The ideology of cooperation vs competition

[Psycho Fox]

Well since the Bush thread got off track into this area, I'm posing this thread.

Well some say that socalism (The ideology of cooperation) is flawed well so is capitalism (The ideology of competition). The point is both is not perfect. They just have different goals. Capitalism is based on competition. Your have to fight to survive and fight to earn more. This has a down side as with every compeition someone has to lose this means some people have to do without. Socalism is based on cooperation. This means even though your are competiting it is not as much and stakes are nowhere near as high. Your suvival is ensured by the system. You can take the wealth of the system as much you wanted only limmited by the wealth of the system or limmitation issued by society via democratic process. Socalism makes up for this by aimming of giving people time and happiness. Meaning while you might have to be put on a waiting list for a video projector you have more free time and your job enviorment is as stress free as possible. Also Socalism adds job freedom you are not a printer or doctor, you work where you what when you want (unless there is a crisis that needs workers like food production). That means for example you may drive a train one day a bus the next and after that work in animation studio or you could do all that in one day and take the rest of the week playing video games. Since the means of production or owned by all that means it is up to micro level democratic process on your working arrangement in each of them. This reduces boredom since people can easily change how they contrabute to the system. The ideology of Socalist is that it is better to have as much possible time to have fun (even if it means having a bit less) then having more yet lossing time. To put it simply life is to have fun.

So so now that I explained Socalism here is the problem I have with capitalism/competition logic.

Well in competition logic why should I help fellow class mates in school? If I do they have a better chance of taking a job away from me in the future. Same with a interview why would I help someone take a test? Compeition rewards for acting anti-socail

Capitalism can't put value on nature, life or happniess. Germany's economy went through the roof when Hitler took office. When Enviormentalist protect the planet that is our life support the economy hurts. Every time someone is diagnosed with cancer the economy grows. From socialist point of view when ever something good happends the economy goes down when something bad it goes up. It is ass backwards. Not too mention right now there is enough production to about cover the needs and wants of everybody yet Capitalism can't ever do that instead it produces junk that people didn't want that capitalism makes them want. The ideology of mass production and mass consumption puts us in a never ending loop with production going up but still never getting any closer to even meeting everyones needs it just finds way to add more demand instead of supply the demand that is already there.

Okay but capitalism keeps people working right? Well it makes people work the minum they have to unless overtime, promotion or ethics equate into the decision. Meaning on average workers only work enough to not get fired. Why work harder either
a. you get a promotion (don't hold your breath)
b. a raise (Don't hold your breath)
c. a new title but get paid the same and have to do more work
e. simply more work without a new title
f. nothing
g. People above undo your hard work.

Case in point how many sales people know anything about what they selling. I can get more info by just randomly asking fellow customers.

The best work I have done was projects I did for fun. It was when I had the most energey to put into the work.

Also on average human do what the other humans do. For example I once got called to jury duty. Well mostly when your waiting people sit and be borded since that was what everyone else does well I socialized with some of them. Found some animation fans. I noticed once I socialized with people in the room everyone started socialized with each other. Of course everyone got to go home since they wanted us to be complete strangers with each other but I think it is proof that most people follow what everone else is doing thus if everyone is hardwoking in a socialist system and society says this is average thing to do odds are most would be.

[Lucky Bob]

Originally posted by Psycho Fox
Well since the Bush thread got off track into this area, I'm posing this thread.

Well some say that socalism (The ideology of cooperation) is flawed well so is capitalism (The ideology of competition). The point is both is not perfect. They just have different goals. Capitalism is based on competition. Your have to fight to survive and fight to earn more. This has a down side as with every compeition someone has to lose this means some people have to do without.

That's hardly the system's fault, some people just don't want to work. (I'm from Alabama, I know!)

Socalism is based on cooperation. This means even though your are competiting it is not as much and stakes are nowhere near as high. Your suvival is ensured by the system. You can take the wealth of the system as much you wanted only limmited by the wealth of the system or limmitation issued by society via democratic process. Socalism makes up for this by aimming of giving people time and happiness. Meaning while you might have to be put on a waiting list for a video projector you have more free time and your job enviorment is as stress free as possible.

Unfortunately, that wealth only goes so far, and like I said, the majority of people would rather use the benefits without contributing.

Also Socalism adds job freedom you are not a printer or doctor, you work where you what when you want (unless there is a crisis that needs workers like food production). That means for example you may drive a train one day a bus the next and after that work in animation studio or you could do all that in one day and take the rest of the week playing video games.

I'd feel really good if the guy who cleaned the toilets at McDonalds yesterday is going to operate on me today. :rolleyes:

Since the means of production or owned by all that means it is up to micro level democratic process on your working arrangement in each of them. This reduces boredom since people can easily change how they contrabute to the system. The ideology of Socalist is that it is better to have as much possible time to have fun (even if it means having a bit less) then having more yet lossing time. To put it simply life is to have fun.

Unless, you are put on a waiting list for your Gamecube....

So so now that I explained Socalism here is the problem I have with capitalism/competition logic.

Well in competition logic why should I help fellow class mates in school? If I do they have a better chance of taking a job away from me in the future. Same with a interview why would I help someone take a test? Compeition rewards for acting anti-socail

Are you talking about helping someone cheat to pass a test? Otherwise, I don't see how you could "help" someone. The best studying is done by yourself. That way, you learn.

Capitalism can't put value on nature, life or happniess. Germany's economy went through the roof when Hitler took office. When Enviormentalist protect the planet that is our life support the economy hurts. Every time someone is diagnosed with cancer the economy grows. From socialist point of view when ever something good happends the economy goes down when something bad it goes up. It is ass backwards. Not too mention right now there is enough production to about cover the needs and wants of everybody yet Capitalism can't ever do that instead it produces junk that people didn't want that capitalism makes them want. The ideology of mass production and mass consumption puts us in a never ending loop with production going up but still never getting any closer to even meeting everyones needs it just finds way to add more demand instead of supply the demand that is already there.

I don't consider that the fault of the system. If you want to buy all the latest "junk", that's your concious decision. Me? I usually get things off the bargain shelf. You can't assume that everyone thinks alike, and are all mindless drone shoppers. You underestimate the uniqueness of human beings.

Okay but capitalism keeps people working right? Well it makes people work the minum they have to unless overtime, promotion or ethics equate into the decision. Meaning on average workers only work enough to not get fired. Why work harder either
a. you get a promotion (don't hold your breath)
b. a raise (Don't hold your breath)
c. a new title but get paid the same and have to do more work
e. simply more work without a new title
f. nothing
g. People above undo your hard work.

Again, that's only your opinion. Not everyone follows this guideline.

Case in point how many sales people know anything about what they selling. I can get more info by just randomly asking fellow customers.

The best work I have done was projects I did for fun. It was when I had the most energey to put into the work.

And that is another benefit of the Capitalistic society, you pick the job that you like to do, and stick with it!

Also on average human do what the other humans do. For example I once got called to jury duty. Well mostly when your waiting people sit and be borded since that was what everyone else does well I socialized with some of them. Found some animation fans. I noticed once I socialized with people in the room everyone started socialized with each other. Of course everyone got to go home since they wanted us to be complete strangers with each other but I think it is proof that most people follow what everone else is doing thus if everyone is hardwoking in a socialist system and society says this is average thing to do odds are most would be.

So, this world would be a perfect Utopia if everyone were exactly the same? Won't happen in this life. After all, you did mention that some people were animation fans, but not all.

[Psycho Fox]

Originally posted by luckybob1985
That's hardly the system's fault, some people just don't want to work. (I'm from Alabama, I know!)Yes it is. It is impossible for Capitalism to employ everybody without the army of unemployed there would be nothing to threaten workers to work. Some of the people actully do want to work but just were not lucky enough to win a job.

Unfortunately, that wealth only goes so far, and like I said, the majority of people would rather use the benefits without contributing.That is becouse we are currently under a system of competition. It is illogical to put back what you take if you don't have to under capitalism but under Socalism if you don't you might be forced by society so it is either work willing and you have freedom or if too many people don't you won't have a choice.

I'd feel really good if the guy who cleaned the toilets at McDonalds yesterday is going to operate on me today. :rolleyes: Well what is wrong with it. Of course you would still need to be qualified to work at a job so the doctor still knows what he is doing it just he cleaned the toilets the other day. The Doctor you get now in Capitalism could have cleaned his own toliet an hour ago :P

Unless, you are put on a waiting list for your Gamecube....
You can still chase after women if that's the case:cool:


Are you talking about helping someone cheat to pass a test? Otherwise, I don't see how you could "help" someone. The best studying is done by yourself. That way, you learn.I'm not talking about cheating I'm talking about helping them you. IE tutoring them or in a test for a job telling someone who came in late what there are suppose to do.

I don't consider that the fault of the system. If you want to buy all the latest "junk", that's your concious decision. Me? I usually get things off the bargain shelf. You can't assume that everyone thinks alike, and are all mindless drone shoppers. You underestimate the uniqueness of human beings.But even though production keeps going up we never get closer to meeting everbodys needs.

And that is another benefit of the Capitalistic society, you pick the job that you like to do, and stick with it!You don't pick a job. IE I can just help people at wallmart then ask wallmart to pay me and I can't just walk up and ask to do it first. I have to be hired. Socalism actully allows people to pick their job since all you need to be is qualified.


So, this world would be a perfect Utopia if everyone were exactly the same? Won't happen in this life. After all, you did mention that some people were animation fans, but not all. No it just proves people do what everyone else does meaning odds are most people act the way they do know becouse of Capitalism thus under Socalism they will act diffently until the next gernation that hopefully will think for them selfs.

[Lucky Bob]

Originally posted by Psycho Fox
Yes it is. It is impossible for Capitalism to employ everybody without the army of unemployed there would be nothing to threaten workers to work. Some of the people actully do want to work but just were not lucky enough to win a job.

"Army of unemployed?" Haven't read the papers lately, huh? Anyhoo, to say that there are no jobs available for someone is wrong. There's always a job out there, if you're willing to actually.....work! :D When all else fails, you could try going into business for yourself. Many people have done it, and did a good job, I might add. I mentioned before that on CNN, they did a special report on a guy that retrieved golf balls from golf course water hazards. Now, you may think that's a sorry way to make a living, but the guy makes a 6-figure income! See, there's always an opportunity out there, you just have to be willing to get your hands dirty. That's been the way humans have achieved things for centuries..

That is becouse we are currently under a system of competition. It is illogical to put back what you take if you don't have to under capitalism but under Socalism if you don't you might be forced by society so it is either work willing and you have freedom or if too many people don't you won't have a choice.

You'll be FORCED to work? Doesn't that kinda contradict what you said about freedom?

Well what is wrong with it. Of course you would still need to be qualified to work at a job so the doctor still knows what he is doing it just he cleaned the toilets the other day. The Doctor you get now in Capitalism could have cleaned his own toliet an hour ago :P

Okay, how do we know the doctor is "qualified?" Seems to me that if someone knew that he didn't have to be just a doctor, he wouldn't bother learning everything that doctors know. (Which takes quite a long time, I might add.) Under your system, his job is a hobby. I'd like a doctor who views me as more than a hobby.

