Slashdot Mirror

Talks about the "myth", relying heavily on an article by Stan Liebowitz and Stephen Margolis, "The Fable of the Keys" (which is also available online). Among other things, the Liebowitz/Margolis piece "tells you plenty about the history of the typewriter--but what every economist should have concluded from it was that another example of 'locking in' had better be found. QWERTY simply will not do."

Among other things, there was one main study (conducted by the US Navy in 1944) that showed the Dvorak keyboard was superior to QWERTY, but the "experiments were conducted by one Lieutenant-Commander August Dvorak, the navy's top time-and-motion man, and owner of the Dvorak layout patent."

Talks about the "myth", relying heavily on an article by Stan Liebowitz and Stephen Margolis, "The Fable of the Keys" (which is also available online). Among other things, the Liebowitz/Margolis piece "tells you plenty about the history of the typewriter--but what every economist should have concluded from it was that another example of 'locking in' had better be found. QWERTY simply will not do."

Among other things, there was one main study (conducted by the US Navy in 1944) that showed the Dvorak keyboard was superior to QWERTY, but the "experiments were conducted by one Lieutenant-Commander August Dvorak, the navy's top time-and-motion man, and owner of the Dvorak layout patent."

And, frankly, I am still waiting for my robot-butler.

This is purely personal, but I think that AI is a pipe-dream.

Let's face it: I don't think anyone can imitate life -- and its millions of years of evolution -- and its highly complex (albeit crufty) DNA information structure using 0s and 1s.

At least not using the useful, but limited, paradigms of Turing Machines and Von Neumann models (and programming languages and...).

Maybe quantum computers will be able to make it, but that's not before another 20-to-50 years of development and refinement.

Plus, the number 1 problem of humanity now is not robots replacing humans, it is ecological problems, such as pollution, water use, and deforestation. Not to mention unknown killer viruses and North/South inequality...

When we have these problems licked, I believe a robotic society won't be such a big problem after all...

"Nanotube based RAM, under development by Nantero, promises to deliver densities of over 1 terabit per cm^2, is non-volatile and faster than current DRAM. The Economist has a nice story. Forget about just kicking DRAM's and FLASH's butt, is this finally the end of magnetic storage as well?"

If they can get this down in price then I guess 20 years of trying to get this new perpendicular recording was just a waste. I'm not going to hold my breath but frankly I think it's high time to get into solid state storage and eliminate once and for all the wrost speed bottleneck on the pc.

Many Indians believe that a large part of the blame for their country's inferior economic performance must be borne by the political system. China, the argument goes, is a dictatorship where the government and the businesses it favours can do what they want--change laws, build infrastructure, secure licences, fiddle their books--all without brooking any opposition. In India, however, not only does every step require dealing with an inept, corrupt and intrusive bureaucracy, but the democratic system itself also imposes extra costs and delays. For every important and helpful reform, such as VAT, there is a powerful lobby that will oppose it.

According to de Rugy's research, three of the five biggest increases in government spending in history have all occurred during the first three years of the Bush administration; the other two occurred during the Second World War. That sounds pretty bad, but even these numbers undoubtedly understate the problem, since they do not account for the huge prescription-drug benefit President Bush is working hard to push through Congress.

As Veronique de Rugy of the Cato Institute points out, federal spending has increased at a hellish 13.5% in the first three years of the Bush administration ("he is governing like a Frenchman"). Federal spending has risen from 18.4% of national income in 2000 to 19.9% today. Combine this profligacy with huge tax cuts, and you have a recipe for deficits as far ahead as the eye can see.

........

The Democrats can point out that Bill Clinton was not only better at balancing the budget than Mr Bush. He was better at keeping spending under control, increasing total government spending by a mere 3.5 % in his first three years in office and reducing discretionary spending by 8.8%.

http://www.economist.com/opinion/displayStory.cfm? story_id=1908281

Read it - you might learn something about your own country.

