Because the structural framework designed by 17th century plantation owners for a pre-industrial society are OBVIOUSLY relevant for a high technology, 21st century global economy.
Well at least that's the spin that the tea party would like you to believe.
You are not going to get any enlightenment from the highly politicized domestic debate about the debt crisis (and that's a loaded word, but it is probably accurate at this point). I'm a US / Canadian citizen, now living in Canada. The only way for Americans to get some perspective is to compare the key economic metrics to those of other developed nations in terms of taxation, spending and borrowing.
On the taxation side Americans have one of the lowest taxation rates among developed nations. US tax revenues as a percentage of GDP are around 24% (2009 data). Most other developed nations are over 30%. The only OECD countries with lower tax revenues (per GDP) are Turkey, Chile and Mexico. But Turkey's public debt is only 42% of GDP, Mexico's is 27% and Chile's is 9%; the US public debt is over 60% ( just central gov debt) or 90% (total public debt) as a percentage of GDP. For comparables, Denmark and Sweden's tax revenues per GDP are approaching 50%, France, Austria and Finland are in the mid-40% range, Germany and the UK (and EU average) are around 35%, Switzerland, Spain and Canada are around 30%. So from this, compared to other developed nations, the US takes in significantly less tax revenue as a proportion of its economic output.
On the spending side, in spite of high military, healthcare and public pension spending, the US public spending as a percentage of GDP is in about the middle to low end of the scale compared to other developed nations. Government spending as a percentage of GDP in the US is about 39%. This is comparable to Canada (39%), Norway (40%), Japan (37%), but is much lower than the UK (47%), Germany (43%), Italy (48%) and of course, Sweden and Denmark at 52%. So compared to other developed nations which have similar need to support the education, healthcare, public pensions, security, etc. of the population, the US spends less as a percentage of its economic output.
So the US takes in less tax revenue AND spends less as a proportion of economic output than comparable developed nations. The US has been able to do this because of its efficiency - the US (along with Norway and Switzerland) has led most other nation in GDP per capita - currently at around $47,000. This compares to Canada, Sweden and Germany around $38,000 and the UK, Japan and France around $35,000. So because the US generates more economic output per person, it can spend less and tax less. So what's the problem then?
Well one of the problems is the US dollar. The dollar has been the defacto fiat currency for generations. If you want to buy or sell something on an international market (particularly oil) the transaction will be denominated and closed in US dollars. Every country and company MUST have reserves of US dollars. This creates an artificial demand on the dollar and strengthens (inflates) it versus other currencies. The strength of the dollar has a lot of repercussions. On the plus side, it has encouraged direct foreign investments - other nations investing in the US economy, this is a good thing. The attractiveness of the dollar to investors has meant that much (over 60%) of the public debt is foreign held - that's not a good thing. It also contributes to a trade deficit - US goods are more expensive, so we export less, and foreign goods are cheaper so we import more. So as a result of an artificially high dollar, we produce less and spend more. The US has traditionally not worried too much about this because we have always been able to "move up" the value chain - that is, as lower value economic activity (jobs) has been shipped overseas, we have replaced this activity with higher valued economic activity - value added goods and services. We also lead the world in generation of intellectual property - thoughts, ideas and inventions.
Another problem is, other nations - most notably India and China are catching up. China and India are
The author doesn't seem to understand how the CAFE standards work. As I understand it, CAFE is a fleet standard. If there is one standard that includes passenger cars, light trucks and SUVs, for every gas guzzling SUV or light truck that is sold, the manufacture has to sell several more efficient little economy cars. This cannot result in more SUV and light trucks on the road unless the fuel economy of these vehicles increases dramatically. Unless my understanding is wrong, manufacturers would not be able to sell (manufacture) more SUVs unless they have sold enough economy cars to keep the overall fleet economy under the standard.
No - Microsoft didn't get sued for giving away Internet Explorer. They got sued for illegally tying IE to Windows. It's sort of like gaining the leading market share with the iPhone and tying sales of iPhone apps (and books or anything sold in-application) to the Apple iStore.
1. Patent trolls don't go after large, rich companies that own lots of patents.
Not true. NTP went after RIM and extracted $600M.
2. Google doesn't care about the phone makers. If they did, they'd force them to not hack Android so much. And they'd buy patents to protect them. Neither of which they're doing.
Your assertion is illogical and you are wrong on the facts. Google obviously cares about phone makers because they represent the vast majority of Android devices. Google did seek to buy Nortel's patent portfolio and bid $3.14B to do so, but was out bid by the MS / Apple cabal. Additionally, Google just acquired over 1000 patents from IBM.
