Halloween Tip
Tonight will be the second year that I won’t be afraid to turn on my lights on Halloween night. Last year was the first year I bought a ton of candy and waited by my door for hours for kids to take it, and while it was a lot of fun I also learned a lot. Now that I have a blog, I have a venue to share my vast Halloween experience. I have a big tip for Halloween beginners:
Don’t hold out the candy bowl.
There can be some exceptions, though. If the kids are very young, they can have whatever they want, I don’t care. But otherwise, I’ll hand out the candy myself. I’ll never forget those teenagers last year who took half my candy and ran!
Tags: [halloween]A picture is worth a thousand words
Here’s a picture that doesn’t need any comment. It speaks for itself.
Picture via LGF.
Tags: [bush, womens rights]Re: Free My Phone
Yesterday I ran across an article on the Wall Street Journal’s site titled “Free My Phone.” This article, written by Walter S. Mossberg, argues that it is time for the government to prevent cell phone carriers to control their networks in ways that hurt consumer choice. Of course, I have a few problems with his argument.
Digital capitalism
Mossberg opens with a description of all of the choice and control consumers have when it comes to choosing computer hardware, software, and the internet connection we want. If we don’t like something, we just swap it out with something else we want. He later compares the PC market to the cell phone market, but after he writes:
Oh, and the developers of such computers, software and services can offer you their products directly, without going through the Internet provider, without getting the provider’s approval, and without giving the provider a penny. The Internet provider gets paid simply for its contribution to the mix: providing your Internet connection. But, for all practical purposes, it doesn’t control what is connected to the network, or carried over the network.
This is the way digital capitalism should work…
That’s not how capitalism, or even digital capitalism (whatever that is), works. Capitalism is an economic system that is founded in individual rights. Under capitalism, an individual is in charge of his own life, liberty, and property, and the only way to obtain anything from another individual is through persuasion and trade. This system will naturally tend to produce a large number of options for consumers as producers compete with one another, and the examples Mossberg provides is a good example of how that competition has greatly benefited the computer market. Depending on the situation, though, a market with a small number of options (or no options, for that matter) may exist. Since capitalism allows people to act according to their own will, results will vary.
It’s a mistake to measure capitalism by counting the number of options a consumer may have. The only way to determine if capitalism exists is to check for the foundation of capitalism: respect for individual rights. That’s how capitalism works. If Mossberg wanted to show that a free market really doesn’t exist in the cell phone industry, he should start by showing who is being forced to act against his or her free will, and by whom. And when I say “forced” I mean the physical type, not the “I had to sign a contract before they’d give me an iPhone” type. The latter isn’t really force, it’s just terms that are part of a voluntary agreement.
Soviet ministries
Mossberg writes:
That’s why I refer to the big cellphone carriers as the “Soviet ministries.” Like the old bureaucracies of communism, they sit athwart the market, breaking the link between the producers of goods and services and the people who use them.
What’s missing here is the fact that cell phone carriers are producers of goods. They produce network service that allows cell phones to operate. Rather than break the link between cell phone makers and cell phone users, as Mossberg describes, cell phone carriers build the link. If it wasn’t for the service cell phone providers create and offer to consumers, our cell phones would be reduced to being electronic address books or horrible digital cameras.
I think Mossberg is missing the real lesson to be learned from the real Soviet ministries. The reason the Soviet ministries could not produce what the free market could was the fact that the government controlled everything. While those in the free market were able move and adjust to demand, the Soviet government dictated what would be produced regardless of need or demand. For those who want to avoid the types of results created by the Soviet government, the lesson should be clear: Keep government out of the market. But unfortunately, government intervention is what Mossberg advocates.
Deserves to make a profit…
Mossberg tries to offer some consolation to the cell phone companies:
Let me be clear: Any company that spends billions to build and maintain a wireless network deserves to be paid for its use, and deserves to make a profit and a return for its shareholders.
I disagree. A company does not deserve to make a profit solely by spending billions on a wireless network. It takes more than that to deserve a profit. After building the network the company has to sell its services, and only by making those billions back can the company deserve its profit. The only thing that a company deserves by building a multi-billion dollar network is control over that network. And it’s that control that Mossberg wants to take away:
Not only that, but companies like Verizon Wireless or AT&T Inc. should be free to build or sell phones or software or services.
But, in my view, they shouldn’t be allowed to pick and choose what phones run on their networks, and what software and services run on those phones.
In other words, cell phone carriers should not be “allowed” to control their own networks. When Mossberg says “Free My Phone,” he’s not referring to his ability to control his phone. He’s really referring to his ability to dictate what cell phone carriers do with their own property, and he can’t do that without government intervention.
I don’t read the Wall Street Journal very often, but from what I’ve heard the paper is one of the most pro-capitalist papers available today. If that’s true, I’m very surprised to read an article like this on their website. Technology issues like these might seem complex, but government intervention is government intervention. I believe that the best think for the cell phone industry — or any industry — is to allow individuals to be free to make their own decisions with their own lives and property. Keep the government out.
