InstantForum.NET v2.9.0SQLServerCentralhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/notifications@sqlservercentral.comThu, 23 May 2013 00:15:37 GMT20http://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic1311480-263-1.aspx[quote][b]sturner (6/27/2012)[/b][hr][quote][b]GSquared (6/27/2012)[/b][hr]If there's one I listed that's not, please point it out to me with specifics. Otherwise, I recommend reading the whole thing, or at least all of Article I. It can be found here: [url]http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html[/url]. You might be surprised at the number of things even just I.8 enumerates, and how broad some of them are.[/quote]I highly recommend you forward this link to your politicians. They are the ones that took an oath to adhere to that document but in fact usually do not. The [very] few Constitutional purists (ie. Ron Paul, etc.) are typically impugned, made fun of or just ignored as old non-progressive old farts. If the Constitution were actually being followed we probably wouldn't even be having this discussion.Meanwhile you'll have to pony up the $16T (and counting) debt these clowns have rung up along with abysmal economy so how's it all working out for you?[/quote]I can't write my honest opinion of our current government, nor our employees in it (politicians), in this forum, due to the NSFW nature of said opinions.But that doesn't change that your assertion that the list I wrote wasn't based on the Constitution, was factually incorrect on your part. That's why I suggest (re)reading it. Not an attack on you, not a defense of the criminals we routinely put in office, just a response to a mistake on your part. An honest mistake, I'm sure, but still worth remedying. That's all.Wed, 27 Jun 2012 09:07:50 GMTGSquaredhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic1311480-263-1.aspx[quote][b]jbnv (6/26/2012)[/b][hr][quote][b]patrickmcginnis59 (6/26/2012)[/b]I'm pointing out that you have not addressed the free market response to a visibly bad actor. There very well could be an answer here, thats why I'm posting the hypothetical in search of one.[/quote]Bad public relations, bad press, boycotts, damage to reputation.[/quote]Or more clearly stated - don't buy their products. You can cry about them in the press all you want - if you don't hit them in the pocketbook, they may not have the "incentive" to fix it.Wed, 27 Jun 2012 09:05:43 GMTMatt Miller (#4)http://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic1311480-263-1.aspxNot to hijack this thread, but I'm glad that the Cult of Mediocrity doesn't exist when evacuating citizens from areas of danger. The Colorado Springs Fire and Police Departments evacuated 26,000 people yesterday afternoon starting at 4:03 PM MDT as the Waldo Canyon Fire roared down into part of Colorado Springs with no injuries.Wed, 27 Jun 2012 08:49:31 GMTLynn Pettishttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic1311480-263-1.aspx[quote][b]archie flockhart (6/27/2012)[/b][hr]I'm not sure what you mean by "extragovernmental entity" but this is what CERN themselves say about what they are, and it's certainly not a private company:"CERN is [b]run by 20 European Member States[/b], each of which has two official delegates to the CERN Council. One represents his or her government’s administration; the other represents national scientific interests. "Sounds pretty governmental to me. Multiple governments, in fact. And European ones, at that ![/quote]Clearly extragovernmental. The governments don't run CERN; they have representatives on the board. And half of the representatives represent scientific interests, not the governments. You're doing everything you can to ignore the fact that the vast majority of innovation that gave us the Internet/WWW that we know was done by private individuals and companies with little or no government financing or prodding.Wed, 27 Jun 2012 08:14:32 GMTjbnvhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic1311480-263-1.aspxI'm not sure what you mean by "extragovernmental entity" but this is what CERN themselves say about what they are, and it's certainly not a private company:"CERN is [b]run by 20 European Member States[/b], each of which has two official delegates to the CERN Council. One represents his or her government’s administration; the other represents national scientific interests. "Sounds pretty governmental to me. Multiple governments, in fact. And European ones, at that !Wed, 27 Jun 2012 08:08:23 GMTarchie flockharthttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic1311480-263-1.aspx[quote][b]archie flockhart (6/27/2012)[/b][hr][quote][b]jbnv (6/26/2012)[/b][hr][quote][b]archie flockhart (6/26/2012)[/b] And as you're viewing an HTML based page on the Internet, spare a thought for the government-run bodies which pioneered both.[/quote]HTML was developed by Tim Berners-Lee and scientists at CERN. The Internet that we know and enjoy today is largely the result of work that private companies built upon the foundation built by DARPA and university researchers.