One last point...the money that NASA spends (like most other govt. agencies) is hughly inefficient compared to that of private industry.

Do you have any proof of this? People keep saying it over and over again, but I've never seen anyone actually show some numbers to prove. This indicates to me that its a myth. In fact I would guess the opposite is true.

Governmemnt can borrow money cheaper than a private company can. Private companies pay a lot out to their CEO's and other executives. Coporations have as many stupid people in management as the public sector.

NASA *is* inefficient, but is it because of government bureacracy or is it because of corporations ripping them off? It seems like NASA is required to do business with just about every aerospace company in every state so that congress will give them money, because the aerospace bribe (contribute, bribe, same thing, right?) congress to do so. Is this NASA's fault, congress's fault, or the aerospace industries' fault?

And look at all the research that NASA gives away that benefits everyone. Heart monitoring equipment for example. If NASA was a private company that would be patented meaning that we'd pay for the research and then the hospitals (which we pay for) would have to pay the licensing fees to use the technology. How efficient is that?

Really technology is a public good. And the production of public goods is the reason we have government. The private sector can produce public goods with government help, but this causes a lot of needless inefficiency. Oh well, all in the name of capitalism I guess.

Here's an informative article from The Economist which explains that we should soon be able to mould screens and use them in broad daylight.

Here's an informative article from The Economist which explains that we should soon be able to mould screens and use them in broad daylight.

"Remember, it's 'raising shareholder value,' Not products or customers."

And a company that ignores its customers, or fails to create new customers, will fail, as has happened time again throughout business history. It's a chicken-and-egg argument in some ways, but fundamentally a businesses wouldn't exist if not for a specific social function and task.

This "increasing shareholder value" line is a fairly recent trend, and primarily a US-centric one, due to the hostile takovers of the 1980s. It largely hasn't been the general practice, as the recent corporate scandals have come to show. A recent on capitalism and democracy shows the problems with shareholder capitalism: the real issue isn't about "value", it's about making managerial power legitimate and accountable.

The main reason why "shareholder value" hasn't worked is simply because, since the very inception of the modern corporation in the 19th century, shareholders have abdicated control and influence completely to management. They just don't care about how the company is run - it's a whole lot easier to buy public equity shares than to invest in property or private debt. The de facto reality is that shares are merely an entitlement to profits or to assets upon liquidation (after debt-holders, of course).

Anyway, just a bit of theoretical babble that basically says corporate governance is a lot more complicated than "maximize your profits, boys!"

Oh yeah, I forgot how well the Sahara would be wonderful farmland if we didn't put the farmers out of work, how we started the whole Somali famine, caused all of the natural disasters in the world, etc. Nice troll. What about the 1 million metric tons of food that we just... give away for free?

First, the link you give says it all: "The agreement to donate surplus U.S. commodities..." (my emphasis). That surplus comes from overproduction that is encouraged with your tax money and protected from competition with trade barriers which increases food prises in general (i.e., an extra tax on the consumer).

Here is a link to an article in the Economist which gives an example of how trade subsidies combined with trade barriers hurt third world farmers:

Coffee producers, for example, are currently suffering from a big slump in prices, thanks to rapid increases in production in Vietnam and elsewhere. If more coffee farmers had the option to switch to other foods and crops that are currently protected in the rich world, or to move upmarket by processing more of their crop, the slump could be dealt with.

It is interesting that you mention the problem with the huge (and growing) desert of Sahara. It is an interesting ethical dilemma that the western world could easily make farm land out of parts of Sahara by investing a fraction of the money they use on military spending. We have the technological capability for the first time in history to make sure no human being need to go hungry to bed, the only thing lacking is the political will and determination to do it.

There have been applications talked about, however, that could help people in low-tech industries like agriculture. For instance, someone could check various local markets and decide where to take their produce for the day. I thought there was a recent article in The Economist about this, but I'm having difficulty finding it right now.