I'll give them credit for the iPhone. It wasn't the first commercially successful smartphone, but they did at least bring a product to the market and the combination of touch screen, UI, appstore and slick packaging captured the imagination of a lot of people.
No, but giving away what other companies must charge for could be described that way.
Just because YOU have described it that way doesn't make it valid. Google has a legitimate, and indeed more sustainable, business model. Deriving revenues from royalties on the platform (hardware / OS) is a loser of a business model because the margins on the platform will be constantly driven downwards. Telecom carriers routinely give away the phones to make money on data/voice services (with 2 and 3 year contracts). Google's approach to make the platform ubiquitous and make money on ads and content is simply an extension of their core business to the mobile space.
If you are going to attempt to disrupt a technology market, you have to be prepared for the existing players to retaliate.
I'm sure Google would be fine if MS, Apple and Oracle retaliated in the market place with better products and services, but instead they chose to become patent trolls (see below).
True, but given their reaction to this patent deal it seems more than likely that they think Android might infringe on at least a few of those patents.
It's almost certain than ANY large software product that does anything useful will infringe on some software patent. Google's choice NOT to license Sun's Java patents or not to simply buy Sun Microsystems is more indicative of Google's believe that any patents Android infringes are invalid or worthless.
How is this relevant?
It goes to your point above - how does an entrenched market player respond to a disruptive technology . MS was late to the party and ineffective with it's Windows Phone 7. Sun (now Oracle) also missed the boat. They failed miserably to make J2ME relevant for the next generation of smart phones and their strategy to generate "field of use" royalties from the supposedly "open" platform was already driving handset makers such as Nokia to higher performance, royalty free platforms. So after failing to compete in the market place, Oracle and Microsoft chose to become patent trolls instead.
Microsoft licenses IP under restrictive terms and charges royalties to licensees. Google licenses Android for free, under terms that allow redistribution, forking and re-licensing to any number of 3rd, 4th, 5th parties. It is very likely that terms of the co-ownership would allow Microsoft's model, but prohibit Google's.
The real danger to Android is not in Google being sued, but in it's handset partners (HTC, Motorola, Samsung, etc.) being sued. In fact, it is quite possible that co-ownership of that IP would have forced Google to sue its own business partners (or at the very least, would have prohibited distribution of the technology under GPL/Apache/BSD like terms).
It really depends on what strings are attached to joint ownership. It is very likely that the strings include a prohibition on "free" licensing and would prohibit any sort of Apache / BSD or GPL type distribution. It is also likely that joint ownership would require joint defense of the IP. Those are deal killers for Google.
It's more likely the offer was something like this:
M$, Oracle and Apple: Hey Google want to join our patent club? We split the cost and share the IP. Oh yeah, and the fine print, you have to charge (and share) a certain amount of royalties on licensing these patents and all co-owners must jointly sue anyone who infringes.
Google: Ah... so under this arrangement, we could not open source Android and would be forced to sue handset makers who used Android? No thanks.
There is a lot we don't know about the terms of the offer to join the Nortell patent bid group. Does joint ownership of the patent portfolio allow extending / licensing the patents to third parties? Does joint ownership of the patent portfolio require all co-owners to jointly defend (defensively or offensively) the patents against infringement?
Without knowing the answers to these questions, there is potential (in fact it is is extremely likely) that joining the bid to acquire the Nortell patents would have put Google in the position where they could not license the technology to handset makers and would be forced to sue their own business partners (handset makers) for infringement of their jointly owned patents.
You can be sure that those were the terms of the offer to join the bid. The only way it would make sense for MS, Oracle and Apple to allow Google to join the bid is if it would compromise Google's defense of Android (or at least not weaken the IP strategies Apple, Oracle and MS have taken against Android).
The problem is, 2 of these industry giants are no longer innovating or producing new ideas; MS and Oracle are acting as patent trolls because their products are dated and increasingly obsolete, "me too" offerings.
Offering consumers an alternative, ad supported revenue model is hardly peeing in the pool. If you are going to compete in a technology market, you have to be prepared for disruptive market entrants. Your assertion that Google is giving away other companies assets is yet to be proven in court. Of Apple, Microsoft and Oracle, only Apple has actually innovated in the mobile market, and they chose to do so with a "walled garden" strategy that is vulnerable to competition from a more open alternative.
Slashdot Mirror
Rednecks - the slogans never change.
If it's a 15 year old doing the shooting I blame whom ever gave / sold / provided the weapon.
Or maybe it's just a bunch of young people who need very little impetus to smash shit up?
Because the structural framework designed by 17th century plantation owners for a pre-industrial society are OBVIOUSLY relevant for a high technology, 21st century global economy.