You can still chase after women if that's the case:cool:

Sounds like a really intellectual society.

I'm not talking about cheating I'm talking about helping them you. IE tutoring them or in a test for a job telling someone who came in late what there are suppose to do.
But even though production keeps going up we never get closer to meeting everbodys needs.

I have never met anybody who refused to tutor someone because they might impede on their success. If you find one, they're probably the Unabomber. Oh, and if someone walks in late for a job test, you might not want to tell him what to do because there are some people actually working around you that won't appreciate you talking during the test.

You don't pick a job. IE I can just help people at wallmart then ask wallmart to pay me and I can't just walk up and ask to do it first. I have to be hired. Socalism actully allows people to pick their job since all you need to be is qualified.

Yup, you have to be hired first. And you're hired based on your qualifications. I see nothing wrong with that pattern. If someone were able to just walk into a nuclear power plant and said "Hey, I'm qualified, let me work here", I'd worry greatly about the system.

No it just proves people do what everyone else does meaning odds are most people act the way they do know becouse of Capitalism thus under Socalism they will act diffently until the next gernation that hopefully will think for them selfs.

So, you should be the only animation fan? Look, nobody is alike. People are still different. You didn't say that everyone there had exactly the same interests. People naturally share some common interests, but that's just human nature, not the by-product of a system.

[Psycho Fox]

Originally posted by luckybob1985
"Army of unemployed?" Haven't read the papers lately, huh? Anyhoo, to say that there are no jobs available for someone is wrong. There's always a job out there, if you're willing to actually.....work! :D When all else fails, you could try going into business for yourself. Many people have done it, and did a good job, I might add. I mentioned before that on CNN, they did a special report on a guy that retrieved golf balls from golf course water hazards. Now, you may think that's a sorry way to make a living, but the guy makes a 6-figure income! See, there's always an opportunity out there, you just have to be willing to get your hands dirty. That's been the way humans have achieved things for centuries..That is the name Socalist gives them since if you took every unemployed person in the world you'd have an army. Right but lets say we ship ever unemployed into the bush after teaching them to fend for them selves. Now they are out of the system. Problem with zero unemployed is now workers have a trump card since the pool is gone there is no longer army of unemployed ready to take workers places. See the problem. The less unemployed the more power shifts to the unions till it goes too far in their favor.

You'll be FORCED to work? Doesn't that kinda contradict what you said about freedom?Yes but the system primary job is to substane all the people it looks after thus since it is a democratic system. People can call in a draft for workers in for example farms if food production can't substane everybody. It is a tool that is there in a crisis but odds are I don't think it would ever be needed.


Okay, how do we know the doctor is "qualified?" Seems to me that if someone knew that he didn't have to be just a doctor, he wouldn't bother learning everything that doctors know. (Which takes quite a long time, I might add.) Under your system, his job is a hobby. I'd like a doctor who views me as more than a hobby.
Same way we know now when a doctor is qualified. I don't see a problem if the doctor is being a doctor for a hobby or he wants to help people. As long as he does his job and knows what he is doing.

Sounds like a really intellectual society.
What I'm getting at is there is more to life then things.
I have never met anybody who refused to tutor someone because they might impede on their success. If you find one, they're probably the Unabomber. Oh, and if someone walks in late for a job test, you might not want to tell him what to do because there are some people actually working around you that won't appreciate you talking during the test.But it is true tutoring is aginst Capitalist values (you get nothing for your work in fact you slightly lower your odds of getting ahead).

Yup, you have to be hired first. And you're hired based on your qualifications. I see nothing wrong with that pattern. If someone were able to just walk into a nuclear power plant and said "Hey, I'm qualified, let me work here", I'd worry greatly about the system.Well I'm qulified to shunt trains yet I don't work at the railway I had to change jobs even though the railway want help it can't afford help. I can't just help them as you said that's stupid I could be a danger to others. I can't work for free or the union would bust my head.

In Socalism you still have to be hired in a way for each job but since production is common they can take on as much help as they want so it would be no problem. Walk into the office show them your Résumé and your education papers. They check up on them if your okay you can start working.

So, you should be the only animation fan? Look, nobody is alike. People are still different. You didn't say that everyone there had exactly the same interests. People naturally share some common interests, but that's just human nature, not the by-product of a system. No. What that little story was about the fact that if it wasn't for one person socializeing they probably would have just sat there doing nothing. It is human nature. Yes people are different but alot follow the majority. If there is a line behind a ATM and one is free but no one uses it, a great deal of people won't use the free ATM it will take someone to actully start using it before these type of people will do so. Thus they follow the system the same what in conclusion if the system changed they would change with it. So if Socalism gets over half the populas support (what socalist need for a socalist revolution) a good precentage of those not already on the Socalist side would simple follow what ever system is presented to them.

[Lucky Bob]

Originally posted by Psycho Fox
That is the name Socalist gives them since if you took every unemployed person in the world you'd have an army. Right but lets say we ship ever unemployed into the bush after teaching them to fend for them selves. Now they are out of the system. Problem with zero unemployed is now workers have a trump card since the pool is gone there is no longer army of unemployed ready to take workers places. See the problem. The less unemployed the more power shifts to the unions till it goes too far in their favor.

Ship unemployed people to the bush? Since when has that been proposed? The problem is that there always have been people who are unable to work. Used to, they were taken care of by people in the community. But, thanks to FDR's New Deal, we've given all that responsibility to the federal government. (So, you may thank a socialist system for the state of the unemployed today.) And, there are people who abuse the system by refusing to work just to get the benefits. If they do that in the current system, heaven help us if we switch to an anarchial system!

Yes but the system primary job is to substane all the people it looks after thus since it is a democratic system. People can call in a draft for workers in for example farms if food production can't substane everybody. It is a tool that is there in a crisis but odds are I don't think it would ever be needed.

So, people are going to jump in the mines and work for fun? People are going to undertake the hard work of sustaining a farm so that their food production is distributed to everyone else and they just MIGHT get a portion of it? Maybe I should remind you that the Seperatists tried that in Colonial America, and it failed.

Same way we know now when a doctor is qualified. I don't see a problem if the doctor is being a doctor for a hobby or he wants to help people. As long as he does his job and knows what he is doing.

How do we know now when a doctor is qualified? ;)

What I'm getting at is there is more to life then things.

If you chase women to satisfy your desires, you reduce them to "things".

But it is true tutoring is aginst Capitalist values (you get nothing for your work in fact you slightly lower your odds of getting ahead).

That's your own personal definition of capitalism. To me, capitalism means providing a service, and distributing it as you see fit. People can (and do) charge for tutoring, and some people do it for free. For example, I stayed with a family this summer while attempting to get my driver's license. (My family had already gone back to Belgium.) Being friends, they provided me free room and board for 3 weeks. However, I didn't feel right just doing nothing for my entire stay, so I helped them out with their chores (they live on a farm), drove them around to do errands, and tutored their daughter in her studies. We bartered. We exchanged services. I got room, board, and a license, and they got an extra hand around the farm. And everyone was happy!

Well I'm qulified to shunt trains yet I don't work at the railway I had to change jobs even though the railway want help it can't afford help. I can't just help them as you said that's stupid I could be a danger to others. I can't work for free or the union would bust my head.

So? There are other things you can do! Surely you have more talent than shunting trains. You'd be surprised at some of the things you can do if you apply yourself.

In Socalism you still have to be hired in a way for each job but since production is common they can take on as much help as they want so it would be no problem. Walk into the office show them your Résumé and your education papers. They check up on them if your okay you can start working.

Just curious, where do you get "education papers?"

No. What that little story was about the fact that if it wasn't for one person socializeing they probably would have just sat there doing nothing. It is human nature. Yes people are different but alot follow the majority. If there is a line behind a ATM and one is free but no one uses it, a great deal of people won't use the free ATM it will take someone to actully start using it before these type of people will do so. Thus they follow the system the same what in conclusion if the system changed they would change with it. So if Socalism gets over half the populas support (what socalist need for a socalist revolution) a good precentage of those not already on the Socalist side would simple follow what ever system is presented to them.

You think people always tend to follow the majority? You should have seen the WBC right before the Anime Forum was put in.

[CryptiniteDemon]

I believe in competitive cooperation. Yeah, you compete, but more in a game type of style where one of you does win, but it's more like at the end of a basketball game where you're shaking hands.

I think competition is needed to make things better. Look at what kinda stuff we wouldn't have if we didn't have all this competition, but then again, think about all the stuff we wouldn't have if we didn't have cooperation.

Both are needed to make it work.

[Lucky Bob]

Originally posted by CryptiniteDemon
I believe in competitive cooperation. Yeah, you compete, but more in a game type of style where one of you does win, but it's more like at the end of a basketball game where you're shaking hands.

I think competition is needed to make things better. Look at what kinda stuff we wouldn't have if we didn't have all this competition, but then again, think about all the stuff we wouldn't have if we didn't have cooperation.

Both are needed to make it work.

Yeah, competition is a good thing, but there's nothing in the rule book that says that cooperation is a bad thing. That's the beauty of the current system. You can sell your product or service, give it away for free, or whatever. (Case in point: Windows and Linux.) But in a totally cooperative system, you render services for no compensation, save what you are rationed. Thus, the quality of products and services dramatically decreases. In the current system, companies are constantly trying to make things better. But in the end, the consumer decides the ultimate success of the product.

[gtracer72]

Competition is the best. No cooperation. Why should there be cooperation? The whole point of business is to make profits. The firm that can make the most efficent product, make it the cheapest and make it of the best quality all at the same time will get the most consumers and thus will earn the most profits.

Thats the problem we have with these stupid Anit-trust laws. They hurt efficeint firms so that the less efficient firms can still have business. That is ludicrus. Why should we help out the less effieicnt firm?

[Lucky Bob]

Originally posted by gtracer72
Competition is the best. No cooperation. Why should there be cooperation? The whole point of business is to make profits. The firm that can make the most efficent product, make it the cheapest and make it of the best quality all at the same time will get the most consumers and thus will earn the most profits.

Well, cooperation is good up to a certain point. Such as, Nintendo and Sega cooperating to make some Sonic games for the Gamecube. If they want to do that, that's their business. (And, a profitable one, at that.)

Thats the problem we have with these stupid Anit-trust laws. They hurt efficeint firms so that the less efficient firms can still have business. That is ludicrus. Why should we help out the less effieicnt firm?

Never could get those, myself.

[Psycho Fox]

Originally posted by luckybob1985
Ship unemployed people to the bush? Since when has that been proposed? The problem is that there always have been people who are unable to work. Used to, they were taken care of by people in the community. But, thanks to FDR's New Deal, we've given all that responsibility to the federal government. (So, you may thank a socialist system for the state of the unemployed today.) And, there are people who abuse the system by refusing to work just to get the benefits. If they do that in the current system, heaven help us if we switch to an anarchial system!My point is that unemployed are needed as the stick for workers in Capitalism. As for those who abuse the system in Socalism well the system has removed all reasons why not to work. The system can take percentage of slackers like the present system so as long as most work there is no problem.