Bottom line, places like Africa need a lot of things to come together to foster self-sustaining economic growth - stronger laws, better access to rich-world markets, etc. But deploying wireless seems to be a natural choice rather than trying to string wire all over the continent and bring them up to 1950's technology...

The ironic tone has become a staple of British literary style, but can still cause considerable confusion overseas--as writers for this newspaper occasionally discover. A recent article on Paul Gascoigne, a footballer who had been caught beating his wife, began: "It could happen to anybody, really. Go out for a meal with the wife, have a few too many, she starts to nag, and before you know what's happened, she's lying on the floor covered in bruises." It did not occur to the author that anybody might seriously regard this as an endorsement of wife-beating--at least not until the outraged letters began arriving from the United States.

The article discusses some of the finer points of irony, noting for instance that "...irony is much more subversive than sarcasm, and also much more fun--those who realise that an ironic remark has been made are instantly complicit, and they can enjoy the fact that there are others who have missed the joke."

What do you consider low income? People who make 30k or under, if they have any kids, pay *no* income tax. At least 40% of people in this country pay no income tax. If you believe that payroll taxes should be cut, fine...I'm with you.

In a demand deposit driven economy, income levels (as a hard number) are irrelevant. What matters is purchasing power and cost of living, which are regional and inflation dependent. So, for example, in current dollars $30K/yr in Cincinnati might actually be a good income. In Boston (where I live) it's a pittance. You can't even afford a decent apartment with that level of income, never mind a house and children. However, taxes are levied without regard to regional cost of living. In fact, as I pointed out previously, the payroll tax burden is incurred entirely by those making under $86K/yr; those earning above that level pay nothing above the first $86K/yr.

Why don't you ask yourself these three questions, and if you think I'm factually wrong please feel free to dispute:

1. Is tax money levied strictly for social services being siphoned off for general revenues? [Factual answer: YES.
2. Do income, investment, and estate taxes cover the burden of non-social services government services? [Factual answer: NO].
3. Who disproportionately received the greatest benefit from Bush's income, investment (capital gains), and estate tax cuts? [factual answer: those with investment incomes outside of their 401Ks, those who earn over $300K/yr, those who have large estates to pass to their children]. That is simply a FACT.

Now, finally, ask yourself one last question:

• Do you expect to receive Social Security in your lifetime?

Did you answer NO? So did I. And here's a step in that direction. Salon has another good article on the subject of bankrupting Social Security by defunding general revenues. This represents a transfer of vast sums of wealth from the Social Security Trust Fund to the General Account, and as such represents REAL "Class Warfare" given how the Social Security Trust Fund is financed. Do not claim liberal bias in these print publications, instead refute the FACTS as presented. Can you?

Never mind the demographic change leading to the claims of fewer and fewer working to pay for more and more seniors, since that's a red herring. Think about it, what do you think will be the result of the huge immigrant wave currently engulfing America? Will these immigrants not pay into the social security trust fund in years hence? Social Security is NOT in danger of going bankrupt, it is general revenues which have been in deficit for over forty years and that is what's bankrupting America. You're paying a tax that is only levied against $86K/yr, while those who earn more pay nothing above this, and all that wealth is being transferred to the General Account to pay for general services while our congressional representatives dream up ways to destroy the primary benefits those taxes were created to fund.

That would be "The Rich" who don't pay this tax.

Does that even come close

The Economist has recently published a series of articles about India vs China, not just in realtion to their space race, but on how they are similar and compete in other manners Link is to the opening article, futher links from there.

"Consider this. Your primary competition is subsidized by Europoean governments."

well, according to
the Economist.com article:

"[...]
For years, as they steadily lost market share to the European challenger, the Americans have been outspokenly critical of Airbus. In the 1980s the beef was the huge subsidies that European governments poured into the industry. Now that Airbus repays such launch aid, that is less relevant, especially as Boeing receives indirect subsidies through America's defence budget and space programme.
[...]
"

Airbus is actually having to repay previous loans, while Boeing is still getting a steady cashflow by working for the US military.

