Gulf War I and II, and countless South American conflicts) than China should be a natural enemy. instead, they're given Most Favored Nation status and we're very careful not to offend them. it's difficult to see a justification for this that isn't strictly financial.
of course, the higher-level question here is whether this is something the US (or countries in general) should be pursuing: to many, it is seen as projecting - or even imposing - their values onto others. that is, to say the least, not my view. i'm in favor of the theory that there is a moral obligation to at least not support such action. i'm very much against the US's role in Iraq, because it was based on false pretenses and was a unnecessary military action. however i'm also very much against our continued military and financial support of Israel since, by extension, we're supporting their oppression of the Palestinians. were i in charge of the US, i'd call for enforcement of (non-military) against Israel and stop all support to them for this reason, as they've been in consistent violation of UN sanctions since the mid-sixties.
put simply, we're giving money (and in cases like Israel, weapons) to people who oppress and kill people, and we should hold ourselves responsible for that, at a minimum.
beyond the simple moral concerns, there is a benefit to american interests to have countries that don't beat up their neighbors. higher levels of global political stability is good for business (except the military, but i have a hard time getting to interested in their well being at the expense of lives).
as far as your explicit question as to why we're not doing more, as you've probably surmised from the above, i can't really come up with a reason except the fact that China represents a very large potential market for multinational corporations, and they have a strong tendency to value short term gain over long term prosperity. they pressure the US government into not upsetting China, so they can trade advantageously. there is also the fact of China's role on the UN, which prevents that body from taking any substantive action against China, or even much non-substantative action.
y'know, i thought shortly after posting that the whole thread should be moderated off-topic. that being said, however (and since we're already here):
China's relations with its citizens is Google's concern because by doing business in and with China, it can be seen as a tacit endorsement of such treatment. while for some companies this would simply be expected (nobody's really surprised by Haliburton's role in Iraq, are they?), it is more a cause for concern coming from a company that claims as one of its fundamental guiding principles "Do No Evil".
to be clear, i'm not sure Google's involvement in China violates that principle (for the reasons noted in my earlier post; it's a more complicated issue than simply "censor or no"), but it is a cause for concern, or at least something to pay attention to.
there is also the (very valid, although not universally accepted) argument that all corporations (and individuals) have a moral, if not legal, responsibility to be concerned with the effects their economic decisions have (thus the argument for boycotting Chinese-government-owned companies on moral/humanitarian grounds).
note also that my comments were not only about the Chinese government's treatment of its citizens, but also (as noted by the grandparent) its treatment of Tibet (which it invaded and has been occupying for about 55 years) and Taiwan (which it has long applied political and economic pressure - including within the realm of the UN - to oppress, although with only limited success), among others.
and, in closing, the "does it matter" question is deeply, profoundly ignorant. we're talking about the restriction and/or manipulation of information to 1/5 of the world's population. of course it matters.
you seem to be confused, on at least two points. first, i'm no proponent of unregulated industry or mistreatment of poor workers. i've been one of those folks who go after Nike & co. (and have stopped not because of a change in opinion, but changed personal circumstance). i certainly agree that the shop owners have a moral responsibility - and should have a legal one, as well - to treat their workers with a certain minimum level of dignity. my point was simply that the "evil" people commonly attribute to this action of mistreatment is often a gross oversimplification of the situation, and a disservice to the people involved. second, you are either confused about or are intentionally neglecting the realities of what happens in the face of such pressure. it is generally cheaper for large corporations to move their operations than to effect real change. that's the problem with strictly financially-focused action like boycotts or negative publicity campaigns: target the money, and the corps are just going to act to protect that money as efficiently as they can. a more holistic and long-term approach is needed.
also, you've made the common mistake of lumping all anti-sweatshop types into one collective entity with you're "We're campaigning..." statement. there is no unified "we". different people and different organizations go about this in different ways; most have the problem i've noted, some realize the risk and act accordingly.
no, the issue is that "evil" is a lot more complicated than most television shows tend to imply. the choice isn't between "present censored news in China" and "present uncensored news in China", it's between "present censored news in China" or "present no news in China". given the fact that no filtering is 100%, and the fact that even what's filtered is better than nothing, i'm inclined to believe that tools that increase access - even in a controlled, restricted way - are better than the absence of such access.