Tags: [cell phone, government, iPhone, mossberg, wsj]Jammie Thomas and the RIAA
About two weeks ago, Jammie Thomas was found guilty of copyright infringement for making 24 songs available on a peer-to-peer “file-sharing” network. The RIAA has been going after people who distribute music online for a couple years ago, but everybody before Thomas decided to settle the case for about $3,000. Thomas rejected the offer and took it to court, and for her trouble she was found guilty and hit with a judgement of $222,000. I bet she wishes she had just taken the first offer! Now Thomas is appealing that ruling on the grounds that the $222,000 constitutes an excessive and unconstitutional penalty. Since the 24 songs she was found guilty for distributing could have been purchased for $24, the actual damages to the property owners for her actions is a drop in the bucket compared to the money she’ll have to pay to satisfy the judgment leveled against her.
I disagree, and I think the logic she’s using in her appeal is a good example of the type of rationalization music pirates use when they choose to steal someone’s music. These people only consider a loss to be a sale that didn’t happen because an individual chose to download the music instead. Like in Thomas’ case, the 24 songs in the case can be purchased for $24, so the damages were $24. But in most cases of music piracy, the individual who steals the music has no intention of ever purchasing the music. Therefore, since the artist did not lose out on a sale, then piracy is ok and does not damage the artist. In fact, it’s good for the artist because it could lead to increased exposure to the artist!
What this argument ignores is the artist’s right to own and control his own creations. The real damage music piracy inflicts is the loss of the artist’s ability to set the conditions by which his property is traded. It’s that control that allows the selling of music at all. How can an artist sell his music when everybody can just take it? He can’t. He just has to accept whatever terms the music pirate dictates and live with it. This, in effect, makes the music worthless.
If you think that $222,000 is a lot of money compared to the crime, look at some of the artists whose music was included in the 24 songs brought up in trial. Now compare the $222,000 to the amount of revenue the 24 songs have brought in to the music industry. Does the court’s ruling seem excessive now?
All this being said, I don’t like the fact that Thomas (a single mother of 2) has to bear such a huge financial hardship. But I also don’t like lots of cases I see of people making mistakes that are easily avoidable. Life has so much to offer, so why give that up for to be a martyr for a cause like fighting the RIAA in a file-sharing case? Even if you don’t agree with copyright, the law is clear and the penalties are harsh. We’ve all seen the FBI warning that pops up before movies. If you don’t want to be the target of a RIAA court case, all you have to do is not steal music. That’s not very hard.
Tags: [intellectual property, jammie thomas, riaa]Apple: Damned if you do…
In Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, Ayn Rand wrote:
If I were asked to choose the date which marks the turning point on the road to the ultimate destruction of American industry, and the most infamous piece of legislation in American history, I would choose the year 1890 and the Sherman Act–which began that grotesque, irrational, malignant growth of unenforceable, incompliable, injudicable contradictions known as the antitrust laws.
Under the antitrust laws, a man becomes a criminal from the moment he goes into business, no matter what he does. If he complies with one of these laws, he faces criminal prosecution under several others. For instance, if he charges prices which some bureaucrats judge as too high, he can be prosecuted for monopoly, or, rather, for a successful “intent to monopolize”; if he charges prices lower than those of his competitors, he can be prosecuted for “unfair competition” or “restraint of trade”; and if he charges the same prices as his competitors, he can be prosecuted for “collusion” or “conspiracy.”
If you would like to see an example of the type of prosecution Ayn Rand speaks of, you only need to look at the current plight of Apple. Over the past couple weeks, Apple has been presented with multiple lawsuits from unhappy customers. The lawsuits are centered around three basic issues. The first issue is Apple’s exclusive deal with AT&T and its enforcement of that deal through software updates to its iPhone software. According to those who are bringing suit against Apple, the deal between AT&T and Apple is monopolistic in nature and illegal according to FCC policies and the law (including the Sherman Act). The second issue is, believe it or not, is Apple’s decision to drop the price of its iPhone by $200. And the third is Apple’s decision not to include a removable battery in the iPhone. It’s hard to find a decision Apple made regarding its iPhone release that someone won’t claim is a violation of the customer’s rights.
Now, if you’re like me, you’re wondering how Apple’s deal with AT&T could constitute a monopoly. Apple and AT&T are just two players in a large, competitive cell-phone market that nobody is even close to “monopolizing.” This is where the “unenforceable, incompliable, injudicable” antitrust laws Ayn Rand spoke of come in to play. The litigants in this case are not accusing Apple of monopolizing the entire cell phone industry. They claim Apple is trying to monopolize “portions of the mobile cell phone market.” One of the court documents even refers to Apple’s “monopolization of the Relevant Market.” In other words, Apple is being sued for monopolizing the iPhone market.
But what about the price drop? Aren’t most people happy when the price of a product drops dramatically? Not the woman who is suing Apple for it. She claims that Apple’s price drop was “not necessary” and it lowered the resale value of the phone she had purchased. She wants a million dollars for her trouble. I don’t know how much damages those who are complaining about the battery are seeking, but I’m sure it’s a lot. (By the way, if you don’t like the battery, why not take it back?)
