An interesting NYT Bits blog entry covers Opera's mobile browser. Buried in the middle of the article is this quote: "Opera's engineers have developed a version of Opera Mini that can run on an Apple iPhone, but Apple won't let the company release it because it competes with Apple's own Safari browser." It also talks about Opera on the Wii and browsers in cars. A good read. My Take: But back to the iPhone. As tempted as I am to just shrug it off, since Apple is free to run its App Store any way it pleases, as an enthusiastic iPhone user, I think Apple is shooting itself in the foot here, as it is with all the "competitive" apps being rejected. Apple does stand to lose some Google revenue by letting people use other browsers, but they have much more to gain by unleashing the creativity of the developer community and giving them the freedom to improve or replace core iPhone functionality. Hopefully competition from Android forces them to wake up.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2007-01-22
Member since:2005-07-06
Member since:2005-09-14
It doesn't make sense to argue against capitalism and against the Wall Street bailout at the same time. The oposite of capitalism would be like a big government bailout for everybody, all the time.
Massive government intervention and regulation are the anti-thesis of capitalism.
Also, your apparent view that the government is always looking out for people is a bit naive. Politicians care about one thing: keeping their cushy jobs.
Member since:2006-12-16
Agreed about politicians. That's why I keep saying the only good politician is a dead one. There's a good old Aussie pollie joke that unfortunately, I probably couldn't say here ;-) The joke is here though:
http://www.emailcash.com.au/Community/ForumPost.aspx?topicid=750511
I actually sent this as an EMail to several of the public EMail addresses of prominent Australia politicians, they probably didn't appreciate it ;-)
Dave
Member since:2006-12-28
That is a gross oversimplification and not actually the truth.
Capitalism, as originally codified by Adam Smith in his seminal work on the subject "Wealth of Nations", makes no mention of regulation as being wrong or undesirable. It does argue that too much taxation and intervention by governments should be curtailed as the market is the only truly free and impartial means of the distribution of wealth and produce, but it does not mention the regulation of those markets.
What you are repeating is the BS that American super capitalists want you to believe. As long as there is no regulation of industry and market, these greedy swine can have they're way with you and your money.
Most modern economies recognize this and have put in place regulations to help keep the playing field even. Therefore, a more appropriate name for the economical systems we live with today would be mixed economies, as even the small amount of government intervention that people like Adam Smith where willing to allow for is not enough to protect Joe Sixpack against the predations of robber barons.
The fact is, Super Capitalism does not and cannot work. All it becomes is a means by witch Oligarchs get richer while they walk all over the poor. It is in no way better, in fact in many ways worse, than a state owned capitalism, i.e. the USSR and just like the Soviet Union, the system would eventually implode taking everything and all else with it.
Member since:
2006-12-16
freedom? freedom for businesses to do whatever they like, at the expense of the "people". Sorry, I think of the people first, business last. A business NEVER has individualistic rights, and nor should it, because it cannot EVER be trusted with that. It's bad enough that business bloody interferes with governmental decisions, something that if any politician had a backbone, they'd be getting rid of. Our politicians ONLY pander to business.
As an example, the US 700 odd billion dollar bailout of rich *unts. *uck 'em. Let them sink. It was their own greed, and their own screwups that led them lending money to people who could never afford to pay back the loans that has caused this issues. It is well known that CEOs etc got hefty pay rises depending on how many loans were made, not how many were feasible. As a direct result of this, when the US economy goes South, it *ucks up the rest of the world.
I'm proudly extreme left, anti capitalism, anti US because those are the values that I believe in. I'm not some lemming who's been brainwashed like the rest of you poor bastards.
Dave