i know a guy who used to work in one of the south-american sweatshops making clothes or shoes (i don't remember) everyone gets so upset about. he and his wife were no fans of the people who hounded nike and friends to stop such practices; in their view, such practices were the only thing which gave him any income, and eventually enabled him to leave. now, doubtless this worked out better for him than for most, but these "evil" sweatshops did give him and his coworkers income that they would not otherwise have had, and many were grateful for the opportunity.
the problem is that the structure of the UN makes it very near impossible to impose any sort of sanctions against one of the "permanent" members of the security council - which includes both the US and China. so the US is free (from UN threat) to continue trouncing all over middle-eastern countries, while China is free (in the same sense) to continue abusing its citizens and abusing and invading its neighbors.
you're wrong on a number of fronts. the American Revolution was as much a revolt against the domination of British corporations as it was against the British government. the event that made reconciliation between the colonies and the British government impossible - the Boston Tea Party - wasn't an attack on British government or its assets, but on the East India Company. it was that company that then pressured the British government into punishing the colonists (not to say that the government wouldn't have anyway, but EIC certainly influenced the nature of those measures). after the revolution, the resulting American government was exceedingly wary of corporate power. corporations were heavily restricted and regulated, and violation of one's corporate charter would result in that corporation simply being disbanded (a real corporate death penalty!).
then came the Civil War, and reconstruction. the Civil War was, in a very real way, a fight over the idea that what's good for business is good for the country. in many southern states, the state had in many ways taken the place of the corporations you (and i) dislike so much, with the accompanying abuse of power - only more so, with government approval and arms. the Federal government was fighting a war to be able to regulate that power, for the good of its citizens.
the Federal government (in the form of "the North") won the civil war, but - sadly - lost the reconstruction. they were indeed now more able to regulate the states, but lost control (or, more probably, gave away control) of corporations. the landmark decision came in the form of Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad. an almost off-hand assertion by a single Supreme Court Justice was used repeatedly over the next several years as the grounds for elevating corporations to the status of "natural persons". this began the almost totally unchecked growth of corporate power in America, and secured, at least to the present day and for the near future, the place of the Corporation as a fixture of American life, politics, law...
the dissolution of the state as a pseudo-corporation with immense power arguably influenced the types of mega-corporations seen immediately afterwards, in particular the railroad companies. take a look at social security numbers, for example. the first three digits indicate the state of birth. but did you know there was a specific three-digit head reserved for railroad employees? nothing like that existed before the civil war, nor (thankfully) does it today.
that's because, after the huge spike in corporate power at the end of reconstruction, the government has been struggling to reign in those corporations again. while corporate power is still well beyond anything seen pre-reconstruction, it's well less than the reconstruction peak. i, at least, would like to see it further limited, but it is a difficult fight, and contains many legitimately difficult questions that need answering about how to fairly - and in many cases, safely - do that.
you make the mistake (among others) of equating very rich individuals to corporations. it is, of course, true that the early American government allowed slavery, and that this was meant for maximizing profits of landed (white male) aristocracy. both slavery and indentured servitude, mind you, were inherited directly from the British. regardless, the power of any of these individuals pales in comparison to the power of, say, the railroad and oil companies of post-reconstruction America, and even a large collection of such powerful individuals had more direct accountability than a pre- or post-reconstruction corporation. it is simply not a useful comparison.
even post-reconstruction, corporate power in America, while certainly not any less in degree, has a very different character than that p
What an incredibly lame P.C. response to progress. Homelessness is a socio-economic problem, not a scientific one. This same sort of complaint against sciencse/technology has often been heard before, as arguments against the Internet and space exploration.
right! science shouldn't be expected to solve these very difficult socioeconomic problems. it's not like science has anything to offer the search to end homelessness.
or, say, cancer. why on earth would people expect science to be of help there? or environmental destruction... i mean, what's science supposed to do, come up with more efficient, cleaner energy sources or something?
okay, first off, that is totally bizarre. it's kind of like Use Tax in the states. we all pay our Use Tax, right? most readers are probably saying something to the effect of "huh? never heard of it." and that's nearly exactly the point. second, the fact that it's not the same tax as petrol doesn't do much for the grandparent's point.
it makes me glad i don't have a car here (not to mention that just seems like a stupid idea, living in the city itself). do i need to pay extra for water if i put it in my battery? is there a special tax for the air used for combustion?