Your statement used to be true, however its validity date has long passed.

BMW is a poor example for this one. Let's look at Ford. 100% of the market share in the 1900s. Much less than that now. Are they in danger of going out of business? No, no less than BMW, they have found their niche of a much larger market and will probably stay like that until the collapse of humanity, barring revolutions, stupid business decisions, et al.

Actualy ford is in much greater danger of going bankrupt then BWM. At least, that's what The Economist says. BMW makes way more money per car then ford.

Ford, Chrysler and GM spend much of their energy lobbying and whining about how unfair it is that competition and a limited energy reality is dragging them kicking and screaming out of the 19th century. If they don't change soon, they deserve to go the way of textile, coal, steel and other long-dead American industries. It looks like others are beginning to notice that the big 3 are asleep at the wheel: Economist.com

I think most people following the airplane builders knew the Sonic Cruiser was dead before birth; but I still don't see how this plane is going to solve Boeing's sales problems.

The main problem Boeing is facing is that Airbus has the most efficient long haul carrier as of right now. The 7E7 is expected to be ~20% more efficient than Airbus' long hauler.

Several people here have asked a couple of questions that I think need to be addressed:

1) How is this going to solve Boeings sales problems?

Well, this is not expected to be a cure all for Boeing. Being 20% more efficient than Airbus' best long haul carrier will go a long way to making inroads for sales. Other things being done by Boeing include redesigning the 737 (a short range carrier) with winglets and new composite materials to reduce weight and creating new version of the 747 (the 400ER). The first 400ER was just delivered to Korean Airlines this week.

Internationally, there are other reasons Boeing has a hard time competing.

2) How can Boeing design a plane in such a short time?

I saw someone answer that large reuse of old designs, such as using the same general airframe and what not, made it possible. The problem is that the 7E7 does not use the standard 7x7 airframe. The standard is usually called a double bubble and if you look at any previous 7x7 you will see what I mean. The 7E7 will have a single bubble airframe. This is a new design for Boeing.

How will they develop the plane so fast? Two ways: First a large portion of the electronics and other interior assemblies are being contracted out to other companies. Boeing will act as a large system integrator. Second, Boeing learned how to overcome the prototype manufacturing problems that crop up when moving from paper to the "real thing" with the 777. Using Catia and some other CAD programs Boeing can assemble a plane on computer before assembling it in real life thus allowing them to fix all the pieces that do not properly fit before manufacture. This used to be a major factor in the time to market for planes.

3) How internet ready will it be?

Probably as internet ready as some of Boeings other planes.

According to the current issue of the Economist, it's not what you build, it's how you bribe.

Reading up on the IT industry, most recently in the Economist, I would have to say that that decision would kill the company.

"Wow, he thought hard about that one," you say, but I am actually refering to the belief that the sector is becoming a commodity. The industry is maturing and users want quality more and more over new-fangled products that mess up all the time. As programs and hardware get faster and faster, they are over-reaching the public's willingness to spend for speed. Instead, we are happy with an old 1 gig processor, but will pay for smart and well written programs.

So basically, if the management wants inexperienced programers, let them. They're sure to put out bad software that fails. Then these programmers will be back on the streets looking for another job, while you have found a company that excels.

Enron, too, was rolling in dough until they got audited. Regarding the mythical $40 billion, although Microsoft reported a profit in 1998, it was later corrected to be a loss of $18 000 000 000 USD. Now that was when times were good and they had product to sell.

If Microsoft were to dry up and blow away, the IT sector would actually pick up. With Deflation/Depression/Recession hanging over the U.S. the last thing needed is economic sabotage caused from trying to keep the dead company afloat at the expense of the rest of the economy.

Time to cash out.