So, people are going to jump in the mines and work for fun? People are going to undertake the hard work of sustaining a farm so that their food production is distributed to everyone else and they just MIGHT get a portion of it? Maybe I should remind you that the Seperatists tried that in Colonial America, and it failed.You are right going into the mines are not fun. The people doing it would be so the system can convert what they bring up into finnished goods that they can enjoy. IE Coal into power. Even so miners wouldn't only be miners they cool off in better jobs like radio DJ.


If you chase women to satisfy your desires, you reduce them to "things".You are right but the fact still remains you would have more time to search for the other sex and/or maintain&expain relations with them.


That's your own personal definition of capitalism. To me, capitalism means providing a service, and distributing it as you see fit. People can (and do) charge for tutoring, and some people do it for free. For example, I stayed with a family this summer while attempting to get my driver's license. (My family had already gone back to Belgium.) Being friends, they provided me free room and board for 3 weeks. However, I didn't feel right just doing nothing for my entire stay, so I helped them out with their chores (they live on a farm), drove them around to do errands, and tutored their daughter in her studies. We bartered. We exchanged services. I got room, board, and a license, and they got an extra hand around the farm. And everyone was happy!But capitalism is the production of capital (profit). That is why Capitalism and human life, happiness and enviorment clash since Capitalism has a hard time putting value on them. Nature has no value in capitalism unless you either convert it to capital. Human life has no value in capitalism unless converted into capital.


So? There are other things you can do! Surely you have more talent than shunting trains. You'd be surprised at some of the things you can do if you apply yourself.Right I have been many things in my short life so far. The point is under capitalism it is not as simple as me just doing what I'm good at or want. The most brilliant writer could spend their life in a box factory their talent for ever lost to soceity. Look at WBA now its brilliance was snuffed out not becouse the WBA wanted to quit nor their fans wanted them to . Which to socalism are the only true reason talented people should stop.

Just curious, where do you get "education papers?"
Eudcational institutes of course they provide the diploma/degree and transcripts.


You think people always tend to follow the majority? You should have seen the WBC right before the Anime Forum was put in. I think a percentage of people tend to follow the majority thus since Socalism is democract that means we need to be the majority before Socalism is implemented thus the majority would be Socalist thus I don't see a problem. The Majority works becouse they are Socalist plus their are people that follow the majoirty so they work becouse the Socalist work. That should be enough to keep the system running.

Yeah, competition is a good thing, but there's nothing in the rule book that says that cooperation is a bad thing. That's the beauty of the current system. You can sell your product or service, give it away for free, or whatever. (Case in point: Windows and Linux.) But in a totally cooperative system, you render services for no compensation, save what you are rationed. Thus, the quality of products and services dramatically decreases. In the current system, companies are constantly trying to make things better. But in the end, the consumer decides the ultimate success of the product.Your compensation is the system. The fact that the better the system does the easier it is for you to get what you want. The more TVs pumped out the shorter waiting lists get till there is none. The more reliable the TV is the less reproduction that is needed thus the quicker you can obtain the goal of saturation. The better the TV produced the better TV you can pick up.

[Lucky Bob]

Originally posted by Psycho Fox
My point is that unemployed are needed as the stick for workers in Capitalism. As for those who abuse the system in Socalism well the system has removed all reasons why not to work. The system can take percentage of slackers like the present system so as long as most work there is no problem.

It stands to reason that you are unemployed before you are employed. The guy who gets out of college is unemployed until he can find a job. (Which, if he has applied himself to his studies, he shouldn't have any trouble finding a job.)

BTW, to assume that the majority is gonna work is to assume that they can tear themselves away from their Gamecube or girl-chasing that long. I don't know if the majority would like that. Life is there to have fun with, remember? :)

You are right going into the mines are not fun. The people doing it would be so the system can convert what they bring up into finnished goods that they can enjoy. IE Coal into power. Even so miners wouldn't only be miners they cool off in better jobs like radio DJ.

But you said that people would do things that they enjoy if they do it out of neccesity, wouldn't that destroy the purpose of life, as you stated earlier? To "have fun?"

You are right but the fact still remains you would have more time to search for the other sex and/or maintain&expain relations with them.

Nice out.

But capitalism is the production of capital (profit). That is why Capitalism and human life, happiness and enviorment clash since Capitalism has a hard time putting value on them. Nature has no value in capitalism unless you either convert it to capital. Human life has no value in capitalism unless converted into capital.

Where does it say that everything has to be converted to capital? Last I checked, in our system, we were free to do what we wanted with our talents and products. I have not seen anybody who has been arrested for providing a free service. (Whereas, in your society, people would be punished for trying to generate more than their allotment.) So, we're more free in this free system than we are in your system, since we are not slaves to it.

Right I have been many things in my short life so far. The point is under capitalism it is not as simple as me just doing what I'm good at or want. The most brilliant writer could spend their life in a box factory their talent for ever lost to soceity. Look at WBA now its brilliance was snuffed out not becouse the WBA wanted to quit nor their fans wanted them to . Which to socalism are the only true reason talented people should stop.

The most brilliant writer can work around that by actually sitting down and.....writing! If you have the talent, by all means, use it! I personally know a lady who has written quite a few successful novels while homschooling 8 kids. If she has time, anyone does!

BTW, what WBA are you talking about?

Eudcational institutes of course they provide the diploma/degree and transcripts.

Aha. So, how are they accredited? Are they just word-of-mouth organizations?

I think a percentage of people tend to follow the majority thus since Socalism is democract that means we need to be the majority before Socalism is implemented thus the majority would be Socalist thus I don't see a problem. The Majority works becouse they are Socalist plus their are people that follow the majoirty so they work becouse the Socalist work. That should be enough to keep the system running.

Whoa, I think my head just exploded. :eek:

Your compensation is the system. The fact that the better the system does the easier it is for you to get what you want. The more TVs pumped out the shorter waiting lists get till there is none. The more reliable the TV is the less reproduction that is needed thus the quicker you can obtain the goal of saturation. The better the TV produced the better TV you can pick up.

You can get that right now!

[Nightflower]

Originally posted by gtracer72
Competition is the best. No cooperation. Why should there be cooperation? The whole point of business is to make profits. The firm that can make the most efficent product, make it the cheapest and make it of the best quality all at the same time will get the most consumers and thus will earn the most profits.

Thats the problem we have with these stupid Anit-trust laws. They hurt efficeint firms so that the less efficient firms can still have business. That is ludicrus. Why should we help out the less effieicnt firm?

Uhhh.... my understanding of anti-trust laws is that they're for our benefit, to prevent unfair cooperation (Which you're arguing against anyway...).

Anti-trust laws are supposed (keyword: supposed to, I don't know if they actually work, but that's what they're there for) to prevent firms from colluding, and then "fixing" their prices by agreeing to restrict their output. The less there is of a product, the more it costs. I don't want to pay higher prices, do you?

Once again, it's also a form of COOPERATION, and therefore, not as efficient as it should be. Not only is there less output (Which causes allocative inefficiency, oh ho ho, look at me throw around terms from Economics like a pretentious twit) and unnaturally higher prices (That we consumers have to pay), but without competition, without threat of those "less efficient firms", there is no motivation for creating better products or faster, cheaper means of production.

I mean, what do you think OPEC is? The truth is, the astronomical high gas prices aren't necessary or brought on naturally- they're high because the people who supply oil willfully restricted the output to make us pay more.

I'm just saying these things because someone said they didn't get anti-trust laws. Well, hopefully, my nattering gives something for consideration.

[Psycho Fox]

Originally posted by luckybob1985
It stands to reason that you are unemployed before you are employed. The guy who gets out of college is unemployed until he can find a job. (Which, if he has applied himself to his studies, he shouldn't have any trouble finding a job.)

BTW, to assume that the majority is gonna work is to assume that they can tear themselves away from their Gamecube or girl-chasing that long. I don't know if the majority would like that. Life is there to have fun with, remember? :) You have a point yet most people do take showers and feed them selves. Same with work it is need to keep the system running so the system can keep you alive with food and health care and power for your gamecube and gifts to aid in girl chasing.


But you said that people would do things that they enjoy if they do it out of neccesity, wouldn't that destroy the purpose of life, as you stated earlier? To "have fun?"It is a minor flaw of the system since yhea there are jobs that no mater how you look at it is not fun. But in life there are things that are not fun like going to the dentist but doing so makes you happier in the long run. Like a regular trip to the dentist you keep your teeth healthly. The non-fun jobs keeps the system humming so we don't get thrown back to the stone-age. Yet Socalist do like the think that we as intelligent beings can reduce or better yet eliminate these jobs over time (or at lest make them better). Stuff like factories that are totaly automated needing no human interaction except when it sends a alarm across the network that it needs service. I'm pretty sure the workers won't mind being replaced by automation under Socalism since they can do something more fun plus the facotry can produce more without humans.

Where does it say that everything has to be converted to capital? Last I checked, in our system, we were free to do what we wanted with our talents and products. I have not seen anybody who has been arrested for providing a free service. (Whereas, in your society, people would be punished for trying to generate more than their allotment.) So, we're more free in this free system than we are in your system, since we are not slaves to it.true you are free to do what you want but capitalism only sees capital. Our economic success only can be messured by capital. Socalism economic success is messured how well the system can produce what the people want.

The most brilliant writer can work around that by actually sitting down and.....writing! If you have the talent, by all means, use it! I personally know a lady who has written quite a few successful novels while homschooling 8 kids. If she has time, anyone does!
Doesn't exactly work that way. IE Orson Welles after Citizen Kane
BTW, what WBA are you talking about?WB Animation. Yes they didn't totaly die but for they are a shadow of their former self due to decision made above them.

Aha. So, how are they accredited? Are they just word-of-mouth organizations?That would be up to society. It could be from the groups needing workers, IE med schools get accredited by hospitals. Or a speical group could be formed to accredit them.


Whoa, I think my head just exploded. :eek:
Simple. Socalism is a democratic system thus we can not bring socalism if the majorty wants something else. That is why so far all true Socalist have done is get their point of view across. In the event a socalist system is formed that would mean the majority of its people are Socalist. I don't think we have to worry too much about their work ethic a Socalist system since this is what they want. Of the non socalist you have the followers, people that simple go with the flow and they shouldn't be much of a problem. The reaming percentage of the people shouldn't be enough to sink the system (in theory).


You can get that right now! Well yes and no. Right now you want reproduction of product. Car makers want you to get a new car as soon as possible. Same with TV manufactures and so on. Socalism wants you to get a new product as late as possible to minimize the need for production.

[Lucky Bob]

Originally posted by Psycho Fox
[B]You have a point yet most people do take showers and feed them selves. Same with work it is need to keep the system running so the system can keep you alive with food and health care and power for your gamecube and gifts to aid in girl chasing

Ah, but if nobody wants to do the work, then how can it be done? Oh wait, you said a worker's draft. Okay, I getcha. Sounds like Soviet Union Part II.

It is a minor flaw of the system since yhea there are jobs that no mater how you look at it is not fun. But in life there are things that are not fun like going to the dentist but doing so makes you happier in the long run. Like a regular trip to the dentist you keep your teeth healthly. The non-fun jobs keeps the system humming so we don't get thrown back to the stone-age. Yet Socalist do like the think that we as intelligent beings can reduce or better yet eliminate these jobs over time (or at lest make them better). Stuff like factories that are totaly automated needing no human interaction except when it sends a alarm across the network that it needs service. I'm pretty sure the workers won't mind being replaced by automation under Socalism since they can do something more fun plus the facotry can produce more without humans.