Others note a strong pound juxtaposed against a weak Euro or dollar, placing their faith in the fluctuation of international currency to balance the situation. I await with some glee the comedown of the pound - in the dollar's case, this necessitates a change of president, I believe, and, alas, in the Euro's case, nothing short of a blue moon.
you're not just a cynic, you're horribly uninformed and detached from reality. the EUR is still strong against the pound compared to Jan '01, Jan '02, or Jan '03 levels; it's taken a dip in the middle of 2004, but is well on its way back to Jan '04 levels. and, of course, both the GBP and EUR (as well as JPY, XAU (gold) and XAG (silver), and most other things) have pretty consistently gone up against the dollar since Jan '02 (thanks a lot, Mr. Bush!).
it's also hard to buy the geography excuse. it's not geography, it's politics that keeps england separate from the rest of europe. this is a long tradition going back hundreds of years: england has never wanted to get directly involved in europe. preferring to manage it from afar whenever possible. of course, it's no longer possible for england to manage europe at all, but that doesn't stop england or the english from holding on to some notion of being "special", outside or above europe.
it's also not helped by the fact that Mr. Blair would clearly rather be american than european.
er, what? i live in london; i've bought vegetable oil. was i paying a hidden fuel tax and just not realizing it? or am i supposed to let the girl at the till know i'm using it for fuel, so she can charge me more? what are you talking about? how do i still have to pay a tax on petrol if i'm not buying petrol?
your argument is, well, stupid. most of the us (where "most" is scaled by population) is much closer together than europe. europe tends to have large cities with huge swaths of nearly-empty space in between. you don't really get anything in europe like the stretch from boston to DC, as an extreme example.
also, there's the important fact that you choose where you live and work, for the most part. paying more for fuel changes the economic justification of some of those choices. deal with the change. the burden won't be put on the rural/suburban poor, primarily: it'll be put on the long commuters, who're typically upper-middle class or higher.
the fact that we (america) don't have particularly useful mass transit is true in many places. so, um, we should do something about that! put the money taken on the new fuel taxes towards building mass transit. only fair, since the reason it's so poor is because of the car companies in the first place.
even assuming the validity of your "long-term" endpoint (it's a reasonable theory, but we won't really know until (if?) we get there), the transitional time is a huge problem. corporations aren't resisting the move just because they don't like the endpoint, they're resisting because whoever starts moving in that direction first - that is, whoever has to start competing on price globally first - looses: their revenue will go down substantially. it's the same reason individuals resist globalization of jobs: it's not that they don't like the endpoint (lower on-paper pay but higher buying power and real income), it's the fact that whoever starts in (gets pushed in) that direction first looses: they get laid off because the guy in india or scotland is cheaper.
and someday someone needs to explain to me where all these new jobs come from in the long-term, but that's a different conversation.
Other than digital music, have they made more than a ripple in a pond ?
yes.
significance to or impact on the market is not directly related to market share. apple has had a significantly disproportionate impact on the industry relative to its market share because, unlike most PC hardware or software companies, they represent consistent innovation. their hardware drives other companies to keep up (talking total system design here, not CPUs, although that might still be true). look at the push for adoption of firewire and USB. or the slow decline of the floppy. or A/V IM.
apple applied the same history of innovation they've had in the computer world to digital music - innovation wasn't new to them. the reason they've been so much more successful there than in the computer market (using the limited definition of success == market share) is because there was a dramatically smaller installed base; the innovation was more apparent, and the cost to conversion wasn't really an issue, as it is when trying to convince someone to switch from an existing product/service.
now compare this with the situation with IM. i used to work a lot with high school and jr. high kids in the states, and nearly all of them have AIM (not just IM - AIM). it's a crucial social tool, and the fact that all the AIM stuff is interoperable is critical for them. apple's not going to have any more success in this market (using the same limited definition of success) than they have in the computer market, unless they can work out a cross-connecting deal with AOL (which isn't out of the question; note that the @mac.com addresses are the only reserved domain handed out in the AIM address space). but in business... that's a whole other story. we use AIM at work pretty heavily, especially between our US and GB offices. but when i mention this to friends and colleagues in other companies, it's nearly unheard of. many companies have explicit restrictions against using it... and often for exactly the reasons that a in-house server would resolve.
i'm not making any predictions for what impact this will have, but do keep in mind that 1) impact != market share, 2) the world != teenagers, 3) network effects are more powerful than the effect of an isolated change, and 4) just because something doesn't solve a problem you have doesn't mean it doesn't solve a problem somebody else (like businesses) has.