[/quote]Yes, that's my point. I can't tell whether you think your point contradicts mine, but if you do, you need to take a look at what CERN and DARPA are: agencies run by governments.( and many Universities, outside the USA, are government-run too.)[/quote]My point does contradict yours. Reread my second sentence. CERN is an extragovernmental entity. Besides, HTML is just one of many standards and technologies, many if not most of which were developed by private entities or corporate-academic collaborations. I know what DARPA is. Public universities should not push government agendas. But first and foremost, this particular page is a private enterprise. Wed, 27 Jun 2012 07:21:32 GMTjbnvhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic1311480-263-1.aspx[quote][b]GSquared (6/27/2012)[/b][hr]If there's one I listed that's not, please point it out to me with specifics. Otherwise, I recommend reading the whole thing, or at least all of Article I. It can be found here: [url]http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html[/url]. You might be surprised at the number of things even just I.8 enumerates, and how broad some of them are.[/quote]I highly recommend you forward this link to your politicians. They are the ones that took an oath to adhere to that document but in fact usually do not. The [very] few Constitutional purists (ie. Ron Paul, etc.) are typically impugned, made fun of or just ignored as old non-progressive old farts. If the Constitution were actually being followed we probably wouldn't even be having this discussion.Meanwhile you'll have to pony up the $16T (and counting) debt these clowns have rung up along with abysmal economy so how's it all working out for you?Wed, 27 Jun 2012 07:15:28 GMTsturnerhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic1311480-263-1.aspx[quote][b]sturner (6/26/2012)[/b][hr][quote][b]GSquared (6/26/2012)[/b][hr]Shall I continue? Or just read the Constitution and you'll see a list of the critical services and enforcement needs. It's very finite, though subject to abuse (as any human set of rules is), but it's not just an item or two.[/quote]Actually, the Constitution enumerates a very limited list of things that government is chartered to do. It is much more abbreviated than all of the things you just listed. Today though, it sees to have its hands in every aspect of life and commerce and has put taxpayers 16 Trillion in debt as a result. Waste fraud and corruption is rampant. It's just not very efficient at so many things it does and, unfortunately, appears to have to answer to no one.An entity that must balance its books, make a profit and answer to shareholders is a better environment for in more ways than one. It also leaves the individual the freedom to choose another among other entities that might provide a similar service or product at perhaps a better value.[/quote]Every item I listed is in the US Constitution.Court System = Article IIICoining money and regulating value thereof = Article I, Section 8Regulation of interstate commerce = Article I, Section 8No fees for ships going from one state to another = Article I, Section 9and so onIf there's one I listed that's not, please point it out to me with specifics. Otherwise, I recommend reading the whole thing, or at least all of Article I. It can be found here: [url]http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html[/url]. You might be surprised at the number of things even just I.8 enumerates, and how broad some of them are.Wed, 27 Jun 2012 06:26:41 GMTGSquaredhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic1311480-263-1.aspx[quote][b]sturner (6/26/2012)[/b][hr][quote][b]archie flockhart (6/26/2012)[/b][hr][quote]eventually you have to provide a viable service and actually make a profit or you go bankrupt. [/quote]Or you need to accept that there are some things which are worth doing but which will never be commercially viable; and others which are best paid for collectively through taxation rather than individually at the point of use.[/quote]Please provide an example of this... of something the federal government provides me by taxing me that I *need* and could not get from a private entity? Please be specific.I can only come up with these: Interstate highways (roads and bridges), National security and (local government) police and fire. All the rest is far better accomplished by the private sector.[/quote]Your list already takes you a long way from your initial claim at the top of the threaded comments.I'd add: social care, a universal education system, courts and the legal system, sanitation and waste disposal, parks and national parks, prisons, nationwide postal services ... Governments might choose to subcontract some of these but they'd be unlikley to be organised without a national or local government.Oh, and healthcare - most of the world thinks the US healthcare system is bizarre: spending substantially more on health than any other country, but getting a average life expectancy below that of Cuba.And it's not just things that you *couldn't* get from a private entity, it's things that may be more effectively delivered if they're paid for collectively through taxation. You *could* get a private fire service or private roads - that's how it used to be done, until people realised it was better provided through taxation and government.But we're a long way from Michael's original article on risk: just a a reminder, his two serious examples of successful risk taking were both government led, and his friend in the risk averse culture was in a private company.Wed, 27 Jun 2012 03:21:45 GMTarchie flockharthttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic1311480-263-1.aspx[quote][b]sturner (6/26/2012)[/b][hr][quote][b]patrickmcginnis59 (6/26/2012)[/b][hr]Or would all companies simply agree not to pollute?Or do you simply have no opinion on this?