Question for Belloc on Distributism
#11
(07-28-2009, 12:40 PM)epalinurus Wrote: I don't want to defend MS and I favor increasing competition.  But are you saying the parts don't cost less now, or that they do cost less but they were kept high before by a lack of competition, or they were kept high by something else?   Something has to account for the PC I own costing way less today than a less sophisticated, bulkier, slower one cost in 1995.  I'm not sure we disagree too much.  Microsoft was pretty clearly anticompetitive, so my point isn't that they've always been playing in an open market -- only that something led to a reduction in cost to consumers and it's hard to believe Jobs' garage computer, left in the garage, would have done it.

Parts to cost less, partly due to Microsoft, but they aren't the only reason. It is true that the newer processers are down in price because they are in high demand for PCs, but that is only because Microsoft's OS requires them to run properly.

I got a computer with an old Pentium III computer with 256 MB of RAM working faster than a new Windows Vista Intel Core 2 Duo, 2 GB of RAM box just by using effecient software and that computer could do more out of the box than Windows!

The benefit of the hardware is largely lost these days. Yes, it is amazing that many new computers have dual core 64 bit CPUs, but this is offset by bloatware.
Reply
#12
Here's something to chew. Computers are only a control is all, no majick. Fourty years ago we controlled machines with relays. It was called ladder logic, Either the terminal was open or closed. These were proprietary machines developed intra-company for their purposes.This is how they switched telephones as an example or machined parts. Next came TTL which is transistor transistor load. . Same purpose just transistors, so less size. Next came the advent of the computer and it is used to control almost anything but deep in it's little tiny dark heart is a ladder logic circuit just itsy bitsy teeny weeny.

All of the robots and pick and place units are the descendants of the Browne & Sharpe Screw Machine and the Townsend transfer. These monkey motions were controlled by cams ans clutches and linkages and translations. This is just for you an overview as this stuff is a lot. The guy who invented the submarine was a machinist not a scientist,during the Civil War. Babbage invented the calculating machine and that's where IBM started. The Leyden Jar, the storage battery, and hydrogen cell are from Faraday in the 1840's. We still haven't been able to make a good battery and the hydrogen cell won't happen until we figure a way to make hydrogen cheap. It is now something like $10,000 per litre.

What I'm saying is this if  one of you guys with an above average intelligence with some drive and curiosity with a garage with $20,000.00 worth of used machine tools and scrap and some barstock metals and worked on it for a while the computer industry would be much better and the equipment would work as well as a car. Right now that is not so, it is a mess. 

One of the greatest hoaxes performed on people is the notion of higher education and the priesthood of science and the marriage of money performed at the synagogue of Satan called Wall Street by the Wicked Wall Street Wizards.

I'm not some one that understand nor do I want to study distributism. I know how things work or can figure it out and have led men to accomplish things. I have faith in men and their God given talents without the interference of the governing forces. The so called "free market" inhibits men and their pursuit of property, The constitution stole the line life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness from Fr. Sanchez S. J. the inventor of International Law when he said life, liberty and the pursuit of property are God-given rights.   
Reply
#13
Rosarium, you are scrambling up software with hardware.  Yes, the hardware came about because of economies of scale.  Chips that were science fiction only 20 years earlier were available for "cheap" to Jobs and Wozniak.  For that matter, Xerox played a large part in the hardware development, as well as IBM.  It would have been impossible for guys to put together X-ray etching machines in their garage to manufacture chips.

Also, in the beginning, Microsoft was the champion of the little guy and Apple was the evil company.  When it all started, Apple was very closed, and they really screwed their customers over.  I remember my buddy having to use an "Apple" printer cable, and it cost him around $20.  A parallel cable was about $2.  So when it started, Apple was the big evil company.

Microsoft then worked with hardware produces to make commodity computers from cheap hardware, but it ran Microsoft.  They basically cut IBM out of the hardware side and they crushed Apple because everyone was pissed off at Apple for screwing over their customers.

Since then, Microsoft has become the evil monopolist, and Apple is the innovative little guy.

I think busting up Micosoft would have been beneficial.  I have to tip my hat to their applications side.  They make nice, easy to use consumer application.  How I would love to run certain Microsoft apps natively on Linux.  Currently I run Linux, but I also have an Apple notebook computer.  I love the Linux operating system, and also OS-X.  But I have to give credit to Microsoft apps.  They put out some nice stuff.
Reply
#14
(07-28-2009, 04:46 PM)James02 Wrote: Rosarium, you are scrambling up software with hardware.  Yes, the hardware came about because of economies of scale.  Chips that were science fiction only 20 years earlier were available for "cheap" to Jobs and Wozniak.  For that matter, Xerox played a large part in the hardware development, as well as IBM.  It would have been impossible for guys to put together X-ray etching machines in their garage to manufacture chips.
No I am not.

Quote:Also, in the beginning, Microsoft was the champion of the little guy and Apple was the evil company.  When it all started, Apple was very closed, and they really screwed their customers over.  I remember my buddy having to use an "Apple" printer cable, and it cost him around $20.  A parallel cable was about $2.  So when it started, Apple was the big evil company.
No, IBM was the evil one ;) Apple was always closed and still is, and they restrict their own products.

Quote:Microsoft then worked with hardware produces to make commodity computers from cheap hardware, but it ran Microsoft.  They basically cut IBM out of the hardware side and they crushed Apple because everyone was pissed off at Apple for screwing over their customers.
No, they "crushed" Apple because of Compaq, which was able to make IBM compatible computers legally and get MS-DOS on them (IBM didn't restrict the software) and then they opened up the IBM compatible specs so anyone could make it. Microsoft was just lucky with that. Microsoft didn't cut IBM out, they cut themselves out.

Quote:Since then, Microsoft has become the evil monopolist, and Apple is the innovative little guy.
Apple doesn't innovate. It just makes things pretty and has its own cult.

Quote:I think busting up Micosoft would have been beneficial.  I have to tip my hat to their applications side.  They make nice, easy to use consumer application.  How I would love to run certain Microsoft apps natively on Linux.  Currently I run Linux, but I also have an Apple notebook computer.  I love the Linux operating system, and also OS-X.  But I have to give credit to Microsoft apps.  They put out some nice stuff.
Anything "good" made by Microsoft was most likely bought by them. They didn't even make Internet Explorer, but bought an existing browser. They didn't make MS-DOS but bought QDOS and renamed it. They don't make nice and easy to use applications, they make restricted buggy applications which require a long validation code and do weird things.
Reply
#15

My original question and point was...  how can a distributist economy create technology breakthroughs such as computers with a local focus.  Where are the R&D dollars?  For instance:

one of the granddaddies of computers (at my Alma Mater, yeah!)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ILLIAC_I

the 5 ton computer, before silicon transistors existed...

and now, the birth of the transistor as we know it:

http://www.pbs.org/transistor/science/ev...cont1.html

Texas Instruments and Bell Labs, pure R&D.  Funded by big business, looking to future technology.  Where is this in the distributist model?  Without this first step, there would have been no readily available parts for Apple to use to build their first computer.  You have to have R&D, innovation, then find a way to produce them.  It's something that doesn't pay off for a while - 5 years or 10 perhaps.  You need deep pockets, and long term goals.  Where is this in the distributist model?  Is it there or not?

Reply
#16
Not.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)