After a year with the box, I've yet to plug in anything and find it not working right away.
yeah, and it's starting to piss me off! i mean, it used to be i'd get to spend hours figuring this stuff out. it was a fun mental exercise. now, that's all gone! networking equipment used to be the best, but we recently got an Airport Extreme at the office, and i'm crushed! we plugged it in, and i went to configure it, but it was detected before i could even find the admin tool. i figured getting the iTunes thing to work would at least take some setup, but nope - there's the selection box, in my already-running iTunes. i've had my iBook for just under two years (and a PowerBook from work for just about a year). i oscillate between surprise every time something complicated just works and confusion every time a friend or co-worker asks me how i set said item up.
i'm not going to bother responding to your bit on the mouse vs. keyboard thing, partly because it's a silly, tired argument and partly because, well, i don't disagree. of course some things are faster with one than the other (ever used one of those on-screen keyboards to actually type? ew.) - my point was jut to say that the mouse is often faster than people consciously realize.
on applescript: i think the fact that you "study" programming languages professionally (in all seriousness and curiosity: what does that mean? what do you do? are you an academic?) might be part of your problem here. AppleScript is not primarily targeted at people who even know what those questions mean. i'd agree that those questions are not clearly answered, and are not clearly derivable from code... yet it still manages to be useful. that's because the syntax, grammar, and vocabulary have a closer match to normal (non-programmer) cognitive function than "proper" languages do. that makes the part of the learning curve that gets you to base functionality much flatter which, in a language/environment where most of the function is embedded in the dictionaries or applications your scripting, gets you most of your target functionality much, much faster.
and vocabulary is never predictable (although it's sometimes regular).
the comment about bash was meant to be mostly silly... but then, you might be surprised what i've seen people do (or attempt) with bash. while python is easy to learn for a programmer or engineer, those aren't the primary people AppleScript is aimed at. the mid-level IT guys who sit near me at work can write useful things in AppleScript, but python is well over their heads.
while my direct experience with it is limited, i like python. it's certainly much nicer than bash or perl. but the people AppleScript is for have no interest in getting jobs programming. and learning python to the level where it would be useful for the types of tasks AppleScript is intended for (assuming a similarly accessible "dictionary") wouldn't give you anything resembling the level of skill needed to write real apps in python (to say nothing of the fact that knowing a language however well does not a good programmer make).
the fact is, we're not talking about "programming languages" in the sense you mean it - things you'd use to build real programs. for that, sure, python is great. we're talking about application scripting. there's a very different set of priorities there. and a very different target audience.
that being said, it would be nice if we could get bindings for the AppleScript dictionaries into other languages.
Slashdot Mirror
sigh.
it was a joke. i keep forgetting the internet removes people's ability to read sarcasm or irony without a tag line or smiley involved.
are you on crack? we had this thing in america called "slavery" for a while, maybe you heard about it? not exactly a win for democracy. and clearly you think women's suffrage was a mistake? and you think assassination is likely to produce less abusive leadership? good luck with that one, buddy.
the fact that you can use "moral" to describe assassination says quite a bit.
they're not bad guys, really. they're interested in making money, but that doesn't inherently make them evil. IBM and PWC simply have more foresight and long-term vision than most other companies. we hate the DMCA and friends because they're bad for innovation, which means it's harder for us to do our jobs and we have less interesting toys to play with. they hate the DMCA and friends because they're bad for innovation, which means less stuff for them to make money on. there's no conflict here. and you're right, it gives them a lot more weight, since governments are much more interested in people who make (for themselves, and generate) money than people who want nifty toys to play with.
note also that (other obvious flaws aside) communism has worked reasonably well for Castro's Cuba. they've managed to survive with reasonable (although not tremendous) prosperity despite occasional blockades and the closert of its significant potential trade partner (the US). they also have a health care system unparalleled, in many respects, in the western hemisphere.