[/quote]In your mind all companies *must* pollute something in order to make a profit (which you don't seem to like). I disagree. Most companies are good & responsible entities, that hire people, pay them salaries & benefits pay taxes and in fact, do not *pollute*.I disagree with your assertions that without government (ie a bunch of self serving politicians) all companies would pollute the planet and we would all die. [b]If you knew how much pollution of the atmosphere occurs when the space shuttle blasts off you would freak out[/b]. But that's okay because its the government and its not making a profit.As you can see I do have an opinion. It just differs from yours.[/quote][url=http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/2000-10/973014746.Es.r.html]Dogma[/url]. Always research before making such sweeping statements.Wed, 27 Jun 2012 02:50:25 GMTChrisM@Workhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic1311480-263-1.aspx[quote][b]jbnv (6/26/2012)[/b][hr][quote][b]archie flockhart (6/26/2012)[/b] And as you're viewing an HTML based page on the Internet, spare a thought for the government-run bodies which pioneered both.[/quote]HTML was developed by Tim Berners-Lee and scientists at CERN. The Internet that we know and enjoy today is largely the result of work that private companies built upon the foundation built by DARPA and university researchers.[/quote]Yes, that's my point. I can't tell whether you think your point contradicts mine, but if you do, you need to take a look at what CERN and DARPA are: agencies run by governments.( and many Universities, outside the USA, are government-run too.)Wed, 27 Jun 2012 02:30:20 GMTarchie flockharthttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic1311480-263-1.aspx[quote][b]sturner (6/26/2012)[/b][hr][quote][b]GSquared (6/26/2012)[/b][hr]Shall I continue? Or just read the Constitution and you'll see a list of the critical services and enforcement needs. It's very finite, though subject to abuse (as any human set of rules is), but it's not just an item or two.[/quote]Actually, the Constitution enumerates a very limited list of things that government is chartered to do. It is much more abbreviated than all of the things you just listed. Today though, it sees to have its hands in every aspect of life and commerce and has put taxpayers 16 Trillion in debt as a result. Waste fraud and corruption is rampant. It's just not very efficient at so many things it does and, unfortunately, appears to have to answer to no one.An entity that must balance its books, make a profit and answer to shareholders is a better environment for in more ways than one. It also leaves the individual the freedom to choose another among other entities that might provide a similar service or product at perhaps a better value.[/quote]You're correct. Blame that on the reintrepretation of the General Welfare Clause in the Constitution over the the past 80 years or so.Tue, 26 Jun 2012 14:20:16 GMTLynn Pettishttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic1311480-263-1.aspx[quote][b]GSquared (6/26/2012)[/b][hr]Shall I continue? Or just read the Constitution and you'll see a list of the critical services and enforcement needs. It's very finite, though subject to abuse (as any human set of rules is), but it's not just an item or two.[/quote]Actually, the Constitution enumerates a very limited list of things that government is chartered to do. It is much more abbreviated than all of the things you just listed. Today though, it sees to have its hands in every aspect of life and commerce and has put taxpayers 16 Trillion in debt as a result. Waste fraud and corruption is rampant. It's just not very efficient at so many things it does and, unfortunately, appears to have to answer to no one.An entity that must balance its books, make a profit and answer to shareholders is a better environment for in more ways than one. It also leaves the individual the freedom to choose another among other entities that might provide a similar service or product at perhaps a better value.Tue, 26 Jun 2012 14:17:39 GMTsturnerhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic1311480-263-1.aspx[quote][b]jbnv (6/26/2012)[/b][hr][quote][b]patrickmcginnis59 (6/26/2012)[/b]I'm pointing out that you have not addressed the free market response to a visibly bad actor. There very well could be an answer here, thats why I'm posting the hypothetical in search of one.