Yeah - because the best people to manage an economy are people with no money or assets.
Well at least that's the spin that the tea party would like you to believe.
You are not going to get any enlightenment from the highly politicized domestic debate about the debt crisis (and that's a loaded word, but it is probably accurate at this point). I'm a US / Canadian citizen, now living in Canada. The only way for Americans to get some perspective is to compare the key economic metrics to those of other developed nations in terms of taxation, spending and borrowing.
On the taxation side Americans have one of the lowest taxation rates among developed nations. US tax revenues as a percentage of GDP are around 24% (2009 data). Most other developed nations are over 30%. The only OECD countries with lower tax revenues (per GDP) are Turkey, Chile and Mexico. But Turkey's public debt is only 42% of GDP, Mexico's is 27% and Chile's is 9%; the US public debt is over 60% ( just central gov debt) or 90% (total public debt) as a percentage of GDP. For comparables, Denmark and Sweden's tax revenues per GDP are approaching 50%, France, Austria and Finland are in the mid-40% range, Germany and the UK (and EU average) are around 35%, Switzerland, Spain and Canada are around 30%. So from this, compared to other developed nations, the US takes in significantly less tax revenue as a proportion of its economic output.
On the spending side, in spite of high military, healthcare and public pension spending, the US public spending as a percentage of GDP is in about the middle to low end of the scale compared to other developed nations. Government spending as a percentage of GDP in the US is about 39%. This is comparable to Canada (39%), Norway (40%), Japan (37%), but is much lower than the UK (47%), Germany (43%), Italy (48%) and of course, Sweden and Denmark at 52%. So compared to other developed nations which have similar need to support the education, healthcare, public pensions, security, etc. of the population, the US spends less as a percentage of its economic output.
So the US takes in less tax revenue AND spends less as a proportion of economic output than comparable developed nations. The US has been able to do this because of its efficiency - the US (along with Norway and Switzerland) has led most other nation in GDP per capita - currently at around $47,000. This compares to Canada, Sweden and Germany around $38,000 and the UK, Japan and France around $35,000. So because the US generates more economic output per person, it can spend less and tax less. So what's the problem then?
Well one of the problems is the US dollar. The dollar has been the defacto fiat currency for generations. If you want to buy or sell something on an international market (particularly oil) the transaction will be denominated and closed in US dollars. Every country and company MUST have reserves of US dollars. This creates an artificial demand on the dollar and strengthens (inflates) it versus other currencies. The strength of the dollar has a lot of repercussions. On the plus side, it has encouraged direct foreign investments - other nations investing in the US economy, this is a good thing. The attractiveness of the dollar to investors has meant that much (over 60%) of the public debt is foreign held - that's not a good thing. It also contributes to a trade deficit - US goods are more expensive, so we export less, and foreign goods are cheaper so we import more. So as a result of an artificially high dollar, we produce less and spend more. The US has traditionally not worried too much about this because we have always been able to "move up" the value chain - that is, as lower value economic activity (jobs) has been shipped overseas, we have replaced this activity with higher valued economic activity - value added goods and services. We also lead the world in generation of intellectual property - thoughts, ideas and inventions.
Another problem is, other nations - most notably India and China are catching up. China and India are
The author doesn't seem to understand how the CAFE standards work. As I understand it, CAFE is a fleet standard. If there is one standard that includes passenger cars, light trucks and SUVs, for every gas guzzling SUV or light truck that is sold, the manufacture has to sell several more efficient little economy cars. This cannot result in more SUV and light trucks on the road unless the fuel economy of these vehicles increases dramatically. Unless my understanding is wrong, manufacturers would not be able to sell (manufacture) more SUVs unless they have sold enough economy cars to keep the overall fleet economy under the standard.
How many traffic deaths are caused by poor braking performance of oversized SUVs?
No - Microsoft didn't get sued for giving away Internet Explorer. They got sued for illegally tying IE to Windows. It's sort of like gaining the leading market share with the iPhone and tying sales of iPhone apps (and books or anything sold in-application) to the Apple iStore.
1. Patent trolls don't go after large, rich companies that own lots of patents.
Not true. NTP went after RIM and extracted $600M.
2. Google doesn't care about the phone makers. If they did, they'd force them to not hack Android so much. And they'd buy patents to protect them. Neither of which they're doing.
Your assertion is illogical and you are wrong on the facts. Google obviously cares about phone makers because they represent the vast majority of Android devices. Google did seek to buy Nortel's patent portfolio and bid $3.14B to do so, but was out bid by the MS / Apple cabal. Additionally, Google just acquired over 1000 patents from IBM.