actually, since you mentioned it: it is, in fact, intentional. i initially stopped the special-case capitalization of the first-person singular pronoun "i". i believe language has a certain psychological character to it, and impact on its speakers, and this special-casing of the self, placing it above all other referents, says bad things about ours, i believe. i am not aware of any language that has a similar special case (but would very much appreciate pointers!). initially, i treated it as normal when beginning a sentence, but eventually stopped that in the interest of adding emphasis. it then spread mostly unconsciously to dropping capitalization leading sentences generally. when i noticed, i noticed a time savings, increased consistency in the look of the writing (as compared to the transitional period, not as compared to normal sentence-starting capitalization style, which i find to be aesthetically similar in terms of consistency), and a stronger emphasis of proper nouns (which i think is appropriate).
downsides include needing to remember to "switch modes" when writing professionally, occasionally mixing modes when writing non-professionally at work or shortly after being in "work mode" for a while (which looks really bad), and occasionally being dismissed when i make comments on grammar or punctuation (compounded by my often quite poor spelling).
but i suspect you were really just trying to make the humorous point, for which i applaud you.
i am intrigued. references? i wasn't aware google had an editorial policy; i've always understood them to be a mostly-robotic simple (in concept, not implementation) aggregator.
and of course i don't know you. i'm responding only based on what you've written. in particular response to your complaint:my original post explicitly and intentionally lumped all of the anti-sweatshop folks together; you responded using a "we", which, based on how conversations work and lacking any explicit redefinition, keeps the same antecedent. you were, therefor, assuming a position of spokesperson for all such activity. either you didn't mean to do so - in which case the "we" without redefinition was, in fact, a mistake - or you are subsequently redefining your scope.
you are correct that my reply has not added anything of substance to my initial post (although i do think it provided further clarification on my position), mainly because your response did not contain any useful or well-formed criticism of my points, thus not giving me anything to work with.
and i'm not sure anything in my response qualifies as condescending. arguably dismissive, maybe. and you mean "condescend to me".
good points, and i encourage anyone with mod points to mod you up one or two. however i think your points mainly point to the fact that sanctions would need to be more nuanced than simple trade bans. i whole-heartedly agree that such things would be unproductive, but UN sanctions have had positive effect in the past. whether they could on a country the size of China is an open question (and i'm afraid i agree with your implied answer of "no"). Iraq is a good example of how trade sanctions can fail horribly. i'm afraid a detailed analysis of when the do and don't work, and the reasons why, is beyond my attention span for /. and a very large topic, anyway. and, honestly, probably outside the scope of my ability to adequately address. i will, therefor, concede the point that the UN is not in a position dramatically affect the state of affairs in China, and that UN sanctions are neither a blanket remedy nor always appropriate, and can often have negative effects for the exact people they're intended to aid.
i have no problem being off track, and it's a worthwhile place to go. :-)
if i misunderstood your earlier comment, i apologize. i suppose it is, at some level, a reasonable question, so i'll give it a shot.
the US government has, since at least the middle of the last century, publicly maintained that it is important to America to promote freedom and democracy. china, of course, is the largest communist country ever (by population, not land mass), and one of the most oppressive of modern times. if we are serious about this stated goal (which was used as at least partial justification for Korea, Vietnam, Gulf War I and II, and countless South American conflicts) than China should be a natural enemy. instead, they're given Most Favored Nation status and we're very careful not to offend them. it's difficult to see a justification for this that isn't strictly financial.
of course, the higher-level question here is whether this is something the US (or countries in general) should be pursuing: to many, it is seen as projecting - or even imposing - their values onto others. that is, to say the least, not my view. i'm in favor of the theory that there is a moral obligation to at least not support such action. i'm very much against the US's role in Iraq, because it was based on false pretenses and was a unnecessary military action. however i'm also very much against our continued military and financial support of Israel since, by extension, we're supporting their oppression of the Palestinians. were i in charge of the US, i'd call for enforcement of (non-military) against Israel and stop all support to them for this reason, as they've been in consistent violation of UN sanctions since the mid-sixties.
put simply, we're giving money (and in cases like Israel, weapons) to people who oppress and kill people, and we should hold ourselves responsible for that, at a minimum.
beyond the simple moral concerns, there is a benefit to american interests to have countries that don't beat up their neighbors. higher levels of global political stability is good for business (except the military, but i have a hard time getting to interested in their well being at the expense of lives).
