Please don't try to tell me that even the poorest people in the US (many of whom have cell phones and virtually all of whom have televisions) don't have pots and pans. And no electricity? No salt and pepper? Are you really going to argue that? That could be the most preposterous claim I have read on/. (and there have been some doozies).
What I didn't expect was for the prices to STAY up well after the losses were recouped. The prices didn't go down to pre-blackout levels. In fact they continued to climb.
What do you want to bet the insurance premiums for those stores skyrocketed, and stayed high after the blackout?
You're still quoting 25 year old dogma from a man we now know was a vegetable for much of his term in office?? Christ, if you were any smarter you'd be dangerous.
The "problem" is that even though overall quality of living raises for everyone the difference between "factory owners" and workers get higher and higher because of the way factory owners take profits from workers.
In other words, a rising tide raises all boats. Maybe saying it like Marx is more palatable around these parts, but it's just another way of saying the exact same thing. This is *exactly* what drives me crazy about "liberalism" - it is the politics of envy. Are you really arguing that it would be better for the poor to go back to the way they lived 100 years ago (no access to healthcare, life expenctancies around 50, nothing resembling the affordable housing of today, no means like public education and access to the internet to ever improve themselves) just to spite the "rich" who have gained even more, proportionately?
I would guess they can't afford decent food, housing or health care even though they are "richer" by your estimation. And by decent food, we're talking about fresh produce, meat, poultry, sea food and staples like rice, whole wheat flour, etc...
And you would guess wrong. In fact the junk food is at least as expensive, if not more, than the "decent stuff". Don't confuse making poor choices with a lack of choice or inability to pay. Big Mac "value" meal: $5.19 A chicken breast and a can of vegetables, and a pint of milk: $3.50 tops.
As regards healthcare, I already addressed that. Many (if not most) poor in the West have access to government-paid or government-subsizided healthcare, and the quality of that care is dramatically better than it was years ago. Here is my proof: the life expectancy is much higher today than it was 100 years ago. Now if only the "rich" are benefiting from better healthcare, that would not be enough people to materially increase the average lifespan (unless the "rich" were living hundreds of years).
I agree that trinkets don't define a standard of living. They were just examples of how once-expensive technology, which was basically subsidized by the wealthy, is now available and affordable for the masses. The same argument applies to things like climate control (public housing is now air conditioned) and healthcare.
Owning a Slivr or an iPod doesn't make you healthy, wealthy or wise if you're poor.
Ahh, but having a computer and access to the internet does... hence the OLPC initiative. Computers used to be toys for the rich, but now they are in reach of most everyone, as well as being available at the public libraries and in public schools. Another example of how the poor are wealthier now than they have ever been.
I don't understand what you mean by "the poor get richer" when they may get raises, but the cost of living goes up faster than their pay.
What he means is their standard of living goes up. It is not uncommon to see "poor" people in the US with cell phones, for example. A decade ago only the very wealthy had cell phones. Ditto for things like personal computers, internet access, MP3 players, and more advanced healthcare [OK, in anticipation of an argument on this one... initially the latest drugs are very expensive, until the patents expire at which time generics become available to the "unwashed masses". The high initial prices are what fund the development of the new, expensive, but soon to be affordable, drugs of the future]. The standard of living for the poor in America is dramatically higher than it was 100 years ago - in this sense they are wealthier.
Have you ever noticed how the best "standards" are those that were originally developed by a single company (usually with a profit motive) (think WiFi, think HPIB - er IEEE488, think PC BIOS, the list is long) that were subsequently adopted by the industry as a defacto standard? Conversely, how many times have we seen "standards" created by a committee that are bloated, too broad, and oftentimes followed by a significantly de-scoped version of same in a desperate effort to salvage something? When a bunch of entities get involved in setting a standard, invariably they each make sure their own interests are represented, which is how we get standards like, oh, to pick an example near and dear to me, DICOM - which is a "standard" for exchanging medical images. This "standard" allows for a multitude of codecs, a multitude of pixel representations and aspect ratios... leaving the implementation of a reader that is fully compatible an almost impossible task. Will ODF turn out like that? I don't know, but that's certainly the way to bet.
