Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:As a matter of fact... (Score 2) 357

by khallow (#47957419) Attached to: Why You Can't Manufacture Like Apple

They didn't buy you at fair value. They said that you could either sell to them at a severe loss, or they would make their own version of your product and put you out of business

Then you weren't worth "fair value". I find it interesting how Microsoft dumped all this money into software firms and all of the replies to my post are complaints that they could have dumped more. Well, it's not their job to do that.

Comment: Re:As a matter of fact... (Score 1) 357

by khallow (#47955027) Attached to: Why You Can't Manufacture Like Apple

Which is fine if you don't mind selling. If you believed in your product and wanted to take it large scale, it could mean selling for a fraction of what the product was actually worth so that MS wouldn't find a way of stealing the market.

So what? That indicates your product was worth less than you thought.

Comment: Re:Capitalism is enamored with Fascism (Score 1) 188

by khallow (#47953243) Attached to: Why a Chinese Company Is the Biggest IPO Ever In the US
Funny how a lot of the people who are enamored of the Chinese model, aren't capitalists. The real attraction is for stoking authoritarian fantasies of all flavors. Want a high speed rail or massive infrastructure/social safety net projects? China made it happen. That's your authoritarian socialist viewpoint.

Want favorable or unique business advantages or just doing away with the arbitrary rules imposed by the thoughtless masses? Just think what profit you could make with the power available to the Chinese government! There's your authoritarian capitalist viewpoint. Want people to be good and the society perfect? Let's make them be good and the society perfect via the Chinese model! There's most of your utopian viewpoints.

I imagine many of these large investment firms have direct or indirect access to zero percent federal reserve loans (going on six years with no end in sight) and they would be foolish not to speculate on Alibaba with house money.

Well, the Fed has admitted that it purchases a lot more than just federal treasuries and bonds. There must be some obstacles in place though else we'd have a lot more inflation. The economy isn't acting like there's easy, unlimited credit else we'd see more and large asset bubbles than we currently see.

I think one of those obstacles is reserve, namely how much concrete assets one needs on hand to cover leveraged investments.

As to the "Business Plot", it's worth remembering that those guys alleged to have been plotters got shafted a lot by the Roosevelt administration who let us note did stuff that should have been outright illegal like stealing privately owned gold in the US and attempting to pack the US Supreme Court. It was not unreasonable at the time to expect the US democracy to be near its end. In that case, why not fight the emerging dictatorship on its own terms?

Let us note that this sort of business-backed revolt worked in both Iran and Chile and similarly failed in Cuba and recently, Venezuela. I can't think of an example, win or lose that didn't turn out badly for the country in question. Maybe we should instead work on not letting things get to the point where businesses are desperate enough to back a rebellion or coup?

Comment: Re:Not a problem... (Score 1) 314

by khallow (#47951417) Attached to: New Study Projects World Population of 11B by 2100

Of course there is, human activity generates heat, and heat melts ice.

This is dumb. First, we have thousands of people already living in Antarctica and they aren't melting ice, especially enough ice to displace thousands of people.

I was clearly talking about selfishness of the individual making the point that individual humans will look after themselves over the rest of their species - this is why we even have things like racism in the first place.

That still makes it a dumb comment since your example was of colony-based insects who are notoriously colony-focused. They are far more racist than humans, viciously competing with even with their close kin in other colonies.

It's pretty clear that you are blinded by your opinions and merely assume that approaches which you deem bad, like terraforming the Sahara are automatically bad and approaches you deem good, like moving a vast number of people to England (and overwhelming its infrastructure), are automatically good. The real world doesn't operate that way.

Comment: Re:Assuming we find a hydrocarbon energy substitut (Score 1) 314

by khallow (#47951157) Attached to: New Study Projects World Population of 11B by 2100
Again, coal doesn't fall in that category. Sure, we would be running out of coal, but not by 2100.

Capitalism dictates that you go for the resource that gives you the most bang for the buck first in order to maximize profit. We've done that. It's downhill from here. I suggest you google "oil" and "EROEI" to get the figures.

Capitalism is merely private ownership of capital. It doesn't "dictate" that you go for anything in particular. Nor does it dictate that things have to go "downhill" merely because the absolutely cheapest resource is no longer present.

There's also this thing called "invention" which tends to change the game. I think by 2100 we'll have figured out adequate replacements for cheap petroleum while retaining our vast transportation network. And I think we'll find out then that we've had those alternatives around for a number of decades now.

Profanity is the one language all programmers know best.