Agreed. I think you're dead on with the monopoly status thing. Mind you, it seems to me we're better off with Apple with a monopoly on MP3 players trying to push their OS and MS with a monopoly on the OS but trying to push their MP3 player, than we would be if either of them had a monopoly in both.
Also, 62% isn't really a monopoly, but for a current iPod owner it doesn't make sense to move to another product, especially if they've bought from iTunes.
Does it not make sense to you that people should be taxed more for having more polluting vehicles, since when it comes to cleaning up, we're all going to go crying to the government anyway?
I too have a car that fits into the second-highest tax band, but I accept that the extra taxes are necessary.
Taxing fuel more does make sense, but it also makes sense to apply preventative measures to reduce the level of really polluting cars on the road, after all, we're not the ones going to be cleaning it up.
"So is a government with its police and military."
True.
"I don't think anyone would argue that breaking up ATT resulted in better service for consumers: it was innovation from copetitors. Innovation that would not have been affected had ATT remained whole. ATT could have done nothing to stop cablevision from offering phone service. It could have done nothing to stop wireless carriers from offering near DSL speed."
And true (sorry, I know nothing about Standard Oil), but why could it do nothing to stop that? Regulations set by the government?
This is why I argue that Government and Corporations both need to be strong. Yes, large corporations can be shot down by small innovative competitors, but a sufficiently large corporation can also just buy out the competition, then do with the technology what they will.
Not really true. The eventual result of absolute capitalism will be that one corporation ends up owning pretty much everything and is basically the government. That's when that company's competitive advantage is that it gets to crush any potential competitors. Similarly, the result of absolute socialism is that the government owns everything. Neither situation is desirable, so it follows that the ideal situation is somewhere in the middle.
Governments keep an eye on the corporations, to make sure they don't get too powerful. Citizens keeps an eye on the government, to make sure they're not overstepping the mark. That's why legal laws apply to the government and we have things like constitutions. This way you end up with happy people, because the power eventually rests with them.
The difficulty is that corporations are good at manipulating people. This is an area that governments have to watch out for, and so they must regulate the corporations in this area. At the same time of course, the corporations do try to manipulate people, and can therefore affect government. Thus we end up with competition between governments and corporations, and everyone knows competition is good for everyone.
Technically, the question implies it's already built, but okay. Care to compare the cost (either environmental or monetary) of producing a nuclear power station or equivalent capacity wind farm?
What a ridiculous supposition. If there's nowhere suitable to dump the waste, have you ever thought about the possibility that we shouldn't be producing it?
Oooh, nuclear. All that uranium mining, transport, enrichment etc just burns up more oil. Then of course you have to store the waste material somewhere (is that what third-world countries are for?). Storage takes massive amounts of concrete, so then you'll have to carry that away and bury it somewhere. Not to mention the risk of meltdown, because goverments are too damn cheap to build pebble-bed reactors.
Solar, Wind farms and energy efficiency are the ways forward.
You're obviously lying. Noone listens to stuff that's more than 3 months old - it's unamerican, therefore it doesn't matter if it stops working. Now go out and buy some Britney. Those RIAA execs each need a new Bentley.
Guns do put a deadly long-range combat weapon in the hands of your average nervous and broke drug-addict though.
Plus, there's no good reason to have them, except for the fact that other people have got them. Wouldn't a better solution be to take them away from everyone?
Your Index of Economic Freedom has absolutely nothing to do with civil rights. It's entirely to do with the freedom that companies have to operate. Have a look at their FAQ. The things they list are:
Trade policy
Fiscal burden of government,
Government intervention in the economy,
Monetary policy,
Capital flows and foreign investment,
Banking and finance,
Wages and prices,
Property rights,
Regulation,
Informal market activity.
So you could be pretty high on the list, but still have every civilian tagged with a radio bleeper with someone watching their every move.
It's kind of weird, but I know more people that (want/own) a PSP than (want/own) a DS, but more people that actually own a DS than people that actually own a PSP.
Unless the technology of the signal somehow manipulated some quantum force that we have no knowledge of and bypassed the security somehow, or just rewrote the magnetic data on the hard disk.
Pretty unlikely perhaps, but you have to think a long long way outside the box if you're going to even try to consider the state of technology in 2000 years time.