I agree heartily. Digital Fortress drove me nuts. I have to say, of the 3 Dan Brown books I've read, Angels and Demons was the best; I enjoyed it much more than Da Vinci Code.
Bluray/HDDVD do not offer the nearly as great advantages over DVD as DVD did over VHS
Right you are. Remember, in addition to the better quality audio/video, some of the biggest advantages of DVD over VHS for consumers were: no need to rewind, random access, extra content, smaller storage volumes, more robust media (digital versus analog). Add to that the advantage for manufacturers: efficiencies of stamping out discs versus making pre-recorded tapes. Then include the advantages for content providers: region encoding, encryption/copy-protection. All 3 interested parties won with the switch to DVDs so you had a slam dunk. The move the HD/Blu-Ray is not so compelling for any but the content providers.
Actually, I think it's more accurate to say that Americans hate to lose (or admit defeat). This just goes to show once again that your greatest strength is also your biggest weakness.
Personally I believe the WiFi feature will be a difference-maker, but as currently implemented on the Zune it isn't very enticing. I expect MS to come out with a software update in 6 months or so that will dramatically improve the wireless functionality. I used the early Smartphones and they had similar rough edges - they were clunky and missing many "obvious" features. But MS kept plugging along and now they have a very competitive phone operating system. With their resources and long-term view I figure they will ultimately make the Zune a formidible competitor to the iPod franchise. We also should remember that it's still early yet in this game. Portable media players only last about 3-4 years, so we haven't even really seen the first big replacement wave yet.
I did not misunderstand the issue at all. You failed to read the poster's comment that I quoted. You are correct that the main thread was about a patent infringement. However, I was addressing the proposal of "how you deal with monopolies" which was made by the parent-poster to my comment. If you want, feel free to jump on him/her for "not understanding this issue."
BTW, I am glad to hear there are Asian products that compete quite well with Office because competition is healthy and beneficial.
... so maybe, just maybe, they already have software that works better in their market and isn't made by MS. there are others that make software too you know.
If this were true then there wouldn't be an issue, right? How would MS sell any software there at all? This smacks of circular logic. Microsoft is a monopoly so we demand lots of cash from them. But maybe we should ban Microsoft from selling since there are many better, cheaper, home-grown products that could be used instead... if the first statement is true, the second is false, and vice versa.
that's how you stop a monopoly: block it from selling a monopoly product.
Brilliant! My mother used to refer to this strategy as "cutting off your nose to spite your face". Just imagine back in the days of the railroad barons - all right, nobody can ride trains anymore. Back to horses-and-buggies for you so we can teach that nasty monopoly a lesson they won't soon forget.
... the state could spend several times the amount of money that the pharmaceutical companies spend on research, and our society would still save money because the price gouging is so brutal on patent encumbered drugs.
Are you serious? Remove the profit motive? State funding? Have you seen the condition of public schools in the US (hint, quality is awful and costs are sky-high)? Have you seen the condition of the roads and bridges? How would you compare the efficiency, cost-effectiveness and customer service of the US Post Office with Fed X and UPS? Let's talk about airport security. Or border security. Paragons of efficiency? While we're on the subject, how well run is the US Patent Office? You really think the government would do a better job of drug R&D? That flies against *all* empirical evidence of the last 500 years. No, if the state developed drugs we'd have $20 aspirin tablets and not much else.
It can be done completely with handset software. Caller ID is an available API. Virtually everything I described in my post is possible with today's hardware and software platforms (Symbian, Windows Mobile). The only role the mobile carrier plays is to provide a data-plan; all the rest uses the internet (including the ID-server I referred to).
Did you see step "b" in my sequence? You would have the ability to tell your communicator that you were only accepting non-interactive messages, and only from approved sources. Ditto for incoming, interactive "voice" calls... you could tell your communicator not to "ring through" if the call is not from anybody on your approved list. This is a step beyond caller ID where you an see who is calling, but you've already been interrupted by the obnoxious ring. A smart communicator would not disturb to tell you that a call had come in because those are the orders you gave it.