I'll give them credit for the iPhone. It wasn't the first commercially successful smartphone, but they did at least bring a product to the market and the combination of touch screen, UI, appstore and slick packaging captured the imagination of a lot of people.
No, but giving away what other companies must charge for could be described that way.
Just because YOU have described it that way doesn't make it valid. Google has a legitimate, and indeed more sustainable, business model. Deriving revenues from royalties on the platform (hardware / OS) is a loser of a business model because the margins on the platform will be constantly driven downwards. Telecom carriers routinely give away the phones to make money on data/voice services (with 2 and 3 year contracts). Google's approach to make the platform ubiquitous and make money on ads and content is simply an extension of their core business to the mobile space.
If you are going to attempt to disrupt a technology market, you have to be prepared for the existing players to retaliate.
I'm sure Google would be fine if MS, Apple and Oracle retaliated in the market place with better products and services, but instead they chose to become patent trolls (see below).
True, but given their reaction to this patent deal it seems more than likely that they think Android might infringe on at least a few of those patents.
It's almost certain than ANY large software product that does anything useful will infringe on some software patent. Google's choice NOT to license Sun's Java patents or not to simply buy Sun Microsystems is more indicative of Google's believe that any patents Android infringes are invalid or worthless.
How is this relevant?
It goes to your point above - how does an entrenched market player respond to a disruptive technology . MS was late to the party and ineffective with it's Windows Phone 7. Sun (now Oracle) also missed the boat. They failed miserably to make J2ME relevant for the next generation of smart phones and their strategy to generate "field of use" royalties from the supposedly "open" platform was already driving handset makers such as Nokia to higher performance, royalty free platforms. So after failing to compete in the market place, Oracle and Microsoft chose to become patent trolls instead.
wow - you've added so much to this conversation.
Microsoft licenses IP under restrictive terms and charges royalties to licensees. Google licenses Android for free, under terms that allow redistribution, forking and re-licensing to any number of 3rd, 4th, 5th parties. It is very likely that terms of the co-ownership would allow Microsoft's model, but prohibit Google's.
The real danger to Android is not in Google being sued, but in it's handset partners (HTC, Motorola, Samsung, etc.) being sued. In fact, it is quite possible that co-ownership of that IP would have forced Google to sue its own business partners (or at the very least, would have prohibited distribution of the technology under GPL/Apache/BSD like terms).
It really depends on what strings are attached to joint ownership. It is very likely that the strings include a prohibition on "free" licensing and would prohibit any sort of Apache / BSD or GPL type distribution. It is also likely that joint ownership would require joint defense of the IP. Those are deal killers for Google.
It's more likely the offer was something like this:
... so under this arrangement, we could not open source Android and would be forced to sue handset makers who used Android? No thanks.
...
M$, Oracle and Apple: Hey Google want to join our patent club? We split the cost and share the IP. Oh yeah, and the fine print, you have to charge (and share) a certain amount of royalties on licensing these patents and all co-owners must jointly sue anyone who infringes.
Google: Ah
M$, Oracle and Apple: Minor techicality
There is a lot we don't know about the terms of the offer to join the Nortell patent bid group. Does joint ownership of the patent portfolio allow extending / licensing the patents to third parties? Does joint ownership of the patent portfolio require all co-owners to jointly defend (defensively or offensively) the patents against infringement?
Without knowing the answers to these questions, there is potential (in fact it is is extremely likely) that joining the bid to acquire the Nortell patents would have put Google in the position where they could not license the technology to handset makers and would be forced to sue their own business partners (handset makers) for infringement of their jointly owned patents.
You can be sure that those were the terms of the offer to join the bid. The only way it would make sense for MS, Oracle and Apple to allow Google to join the bid is if it would compromise Google's defense of Android (or at least not weaken the IP strategies Apple, Oracle and MS have taken against Android).
The problem is, 2 of these industry giants are no longer innovating or producing new ideas; MS and Oracle are acting as patent trolls because their products are dated and increasingly obsolete, "me too" offerings.
Offering consumers an alternative, ad supported revenue model is hardly peeing in the pool. If you are going to compete in a technology market, you have to be prepared for disruptive market entrants. Your assertion that Google is giving away other companies assets is yet to be proven in court. Of Apple, Microsoft and Oracle, only Apple has actually innovated in the mobile market, and they chose to do so with a "walled garden" strategy that is vulnerable to competition from a more open alternative.
The hooker is probably already there. No need for the violence, just a camera.
Said the rhyme, did the crime.
Dalvik for the desktop?
MySQL already has several forks, but MariaDB, developed by Monty Widenius is the closest to a drop in replacement.
So would rat poison (coumadin / warfarin) still work on these rats?