as far as your explicit question as to why we're not doing more, as you've probably surmised from the above, i can't really come up with a reason except the fact that China represents a very large potential market for multinational corporations, and they have a strong tendency to value short term gain over long term prosperity. they pressure the US government into not upsetting China, so they can trade advantageously. there is also the fact of China's role on the UN, which prevents that body from taking any substantive action against China, or even much non-substantative action.
y'know, i thought shortly after posting that the whole thread should be moderated off-topic. that being said, however (and since we're already here):
China's relations with its citizens is Google's concern because by doing business in and with China, it can be seen as a tacit endorsement of such treatment. while for some companies this would simply be expected (nobody's really surprised by Haliburton's role in Iraq, are they?), it is more a cause for concern coming from a company that claims as one of its fundamental guiding principles "Do No Evil".
to be clear, i'm not sure Google's involvement in China violates that principle (for the reasons noted in my earlier post; it's a more complicated issue than simply "censor or no"), but it is a cause for concern, or at least something to pay attention to.
there is also the (very valid, although not universally accepted) argument that all corporations (and individuals) have a moral, if not legal, responsibility to be concerned with the effects their economic decisions have (thus the argument for boycotting Chinese-government-owned companies on moral/humanitarian grounds).
note also that my comments were not only about the Chinese government's treatment of its citizens, but also (as noted by the grandparent) its treatment of Tibet (which it invaded and has been occupying for about 55 years) and Taiwan (which it has long applied political and economic pressure - including within the realm of the UN - to oppress, although with only limited success), among others.
and, in closing, the "does it matter" question is deeply, profoundly ignorant. we're talking about the restriction and/or manipulation of information to 1/5 of the world's population. of course it matters.
you seem to be confused, on at least two points. first, i'm no proponent of unregulated industry or mistreatment of poor workers. i've been one of those folks who go after Nike & co. (and have stopped not because of a change in opinion, but changed personal circumstance). i certainly agree that the shop owners have a moral responsibility - and should have a legal one, as well - to treat their workers with a certain minimum level of dignity. my point was simply that the "evil" people commonly attribute to this action of mistreatment is often a gross oversimplification of the situation, and a disservice to the people involved. second, you are either confused about or are intentionally neglecting the realities of what happens in the face of such pressure. it is generally cheaper for large corporations to move their operations than to effect real change. that's the problem with strictly financially-focused action like boycotts or negative publicity campaigns: target the money, and the corps are just going to act to protect that money as efficiently as they can. a more holistic and long-term approach is needed.
also, you've made the common mistake of lumping all anti-sweatshop types into one collective entity with you're "We're campaigning..." statement. there is no unified "we". different people and different organizations go about this in different ways; most have the problem i've noted, some realize the risk and act accordingly.
no, the issue is that "evil" is a lot more complicated than most television shows tend to imply. the choice isn't between "present censored news in China" and "present uncensored news in China", it's between "present censored news in China" or "present no news in China". given the fact that no filtering is 100%, and the fact that even what's filtered is better than nothing, i'm inclined to believe that tools that increase access - even in a controlled, restricted way - are better than the absence of such access.
i know a guy who used to work in one of the south-american sweatshops making clothes or shoes (i don't remember) everyone gets so upset about. he and his wife were no fans of the people who hounded nike and friends to stop such practices; in their view, such practices were the only thing which gave him any income, and eventually enabled him to leave. now, doubtless this worked out better for him than for most, but these "evil" sweatshops did give him and his coworkers income that they would not otherwise have had, and many were grateful for the opportunity.
the problem is that the structure of the UN makes it very near impossible to impose any sort of sanctions against one of the "permanent" members of the security council - which includes both the US and China. so the US is free (from UN threat) to continue trouncing all over middle-eastern countries, while China is free (in the same sense) to continue abusing its citizens and abusing and invading its neighbors.
you're wrong on a number of fronts. the American Revolution was as much a revolt against the domination of British corporations as it was against the British government. the event that made reconciliation between the colonies and the British government impossible - the Boston Tea Party - wasn't an attack on British government or its assets, but on the East India Company. it was that company that then pressured the British government into punishing the colonists (not to say that the government wouldn't have anyway, but EIC certainly influenced the nature of those measures). after the revolution, the resulting American government was exceedingly wary of corporate power. corporations were heavily restricted and regulated, and violation of one's corporate charter would result in that corporation simply being disbanded (a real corporate death penalty!).