If you think about it, telling people how to reach you (i.e. telling them which medium, like "call me on my cell") is somewhat "old think". Imagine a world where all anyone needs to know is your unique identifier - the "network cloud" figures out how to complete the connection. I simply tell my device "I want to send a message or speak interactively with so-and-so". The device queries the network and determines a) that person is known, b) whether that person is accepting the requested type of communication (in general, or specifically from the caller) c) the best way to complete the connection (video, voice, instant message, email, text message...). My cellphone/music player/organizer convergence device is the only device I'll need to carry; it will intelligently use WiFi, the cell network, bluetooth, wireless USB, or whatever channel is required to accomplish the requested task. Heck, if you really want to think "outside the box" it *could* use a text channel and use voice-synthesis to make it seem like a voice channel.
For what it's worth, I have used Windows Mobile PDA-type smartphones that come very close to being able to accomplish the above. It had both WiFi and cell GPRS capabilities and could operate smoothly over either path to the internet; in fact it could even (when properly coded) automatically switch over mid-download between GPRS and WiFi. It really is all mostly a matter of software these days. And the company/group that pulls this off may get the chance to name this new device with their own brandname (ala Kleenex and Xerox).
You completely ignore the biggest costs of adding platforms -- testing and support. That is, of course, assuming the code is already multi-platform capable (and others on this thread have talked at length about the issues involved in that non-trivial exercise). Remember that support includes both end-user support as well as maintenance. This means developing (or at least configuring) and managing a patch distribution infrastructure for each platform. Plus there are the difficulties of handling platform-specific bug fixes -- do you update the shared source code thereby incurring at least some regression testing on every platform, or do you branch for each platform? Neither is pleasant and both have associated costs that grow exponentially with the number of platforms supported. It simply makes no sense to port a product from a platform with >90% marketshare, to attempt to get the remaining 10%. Those costs can and should be applied to simply getting more of the 90% chunk.
Essentially, Microsoft's first foray into the operating systems market was with an illegal clone of a then dominant OS.
If had been an illegal clone as you assert, IBM would not have gone forward. If you'll recall IBM had recently emerged from a bit of legal hot water and was extremely risk averse at the time. In fact it was not illegal any more than Mac OS was an "illegal" clone of the Xerox park stuff. Here's a little blurb from the Wikipedia DR-DOS entry that sheds a little light on this:
However, CP/M-86 was not yet ready at the August 1981 IBM PC introduction, and Microsoft agreed with IBM to sell PC-DOS for $60 compared to the $240 asked for CP/M-86 by Digital Research.
So, Microsoft *legally* licensed an unfinished OS, finished it and then sold it to IBM, agreeing to their aggressive schedule, and offering a compelling price, realizing that the *real rewards* would come later.
Microsoft had added a clause in it's license of DOS to IBM that allowed the reselling of DOS under a different brand name.
Speaking of the real rewards... hence my refering to IBM as "lumbering" and arrogant. Microsoft simply out-maneuvered them, recognizing the value in owning the software platform, and further recognizing that ultimately the hardware would be a commodity. This was pure genius on their part, and is one of the key reasons they became so successful. They were willing to forgo making a killing on the PC-DOS licenses, prefering instead to own the software platform. We can all be sure IBM would *never* have agreed to let Microsoft market MSDOS on their own if they had forseen how things would play out. Microsoft saw the future and played their cards accordingly. A small, nimble company outfoxed the giants of the day, and even obtained the help of the biggest giant of them all in doing it.
In the beginning there were never advertisements for MS-DOS or PC-DOS, because Microsoft knew it had those markets sewn up.
Please re-read my post. I said *nothing* about commercials or Microsoft marketing to end-users. I asserted that they did a much better job of marketing to 3rd party developers - and surely you are aware enough of what transpired to agree with that observation. It would be disingenuous for someone so tuned into the history to deny how successful Microsoft was at attracting 3rd party developers to their platform, thereby making it the most valuable platform available.
