The education that letting a nation to poverty will eventually come back to haunt us. The analogy with a caveman mentality is a good one. If a member of the tribe is treated unfairly, then it will cause more trouble for everyone in the long run. This is why humanity has learnt to look after it's young and sick etc, i.e. all it's members. The world is a big tribe with different members. The idea of unity is simple on a large scale, its just that most people think and work on a very local scale and so don't see it.
Definitions Of World Equality That Are Achievable In The Next 100 Years?
- Thread starter common_sense_seeker
- Start date
Giant companies only becoem giant because they have something extraordinary to offer. what you are indirectly implying is that a company that invents new toilet seat covers should be rival with a company that produces technology for turbo jet engines.
the fact is that if a company becomes giant than it has a right to remain a giant.
Anyways, what that would cause is incredible economic chaos. think about it this way.
Company A. produces and patents an item "A" (use ur imagination), everyone loves the product, everyone wants it, BUT the company has been limited in size and thus in the ability to manufacture the product, so product "A"'s price skyrockets far above the price it takes to manufacture, not only do we get widespread discontent at the government for instituting such a law, but we also get a massive boost to the black market and illegal companies pirating the product. Eventually the company collapses because the pirated version sells for many times less than product A does.
Man are you naive.
"Company A" would surely sell licenses to other companies to manufacture the product, or a similar product.
Ehhh, you got a point there i suppose.
Really? How did IBM become such a titan in large computing? By selling poor and unwanted products? Or by selling the most reliable computer servers in the world and in high demand?
Although I don't really think the size limit thing is a good idea in general, it might have the interesting effect of causing businesses to devote a lot of effort/money to finding new ways to improve efficiency, make products with fewer resources, etc. Companies will want to maximize the amount of stuff they can produce with a given amount of resources.
Good point about the improvement in overall global efficiency. That's just an extra reason that equality by no. of employees is an idea with a lot of philosophical potential. What's wrong with the idea in concept?
I dont like the idea in general, its just the fact that its sacrificing the one most important life lesson we teach our children and that is that the sky is the limit.
The feeling i get when i think about this is that its saying, "you can aim for the sky, but we'll shoot you down before you get close"
The feeling i get when i think about this is that its saying, "you can aim for the sky, but we'll shoot you down before you get close"
Some jobs are too big for any one company. I suppose you could theoretically have many different companies that all worked together to make a certain product and split the profit, but at that point it's not really clear that they're "different" companies any more, rather than just different divisions of the same company. Also, I just don't really think it would improve things for society much.
Funny you mention IBM. They actually were selling inferior, less reliable, more expensive products when they entered the computer business. But the old man new how to work his salesmen and understood how to create desire and sell to the businessmen of the day. IBM is a perfect example of how a large business can create artificial demand for its crappy products and force out or buy up superior but less well sold and financially backed products.
Like I said, you are very naive.
Wow, you should invest in some better lessons.
It would be the same way companies cooperate now. There WOULD be an obvious improvement IMHO, achieved by more equality in the work place and greater overall global efficiency.
No, it's generally agreed that IBM did so well because they built their computers with "off the shelf" parts that were being made by many different manufacturers (unlike the other computer companies of the time, which were making all their own proprietary hardware in-house). This meant that there were a LOT more options for customization, upgrade, repair etc. if you went with an IBM computer, because there were tons of companies making compatible parts. If you bought, say, a Tandy TRS and you wanted more RAM, your only options was to buy it from Tandy. They don't have the RAM size you want? You don't like the price? Too bad. With IBM computers, on the other hand, you could go to the store and find several different brands of compatible RAM with different specs and prices made by different companies that were all competing with each other on price. The way computers are now, where you can assemble your own custom computer with different video cards, RAM, CPUs, etc. that are made by many different companies is a direct result of IBM. If they hadn't been around, the computing world would look like Apple computers do today ("These are the 6 models of computers we make, pick the one you want...")
It is true that the overall specs of many of the competing computers were better in terms of raw processor speed etc., but most people valued the fact that you could get parts for IBM computers from many different sources, and often cheaper. Simply calling the IBM computers "inferior" based on their specs ignores the real reason why many people bought them.
The downside for IBM in using that strategy was that it allowed many competing companies to sell "IBM compatible" computers that were more or less the same product. The upside was that IBM got to continue to exist when virtually all the other personal computer companies (except Apple, who had their own interesting strategies) went under.
Last edited:
Z series server, assuming nobody overclocks or runs it out of specs it crashes on average once eevry 5 years. Thats reliability.
Swarm, nobody even attempts to compete with IBM nowadays, look at intel, nvidia, AMD, mac, all of them battling voer single user computers, none of them have ever even tried for big server solutions because they know very well IBM would blow them out of the water.
Swarm, IBM sells the best server solutions in the world.
I see you have reading comprehension issues.
1953 IBM gave us the boat anchor 701 EDPM Computer it was a good decade before they had anything that lived up to their hype
Their entry into the PC world: 1974 IBM 5100 personal computer sucked equally hard. They never did ever figure PCs out.
Nobody "overclocks" a mainframe and yes after almost 60 years they are fairly stable, and over priced and obsolete. I find the irony that they are now running linux almost hysterical.
There's no money in it. Regular systems have gotten so powerful that a 1u server can handel what used to need a main frame or mini. Why do you think all the old mainframe and mini people are gone or scaled way back? IBM's mainframes are mainly living on legacy and nitch, but I wouldn't say there is no competition.
http://www.cray.com/products/XT5m.aspx
http://www.sgi.com/products/servers/altix/ice/
http://www.nec.com/de/en/prod/servers/hpc/index.html
http://www.unisys.com/unisys/theme/index.jsp?id=16000034
http://h20223.www2.hp.com/nonstopcomputing/cache/76385-0-0-225-121.html
http://www.bull.com/products/servers.html
http://ts.fujitsu.com/products/bs2000/index.html
Hp also owns DEC and Oracle will soon own Sun.
However big iron is pretty much dead. HPC (aka Beowulf) clusters pretty much have replaced them for most functions and they are significantly cheaper and far more flexible.
None of those companies were ever mainframe companies. But intel has made inroads via HPC clusters and AMD's price/perfomance/power has made it popular recently.
Suuure, just like it did with the PC and its hard drives and its cpus and its printers. IBM has never understood the consumer market and it really doesn't understand the SMB market. But it sure can sell to big business and the government.
You might want to check out http://www.top500.org/list/2009/06/100
You are thinking PCs (IBM 5150 aka IBM PC) about the mid 80's.
Because the big business market is where it is at, who cares about the consumer market? Its the same 4 redneck companies ripping you off everywhere you look.
Honestly, i built my olwn desktop: Antec 900 case, Q9450 quad core processer, 2 260 GTX graphics card, craploads of other great stuff, from alien ware its worth 3500 dollars, from intel 3000, i built it for 2170 dollars.
Now with servers, iBM has been selling to every single major business since dinosaurs ruled the earth (thats a joke btw
, dont :bawl: about it), and theres always a reason why.What about everybody having enough to eat due to great scientific innovations such as "green fish" which can live off sunlight? Is this unachievable in your opinion?