From the editorial:

Copyright was originally the grant of a temporary government-supported monopoly on copying a work, not a property right. Its sole purpose was to encourage the circulation of ideas by giving creators and publishers a short-term incentive to disseminate their work.

• $18 billion in losses in 1998
• ...hideous losses...
• Xbox losses double
• huge fine over security
• ongoing anti-trust problems

Even MS if survives the summer, they've already left Win95/98 behind and tried (or have) dropped NT. So, in regards to "who do you sue?" logic, read your license. MS-Windows could be chock full of remote exploits or send your personal data abroad or monitor your files and habits or break your third party applications and you'd have no recourse whatsoever -- except maybe upgrade to OS X/*BSD/Linux/QNX/etc.

Nice of Timothy to set up a straw man

Well Ian, I read an interesting article in The Economist this evening. Yeah, fun Friday night, eh!? ;) It looks like they're predicting doom and gloom about the housing market. I remember them predicting the same thing about the stock market in the late 90's... they got the year that they made the predictions *completely* wrong, but the forecast came true three years later. The US economy hasn't recovered yet. So, I would be willing to give them the time of day...

The owner is staunchly pro-Israel (his name is Israel Asper): so all CanWest media must provide pro-Israel news coverage of the Middle East. Journalists who don't follow this can be fired or suspended. And all CanWest newspapers are required to print company editorials on national and international issues. Even worse, CanWest is pro the current Liberal government: so the government has done nothing during the past few years while CanWest spread.

The Economist had story last year and another story the year before giving details.

__________________________
"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free." --Goethe

The owner is staunchly pro-Israel (his name is Israel Asper): so all CanWest media must provide pro-Israel news coverage of the Middle East. Journalists who don't follow this can be fired or suspended. And all CanWest newspapers are required to print company editorials on national and international issues. Even worse, CanWest is pro the current Liberal government: so the government has done nothing during the past few years while CanWest spread.

The Economist had story last year and another story the year before giving details.

__________________________
"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free." --Goethe

The owner is staunchly pro-Israel (his name is Israel Asper): so all CanWest media must provide pro-Israel news coverage of the Middle East. Journalists who don't follow this can be fired or suspended. And all CanWest newspapers are required to print company editorials on national and international issues. Even worse, CanWest is pro the current Liberal government: so the government has done nothing during the past few years while CanWest spread.

The Economist had story last year and another story the year before giving details.

__________________________
"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free." --Goethe

What about those steam nuclear plants that use the waste products from other reactors as fuel? You're already making very high temperature steam, which you need for the hydrogen production, and you're actually using the waste that we are already generating and storing from the existing reactors!

Here's the Slashdot article and the actual article talking about it.

Obviously, standards only emerge when a practice has been agreed upon.

Further innovation leads to a development of a new standard.

The Economist had an article about the 25 years of succses of Ethernet in their latest so called newspaper.
They list 3 reasons why Ethernet succeeded:
-Simplicity.
-Open standard, as opposed to other competing standars.
-Decentralisation.

The later is probanly specific to Ethernet as a network standard, but the two other are probably pretty generic success factors for standars.

Hardwarewise, Sun's low-end servers are virtually identical to the sort of thing the Dells of the world sell. The systems, in fact, come from the same contract manufacturers in Asia, McNealy noted.

Linux on x86 or Itanium is an excellent value proposition for the customer but is a horrible value proposition for Sun Microsystems. It neither designs nor builds the x86 servers. A sweatshop in Taiwan designs and builds them. The sweatshop then badges the server as "Sun" or "Dell" and ships it to Sun Microsystems or Dell, respectively. Little profits can be had. After all, Linux itself is free.

The only way to succeed in this model of business is to bring your company's cost structure down. Dell has been highly successful in running a bare-bones operation. Dell has the lowest-cost structure in the computer systems industry. Tiny amount of R & D.