While we are rehashing history, let's also make sure to credit them for having the good sense to maintain backwards, binary compatibility along the way. What they achieved was nothing short of amazing. By doing this they protected the end-user's investments in their software -- something that was rarely done before Microsoft came along. Even today they still spend inordinate effort maintaining backwards compatibility. Interestingly, this very strength is also one of their key weaknesses as this backwards compatibility does not come without cost. It weakens their OS and it bloats it as well. Some on these boards have questioned why they are even releasing a 32 bit version of Vista. Backwards compatibility, one of their keys to success, is the answer.
Slashdot Mirror
Please don't try to tell me that even the poorest people in the US (many of whom have cell phones and virtually all of whom have televisions) don't have pots and pans. And no electricity? No salt and pepper? Are you really going to argue that? That could be the most preposterous claim I have read on /. (and there have been some doozies).
No, it's me, JFK!
a ll_boats
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_rising_tide_lifts_
I didn't know JFK was in office 25 years ago. I thought it was more like 40. And the part apart him being a vegetable? News to me.
Anyhow, I may not be "smart enough to be dangerous", but I am most certainly and demonstrably smarter than you!
As regards healthcare, I already addressed that. Many (if not most) poor in the West have access to government-paid or government-subsizided healthcare, and the quality of that care is dramatically better than it was years ago. Here is my proof: the life expectancy is much higher today than it was 100 years ago. Now if only the "rich" are benefiting from better healthcare, that would not be enough people to materially increase the average lifespan (unless the "rich" were living hundreds of years).
I agree that trinkets don't define a standard of living. They were just examples of how once-expensive technology, which was basically subsidized by the wealthy, is now available and affordable for the masses. The same argument applies to things like climate control (public housing is now air conditioned) and healthcare.
Ahh, but having a computer and access to the internet does
A rising tide lifts all boats.
Have you ever noticed how the best "standards" are those that were originally developed by a single company (usually with a profit motive) (think WiFi, think HPIB - er IEEE488, think PC BIOS, the list is long) that were subsequently adopted by the industry as a defacto standard? Conversely, how many times have we seen "standards" created by a committee that are bloated, too broad, and oftentimes followed by a significantly de-scoped version of same in a desperate effort to salvage something? When a bunch of entities get involved in setting a standard, invariably they each make sure their own interests are represented, which is how we get standards like, oh, to pick an example near and dear to me, DICOM - which is a "standard" for exchanging medical images. This "standard" allows for a multitude of codecs, a multitude of pixel representations and aspect ratios ... leaving the implementation of a reader that is fully compatible an almost impossible task. Will ODF turn out like that? I don't know, but that's certainly the way to bet.
I agree heartily. Digital Fortress drove me nuts. I have to say, of the 3 Dan Brown books I've read, Angels and Demons was the best; I enjoyed it much more than Da Vinci Code.
Speaking of redistributing wealth ... tell that to the government as well.
The government has a monopoly position that makes it literally impossible to earn, invest or buy *anything* without giving the government money.
Maybe I wanted to spend my money on a different, worthwhile cause?
Maybe I feel the government is completely incompetent and I'd like to spend that money on the same cause in a more effective way?
Doing some good with the money you stole from people doesn't make up for the stealing.
Personally I believe the WiFi feature will be a difference-maker, but as currently implemented on the Zune it isn't very enticing. I expect MS to come out with a software update in 6 months or so that will dramatically improve the wireless functionality. I used the early Smartphones and they had similar rough edges - they were clunky and missing many "obvious" features. But MS kept plugging along and now they have a very competitive phone operating system. With their resources and long-term view I figure they will ultimately make the Zune a formidible competitor to the iPod franchise. We also should remember that it's still early yet in this game. Portable media players only last about 3-4 years, so we haven't even really seen the first big replacement wave yet.