Slashdot Mirror
Considering the Japanese also drive on the left, and they'll probably be the ones inventing it, I'd say it's you who's in trouble, my friend! ;)
The Wii IS meeting consumer demands. It's LucasArts that aren't. We want Star Wars on the Wii!
Agreed. I think you're dead on with the monopoly status thing. Mind you, it seems to me we're better off with Apple with a monopoly on MP3 players trying to push their OS and MS with a monopoly on the OS but trying to push their MP3 player, than we would be if either of them had a monopoly in both.
Also, 62% isn't really a monopoly, but for a current iPod owner it doesn't make sense to move to another product, especially if they've bought from iTunes.
and it only worked with one particular fork
Does it not make sense to you that people should be taxed more for having more polluting vehicles, since when it comes to cleaning up, we're all going to go crying to the government anyway? I too have a car that fits into the second-highest tax band, but I accept that the extra taxes are necessary. Taxing fuel more does make sense, but it also makes sense to apply preventative measures to reduce the level of really polluting cars on the road, after all, we're not the ones going to be cleaning it up.
Possibly it is just a British thing. Everyone uses it here.
Which is kind of ironic, when you look at it...
Apparently you need $250,000 to open one if you're not Swiss though.
"So is a government with its police and military." True. "I don't think anyone would argue that breaking up ATT resulted in better service for consumers: it was innovation from copetitors. Innovation that would not have been affected had ATT remained whole. ATT could have done nothing to stop cablevision from offering phone service. It could have done nothing to stop wireless carriers from offering near DSL speed." And true (sorry, I know nothing about Standard Oil), but why could it do nothing to stop that? Regulations set by the government? This is why I argue that Government and Corporations both need to be strong. Yes, large corporations can be shot down by small innovative competitors, but a sufficiently large corporation can also just buy out the competition, then do with the technology what they will.
Governments keep an eye on the corporations, to make sure they don't get too powerful. Citizens keeps an eye on the government, to make sure they're not overstepping the mark. That's why legal laws apply to the government and we have things like constitutions. This way you end up with happy people, because the power eventually rests with them.
The difficulty is that corporations are good at manipulating people. This is an area that governments have to watch out for, and so they must regulate the corporations in this area. At the same time of course, the corporations do try to manipulate people, and can therefore affect government. Thus we end up with competition between governments and corporations, and everyone knows competition is good for everyone.
Oh no, it's already been done
Show me a wind farm that produces emissions
What a ridiculous supposition. If there's nowhere suitable to dump the waste, have you ever thought about the possibility that we shouldn't be producing it?
If only I hadn't used all my points yesterday, I'd mod you up so fast you wouldn't know what had hit you.
Solar, Wind farms and energy efficiency are the ways forward.
You're obviously lying. Noone listens to stuff that's more than 3 months old - it's unamerican, therefore it doesn't matter if it stops working. Now go out and buy some Britney. Those RIAA execs each need a new Bentley.
Guns do put a deadly long-range combat weapon in the hands of your average nervous and broke drug-addict though. Plus, there's no good reason to have them, except for the fact that other people have got them. Wouldn't a better solution be to take them away from everyone?
So you could be pretty high on the list, but still have every civilian tagged with a radio bleeper with someone watching their every move.
Doesn't seem likely. It replaced the CD-ROM drivers, which SHOULD require admin access.
In that case Microsoft have just screwed their early adopters. I think they've stated that games will never come out on HD-DVD though.
It's kind of weird, but I know more people that (want/own) a PSP than (want/own) a DS, but more people that actually own a DS than people that actually own a PSP.
Unless the technology of the signal somehow manipulated some quantum force that we have no knowledge of and bypassed the security somehow, or just rewrote the magnetic data on the hard disk.
Pretty unlikely perhaps, but you have to think a long long way outside the box if you're going to even try to consider the state of technology in 2000 years time.
Damn! I'm going back to Mozilla!
Yeah, because Apple are really about to gift their longest enemy with a monopoly in yet another market.
No. Apple will use the popularity of their iPod to push their own media centre. Whether that sinks like a lead balloon, we have yet to see.
iPod's fabled connectivity with the 360 is entirely hacked by Microsoft. And you can't use any songs you've bought from iTunes, by the way.
I know that one! I know that one! No.