If...if...if...but we need to look at practicality. Technology hasn't progressed that far yet, though it is progressing at a very rapid pace. Besides that, I don't think that anyone is going to volunteer for an "unpleasant" job if they can help it in a system that is theoretically based on more fun. You'd need that "workers draft" that you mentioned earlier. And that is the same as state-controlled output.

true you are free to do what you want but capitalism only sees capital. Our economic success only can be messured by capital. Socalism economic success is messured how well the system can produce what the people want.

Same with Capitalism. If you don't produce what the people want, you don't get capital.

Doesn't exactly work that way. IE Orson Welles after Citizen Kane

Tell that to my friend.

WB Animation. Yes they didn't totaly die but for they are a shadow of their former self due to decision made above them.

Well, they tried to supply the demands of kids, and it didnt' work. The trend seemed to be heading toward action cartoons, sometimes that happens. I predict a revival someday, though.

That would be up to society. It could be from the groups needing workers, IE med schools get accredited by hospitals. Or a speical group could be formed to accredit them

Okay, now the next problem. If nobody has to work at just one job, it stands to reason that one doesn't have to be a regular student. So, who is going to spend years out of their life studying to be something they don't get compensated for?

See, here's where the system breaks down. When one provides a product or service, that costs the person something. So, the person gets paid for providing that service as a compensation, and they get a bit extra to keep providing that product and make it better. In "socialism" you get compsensated for merely existing. The means and incentive to work are gone.

Simple. Socalism is a democratic system thus we can not bring socalism if the majorty wants something else. That is why so far all true Socalist have done is get their point of view across. In the event a socalist system is formed that would mean the majority of its people are Socalist. I don't think we have to worry too much about their work ethic a Socalist system since this is what they want. Of the non socalist you have the followers, people that simple go with the flow and they shouldn't be much of a problem. The reaming percentage of the people shouldn't be enough to sink the system (in theory).

Problem is, there are just too few of you, and the system has a lot of holes that people are gonna exploit without fear of consequence. Remember Murphy's Law? (The original one.) "If someone can find a wrong way to do something, they will."

Well yes and no. Right now you want reproduction of product. Car makers want you to get a new car as soon as possible. Same with TV manufactures and so on. Socalism wants you to get a new product as late as possible to minimize the need for production.

Stone age, baby!

[Nightflower]

Look. Except for maybe two replies, this entire thread is mainly going back and forth between two people, and I don't think I'd be wrong to bet that it will continue to be carried out by two people. I think this ought to be continued in private messages, because this argument has been done before, many many times, and I have yet to see it get anywhere besides in frustrated circles that make less sense as the thread goes on.

[gtracer72]

Originally posted by Nightflower
Uhhh.... my understanding of anti-trust laws is that they're for our benefit, to prevent unfair cooperation (Which you're arguing against anyway...).

Anti-trust laws are supposed (keyword: supposed to, I don't know if they actually work, but that's what they're there for) to prevent firms from colluding, and then "fixing" their prices by agreeing to restrict their output. The less there is of a product, the more it costs. I don't want to pay higher prices, do you?

Once again, it's also a form of COOPERATION, and therefore, not as efficient as it should be. Not only is there less output (Which causes allocative inefficiency, oh ho ho, look at me throw around terms from Economics like a pretentious twit) and unnaturally higher prices (That we consumers have to pay), but without competition, without threat of those "less efficient firms", there is no motivation for creating better products or faster, cheaper means of production.

I mean, what do you think OPEC is? The truth is, the astronomical high gas prices aren't necessary or brought on naturally- they're high because the people who supply oil willfully restricted the output to make us pay more.

I'm just saying these things because someone said they didn't get anti-trust laws. Well, hopefully, my nattering gives something for consideration.

Anti-trust laws are not for our benefit. They hurt businesses in fact. A common saying among big businesses is that you don't know your a monopoly until you here the verdict from the judge.

Anti-trust laws hurt business by taking away from there efficiency. An example is ALCOA. They were charged with having a monopoly. They had a govt. granted monopoly on aluminum, but when that ran out, their technology was far superior to that of its competitors. Therefore, the judge, in his desicion, punished ALCOA for being too efficient and benefiting the consumer. There are other cases, such as Standard Oil and Microsoft, that make Anti-trust laws look stupid.

As for OPEC, the high gas prices don't bother me, in fact I wish they would go up so that we could get rid of all the stupid SUV's. But thats just my personal opinion ;).

[Psycho Fox]

Originally posted by gtracer72
There are other cases, such as Standard Oil and Microsoft, that make Anti-trust laws look stupid. please Microsoft was 10 years behind its compeditors. Only by befreinding IBM (a monpolistic power at the time) was MS able to turn a sucky product into the standard.

As for OPEC, the high gas prices don't bother me, in fact I wish they would go up so that we could get rid of all the stupid SUV's. But thats just my personal opinion ;). Remeber the rule of mass consumption and mass production. Both must go up for the economy to grow by leaps in bounds :cool:

[gtracer72]

Originally posted by Psycho Fox
please Microsoft was 10 years behind its compeditors. Only by befreinding IBM (a monpolistic power at the time) was MS able to turn a sucky product into the standard.
Remeber the rule of mass consumption and mass production. Both must go up for the economy to grow by leaps in bounds :cool:

Look, being 10 years behind has nothing to do with it. Thats more of a personal thing than an economics thing. Microsoft was being charged for trying to form a monopoly on web browsers. A wonderful,economically proven, thing came out of this. By offering Internet Explorer for free, they forced others to offer their browser for free. Mozilla is free and is a lot better than IE. Befriending IBM, well I may not like it, but look what they gained from it. 90% of the worlds computers use a M$ operating system. Seems like good business to me.

I know the rule, but for this case, who cares. SUV's need to just go away and never come back.

[Psycho Fox]

Originally posted by gtracer72
Look, being 10 years behind has nothing to do with it. Thats more of a personal thing than an economics thing. Microsoft was being charged for trying to form a monopoly on web browsers. A wonderful,economically proven, thing came out of this. By offering Internet Explorer for free, they forced others to offer their browser for free. Mozilla is free and is a lot better than IE.
I agree the web browser charge was a joke. IBM put web explorer in OS/2 long before MS put IE in windows.

Befriending IBM, well I may not like it, but look what they gained from it. 90% of the worlds computers use a M$ operating system. Seems like good business to me.Perfect twiddle de and twiddle dumb. IBM was behind just as much as M$. Commadore, Atari, Apple, hell even Berkeley soft beat the crap out of both IBM and M$ technology.I know the rule, but for this case, who cares. SUV's need to just go away and never come back.I would settle for mass transit in more major citys.

[Psycho Fox]

To make my post flow better so we can get back to making sense like Nightflowerinstead of just being defence I'll just sum up your post luckybob1985.

For starters the current system has draft powers too if you haven't noticed also we are talking about something that would only be issue during a crisis thirdly we are talking 3 days a week at the most not something to really complain about. Oh the inhumanity I might have to be forced to work 3 days a week at a farm just becouse there is not enough food and if I'm not forced we'll all starve. :rolleyes:

As for people not working becouse they are not compesated. Well people volunteer for the military yet they don't get compensated enough for the fact they risking their necks (they have other reasons). People right now volunteer for varous causes and reasons. Doesn't mater what would drive workers to work (could be ego,kindness,the want to be part of something bigger, whatever) under Socalism as long as they do the work. There are even tribes that can follow basic Socalist logic of working for the tribe so the tribe can look after you.

See under Socalism unlike Capitalism your hard work directly effects everyone else. No managment to take the glory from you or screw it up. It is all you and your team mates. Simply the harder and smarter you work directly equates to your the quality of life. No chaos of capitalism were there are tons of pit falls to waste your work.

Plus if you haven't noticed if you not a worker you don't have much power. Didn't you notice how I said the workers control the means of production. Meaing the workers have the most power since they would take part in most of the groups. Someone that sits on their ass all day wouldn't proably even be in one group so that means that person would have less to say then the person that goes out and socialize and if they socialize that would lead them to work since of course people would wonder why they are not working and probably would make them an outcast for being lazy till they get off their ass. Come on you have to be pretty lazy to not want to even work Socalist hours that would work out to 3 days a week and that is conservative estimate without automation and only 65% of able workers working

[Psycho Fox]

I couldn't find this (http://www.amigaatlanta.org/AEcastro.html) artice when replying to gtracer72 but now that I have it I'm posting itsince it covers both my distaste for MS and the current system. This is my attempt to join Gtracers72's debate with the other on this thread.

Gary Jones; "If its not a PC, NASA gives us a lot of grief when we try to buy anything to go with the Amigas. They want us to buy PC's and run Windows 95 and NT. We keep trying to tell them its not fast enough so they tell us to buy DEC Alphas. We tell them its too expensive. They don't like the Amiga, it doesn't cost enough."This is the problem. A Computer system 10 years old kicks the ass of modern PC for their purpose (Look right there NASA workers said so) Plus when they say it makes their job easier and saves them money while it evetully sinks into NASA's thick skull not every managment can understand such logic. More for less and it is not main streem? They won't even investigage it.

Under the current system people take propaganda as truths without thinking where it is comming from. Win95 and NT being the best OS comes from M$ which has invested intrest in being the only game in town yet ignorant masses buy the line without question.

That is why I don't buy the line that we have capitalism to thank for our technology when what capitalism has brushed aside is better then what it has embraced. M$ has set the computer industry back 10years maybe more and some like this? If RCA became a huge monopoly back before WWII and became the only maker of TVs and we were still watching B&W TVs today becouse RCA says it the best I bet most would buy the line even if a few dinky TV companies had colour for decades and we would be up in arms if the goverment wanted to split RCA up.

Look at Philips scews vs Robenson. Robenson was a bussniess genious. So why do we mostly use Philips scews becouse Philips was a idoit that went bankrupt in record time thus his design went public domian while Robenson still had rights to his.

So Capitalism rewards the losers with a spot in the history books? We use the worse scew design becouse the moron that made it lost to Robenson.
We use the worse computer design & worst OS becouse 2 monoplistc morons got together.

Maybe it is just be but some of Capitalism makes no sence at all. Why would you reward failure? and why do we use the worst. If I want something to live forever should I simple scew up so badly it goes public domain? it worked for others.

[gtracer72]

lol. Oh boy. Here is the problem. You are looking at this from a computer stand point. I'm not a computer genious and what not. All I know is that I have used Win. 95, 98SE and currently 2000. I have no complaints. They all have fulfilled my needs. Thats what M$ has successfully done. They have fulfilled the needs of the AVERAGE COMPUTER USER. Sure, there are people like you who despise M$ and hail Amiga and Linux OS. That all fine and dandy. But from a business standpoint, thats irrelavent. M$ has fulfilled the needs of 90% of the worlds computer users. To me, that sounds great, from a business perspective.

Say what you want about how the current M$ OS are 10 years behind. Thats irrelavent in the market place. Once again I'll use the statistic of 90% of the users obviously don't care. If they did care about that kind of thing, sure, maybe Amiga and Linux and other OS would be used. But they aren't.