I did not misunderstand the issue at all. You failed to read the poster's comment that I quoted. You are correct that the main thread was about a patent infringement. However, I was addressing the proposal of "how you deal with monopolies" which was made by the parent-poster to my comment. If you want, feel free to jump on him/her for "not understanding this issue."
BTW, I am glad to hear there are Asian products that compete quite well with Office because competition is healthy and beneficial.
It can be done completely with handset software. Caller ID is an available API. Virtually everything I described in my post is possible with today's hardware and software platforms (Symbian, Windows Mobile). The only role the mobile carrier plays is to provide a data-plan; all the rest uses the internet (including the ID-server I referred to).
Did you see step "b" in my sequence? You would have the ability to tell your communicator that you were only accepting non-interactive messages, and only from approved sources. Ditto for incoming, interactive "voice" calls ... you could tell your communicator not to "ring through" if the call is not from anybody on your approved list. This is a step beyond caller ID where you an see who is calling, but you've already been interrupted by the obnoxious ring. A smart communicator would not disturb to tell you that a call had come in because those are the orders you gave it.
If you think about it, telling people how to reach you (i.e. telling them which medium, like "call me on my cell") is somewhat "old think". Imagine a world where all anyone needs to know is your unique identifier - the "network cloud" figures out how to complete the connection. I simply tell my device "I want to send a message or speak interactively with so-and-so". The device queries the network and determines a) that person is known, b) whether that person is accepting the requested type of communication (in general, or specifically from the caller) c) the best way to complete the connection (video, voice, instant message, email, text message ...). My cellphone/music player/organizer convergence device is the only device I'll need to carry; it will intelligently use WiFi, the cell network, bluetooth, wireless USB, or whatever channel is required to accomplish the requested task. Heck, if you really want to think "outside the box" it *could* use a text channel and use voice-synthesis to make it seem like a voice channel.
For what it's worth, I have used Windows Mobile PDA-type smartphones that come very close to being able to accomplish the above. It had both WiFi and cell GPRS capabilities and could operate smoothly over either path to the internet; in fact it could even (when properly coded) automatically switch over mid-download between GPRS and WiFi. It really is all mostly a matter of software these days. And the company/group that pulls this off may get the chance to name this new device with their own brandname (ala Kleenex and Xerox).
You completely ignore the biggest costs of adding platforms -- testing and support. That is, of course, assuming the code is already multi-platform capable (and others on this thread have talked at length about the issues involved in that non-trivial exercise). Remember that support includes both end-user support as well as maintenance. This means developing (or at least configuring) and managing a patch distribution infrastructure for each platform. Plus there are the difficulties of handling platform-specific bug fixes -- do you update the shared source code thereby incurring at least some regression testing on every platform, or do you branch for each platform? Neither is pleasant and both have associated costs that grow exponentially with the number of platforms supported. It simply makes no sense to port a product from a platform with >90% marketshare, to attempt to get the remaining 10%. Those costs can and should be applied to simply getting more of the 90% chunk.
So, Microsoft *legally* licensed an unfinished OS, finished it and then sold it to IBM, agreeing to their aggressive schedule, and offering a compelling price, realizing that the *real rewards* would come later.
Speaking of the real rewards
Please re-read my post. I said *nothing* about commercials or Microsoft marketing to end-users. I asserted that they did a much better job of marketing to 3rd party developers - and surely you are aware enough of what transpired to agree with that observation. It would be disingenuous for someone so tuned into the history to deny how successful Microsoft was at attracting 3rd party developers to their platform, thereby making it the most valuable platform available.
While we are rehashing history, let's also make sure to credit them for having the good sense to maintain backwards, binary compatibility along the way. What they achieved was nothing short of amazing. By doing this they protected the end-user's investments in their software -- something that was rarely done before Microsoft came along. Even today they still spend inordinate effort maintaining backwards compatibility. Interestingly, this very strength is also one of their key weaknesses as this backwards compatibility does not come without cost. It weakens their OS and it bloats it as well. Some on these boards have questioned why they are even releasing a 32 bit version of Vista. Backwards compatibility, one of their keys to success, is the answer.