By contrast, Sun has a high-cost structure. Sun will reap no profits from selling Linux atop x86 or Itanium. Sun cannot price its x86 servers below those of Dell; doing so would be financial suicide.

This is the primary motivation for selling Solaris on x86. Solaris generates some profits. Even better, Solaris will lock the customer into Sun's service and support for even more profits. Solaris will also favor Sun's software products just like Windows favors Microsoft's software product.

In the long run, Sun is deadmeat. The fact that its UltraSPARC is horribly slow, in comparison to the Itanium or Pentium 4 is just another nail in the coffin of Sun. What will happen to Sun's customers for Sun's high end servers when those customers verify that Oracle applications run faster on Linux atop x86 than the same applications on Solaris atop UltraSPARC-powered servers?

Look at the guy.

You never had a right to privacy.

Yes, we do have a right to privacy.

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

The problem is that this (and the other amendments) applies to actions taken by government. The US Constitution guarantees no such right when data is collected by a commercial entitiy.

On a side note, Senator Santorum should more properly be labeled a paleoconservative a la Pat Buchanan and Robert Novak, not a neoconservative. The Economist has a recent article about the neocons here.

That Microsoft could have fixed many more bugs, is something that could be see as one possibility, but in only the past tense. It looks like things got out of hand a while ago and that the management could be just riding the company down - pump and dump

Don't forget that benefits have been cut way back and there's also been outsourcing like mad. Consultants and contractors don't show up as layoffs when you let them go.

Western technology has successfully fought the Chinese cover up. The Internet and the blinding speed with which it transmits information has effectively thwarted all attempts by the Chinese to cover up their problem. In fact, here is a sampling of the information about SARS that is readily available from the Internet.

1. "How the 'global village' faced SARS"

2. "Experts Expect SARS to Continue Spreading"

3. "More SARS Cases Are Reported; Virus Found to Persist in Patients"

4. "China and SARS"

15 years ago, if an epidemic like SARS had erupted, I would have had a much harder time in finding information describing its origin and its symptoms. Now, thanks to the Internet, I know that the Chinese in Southern China "helped" to develop this disease by sleeping with farm animals. The virus crossed the species barrier from, probably, a pig into humans. The Chinese then covered up the problem and, thus, helped to spread it to the rest of the world. According to the latest reports, the SARS virus will now become a permanent part of this world.

This was once discussed at /. in a facinating archived article at the Economist entitled, "Electronic Abacus."

The finger of blame falls squarely on Chinese society. Read "China and SARS" by "The Economist". The majority of Chinese in Hong Kong, Taiwan, and China support Beijing, and the Chinese in Beijing deliberately hid the extent of the epidemic and directly caused it to spread to the rest of the world.

The point is that there is nothing inevitable about human disasters: overpopulation, SARS epidemic, etc. We can all choose to act like Westerners and prevent a disaster. The alternative is to act like the Chinese and to rush headlong into disaster.

The choice is ours. Let's choose to be Westerners.

The finger of blame falls squarely on Chinese society. Read "China and SARS" by "The Economist". The majority of Chinese in Hong Kong, Taiwan, and China support Beijing, and the Chinese in Beijing deliberately hid the extent of the epidemic and directly caused it to spread to the rest of the world.

The point is that there is nothing inevitable about human disasters: overpopulation, SARS epidemic, etc. We can all choose to act like Westerners and prevent a disaster. The alternative is to act like the Chinese and to rush headlong into disaster.

The choice is ours. Let's choose to be Westerners.

Examples include the periodic banning of "The Economst", arresting people holding a peaceful demonstration against the government, encouraging eugenics (i. e. breeding "smart" people), etc. The former prime minister, Lee Quan Yew, had implemented a policy of eugenics. These and other shocking examples of civil-rights/human-rights violations are described at "Singaporean-statistics web page" by Freedom House. Singapore has a law called the Internal Security Act. It is the Chinese version of the Patriot Act and is a clear violation of civil liberties. Further, most Chinese support the Singaporean laws. They even support the laws that banned or restricted "Time Magazine", "Far Eastern Economic Review", and "The Economist".