then came the Civil War, and reconstruction. the Civil War was, in a very real way, a fight over the idea that what's good for business is good for the country. in many southern states, the state had in many ways taken the place of the corporations you (and i) dislike so much, with the accompanying abuse of power - only more so, with government approval and arms. the Federal government was fighting a war to be able to regulate that power, for the good of its citizens.
the Federal government (in the form of "the North") won the civil war, but - sadly - lost the reconstruction. they were indeed now more able to regulate the states, but lost control (or, more probably, gave away control) of corporations. the landmark decision came in the form of Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad. an almost off-hand assertion by a single Supreme Court Justice was used repeatedly over the next several years as the grounds for elevating corporations to the status of "natural persons". this began the almost totally unchecked growth of corporate power in America, and secured, at least to the present day and for the near future, the place of the Corporation as a fixture of American life, politics, law...
the dissolution of the state as a pseudo-corporation with immense power arguably influenced the types of mega-corporations seen immediately afterwards, in particular the railroad companies. take a look at social security numbers, for example. the first three digits indicate the state of birth. but did you know there was a specific three-digit head reserved for railroad employees? nothing like that existed before the civil war, nor (thankfully) does it today.
that's because, after the huge spike in corporate power at the end of reconstruction, the government has been struggling to reign in those corporations again. while corporate power is still well beyond anything seen pre-reconstruction, it's well less than the reconstruction peak. i, at least, would like to see it further limited, but it is a difficult fight, and contains many legitimately difficult questions that need answering about how to fairly - and in many cases, safely - do that.
you make the mistake (among others) of equating very rich individuals to corporations. it is, of course, true that the early American government allowed slavery, and that this was meant for maximizing profits of landed (white male) aristocracy. both slavery and indentured servitude, mind you, were inherited directly from the British. regardless, the power of any of these individuals pales in comparison to the power of, say, the railroad and oil companies of post-reconstruction America, and even a large collection of such powerful individuals had more direct accountability than a pre- or post-reconstruction corporation. it is simply not a useful comparison.
even post-reconstruction, corporate power in America, while certainly not any less in degree, has a very different character than that p
or, say, cancer. why on earth would people expect science to be of help there? or environmental destruction... i mean, what's science supposed to do, come up with more efficient, cleaner energy sources or something?
okay, first off, that is totally bizarre. it's kind of like Use Tax in the states. we all pay our Use Tax, right? most readers are probably saying something to the effect of "huh? never heard of it." and that's nearly exactly the point. second, the fact that it's not the same tax as petrol doesn't do much for the grandparent's point.
it makes me glad i don't have a car here (not to mention that just seems like a stupid idea, living in the city itself). do i need to pay extra for water if i put it in my battery? is there a special tax for the air used for combustion?
it's also hard to buy the geography excuse. it's not geography, it's politics that keeps england separate from the rest of europe. this is a long tradition going back hundreds of years: england has never wanted to get directly involved in europe. preferring to manage it from afar whenever possible. of course, it's no longer possible for england to manage europe at all, but that doesn't stop england or the english from holding on to some notion of being "special", outside or above europe.
it's also not helped by the fact that Mr. Blair would clearly rather be american than european.
er, what? i live in london; i've bought vegetable oil. was i paying a hidden fuel tax and just not realizing it? or am i supposed to let the girl at the till know i'm using it for fuel, so she can charge me more? what are you talking about? how do i still have to pay a tax on petrol if i'm not buying petrol?
your argument is, well, stupid. most of the us (where "most" is scaled by population) is much closer together than europe. europe tends to have large cities with huge swaths of nearly-empty space in between. you don't really get anything in europe like the stretch from boston to DC, as an extreme example.
also, there's the important fact that you choose where you live and work, for the most part. paying more for fuel changes the economic justification of some of those choices. deal with the change. the burden won't be put on the rural/suburban poor, primarily: it'll be put on the long commuters, who're typically upper-middle class or higher.
the fact that we (america) don't have particularly useful mass transit is true in many places. so, um, we should do something about that! put the money taken on the new fuel taxes towards building mass transit. only fair, since the reason it's so poor is because of the car companies in the first place.
