Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!
We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).
Example - A college can pay $75k per year for an Angel or Blackboard license, and host it locally (or contract the hosting out to Angel/BB). Or, they can adopt a F/OSS solution like Sakai, and instead of paying $75k/yr to a corporation outside of the area they can pay $75k/yr for a programmer to maintain and enhance Sakai for their needs. Dollar costs are the same. However, by hiring the programmer, that improves the local economy and keeps that money local, as opposed to sending it out of area/out of state/etc.
Except that not both options are equally efficient. The 75k spent on the proprietary product will pay support from developers that are experts in the product (after all, they built it and should be actively maintaining it), while the 75k spent on the FOSS solution will go to a local programmer who is most likely not as expert as product's authors.
There are certain cases where 'paying' for the FOSS solution could be more efficient: when the product is sufficiently popular that it is easy to find an expert to support it, or there is a for-profit company with sufficient expertise (maybe one that employs the main contributors of the project) that does provide support for the FOSS product. In these cases the open source product has a bit of an advantage in that it would be slightly more difficult for the maintainer/vendor to pull lock-in tricks on you.
Of course this assumes that the commercial and the open source products are of equal quality.
if you own the factory, you actually own the means of production, and therefore you actually are in power
This must be the reason that why FoxConn has a gross margin of 2.8% (previously 6.6% before the suicide workers scandal) http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-08-31/hon-hai-foxconn-international-tumble-after-earnings.html, while Apple has a margin of 41% http://finapps.forbes.com/finapps/jsp/finance/compinfo/Ratios.jsp?tkr=AAPL, because Foxconn has control of manufacturing and therefore has all the power.
Having this power, FoxConn can "lock" Apple out of its factories and Apple will do absolutely nothing instead of shifting production to any number of interchangable factories not just in China but anywhere in the world. And of course, since FoxConn has all the power, if they end their partnership with Apple they will be able to sell fake Apple products because they will magically have the Apple brand and distribution channels in the West (which is still where a great deal of the money is). And using their enormous leverage of selling products at a 2% margin FoxConn will be able to attract the engineering and design talent that will come up with the next product that will render current Apple products completely obsolete.
Get over yourself. Manufacturers in China have no power unless they are actually able to sell their products for a reasonable profit, and they have even less power because they are competing in a commodity market where one manufacturer is no better than the other and only have direct access to the Chinese marketplace (which has nowhere near the amount of money as the West). Companies in the developed world, on the other hand, have direct access to rich consumers and can draw on talent not just from the advanced nations but anywhere in the world. And this will remain so, as long as the companies in the West stay ahead do not become complacent (like the American auto industry in the 80's). If the Chinese do catch up, then all the better, competition is always good. Witness how the rise of Japan, Taiwan and Korea has made electronics much, much better during the 80's and 90's.
Flight 587, when it went down in Rocakway Beach, Queens, New York City, destroyed exactly one single-family home and damaged another one. And that was a direct hit of nearly an entire Airbus A300 (minus the vertical stabilizer and an engine, I believe.)
On the other hand, a small Learjet that crashed in central Mexico City set a street on fire:
Granted, the chances of something like this happening is low, but the amount of damage and terror that happens when it does means that the possibility cannot be ignored.
Now that the threat to the general public is diminished the only thing a terrorist can do to a plane now is blow it up, and to that I say: so what? It's a waste of a terrorist organization's resources, they can accomplish much better kill and terror rates on other vectors. I don't even think the TSA should be the one scanning the people at all, it should be the individual airlines. That way you can choose to pay for your security if you really want it, and competitive practices can find the optimal solution.
Don't quite agree with this. If the terrorists were able to detonate a cellphone bomb while the airplane was on approach to an airport over a city, not only would it have caused the deaths of the people on the plane but also untold damage on the ground (zoning laws that prohibit dense development around airports would reduce casualties, but major airports are still close enough to major cities for the risk to be non-zero). And the terror value of a flaming airplane exploding in a huge fireball in a city would be much, much higher than even the Mumbai attacks, even if the death rate turns out to be lower.