I see a common thread in all of these cases, and it is the belief that Apple should not have the ability to own and control its own property. To these people, the happiness of Apple’s customer is not a requirement to stay in business; it’s a legal requirement to be enforced by any customer who disagrees with a decision Apple made. It doesn’t take much imagination to think of the implications of this type of logic. If the rules and limitations Apple sets for its property is a violation of the rights of its customers, what piece of software or hardware could be considered safe from litigation? Accepting the litigants’ arguments requires the rejection of the idea that property — whether material or intellectual — should be owned or controlled by the individual that created it.
I’m hoping that these cases are rejected by the court or Apple wins handily, but I think it is a shame that we’re at a point where these types of cases are even considered. Good luck Apple!
Tags: [apple, iPhone, property rights]Quote quiz
Usually every morning I check the Neal Boortz show’s program notes. He calls them “Today’s Nuze,” and the most recent version can be viewed here.
On his show notes for October 8th, 2007, he had a small quiz to see if readers could identify the source of a number of anti-capitalist quotes. You can read the quiz here, or read the quotes in the quote below.
“We’re going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good.”
“It’s time for a new beginning, for an end to government of the few, by the few, and for the few…and to replace it with shared responsibility for shared prosperity.”
“(We)…can’t just let business as usual go on, and that means something has to be taken away from some people.”
“We have to build a political consensus and that requires people to give up a little bit of their own…in order to create this common ground.”
“I certainly think the free-market has failed.”
“I think it’s time to send a clear message to what has become the most profitable sector in (the) entire economy that they are being watched.”
The source, as he identifies, is Hillary Clinton.
Boortz makes another great point about another Clinton quote in his notes:
Tags: [boortz, clinton, hillary clinton]Several weeks ago Hillary the Hideous loudly proclaimed that “privatization isn’t the answer to anything.” As I said at the time, this means that Hillary Rodham must think that government is the answer to everything … including education.
The Worst Person in the NFL?
I sometimes turn on Sunday Night Football when I’m working on my computer on Sunday evenings. Tonight I turned on the Saints-Seahawks game and I caught the “Worst Person in the NFL” segment halftime skit. It’s a weekly thing by Keith Olbermann, who uses his “Worst Person in the World” segment on his regular show to attack the Bush administration and right-wing radio and tv hosts. Tonight, the worst person in the NFL was: Jones Soda. I don’t want to explain why.
The last time I caught the segment, I think I remember Olbermann named himself as the worst person in the NFL.
I know that the segment is supposed to be funny and Olbermann’s act is not meant to be taken seriously (at least, I think it isn’t… I can’t imagine he’s really the guy we see on tv). But, I bet that when NBC set up this segment for their new Sunday night show they expected Olbermann to talk about the NFL?
Tags: [nbc, nfl, olbermann]Ubuntu
I’ve been busy for the past two weeks, mostly on two projects. One is a top-secret project that I definitely won’t be able to open-source. It won’t be finished until after dar-gtd, but I’ve had to spend some time studying up for it now. I’ll announce the details of that project later.
The second project is trying out Ubuntu Linux. I have an older laptop with a burnt-out cdrom, battery-charger, and a hardware-interrupt issue that would make the machine lock up for half a second every five seconds. The machine is still fast enough to function well to run the internet and basic office applications, which is all I need for the small office I set up in my new basement. I’ve been putting it off forever, but last week I finally taught myself how to use network booting to get a new operating system installed. I decided to give Ubuntu a try. I’ve had mixed results.
First, the positives. The machine works faster and better on Ubuntu than I remember, even when it’s new. The hardware-interrupt issue went away, so I can actually type blog posts like this again. Most of my non-programming computer time is spent online, so it’s like I have a new computer.
Now for the negatives. Things have gotten better since my last experiment with Linux over three years ago, but I still don’t see a real attempt to shield the user from the inner workings of the machine. It is easy to use, but as soon as you want to do anything that did not come off the default cd you have to go back to typing command-line operations, downloading packages and editing text configuration files. Unless you are a very competent computer user you probably won’t be able to do perform many basic tasks. Or much worse, you could make a small change to a configuration file that might break your system (which I did). I was able to get my wireless card working, update my video card drivers, and get the system to a point where I don’t think I have to update it for a while, but I know that most people would not be able to follow the steps I took.
I’ve heard all about how Ubuntu is the easiest Linux distribution, but if this is as good as Linux has come then I really wonder if Linux is ever going to be a viable alternative for the average computer user. I’ve only been using it for a few days, so I’ll give it some more time.
Tags: [ubuntu]Sawyer reading “The Fountainhead” on Lost
I’ve noticed that people sometimes search my old site for the screenshots I took of Sawyer reading The Fountainhead last season. I posted it to The Forum, but the site I was hosting the images under no longer exists. Here they are again if you want to see them.