even assuming the validity of your "long-term" endpoint (it's a reasonable theory, but we won't really know until (if?) we get there), the transitional time is a huge problem. corporations aren't resisting the move just because they don't like the endpoint, they're resisting because whoever starts moving in that direction first - that is, whoever has to start competing on price globally first - looses: their revenue will go down substantially. it's the same reason individuals resist globalization of jobs: it's not that they don't like the endpoint (lower on-paper pay but higher buying power and real income), it's the fact that whoever starts in (gets pushed in) that direction first looses: they get laid off because the guy in india or scotland is cheaper.
and someday someone needs to explain to me where all these new jobs come from in the long-term, but that's a different conversation.
that's correct, it does and has. i'm not sure i see your point.
significance to or impact on the market is not directly related to market share. apple has had a significantly disproportionate impact on the industry relative to its market share because, unlike most PC hardware or software companies, they represent consistent innovation. their hardware drives other companies to keep up (talking total system design here, not CPUs, although that might still be true). look at the push for adoption of firewire and USB. or the slow decline of the floppy. or A/V IM.
apple applied the same history of innovation they've had in the computer world to digital music - innovation wasn't new to them. the reason they've been so much more successful there than in the computer market (using the limited definition of success == market share) is because there was a dramatically smaller installed base; the innovation was more apparent, and the cost to conversion wasn't really an issue, as it is when trying to convince someone to switch from an existing product/service.
now compare this with the situation with IM. i used to work a lot with high school and jr. high kids in the states, and nearly all of them have AIM (not just IM - AIM). it's a crucial social tool, and the fact that all the AIM stuff is interoperable is critical for them. apple's not going to have any more success in this market (using the same limited definition of success) than they have in the computer market, unless they can work out a cross-connecting deal with AOL (which isn't out of the question; note that the @mac.com addresses are the only reserved domain handed out in the AIM address space). but in business... that's a whole other story. we use AIM at work pretty heavily, especially between our US and GB offices. but when i mention this to friends and colleagues in other companies, it's nearly unheard of. many companies have explicit restrictions against using it... and often for exactly the reasons that a in-house server would resolve.
i'm not making any predictions for what impact this will have, but do keep in mind that 1) impact != market share, 2) the world != teenagers, 3) network effects are more powerful than the effect of an isolated change, and 4) just because something doesn't solve a problem you have doesn't mean it doesn't solve a problem somebody else (like businesses) has.
i've had my iBook for just under two years (and a PowerBook from work for just about a year). i oscillate between surprise every time something complicated just works and confusion every time a friend or co-worker asks me how i set said item up.
i'm not going to bother responding to your bit on the mouse vs. keyboard thing, partly because it's a silly, tired argument and partly because, well, i don't disagree. of course some things are faster with one than the other (ever used one of those on-screen keyboards to actually type? ew.) - my point was jut to say that the mouse is often faster than people consciously realize.
on applescript: i think the fact that you "study" programming languages professionally (in all seriousness and curiosity: what does that mean? what do you do? are you an academic?) might be part of your problem here. AppleScript is not primarily targeted at people who even know what those questions mean. i'd agree that those questions are not clearly answered, and are not clearly derivable from code... yet it still manages to be useful. that's because the syntax, grammar, and vocabulary have a closer match to normal (non-programmer) cognitive function than "proper" languages do. that makes the part of the learning curve that gets you to base functionality much flatter which, in a language/environment where most of the function is embedded in the dictionaries or applications your scripting, gets you most of your target functionality much, much faster.
and vocabulary is never predictable (although it's sometimes regular).
the comment about bash was meant to be mostly silly... but then, you might be surprised what i've seen people do (or attempt) with bash. while python is easy to learn for a programmer or engineer, those aren't the primary people AppleScript is aimed at. the mid-level IT guys who sit near me at work can write useful things in AppleScript, but python is well over their heads.
while my direct experience with it is limited, i like python. it's certainly much nicer than bash or perl. but the people AppleScript is for have no interest in getting jobs programming. and learning python to the level where it would be useful for the types of tasks AppleScript is intended for (assuming a similarly accessible "dictionary") wouldn't give you anything resembling the level of skill needed to write real apps in python (to say nothing of the fact that knowing a language however well does not a good programmer make).
the fact is, we're not talking about "programming languages" in the sense you mean it - things you'd use to build real programs. for that, sure, python is great. we're talking about application scripting. there's a very different set of priorities there. and a very different target audience.
that being said, it would be nice if we could get bindings for the AppleScript dictionaries into other languages.