Singapore is an example of what the Chinese have done. It is also an example of what the United States must never become.

We Americans must protest the Patriot Act and its variants. We must support civil liberties and human rights. Otherwise, our society will degenerate into a place like Singapore or, worse, China.

What will become of the USA if we allow the Patriot Act to continue suppressing our freedoms? Think "China" or "Chinese society". The Chinese in Singapore regularly ban "The Economist", a reputable journal. The Chinese will throw you into prison for holding a peaceful demonstration against the government.

Note that the Patriot Act curtails the Freedom of Information Act. What happens when government prevents its own citizens from knowing the activities of the government? Think "Chinese government". The Chinese in Beijing covered up the lethal illness called "Sudden Accute Respiratory Syndrome", and this coverup engendered the proliferation of the SARS epidemic to all corners of the globe. Read "China and SARS". Indeed, the majority of Chinese believe that "maintaining social order [is] more important than democracy". This "maintaining social order" means "restricting freedom of speech, press, and assembly". Read "Poll: Hong Kong residents optimistic".

Both Singapore and the USA are modern societies in terms of technology. Yet, most people prefer to live in the USA, not Singapore, because of the openness and freedom in American society. What distinguishes us Americans from the Chinese is our willingness to support freedom of thought and speech and to support openness in our own government. Otherwise, the USA will degenerate into a nation like Singapore or, worse, China.

What will become of the USA if we allow the Patriot Act to continue suppressing our freedoms? Think "China" or "Chinese society". The Chinese in Singapore regularly ban "The Economist", a reputable journal. The Chinese will throw you into prison for holding a peaceful demonstration against the government.

Note that the Patriot Act curtails the Freedom of Information Act. What happens when government prevents its own citizens from knowing the activities of the government? Think "Chinese government". The Chinese in Beijing covered up the lethal illness called "Sudden Accute Respiratory Syndrome", and this coverup engendered the proliferation of the SARS epidemic to all corners of the globe. Read "China and SARS". Indeed, the majority of Chinese believe that "maintaining social order [is] more important than democracy". This "maintaining social order" means "restricting freedom of speech, press, and assembly". Read "Poll: Hong Kong residents optimistic".

Both Singapore and the USA are modern societies in terms of technology. Yet, most people prefer to live in the USA, not Singapore, because of the openness and freedom in American society. What distinguishes us Americans from the Chinese is our willingness to support freedom of thought and speech and to support openness in our own government. Otherwise, the USA will degenerate into a nation like Singapore or, worse, China.

- adam

I just returned from a three-week backpacking tour of Nicaragua, Costa Rica and Panama. In general, they're not in as bad of shape as Africa, but some parts still suffer the same difficulities with access and utility availability.

I told folks I'd keep in touch via e-mail, but was careful to always caveat that with "as long as I can find internet access". Next time, I'll drop the caveat. Places with phones have an "internet cafe". And they're often full.

In my constant pursuit of fluent spanish, I thought I'd have to find another bilingual computer professional to learn the spanish translation of computer-centric terms like e-mail, web, internet, scanner, mouse, instant messaging and the like. If you find yourself in the same situation, ask a kid on the bus. The older generations aren't there yet, but the kids have it down. I was amazed.

The Economist did a good article recently on [somewhat] related issues of access, business and money. Instead of working to deliver telephones, they give an account of the beer man. It's a good read. Trucking in Cameroon

Cheers,
J.J.

The article also mentioned that future (within 2005) CPU's will generate five to ten times more heat.
The feedback mechanism inside this inkjet head included a sensor so the squirt can be directed to the hottest areas. Really cool. No phun intended.

Friend or foe?