[/quote]Bad public relations, bad press, boycotts, damage to reputation.[/quote]Assuming they can't control those. Semi-monopoly media control can bypass a lot of that by shutting up the "free" press. Sony, for example, got BluRay over HD-DVD, because Sony owns movie studies and news media companies, while Toshiba doesn't. So BluRay got a lot of good PR and positive press, published by companies Sony owns or has significant control over, while Toshiba got negative press and lack of buy-in, from those same companies. And Bill Gates' statement that both technologies were obsolete before they came out because the shift was going to be towards streaming media was ignored by Sony-influenced/controlled media, and thus also didn't create any visible amount of "bad press".So, we got a marginally higher data capacity on the disks (which is almost never really utilized, or is filled with hours of material that ended up on the cutting room floor for a good reason), for a much higher price, because of a bad actor who could control the "bad public relations", "bad press", and "damage to reputation". Higher priced goods with no real improvement in value, and no negative commercial impact.Government could have stepped in on that, but didn't. And really didn't need to, because of the factor Gates' correctly pointed out. But no free-market solution was possible in this case. (Things like this are why we have a government right to break up monopolies in the Constitution, in the US. Not sure about what other governments have or don't have in this regard. Whether that right is exercised or not is another question entirely.)Tue, 26 Jun 2012 13:51:51 GMTGSquaredhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic1311480-263-1.aspx[quote][b]sturner (6/26/2012)[/b][hr][quote][b]archie flockhart (6/26/2012)[/b][hr][quote]eventually you have to provide a viable service and actually make a profit or you go bankrupt. [/quote]Or you need to accept that there are some things which are worth doing but which will never be commercially viable; and others which are best paid for collectively through taxation rather than individually at the point of use.[/quote]Please provide an example of this... of something the federal government provides me by taxing me that I *need* and could not get from a private entity? Please be specific.I can only come up with these: Interstate highways (roads and bridges), National security and (local government) police and fire. All the rest is far better accomplished by the private sector.[/quote]Court system designed to protect the rights of minorities against the votes of majorities. That's one of the key functions of government in a republic/democracy, and really can't be done by a private enterprise system.Another is the break-up of monopoly private enterprises. Yeah, there were a few drawbacks to breaking up AT&T way back when, but the advantages were bigger. Reigning in Microsoft was necessary a few times to prevent them from getting to a point of being a destructive monopoly, and who but the federal government could have done that? And so on.Related to the interstate system, regulation of airports, air traffic control, customs rules in ports (air/sea/land), right-of-way regulation in multi-state waterways, and related subjects towards regulation of interstate commerce, are necessary. Can't have New York state charging ships heading through the Eyrie Canal towards Chicago a punishing toll while letting ships heading towards Buffalo go through for free, for example. Not if we want to remain "United States" instead of "States at War".Standardized coinage and rates of exchange are also important. Dollars printed in New Jersey can't be valued differently than dollar-coins stamped in California, if you want a union at all.Shall I continue? Or just read the Constitution and you'll see a list of the critical services and enforcement needs. It's very finite, though subject to abuse (as any human set of rules is), but it's not just an item or two.Tue, 26 Jun 2012 13:42:15 GMTGSquaredhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic1311480-263-1.aspx[quote][b]jbnv (6/26/2012)[/b][hr][quote][b]patrickmcginnis59 (6/26/2012)[/b]I'm pointing out that you have not addressed the free market response to a visibly bad actor. There very well could be an answer here, thats why I'm posting the hypothetical in search of one.[/quote]Bad public relations, bad press, boycotts, damage to reputation.[/quote]Excellent point!Tue, 26 Jun 2012 12:00:15 GMTpatrickmcginnis59http://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic1311480-263-1.aspx[quote][b]jbnv (6/26/2012)[/b][hr][quote][b]patrickmcginnis59 (6/26/2012)[/b]I'm pointing out that you have not addressed the free market response to a visibly bad actor. There very well could be an answer here, thats why I'm posting the hypothetical in search of one.[/quote]Bad public relations, bad press, boycotts, damage to reputation.