Monopolies are formed in the minds of people and by our stupid Anti-trust laws. Bash M$ all you want, but if being a moron means making billions of dollars a year, well then call me a moron anytime.

Capitalism rewards the smarter firms. The smarter firm tailers to comsumers. M$ obviously did this very well.

[Psycho Fox]

Originally posted by gtracer72
lol. Oh boy. Here is the problem. You are looking at this from a computer stand point. I'm not a computer genious and what not. All I know is that I have used Win. 95, 98SE and currently 2000. I have no complaints. They all have fulfilled my needs. Thats what M$ has successfully done. They have fulfilled the needs of the AVERAGE COMPUTER USER. Sure, there are people like you who despise M$ and hail Amiga and Linux OS. That all fine and dandy. But from a business standpoint, thats irrelavent. M$ has fulfilled the needs of 90% of the worlds computer users. To me, that sounds great, from a business perspective.But the way M$ did it was like comming out with a B&W TV now and make it standard. Yes the average person proably would be okay with a B&W TV if they never seen a colour TV. The other system can also fulfill the needs of average computer users while giving them more. Look at the BeBox it was wonderful it kicked Macs ass by giving even more power then a top of the line Mac but for less money. Yet noone wanted it becouse it wasn't a IBM compat, SUN,SGI,Apple or any of the other big names. It has been reduced to buying name instead of product. People actully want the product instead of the function they want the product to do. Meaning instead of waiting a drill becouse they want to make a hole people now just want the drill becouse its cool.

Monopolies are formed in the minds of people and by our stupid Anti-trust laws. Bash M$ all you want, but if being a moron means making billions of dollars a year, well then call me a moron anytime.
But with such monoplies, progress is stalled.

Capitalism rewards the smarter firms. The smarter firm tailers to comsumers. M$ obviously did this very well. Then why do we even use the philps scews? Nobody wanted at first since the Robeson was and still works better. Take a robenson scew (socket type) and the scew stays on the driver even upside down plus no stirping. But since nobody wanted philips they went under thus it went public domain thus why we use the stupid scew today. The looser became standard and the winner became obsure. Should Robeson have gone bankrupt too if he wanted to get his scew to be the standard.

[gtracer72]

It all comes down to one thing. Public Choice. Plain and simple. Everyone values things differently. Thats what firms have to try and take advantage of. People value name brands over generic brands. I, for example, will only shop at Old Navy for clothes instead of shopping at Wal*Mart. Wal*Mart I'm sure is cheaper, but I value Old Navy's clothes more, plus they are better ;). Thats why BeBox failed. I've never even heard of it, and I'm sure a majority of the consumers never did either. Name brands sell products.

But with such monoplies, progress is stalled.

Thats wrong. I'll use the phone industry for this. Had we not supported all the ineffiecinet phone companies, we most likely would have had cell phones earlier and the ones we have now would be more advanced. See, once a business becomes the dominant leader, it becomes an economies of scale. This means that its long run average cost curve is downward sloping. Therefore, for new competitord to enter the market, they would have to charge higher prices to cover its own costs. Therefore, had we left the phone industry alone, a company like John's Phone Inc. (not an actual company), would then spend more money on Research and Development. Thus leading to new innovations, and like I said possibly cellphones earlier and more advanced.

[Psycho Fox]

Originally posted by gtracer72
It all comes down to one thing. Public Choice. Plain and simple. Everyone values things differently. Thats what firms have to try and take advantage of. People value name brands over generic brands. I, for example, will only shop at Old Navy for clothes instead of shopping at Wal*Mart. Wal*Mart I'm sure is cheaper, but I value Old Navy's clothes more, plus they are better ;). Thats why BeBox failed. I've never even heard of it, and I'm sure a majority of the consumers never did either. Name brands sell products.But Microsoft has basicly taken choice away it is either them or Apple (and Apple stinks with Steve Jobs). It like the mob shooting every horse but theirs and the one that would have lost anyway. Microsoft went out to distroy open standards that would have allowed people to pick their own system and OS yet have the exact same apps no matter which one their picked. That would have ment the system wars wouldn't have ment a things to customers. But no that would have ment people would be free to pick hardware other then X86 and OS other then windows and still be able to run Office.

Basicly M$ hates the idea of consumer choice. Why else would they force retails to only preload Windows (making OS loaders illegal under their OEM contract) back some years ago.


Thats wrong. I'll use the phone industry for this. Had we not supported all the ineffiecinet phone companies, we most likely would have had cell phones earlier and the ones we have now would be more advanced. See, once a business becomes the dominant leader, it becomes an economies of scale. This means that its long run average cost curve is downward sloping. Therefore, for new competitord to enter the market, they would have to charge higher prices to cover its own costs. Therefore, had we left the phone industry alone, a company like John's Phone Inc. (not an actual company), would then spend more money on Research and Development. Thus leading to new innovations, and like I said possibly cellphones earlier and more advanced. Supporting the compeition doesn't work you have to smash the leader so they can't hold onto power and more. Like the Standard Oil split. For M$ I would say liquidate them. That simple you chould put their proporty in Public Domain but beside Window emus I don't think anyone would want it. Any coder with time on their hands can build a Windows like OS that is better then Windows.

[gtracer72]

No, spiltting them would be stupid. Why are you trying to damage an efficient firm. Why? Thats like wanting to split Standard Oil. Stupid stupid stupid. If they are so bad of a monopoly, they sure arent' exercising their monolpoly power. A monopoly would restrict supplu and raise prices. A basic Econ. class will tell you that. Standard oil did marvels. They are a fine example of an efficient firm.


Basicly M$ hates the idea of consumer choice. Why else would they force retails to only preload Windows (making OS loaders illegal under their OEM contract) back some years ago.

Sounds like good business to me. Its just like bundling Internet Explorer. I'll just let you read my previous post about IE. :p. But also, does the consumer not have the choice to dump the Win. OS and install Linux? Amiga? another OS?

[Psycho Fox]

Originally posted by gtracer72
No, spiltting them would be stupid. Why are you trying to damage an efficient firm. Why? Thats like wanting to split Standard Oil. Stupid stupid stupid. If they are so bad of a monopoly, they sure arent' exercising their monolpoly power. A monopoly would restrict supplu and raise prices. A basic Econ. class will tell you that. Standard oil did marvels. They are a fine example of an efficient firm.
Efficent firm? they are 10 years behind everyone else. As for ecercising their monolpoly powers, you know there was a time when OSs didn't cost much more then 50 bucks, same with Office Suits. They are still cheaper then MS.

Sounds like good business to me. Its just like bundling Internet Explorer. I'll just let you read my previous post about IE. :p. But also, does the consumer not have the choice to dump the Win. OS and install Linux? Amiga? another OS? Yes but what MS killed was techology that would allow software to run on all systems and OS efficently.

[Lucky Bob]

Sorry for not getting back sooner. I was pretty sick yesterday.

Alright, let's sum up the past few posts. First off, Fox, you seem to think that people won't mind being drafted into a job they don't wanna do because it improves their quality of life (theoritically). However, if there are job drafts, does that not make the system yet another totalitarian one? You are then made a slave to the system, and personal choice goes out the window. Even if it is only for "3 days out of the week".

BTW, I don't know where you are getting that statistic, seeing as how the system hasn't been implemented yet. Last time I've heard of the system being used, was in the time of the Plymouth colony, and they didn't work only 3 days out of the week. If you knew about farming, for example, you know that you don't work a farm for 3 days, especially if you are the one who owns the property. Try starting a farm and only work on it 3 days per week right now. After 3 weeks or so, bye bye farm!

Now, let's move on to Microsoft. Having been an Amiga and C64 user myself, I must say that Windows is the best operating system I've ever seen. You may claim that they are 10 years behind the times, but that is merely your opinion. To me, Windows has brought personal computing to everyone. Windows 95 was the first OS where you didn't have to be some sort of rocket scientist to run programs. It had an easy-to-use interface, adjustable settings, and it was generally user-friendly. I'm using Windows XP right now, and I'm very pleased with it. I have not seen the Blue Screen Of Death since we bought it a year ago.

Oh, and that thing about software compatability? That's been going on for ages! I couldn't run my C64 programs on my brother's Amiga, and this was before Windows 95 was a gleam in Microsoft's eye!

However, if you wanna use another operating system, you are perfectly free to do so. Go download Linux, you can run Windows-compatible programs on it! Just don't expect the friendly interface that Windows has.

And now, the screws. Please tell me something. What is the price of a Robinson screw compared to a Phillips screw?

[Psycho Fox]

Originally posted by luckybob1985

Alright, let's sum up the past few posts. First off, Fox, you seem to think that people won't mind being drafted into a job they don't wanna do because it improves their quality of life (theoritically). However, if there are job drafts, does that not make the system yet another totalitarian one? You are then made a slave to the system, and personal choice goes out the window. Even if it is only for "3 days out of the week". But this is done by the people. No state remeber. Meaning if it does have to get enacted it would be becouse the majority thinks there is a crisis since duh they can get drafted too.

BTW, I don't know where you are getting that statistic, seeing as how the system hasn't been implemented yet. Last time I've heard of the system being used, was in the time of the Plymouth colony, and they didn't work only 3 days out of the week. If you knew about farming, for example, you know that you don't work a farm for 3 days, especially if you are the one who owns the property. Try starting a farm and only work on it 3 days per week right now. After 3 weeks or so, bye bye farm!You are right this figure was a gereral figure for all work. Farming would take more then the others since there is a strick time table. If a drafted ever got issue it would mean the masses are scared of a food shortage in the future meaning you would basicly have a army of workers comming to the fields ordered by their peers. Since this is not state run odds are the number of workers would be over estimated to play it safe. Thus workers probably could be rotated.

Now, let's move on to Microsoft. Having been an Amiga and C64 user myself, I must say that Windows is the best operating system I've ever seen. You may claim that they are 10 years behind the times, but that is merely your opinion. To me, Windows has brought personal computing to everyone.Say what. Apple, Atari, Acorn and Commadore has done that. During the mid 80's each of these companies provided a better solution then IBM or Microsoft.

Windows 95 was the first OS where you didn't have to be some sort of rocket scientist to run programs. *Cough* Lisa *Cough*. Click on the app it runs. System was already setup out of the box. Mac OS is almost too simple and if you can't figure out GEM (1985) then you shouldn't be using computers. Then there is GEOS even it kicked Windows till they made Windows '95. The Amiga OS grew to give features of Win95 long before Win95 was even though of at MS yet still the lightest for its power.

Risc OS was so simple UK Schools use to use them till Windows killed it.

Microsoft didn't do anything that others didn't do better before.

It had an easy-to-use interface, adjustable settings, and it was generally user-friendly. I'm using Windows XP right now, and I'm very pleased with it. I have not seen the Blue Screen Of Death since we bought it a year ago.
Start to shut down. A registry that made OS/2 users happy since it made their huge config.sys look simple. Try opening WinXP up and hacking it and it fights you tooth and nail yet Amiga OS is easy to modify and hack. I think Amiga OS changes computer much more then Windows. It eventully got simple enough that anyone can learn it yet you could easily do more advance stuff with it. The best of both worlds. Think about it animators and video editors could figure Amiga OS out so it's not like it was a difficult OS to learn. It was the Amiga that WB,Disney, and other Studio's used also as I posted the link before Nasa still used it since it is more easy to use the Linux yet it is open like Linux


Also Win95 is a pig. Amiga OS did mostly the same job with much less resorces.