Apr 10th 2003

From The Economist print edition

The rise of Linux is dividing the computer industry into winners and losers Reuters

Linus, friend of Larry?

LARRY ELLISON, the boss of Oracle, the world's second-largest software firm, likes to make bold claims. Last week he was at it again, attacking his old foe, Microsoft, the world's biggest software company. Microsoft, he declared, risked being "wiped off the face of the earth" by Linux, the free, open-source operating system developed by Linus Torvalds, a Finnish programmer, and a team of enthusiasts. As always, Mr Ellison's prediction should be taken with a handful of salt. But it contains a germ of truth, because the rise of Linux is changing the dynamics of the computer business. Some of the industry's titans benefit from its advance, while others lose. The appeal of Linux is clear. It is free, unlike such rival operating systems as Microsoft's Windows and Sun's Solaris. And it runs on almost any computer, providing compatibility, flexibility and further cost savings. Linux is used mostly to run servers, the back-office machines that handle e-mail, web pages, file sharing, and printing. Several Linux boxes can also be "clustered" together to create cheaply a machine with the power of a supercomputer. Linux has yet to have much impact in the highest echelons of business computing: telecoms-billing systems, airline-reservation systems, and so on. But it is advancing steadily. Once limited to dotcoms, it is now used by such firms as Merrill Lynch, Verizon and Boeing. "2001 was the year of interest, 2002 the year of pilot projects, and 2003 is the year of deployment," says Avery Lyford of Linuxcare, whose software simplifies the adoption of Linux by big firms. A recent report by Gartner, a consultancy, says that "businesses are coming to regard Linux as a worthy alternative to Unix and Windows."

The main loser (so far) as Linux advances is Sun Microsystems, one of the largest server vendors. Its Solaris software is generally deemed to be the most capable flavour of Unix, the family of powerful operating systems used in servers. But for many applications, Solaris is overkill, and Linux, a less capable flavour of Unix, is good enough. Many people who would once have bought expensive Sun boxes running Solaris are now running Linux on cheap, PC-like machines instead. This has forced Sun to embrace the technology that threatens its existence. Last year, Sun launched its first Linux-based server. After several zigzags, it has now decided on its Linux strategy. As well as offering cheap boxes running Linux alongside its more powerful Solaris-based ones, Sun will include its server software with both Linux and Solaris, to make its Linux boxes more attractive and to allow users to "trade up" to Solaris. Even so, many in the industry believe that, thanks to Linux, Sun is doomed. The clearest winner is IBM, closely followed by Hewlett-Packard (HP) and Dell, each of which has done well selling Linux servers. IBM embraced Linux in 1999, and now offers it across its entire range, from lowly PCs to mighty mainframes. Linux has also boosted IBM's mainframe business, since a single mainframe can be set up to behave like dozens of small Linux servers. Firms with mainframes have thus been able to scrap entire rooms full of Unix servers, such as those made by Sun. Linux also provides something IBM has wanted for years: an operating system that unifies its otherwise baffling product lines. Indeed, notes Art Olbert, an ex-IBM employee now at Linuxcare, Linux strengthens the hand of those firms that champion technological diversity, such as IBM and HP, and undermines firms that push their own

The problem for Sun is that Linux on Opteron does not give Sun much in the way of profits because the profit margin is low and competition is fierce. Sun cannot compete against IBM and HP in this area. Worse, Sun has no services organization to make any money by helping its customers to use Linux on Opteron.

Anyhow remember that stupid comment by Scott McNealy, who claimed that Sun is a one system -- one OS and one processor -- company. Now, Sun is distributing 2 OSes and 2 processors. Read the article at the Economist web site . It says that Sun will lose out big time in the Linux marketplace.

The Sun is setting. Good Riddance.

..."a fascinating new paper on the use of data compression algorithms for allowing a machine to quickly determe aspects of a document like language and authorship." For those less mathematically inclined see report from the Economist.com.