[/quote]Thank you, and well stated sir. History is replete with companies that are no longer around because those very market forces came to bear against their products or poor business decision making.Tue, 26 Jun 2012 11:58:05 GMTsturnerhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic1311480-263-1.aspx[quote][b]patrickmcginnis59 (6/26/2012)[/b][hr]And in the scenario I pointed out, they will be at a competitive disadvantage when competing against the one hypothetical bad actor. Again, I'm pointing out that you have not addressed the free market response to a visibly bad actor. There very well could be an answer here, thats why I'm posting the hypothetical in search of one.[/quote]Have you ever run a business? Your assertion that any non-government business that is a "good actor" (whatever that means ... maybe they donate $$$ to democrats I guess) is automatically at a competative disadvantage is total BS. Sheesh... man. Poorly run business go out of business all the time... except the ones that get bailed out by government (big banks, GM, certain "green" energy companies, etc.). If the federal government was not able to print money it would have gone bankrupt a long time ago.Most people live in a real world not a hypothetical world where government exists.Tue, 26 Jun 2012 11:53:58 GMTsturnerhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic1311480-263-1.aspx[quote][b]patrickmcginnis59 (6/26/2012)[/b]I'm pointing out that you have not addressed the free market response to a visibly bad actor. There very well could be an answer here, thats why I'm posting the hypothetical in search of one.[/quote]Bad public relations, bad press, boycotts, damage to reputation.Tue, 26 Jun 2012 11:49:37 GMTjbnvhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic1311480-263-1.aspx[quote][b]sturner (6/26/2012)[/b][hr][quote][b]patrickmcginnis59 (6/26/2012)[/b][hr]Or would all companies simply agree not to pollute?Or do you simply have no opinion on this?[/quote]In your mind all companies *must* pollute something in order to make a profit (which you don't seem to like). [/quote]If one bad acting company pollutes, and there are no repercussions preventing further polluting by this company, this bad actor then has a competitive advantage. I've spelled this out in my prior post and I notice you specifically do not address this.[quote]I disagree. Most companies are good & responsible entities, that hire people, pay them salaries & benefits pay taxes and in fact, do not *pollute*.[/quote]And in the scenario I pointed out, they will be at a competitive disadvantage when competing against the one hypothetical bad actor. Again, I'm pointing out that you have not addressed the free market response to a visibly bad actor. There very well could be an answer here, thats why I'm posting the hypothetical in search of one.Tue, 26 Jun 2012 11:38:03 GMTpatrickmcginnis59http://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic1311480-263-1.aspx[quote][b]archie flockhart (6/26/2012)[/b] And as you're viewing an HTML based page on the Internet, spare a thought for the government-run bodies which pioneered both.[/quote]HTML was developed by Tim Berners-Lee and scientists at CERN. The Internet that we know and enjoy today is largely the result of work that private companies built upon the foundation built by DARPA and university researchers.Tue, 26 Jun 2012 11:30:02 GMTjbnvhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic1311480-263-1.aspx[quote][b]sturner (6/26/2012)[/b][hr][quote][b]archie flockhart (6/26/2012)[/b][hr][quote]eventually you have to provide a viable service and actually make a profit or you go bankrupt. [/quote]Or you need to accept that there are some things which are worth doing but which will never be commercially viable; and others which are best paid for collectively through taxation rather than individually at the point of use.[/quote]Please provide an example of this... of something the federal government provides me by taxing me that I *need* and could not get from a private entity? Please be specific.I can only come up with these: Interstate highways (roads and bridges), National security and (local government) police and fire. All the rest is far better accomplished by the private sector.[/quote]sounds like a monty python sketch - what have the government ever done for us?well there's the roads and the aqueducts, health and sanitation obviously, and law and order, do you remember what it was like round here before the government came along? But apart from that, what have the government ever done for us?:-)Tue, 26 Jun 2012 11:24:03 GMTgeorge sibbaldhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic1311480-263-1.aspx[quote][b]archie flockhart (6/26/2012)[/b][hr][quote]eventually you have to provide a viable service and actually make a profit or you go bankrupt. [/quote]Or you need to accept that there are some things which are worth doing but which will never be commercially viable; and others which are best paid for collectively through taxation rather than individually at the point of use.