-The whole OS could fit on a disk while Win95 takes up hundreds of megs

-Multi-task with 1 meg of ram and MHZs only in the double digit while Win95 can not even boot off such a low end system.

-Each window could have its own resoulution and Windows still doesn't have this feature.

Even windows 3.1 was a pig. Geos did a better job on a C128.

Oh and security. Any green hacker can gain full access to Windows even with all its security up and XP has even worse security then 2000.

The fact that dead system keep comming back from the grave to compete with Windows should be a sign there is little progress being made at MS. MS can't make them stay dead becouse MS never makes much progress after they kill them.



Oh, and that thing about software compatability? That's been going on for ages! I couldn't run my C64 programs on my brother's Amiga, and this was before Windows 95 was a gleam in Microsoft's eye!You could if he got the C64 board for the Amiga. I still have mine. Also the Amiga was able to run Mac programs from I think 86 or 87 on via a EMU sold back then.

However, if you wanna use another operating system, you are perfectly free to do so. Go download Linux, you can run Windows-compatible programs on it! Just don't expect the friendly interface that Windows has.I find AOS 3.9 and RiscOS more friendly as it makes it easily without taking my powers away. Plus they are not hogs. Anyway that is not the point. I want to the apps that MS hogs thus why I actully want the technology for cross platform programing to no be impeded by MS.

And now, the screws. Please tell me something. What is the price of a Robinson screw compared to a Phillips screw? Phillips is cheaper only becouse they got the snot beat out of them by Robenson so nobody has to pay roalties to Phillips.

[Lucky Bob]

Originally posted by Psycho Fox
But this is done by the people. No state remeber. Meaning if it does have to get enacted it would be becouse the majority thinks there is a crisis since duh they can get drafted too.

Here's the problem with that. Let's say that 51% thought that there was a crisis, and 49% didn't. Yet, due to the mob rule vote, the decision stands. that 49% isn't gonna be happy, and they will most likely refuse to do their share. So, my question is, how does this society deal with those who disobey the majority?

BTW, the majority is not always right, you know.

You are right this figure was a gereral figure for all work. Farming would take more then the others since there is a strick time table. If a drafted ever got issue it would mean the masses are scared of a food shortage in the future meaning you would basicly have a army of workers comming to the fields ordered by their peers. Since this is not state run odds are the number of workers would be over estimated to play it safe. Thus workers probably could be rotated.

Wait, not everyone is qualified to work on a farm. Believe it or not, you actually have to know something about animals, crops, and such to work on a farm. Farming is a very complicated job, and it's not very efficient to rotate workers around, many of whom have probably never even seen a cow up close.

Also, what's wrong with the current system of letting people run their own farms and get revenue from them? At least we aren't facing a crisis! :D

Say what. Apple, Atari, Acorn and Commadore has done that. During the mid 80's each of these companies provided a better solution then IBM or Microsoft.

During the 80's, maybe, but not now. Not everyone owned a computer in the mid 80's, for the simple reason that the computers back then were dinosaurs. I had a Commodore in the early 90's that my dad bought thinking that it would help him do business with. Guess what? It didn't work. He never could figure out how to use it, though he spent hours reading manuals and running instructional programs. So, he handed it over to me to play games on, which is what everyone remembers it for, anyway. My brother's Amiga was originally intended to do graphics with, but he couldn't do much more than gaming with it, either. IBM was known for their effective-yet-bland business software, until Microsoft combined the fun of the other brands with the efficiency of IBM's business software. Which is what people wanted.

*Cough* Lisa *Cough*. Click on the app it runs. System was already setup out of the box. Mac OS is almost too simple and if you can't figure out GEM (1985) then you shouldn't be using computers. Then there is GEOS even it kicked Windows till they made Windows '95. The Amiga OS grew to give features of Win95 long before Win95 was even though of at MS yet still the lightest for its power.

I remember GEOS. There was something about looking at a pea-green Game Boy-type screen to do documents that were too big for a disk that turned me off to it. Not to mention the fact that everything was joystick-driven. :rolleyes:

Risc OS was so simple UK Schools use to use them till Windows killed it.

Never heard of it.

Microsoft didn't do anything that others didn't do better before.
Start to shut down. A registry that made OS/2 users happy since it made their huge config.sys look simple. Try opening WinXP up and hacking it and it fights you tooth and nail yet Amiga OS is easy to modify and hack. I think Amiga OS changes computer much more then Windows. It eventully got simple enough that anyone can learn it yet you could easily do more advance stuff with it. The best of both worlds. Think about it animators and video editors could figure Amiga OS out so it's not like it was a difficult OS to learn. It was the Amiga that WB,Disney, and other Studio's used also as I posted the link before Nasa still used it since it is more easy to use the Linux yet it is open like Linux

The average user doesn't want to hack their OS. The average user wants a simple interface to learn quickly. Windows is such an interface, and it is operable with more powerful computers. Try to do advanced photo editing, sound management, and web surfing on an Amiga. :rolleyes:


Also Win95 is a pig. Amiga OS did mostly the same job with much less resorces.

Given the power of modern computers, that doesn't matter.

-The whole OS could fit on a disk while Win95 takes up hundreds of megs

More features = more megs. Besides, the original Win95 CD also included a bunch of media and a catalog of Microsoft products.

-Multi-task with 1 meg of ram and MHZs only in the double digit while Win95 can not even boot off such a low end system.

Did the Amiga programs have as many features as modern PC programs? Microsoft Word or even Corel Wordperfect could lick old-school word processing programs anytime.

-Each window could have its own resoulution and Windows still doesn't have this feature.

Not quite. Many programs have resolution settings, and in XP, you have the option of running a program in 640x480.

Even windows 3.1 was a pig. Geos did a better job on a C128.

I have nightmares about GEOS.

Oh and security. Any green hacker can gain full access to Windows even with all its security up and XP has even worse security then 2000.

That's logical, considering that the old computers didn't have any internet capabilities to speak of.

The fact that dead system keep comming back from the grave to compete with Windows should be a sign there is little progress being made at MS. MS can't make them stay dead becouse MS never makes much progress after they kill them.

Haven't heard of this happening.

You could if he got the C64 board for the Amiga. I still have mine. Also the Amiga was able to run Mac programs from I think 86 or 87 on via a EMU sold back then.

You can find EMUs for just about anything for a PC.

I find AOS 3.9 and RiscOS more friendly as it makes it easily without taking my powers away. Plus they are not hogs. Anyway that is not the point. I want to the apps that MS hogs thus why I actully want the technology for cross platform programing to no be impeded by MS.

Huh?

Phillips is cheaper only becouse they got the snot beat out of them by Robenson so nobody has to pay roalties to Phillips.

There you go. When Phillips screws became cheaper, people started buying them. That's the way things go. IF you can make a quality product cheaper, it'll fly with the public.

[Psycho Fox]

Originally posted by luckybob1985
Here's the problem with that. Let's say that 51% thought that there was a crisis, and 49% didn't. Yet, due to the mob rule vote, the decision stands. that 49% isn't gonna be happy, and they will most likely refuse to do their share. So, my question is, how does this society deal with those who disobey the majority?
Well for starter I would think in a food crisis more then 51% would agree but even with no state there is a volunteer police force.

BTW, the majority is not always right, you know.
Right but that democracy. That is how jurys work and how we currently elect leaders.

Wait, not everyone is qualified to work on a farm. Believe it or not, you actually have to know something about animals, crops, and such to work on a farm. Farming is a very complicated job, and it's not very efficient to rotate workers around, many of whom have probably never even seen a cow up close.Yhea like all newbies on the job the experiened help out the newbies.

Also, what's wrong with the current system of letting people run their own farms and get revenue from them? At least we aren't facing a crisis! :D Right and a food crisis in Socalism is theoritical. Beside Socalism allows private farming just not revenue since well there is none and what is produced minus the farmers cut it shared.

During the 80's, maybe, but not now. Not everyone owned a computer in the mid 80's, for the simple reason that the computers back then were dinosaurs. I had a Commodore in the early 90's that my dad bought thinking that it would help him do business with. Guess what? It didn't work. He never could figure out how to use it, though he spent hours reading manuals and running instructional programs. So, he handed it over to me to play games on, which is what everyone remembers it for, anyway. My brother's Amiga was originally intended to do graphics with, but he couldn't do much more than gaming with it, either. IBM was known for their effective-yet-bland business software, until Microsoft combined the fun of the other brands with the efficiency of IBM's business software. Which is what people wanted.Amiga was aimed at studios back then thus the great software packages like Delux Paint and hardware like the Video Toaster. Your Brother might have wanted to pick up some graphics software since umm EWS (http://www.coax.net/people/erics/) Has been pumping out art (and pumped out animation some years back) on the miggy for some time as have other miggy artist. BTW now Amiga does have okay bussniess apps like Ami Writer

I remember GEOS. There was something about looking at a pea-green Game Boy-type screen to do documents that were too big for a disk that turned me off to it. Not to mention the fact that everything was joystick-driven. :rolleyes: Right but the PC version was mouse drive and had more colours then green. Still the Commadore version did shoes horn a GUI OS into the tight constrains of the system.

Never heard of it.
this 9 page Intro (http://www.riscos.org/cgi-bin/artcl?a=welcome) explains what RiscOS was and is

The average user doesn't want to hack their OS. The average user wants a simple interface to learn quickly. Windows is such an interface, and it is operable with more powerful computers. Try to do advanced photo editing, sound management, and web surfing on an Amiga. :rolleyes: Yup the miggy could do that before we even got the new hardware this year.


Given the power of modern computers, that doesn't matter.
It matters to me. I want more power going to apps not the OS


More features = more megs. Besides, the original Win95 CD also included a bunch of media and a catalog of Microsoft products.
As does 3.9 except the catalog of MS products but the basic OS can still boot off a disk. Not as flashly as the HD install but in a pinch much better then Dos.

Did the Amiga programs have as many features as modern PC programs? Microsoft Word or even Corel Wordperfect could lick old-school word processing programs anytime.Umm Amiga has been back from the grave a couple time and still ticking. There are modern WP for it. Open Office is being ported to Amiga OS 4.0


Not quite. Many programs have resolution settings, and in XP, you have the option of running a program in 640x480.But try running a bunch of windows on your desktop each with a different res

That's logical, considering that the old computers didn't have any internet capabilities to speak of.Funny I remeber the A! newsgroup had a couple of miggy users way back then (Back in 1993). The Miggy has had internet support for some time now.

Haven't heard of this happening.The miggy has died tons of times but the demand for them and the fact they can still be a work horse keeps them comming back to life. The Atari pc is also now back to life even though Atari is dead the technology is being reborn since it is actully possible for it to compete with Windows. Same with RiscOS


Huh?
with write once run anywhere technology apps would no longer have a native OS thus you can walk into a store buy a app and run that app on Windows,OS/2 Amiga OS, RiscOS,BeOS,Mac OS, Linux,ect. No more OS war pick the one you want and you can run any app you want. This seems to scare MS


There you go. When Phillips screws became cheaper, people started buying them. That's the way things go. IF you can make a quality product cheaper, it'll fly with the public. Yhea only becouse they lost the war with Robenson. it makes no sence since it would mean if Robenson also went bankrupt since the design is better odds are it would have been standard.

[Lucky Bob]

Originally posted by Psycho Fox
Well for starter I would think in a food crisis more then 51% would agree but even with no state there is a volunteer police force.

That's great! A police force that doesn't get compensated at all for putting their necks on the line! Once again, you are compensated for existing, not for your efforts to provide quality products and services.

Right but that democracy. That is how jurys work and how we currently elect leaders.

But we're talking about a majority here that directly controls how we live. Mob rule has never worked in the past, and there is not reason why it should work now.

Yhea like all newbies on the job the experiened help out the newbies.

Not a lot of help you can give 3 days out of the week. And even then, it's supposed to be a temporary job. When people do something because they HAVE to as opposed to WANT to, they do a halfhearted job.

Right and a food crisis in Socalism is theoritical. Beside Socalism allows private farming just not revenue since well there is none and what is produced minus the farmers cut it shared.

That's great. A farmer toils and sweats in the field so that he can get a small cut of his labor. Like I said, that's already been done in the Plymouth colony. It didn't work.


I'm gonna sum up the Amiga vs. Windows arguments. It's a matter of taste. If you like Amigas, fine. I respect that. I didn't think it was half bad back in 93, myself. But to say that they are far superior to Windows PCs is simply a matter of opinion. I happen to think that PCs are more powerful. But opinons are not enough to blame a whole system with. (Especially since Mac OS and Linux are so popular.) For the record, if Amiga wants to make a comback, let them advertize a bit more! I have not heard a word of any comeback Amiga has made. Last I heard, the whole company went out of business. It's like the old saying, "Something bad happens when you don't advertise, nothing!"

with write once run anywhere technology apps would no longer have a native OS thus you can walk into a store buy a app and run that app on Windows,OS/2 Amiga OS, RiscOS,BeOS,Mac OS, Linux,ect. No more OS war pick the one you want and you can run any app you want. This seems to scare MS

I don't think so. MS hasn't stopped Java, or any other such cross-platform language. That's the beauty of captialism, you always have a choice. In socialism, you are at the mercy of the system.

Yhea only becouse they lost the war with Robenson. it makes no sence since it would mean if Robenson also went bankrupt since the design is better odds are it would have been standard.

You seem to think that Phillips was the big winner here. It wasn't. The people who reproduced the design at a cheaper price are the winners. Again, that's hardly the fault of the system. Is it wrong to have a quality product at a low price?

[Psycho Fox]

Originally posted by luckybob1985
That's great! A police force that doesn't get compensated at all for putting their necks on the line! Once again, you are compensated for existing, not for your efforts to provide quality products and services.You compensated to what the system can give you. The healthier the system the more it can give you.

But we're talking about a majority here that directly controls how we live. Mob rule has never worked in the past, and there is not reason why it should work now.Tribes work, Families work even though that are loosly based on as you put it Mob Rule.

Not a lot of help you can give 3 days out of the week. And even then, it's supposed to be a temporary job. When people do something because they HAVE to as opposed to WANT to, they do a halfhearted job.That's the point of Socalism. Right now you have to work or you end up on wellfair or the streets. Socalism wants people to want to work just becouse they want to.

That's great. A farmer toils and sweats in the field so that he can get a small cut of his labor. Like I said, that's already been done in the Plymouth colony. It didn't work.not a small cut, his cut. Meaning as much as he wants except is there is any ration put in place due to shortages. Meaning the system gets what he doesn't want or need so the farmer can get what other people don't want or need. The farmer is not going to even want all the food he produced it will spoil before he could use it all. As a farmer he gets first dibs just as a factory working making TVs gets first dibs on the TVs they help make. Socalism does try to reward work.

I'm gonna sum up the Amiga vs. Windows arguments. It's a matter of taste. If you like Amigas, fine. I respect that. I didn't think it was half bad back in 93, myself.You talking the home system (500,500+,600 and 1200) or the power system that the studios and most Amiga users still use (2000,3000,4000)?

Some reasons why Amiga users are still Amiga users.

- No system registry. Just run programs from any folder where they are. No need to install anything.

- No DLL's. Why do you want to upgrade your libraries when it will probably break more apps than it fixes?

- The Amiga worked like a desktop computer, not a server or workstation. Multiuser accounts are a pain in the butt if they're not done right, and Windows doesn't do them right.

- The Amiga would always boot -- no matter what, and didn't have a "SAFE MODE" that disables all your necessary hardware, like your CD-ROM or 3rd party SCSI controller.

- Amiga executables are not 5 megabytes in size. (Utility disks are Floppy Discs, not Compact Disks).

- When I open the System folder, I don't see thousands of files with obscure names. I can figure out what something does by reading its name or looking at its icon.

- The Assign and Mount commands. Wouldn't it be nice if you could access your Windows desktop with a path like, "DESK:"?

Basicly the Amiga like the Acorn was build as a user freindly desktop that make it as easy as possible to do the job it was build for weither it be mix audio tracks, animation or video editing or more end use type task such as wordproccessing and such.



But to say that they are far superior to Windows PCs is simply a matter of opinion. I happen to think that PCs are more powerful. But opinons are not enough to blame a whole system with. (Especially since Mac OS and Linux are so popular.) For the record, if Amiga wants to make a comback, let them advertize a bit more! I have not heard a word of any comeback Amiga has made. Last I heard, the whole company went out of business. It's like the old saying, "Something bad happens when you don't advertise, nothing!"Amiga like BeBox is not aiming for you they are tring to claw their way back into studios were the real money is.

I don't think so. MS hasn't stopped Java, or any other such cross-platform language. That's the beauty of captialism, you always have a choice. In socialism, you are at the mercy of the system.Java is the tip of the ice berg and even there you have MS using old build of Java not supported anymore. What the industry is aiming at is Java without the hit in performance meaning you can't tell simply by performance if its written for your OS or crossplatform.


You seem to think that Phillips was the big winner here. It wasn't. The people who reproduced the design at a cheaper price are the winners. Again, that's hardly the fault of the system. Is it wrong to have a quality product at a low price? Here you simple have a product at lower price not actully a quality product. Robesnson still has the better scew thus why they still stay afloat with their small market share.

[Lucky Bob]

Originally posted by Psycho Fox
[B]You compensated to what the system can give you. The healthier the system the more it can give you.

Our current system's pretty healthy, and it gives a lot, so why should we put a damper on things?

3 days a week for work (if you even want to), and 4 days a week for laziness doesn't make for a healthy system.

Tribes work, Families work even though that are loosly based on as you put it Mob Rule.

Then how come the only tribes we see today are in seriously third world countries? Tribalism is a thing of the past. If it really worked, then they'd have the entire civilized world beaten. And since when is a family a mob? No authority combined with democracy is mob rule.

That's the point of Socalism. Right now you have to work or you end up on wellfair or the streets. Socalism wants people to want to work just becouse they want to.

But in socialism, you still have to work or the system fails. And, you mentioned the drafts that haunt this discussion. Either way, you have to work. Why not use your talents to improve your life, while you're at it, rather than slave to a system that doesn't value you as a human?

not a small cut, his cut. Meaning as much as he wants except is there is any ration put in place due to shortages. Meaning the system gets what he doesn't want or need so the farmer can get what other people don't want or need. The farmer is not going to even want all the food he produced it will spoil before he could use it all. As a farmer he gets first dibs just as a factory working making TVs gets first dibs on the TVs they help make. Socalism does try to reward work.

So, if the farmer decided to take all his food for himself, what then?

You talking the home system (500,500+,600 and 1200) or the power system that the studios and most Amiga users still use (2000,3000,4000)?

Some reasons why Amiga users are still Amiga users.

- No system registry. Just run programs from any folder where they are. No need to install anything.

- No DLL's. Why do you want to upgrade your libraries when it will probably break more apps than it fixes?

- The Amiga worked like a desktop computer, not a server or workstation. Multiuser accounts are a pain in the butt if they're not done right, and Windows doesn't do them right.

- The Amiga would always boot -- no matter what, and didn't have a "SAFE MODE" that disables all your necessary hardware, like your CD-ROM or 3rd party SCSI controller.

- Amiga executables are not 5 megabytes in size. (Utility disks are Floppy Discs, not Compact Disks).

- When I open the System folder, I don't see thousands of files with obscure names. I can figure out what something does by reading its name or looking at its icon.

- The Assign and Mount commands. Wouldn't it be nice if you could access your Windows desktop with a path like, "DESK:"?

Basicly the Amiga like the Acorn was build as a user freindly desktop that make it as easy as possible to do the job it was build for weither it be mix audio tracks, animation or video editing or more end use type task such as wordproccessing and such.

Well, that's fine if that suits you, but there's no need in scorning Microsoft just because it is popular. Microsoft is not a mistake of the system, it's a company that makes products. If they're popular with the general public, so be it!

Amiga like BeBox is not aiming for you they are tring to claw their way back into studios were the real money is.

Fine! They can have it, too! That's their choice! I'm just saying, though, that it's not fair to blame Microsoft for ruining the system by making a product that the average consumer likes.

Java is the tip of the ice berg and even there you have MS using old build of Java not supported anymore. What the industry is aiming at is Java without the hit in performance meaning you can't tell simply by performance if its written for your OS or crossplatform.

That's fine and dandy. I don't see Microsoft trying to halt progress in that area, though.

Here you simple have a product at lower price not actully a quality product. Robesnson still has the better scew thus why they still stay afloat with their small market share.

They still last just fine, and they are simple to replace at a cheap price, so they are quality.

[Psycho Fox]

Originally posted by luckybob1985
Our current system's pretty healthy, and it gives a lot, so why should we put a damper on things?

3 days a week for work (if you even want to), and 4 days a week for laziness doesn't make for a healthy system.It does since it tries to allow everyone to work and the 4 days of lazyiness is not exactly corret. A person could play sports for the time does that make them lazy?

Then how come the only tribes we see today are in seriously third world countries? Tribalism is a thing of the past. If it really worked, then they'd have the entire civilized world beaten. Say what. What about the tribes in the bushes of Australia, Canada, and else where?These tribes are health, everyone gets more then enough food and clothing and free time. Like a perfect miniture Socalist model except there is no manufactured goods becouse Tribalism can't handle such things as factories and a counsel is used as to help the democratic process of the tribe flow with less difficulty which I'm okay with added onto to Socalism since the counsel in most tribes don't hold no where near as much power as republics do now.

And since when is a family a mob? No authority combined with democracy is mob rule.Hey you said Socalism is mob rule and a family is socalist. Within the family work is done either by free will or by force via a democratic decison of that parents (so yhea there is a cass system of parent and child by a minor flaw that has little to do with this example.) There is no compensation of doing the dishes or cleaning the house besides clean dishes and a clean house.