[/quote]Please provide an example of this... of something the federal government provides me by taxing me that I *need* and could not get from a private entity? Please be specific.I can only come up with these: Interstate highways (roads and bridges), National security and (local government) police and fire. All the rest is far better accomplished by the private sector.Tue, 26 Jun 2012 11:15:30 GMTsturnerhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic1311480-263-1.aspx[quote]eventually you have to provide a viable service and actually make a profit or you go bankrupt. [/quote]Or you need to accept that there are some things which are worth doing but which will never be commercially viable; and others which are best paid for collectively through taxation rather than individually at the point of use.[quote]Government has a miserable track record doing that.[/quote]If you look worldwide, you'll find plenty of examples of government or municipal run services which do just fine. You won't find as many as you would have done thirty years ago, though, because many of the successful ones have been sold to private owners who now run them as commercial enterprises, with mixed results for the quality of service provided. Sometimes it works well, sometimes not.And as you're viewing an HTML based page on the Internet, spare a thought for the government-run bodies which pioneered both.Tue, 26 Jun 2012 11:07:25 GMTarchie flockharthttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic1311480-263-1.aspx[quote][b]patrickmcginnis59 (6/26/2012)[/b][hr]Or would all companies simply agree not to pollute?Or do you simply have no opinion on this?[/quote]In your mind all companies *must* pollute something in order to make a profit (which you don't seem to like). I disagree. Most companies are good & responsible entities, that hire people, pay them salaries & benefits pay taxes and in fact, do not *pollute*.I disagree with your assertions that without government (ie a bunch of self serving politicians) all companies would pollute the planet and we would all die. If you knew how much pollution of the atmosphere occurs when the space shuttle blasts off you would freak out. But that's okay because its the government and its not making a profit.As you can see I do have an opinion. It just differs from yours.Tue, 26 Jun 2012 11:04:47 GMTsturnerhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic1311480-263-1.aspx[quote][b]sturner (6/26/2012)[/b][hr]"I can agree with you on that. For instance, having a clean environment is typically not a business goal, and thus you get the expected results. Theres just no profit in it."So what you are implying is that any business that desires to be profitable obviously must be destroying the planet to do it? [/quote]Must it be black or white, are there no grey areas, no need to compromise? For instance if a single bad acting company polluted the environment, would I have to eliminate the entire free market as unworkable? Or rather would this one bad company that pollutes be able to compete better on costs than the other non polluting companies, and thus win in the market or otherwise force the other companies to pollute?Or would all companies simply agree not to pollute?Or do you simply have no opinion on this?[quote]lol Even in the face of irrefutable facts some people are just true believers.[/quote]True believers in what?Tue, 26 Jun 2012 10:36:13 GMTpatrickmcginnis59http://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic1311480-263-1.aspx[quote][b]Lynn Pettis (6/26/2012)[/b][hr][quote][b]sturner (6/26/2012)[/b][hr]"Too bad our government can't collect royalties off patents used to develop commercial products when government monies (taxpayer dollars) paid for it to begin with."If the royalties they collected went back to the taxpayers from whom the money was obtained then I'd be all for it. Unfortunately it would just be spent... on more government programs that buy votes and hire yet even more government employees.[/quote]Or, if not back to the taxpayers directly, at least lower taxes. You are correct, however, government being government with professional politicians in office.[/quote]Exactly. You need look no further than the social [in]security program. Money is taken from people who earn it (I don't ever remember being given a chance to opt out) with the promise that it will be used for them to help with their retirement. Instead, the money is spend as fast (and even faster) than it comes in on whatever program politicians feel will benefit them or their re-election. Bernie Madoff went to prison for basically doing something similar, except even he didn't just take the money from people, they opted to do it.Tue, 26 Jun 2012 10:35:48 GMTsturnerhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic1311480-263-1.aspx[quote][b]sturner (6/26/2012)[/b][hr]"Too bad our government can't collect royalties off patents used to develop commercial products when government monies (taxpayer dollars) paid for it to begin with."If the royalties they collected went back to the taxpayers from whom the money was obtained then I'd be all for it. Unfortunately it would just be spent... on more government programs that buy votes and hire yet even more government employees.[/quote]Or, if not back to the taxpayers directly, at least lower taxes. You are correct, however, government being government with professional politicians in office.Tue, 26 Jun 2012 10:29:07 GMTLynn Pettishttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic1311480-263-1.aspx[quote][b]Lynn Pettis (6/26/2012)[/b][hr][quote][b]sturner (6/26/2012)[/b][hr][quote][b]patrickmcginnis59 (6/26/2012)[/b][hr][quote][b]sturner (6/26/2012)[/b][hr]One other thing about the three entrepreneurs you cited: they all achieved their success without a dime of government stimulus (i.e taxpayers money).[/quote]Counterpoint: the Apollo space program.[/quote]Its not really a counter-point. While that program was successful in achieving its goal (landing on the moon), it was not a business venture that had a goal of becoming a self sustaining profitable business. We spent zillions of dollars on this effort, far more than any business could have come up with from an IPO. The US space program eventually ended with a whimper and with no long term viability. Nowadays, if you want to deliver a payload to the space station, you'll be riding on a private space rocket... designed and built with an actual business plan, private investors and able to meet a budget.You can be successful for a while if you can print and throw money at something (ie Solindra) but eventually you have to provide a viable service and actually make a profit or you go bankrupt. Government has a miserable track record doing that.[/quote]Too bad our government can't collect royalties off patents used to develop commercial products when government monies (taxpayer dollars) paid for it to begin with.[/quote]That wouldn't be altogther a bad thing, but you could also see these patents as progressing the arts for eveybody. If the government provided these results for all, its like an increase in the public domain. We could see a government role in doing the sorts of research that doesn't meet private industry's criteria for profitability but that we as a society might want to get done anyways. I can also see some folks objections to this as being an undesireable increase in the scope of government.Tue, 26 Jun 2012 10:28:06 GMTpatrickmcginnis59http://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic1311480-263-1.aspx"Too bad our government can't collect royalties off patents used to develop commercial products when government monies (taxpayer dollars) paid for it to begin with."If the royalties they collected went back to the taxpayers from whom the money was obtained then I'd be all for it. Unfortunately it would just be spent... on more government programs that buy votes and hire yet even more government employees.Tue, 26 Jun 2012 10:26:07 GMTsturnerhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic1311480-263-1.aspx"I can agree with you on that. For instance, having a clean environment is typically not a business goal, and thus you get the expected results. Theres just no profit in it."So what you are implying is that any business that desires to be profitable obviously must be destroying the planet to do it? lol Even in the face of irrefutable facts some people are just true believers.Tue, 26 Jun 2012 10:21:48 GMTsturnerhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic1311480-263-1.aspx[quote][b]patrickmcginnis59 (6/26/2012)[/b] I can agree with you on that. For instance, having a clean environment is typically not a business goal, and thus you get the expected results. Theres just no profit in it.[/quote]Disagree. Environmental responsibility brings profit through good PR and not having government bureaucrats and environmental watchdogs investigating your business.Tue, 26 Jun 2012 10:21:13 GMTjbnvhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic1311480-263-1.aspx[quote][b]sturner (6/26/2012)[/b][hr][quote][b]patrickmcginnis59 (6/26/2012)[/b][hr][quote][b]sturner (6/26/2012)[/b][hr]One other thing about the three entrepreneurs you cited: they all achieved their success without a dime of government stimulus (i.e taxpayers money).[/quote]Counterpoint: the Apollo space program.[/quote]Its not really a counter-point. While that program was successful in achieving its goal (landing on the moon), it was not a business venture that had a goal of becoming a self sustaining profitable business. We spent zillions of dollars on this effort, far more than any business could have come up with from an IPO. The US space program eventually ended with a whimper and with no long term viability. Nowadays, if you want to deliver a payload to the space station, you'll be riding on a private space rocket... designed and built with an actual business plan, private investors and able to meet a budget.You can be successful for a while if you can print and throw money at something (ie Solindra) but eventually you have to provide a viable service and actually make a profit or you go bankrupt. Government has a miserable track record doing that.