But in socialism, you still have to work or the system fails. And, you mentioned the drafts that haunt this discussion. Either way, you have to work. Why not use your talents to improve your life, while you're at it, rather than slave to a system that doesn't value you as a human? If nobody worked in Capitalism the system would fail and probably the state would come to the same conclusion of work drafts if nobody wanted to work for money anymore. Capitalism doesn't value me anymore of a human. The system doesn't care if I can't find work that is the job of the state and people.

So, if the farmer decided to take all his food for himself, what then?
Why would he the food would rot. You can drink as much water you want from a public fountain does that mean you drink it all?

Well, that's fine if that suits you, but there's no need in scorning Microsoft just because it is popular. Microsoft is not a mistake of the system, it's a company that makes products. If they're popular with the general public, so be it!Its not so much the popularity with the general public as the fact since they are popular I have to be forced to use these machines from hell if I want to persue a job in the computer industry which is why I switched away from a carrer in computers for now. Don't need the stress of working with a system that makes grown nerds cry.

Fine! They can have it, too! That's their choice! I'm just saying, though, that it's not fair to blame Microsoft for ruining the system by making a product that the average consumer likes.The average consumer doesn't know a thing about computers. They might say they like windows but truth the vast majority never tried anything else.

I just want a system that is logical. I don't like the huge registry windows has (Have you ever had to change something in there, let met tell you it takes forever) and the registry is too restrictive. If I move a program from one HD to anouther I expect to be able to just run it and everything is fine but no I have to either change the registry or reinstall the program. Bah such things went out with OS/2 and I don't want to deal with such archaic logic.


They still last just fine, and they are simple to replace at a cheap price, so they are quality. But Phillps scews strip and don't stick to the driver like Robenson. when ever I rebuild PCs for the first time I always have to replace the scews with Robensons since I have a hard time getting Phillps scews back in but no trouble with Robensons.

[Lucky Bob]

Originally posted by Psycho Fox
It does since it tries to allow everyone to work and the 4 days of lazyiness is not exactly corret. A person could play sports for the time does that make them lazy?

In socialism, yes, because he's not contributing to society.

Say what. What about the tribes in the bushes of Australia, Canada, and else where?These tribes are health, everyone gets more then enough food and clothing and free time. Like a perfect miniture Socalist model except there is no manufactured goods becouse Tribalism can't handle such things as factories and a counsel is used as to help the democratic process of the tribe flow with less difficulty which I'm okay with added onto to Socalism since the counsel in most tribes don't hold no where near as much power as republics do now.

First off, these tribes that you mentioned are helped by the government. Second, these tribes have made a living throughout the centuries by trade, so that's not exactly the perfect socialistic system. Third, like you said, tribalism can't handle things like industry. Wouldn't that look good in our civilization? You mentioned a counsel, and that's where it all breaks down. I thought you said there wasn't any sort of government in this system. Say what you want, but this counsel is a government, and this system has just become another state where industry is under strict government control. Maybe you misjudged Lenin.

Hey you said Socalism is mob rule and a family is socalist. Within the family work is done either by free will or by force via a democratic decison of that parents (so yhea there is a cass system of parent and child by a minor flaw that has little to do with this example.) There is no compensation of doing the dishes or cleaning the house besides clean dishes and a clean house

But in families, the parents are still the heads of household, and they have a final say in how the household is run. There is an authority there. And yes, many kids do get compensated for work. (It's called an "allowance".)

If nobody worked in Capitalism the system would fail and probably the state would come to the same conclusion of work drafts if nobody wanted to work for money anymore. Capitalism doesn't value me anymore of a human. The system doesn't care if I can't find work that is the job of the state and people.

But in capitalism, you are valued as an individual. In socialism, you are a mere cog in the machine that gives everybody rations whether they deserve it or not. Like when you said that socialism could "handle" slackers? That was a pretty clear indication there about what the workers are. People who work so that others may get a free ride.

Why would he the food would rot. You can drink as much water you want from a public fountain does that mean you drink it all?

He still wouldn't care if it rotted, since he got his share, and he's still being compensated for merely existing.

Its not so much the popularity with the general public as the fact since they are popular I have to be forced to use these machines from hell if I want to persue a job in the computer industry which is why I switched away from a carrer in computers for now. Don't need the stress of working with a system that makes grown nerds cry.

Well, think about it this way. If you managed a company, would you rather give your workers an operating system that they were already familiar with, rather than give them lots of expensive training courses? And who says that Windows can't do the job? Maybe in your opinion Amiga could do it better, but Windows still does the job. (On a more powerful PC, I might add.)

The average consumer doesn't know a thing about computers. They might say they like windows but truth the vast majority never tried anything else.

I've tried other stuff, and I like my Windows just fine. Haven't tried the Mac yet, but I don't know if I want to since it's half the configuration of my current computer at twice the price.

I just want a system that is logical. I don't like the huge registry windows has (Have you ever had to change something in there, let met tell you it takes forever) and the registry is too restrictive. If I move a program from one HD to anouther I expect to be able to just run it and everything is fine but no I have to either change the registry or reinstall the program. Bah such things went out with OS/2 and I don't want to deal with such archaic logic.

Fine! I've had to deal with the registry before, and I haven't had much problem with it. I find, though, that the whole problem of dealing with the registry is removed by properly unistalling programs. 'Course, there's always good registry-cleaning software out there. I have no problems with it, and I don't think it puts the OS back a decade.

But Phillps scews strip and don't stick to the driver like Robenson. when ever I rebuild PCs for the first time I always have to replace the scews with Robensons since I have a hard time getting Phillps scews back in but no trouble with Robensons.

But people who do not unscrew the screws often don't care about the stripping, they just need something to hold things together. And wouldn't it make sense to have a screw that's inexpensive if it holds things together? But if you like the Robinson, you are still free to buy as many as you want. Just don't scorn the system because a screw (which still has pretty good durability) is cheaper.

Besides, most modern computer cases are becoming screw-less, so keep your head up.

[Psycho Fox]

Originally posted by luckybob1985
In socialism, yes, because he's not contributing to society.You seem to think Socalism demands work and doesn't like it when people are not contributing. The whole point of the system is you can manage work and play so actully live your live and don't burn out.

First off, these tribes that you mentioned are helped by the government.Not all

Second, these tribes have made a living throughout the centuries by trade, so that's not exactly the perfect socialistic system. They need trade for things the tribe can't make.

Third, like you said, tribalism can't handle things like industry. Wouldn't that look good in our civilization? Hey besides that, it works

You mentioned a counsel, and that's where it all breaks down. I thought you said there wasn't any sort of government in this system. Say what you want, but this counsel is a government, and this system has just become another state where industry is under strict government control. Maybe you misjudged Lenin.Okay these counsels are kinda goverment but how are they states? The counsels primary function is not to lead like in republic but to moderate the democratic process. I don't know of any tribe counsel that controls the hunting or farming.

But in capitalism, you are valued as an individual.I am. I always though they wanted cookie cutter people so it is easier for them to sell us stuff.

In socialism, you are a mere cog in the machine that gives everybody rations whether they deserve it or not. Like when you said that socialism could "handle" slackers? That was a pretty clear indication there about what the workers are. People who work so that others may get a free ride.Your not a cog you are working for your self and what you don't want of what you produce goes on to others. Of course you are going to have slackers, we have slackers now some compensated like the peons at Enron,WorldCom and Time Warner. Socalism never attempts to fix slackers, Society has to do that.

He still wouldn't care if it rotted, since he got his share, and he's still being compensated for merely existing.Right but if he doesn't take it all out of his field it can't be replant. Is he going to harvest it just to let it go to waste? and if he just harvests what he needs since production is common the community can redistrabute the unharvested land to people that want to farm it.


Well, think about it this way. If you managed a company, would you rather give your workers an operating system that they were already familiar with, rather than give them lots of expensive training courses? And who says that Windows can't do the job? Maybe in your opinion Amiga could do it better, but Windows still does the job. (On a more powerful PC, I might add.)Come on studio's, stations and networks can easily teach workers how to work with the other OS in a day. Except for Linux the other systems don't require expensive training. Oh it is not crappy windows I need a course.I learned BeOS within a day by reading something called a manual.

Fine! I've had to deal with the registry before, and I haven't had much problem with it. I find, though, that the whole problem of dealing with the registry is removed by properly unistalling programs. 'Course, there's always good registry-cleaning software out there. I have no problems with it, and I don't think it puts the OS back a decade.Oh so I have to uninstall an app then reinstall it to move it. Wow and to think on other systems I just had to move the folder. Wow how does M$ come up with such inovated stuff :rolleyes:

[Lucky Bob]

Originally posted by Psycho Fox
You seem to think Socalism demands work and doesn't like it when people are not contributing. The whole point of the system is you can manage work and play so actully live your live and don't burn out.

Well, you said that the more people contribute, the better the system is. So, wouldn't it demand more work for better living?

BTW, sports are about competition. It's funny you should use them as a pastime in a cooperative society.

Not all

Right, and all these reservations and compensation programs are fake?

They need trade for things the tribe can't make.

Oh horrors! They are generating wealth!

Hey besides that, it works

Without industry? That's just dandy. We're not in the Congo, here.

Okay these counsels are kinda goverment but how are they states? The counsels primary function is not to lead like in republic but to moderate the democratic process. I don't know of any tribe counsel that controls the hunting or farming.

You have a government, you have states. The system you propose sounds like a bunch of mini-states, much like Greece. And if the counsels don't lead, how do they do the work drafts?

Really where it breaks down is where you originally said that there would be absolutely no government. Now that we have a counsel thrown in, we realize that maybe, just maybe, this system can't live up to ALL its promises.

I am. I always though they wanted cookie cutter people so it is easier for them to sell us stuff.

The problem with the modern worker is that they try to be cookie cutter. The ones who actually enjoy their work go further in business than the ones that don't even try.

Your not a cog you are working for your self and what you don't want of what you produce goes on to others

And you think that people are going to produce a lot of unneccesary stuff so that they can give it away without compensation? In the current system, you get paid for providing a service, allowing you to improve on that service. In your system, you're producing without getting compensated, and you don't have the means to produce better products. In fact, you might be able to produce a lot more if you weren't stuck on perpetual waiting lists.

Of course you are going to have slackers, we have slackers now some compensated like the peons at Enron,WorldCom and Time Warner. Socalism never attempts to fix slackers, Society has to do that

It's not exactly fair to say that CEOs are slackers. People who are in business leadership have a lot more to do than you think.

Right but if he doesn't take it all out of his field it can't be replant. Is he going to harvest it just to let it go to waste? and if he just harvests what he needs since production is common the community can redistrabute the unharvested land to people that want to farm it.

Aha! I thought you said that socialism encourages private ownership and work! How can that be if a man's land is redistributed?

Come on studio's, stations and networks can easily teach workers how to work with the other OS in a day. Except for Linux the other systems don't require expensive training. Oh it is not crappy windows I need a course.I learned BeOS within a day by reading something called a manual.

So, are you saying they should HAVE to go with another system because it's "better"? So much for choice.

Oh so I have to uninstall an app then reinstall it to move it. Wow and to think on other systems I just had to move the folder. Wow how does M$ come up with such inovated stuff :rolleyes:

I don't hear the average user compaining, do you?

[Psycho Fox]

Concidering we lost gtracer72 a few pages back and we have once agin became the only posters I'm calling a draw.