[/quote]Too bad our government can't collect royalties off patents used to develop commercial products when government monies (taxpayer dollars) paid for it to begin with.Tue, 26 Jun 2012 10:17:29 GMTLynn Pettishttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic1311480-263-1.aspx[quote][b]sturner (6/26/2012)[/b][hr][quote][b]patrickmcginnis59 (6/26/2012)[/b][hr][quote][b]sturner (6/26/2012)[/b][hr]One other thing about the three entrepreneurs you cited: they all achieved their success without a dime of government stimulus (i.e taxpayers money).[/quote]Counterpoint: the Apollo space program.[/quote]Its not really a counter-point. While that program was successful in achieving its goal (landing on the moon), it was not a business venture that had a goal of becoming a self sustaining profitable business. We spent zillions of dollars on this effort, far more than any business could have come up with from an IPO. The US space program eventually ended with a whimper and with no long term viability. Nowadays, if you want to deliver a payload to the space station, you'll be riding on a private space rocket... designed and built with an actual business plan, private investors and able to meet a budget.You can be successful for a while if you can print and throw money at something (ie Solindra) but eventually you have to provide a viable service and actually make a profit or you go bankrupt. Government has a miserable track record doing that.[/quote]I can agree with you on that. For instance, having a clean environment is typically not a business goal, and thus you get the expected results. Theres just no profit in it.Tue, 26 Jun 2012 10:11:40 GMTpatrickmcginnis59http://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic1311480-263-1.aspx[quote][b]patrickmcginnis59 (6/26/2012)[/b][hr][quote][b]sturner (6/26/2012)[/b][hr]One other thing about the three entrepreneurs you cited: they all achieved their success without a dime of government stimulus (i.e taxpayers money).[/quote]Counterpoint: the Apollo space program.[/quote]Its not really a counter-point. While that program was successful in achieving its goal (landing on the moon), it was not a business venture that had a goal of becoming a self sustaining profitable business. We spent zillions of dollars on this effort, far more than any business could have come up with from an IPO. The US space program eventually ended with a whimper and with no long term viability. Nowadays, if you want to deliver a payload to the space station, you'll be riding on a private space rocket... designed and built with an actual business plan, private investors and able to meet a budget.You can be successful for a while if you can print and throw money at something (ie Solindra) but eventually you have to provide a viable service and actually make a profit or you go bankrupt. Government has a miserable track record doing that.Tue, 26 Jun 2012 09:57:28 GMTsturnerhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic1311480-263-1.aspx[quote][b]sturner (6/26/2012)[/b][hr]One other thing about the three entrepreneurs you cited: they all achieved their success without a dime of government stimulus (i.e taxpayers money).[/quote]Counterpoint: the Apollo space program.Tue, 26 Jun 2012 09:42:01 GMTpatrickmcginnis59http://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic1311480-263-1.aspxOne other thing about the three entrepreneurs you cited: they all achieved their success without a dime of government stimulus (i.e taxpayers money).The Wright Brothers had a competitor in their quest to be the first to achieve powered flight: Samuel Langley. Langley received a total of $70,000 in government money to develop his airplane (about $1M in todays dollars). We all know how his effort turned out: the wing broke before he could even get airborne.Tue, 26 Jun 2012 08:24:11 GMTsturnerhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic1311480-263-1.aspxHere is another good example of the difference:[url]http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/broward/fort-lauderdale/fl-lauderdale-i-95-pedestrian-fatality-20120620,0,500603.story[/url]There is a very big difference between taking a calculated risk or gamble and doing just plain stupid behavior. :-DWed, 20 Jun 2012 08:51:20 GMTTravisDBAhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic1311480-263-1.aspxThings that jigged my old memory box:I agree with Miles Neale that its a choice you make as the individual whether you're prepared to take risks and seeking it out rather than waiting around somewhere for it to seek you out or others to create the "right" environment - choosing to be a pioneer instead of a victim. If one needs the right environment then you may not be so successful in pulling off a risky venture.In today's success and performance culture that mocks the "losers" it probably reduces the pool of potential risk takers to those who don't care if they may have to fail spectacularly in order to succeed. In Corporates it looks like the risk-reward game has mainly for the senior management team and their shareholders as participants. The stakes are often great but then its also most often at these lofty heights where the axe falls when things go sour.Tue, 19 Jun 2012 15:12:15 GMTfrancois.badenhorsthttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic1311480-263-1.aspxThanks.:-DTue, 19 Jun 2012 15:06:27 GMTTravisDBA