For long-range aircraft, which are optimized for cruise, this has a huge impact on fuel burn. On some routes, the block fuel per passenger for the 777 is 60% of that taken on by the A340!
That's an excellent point, but some airlines (like Virgin) have said that they find that customers prefer quads for long haul; they feel safer. Be interesting to see whether that really offsets the cost of the fuel.
There's still the very much open question of whether world public opinion will tolerate the deaths of 800 people in a single crash. Remember, a single crash can destroy not only an airline but an entire airframe. When an A380 goes down, nobody knows what the response from the flying public will be.
You've got to remember that public opinion isn't rational in terms of numbers. For example, Hindenburg is still the air disaster that has the most notoriety, yet 2/3 of the passengers on board survived; the total death toll was 36. Yes, just 36 - yet Hindenburg is cited whenever anyone tries to use airships commercially, even nice safe helium airships, and even now 66 years later, despite their many advantages, no-one uses airships commercially.
In 1988, the USS Vincennes accidentally shot down an Iranian airliner, killing 290 civilians plus the crew. Off the top of your head, without using a reference, can you even remember what type of airliner it was, or the flight number? And that's by no means the worst air disaster in history.
So public opinion isn't as easy as that to predict. And if it were, I doubt the reaction would be substantially different if 400 people died (present day 747) or 800 (A380). Both will just be reported as "hundreds" by the press anyway.
Give me a web interface showing all the connections and each end's ip address, how about a simple bargraph showing bandwidth use per connection also?
The way Open Source works is if someone wants something, they write it themselves, perhaps using other Open Source things as a base. Saying "give me X feature" rarely results in it happening.
Do you suppose the have been developmentaly idle in the past 8 years
No, but if they haven't decided what materials to make it out of, they don't know how much it will weigh, hence they cannot even know the area of its wings! That is why I say that no serious design studies can have been done - they are providing images on the website that can only have come from an artist's conceptual drawings, not an engineer's CAD workstation.
I don't work in aerospace, but as a frequent flyer and a former mech eng, I take an interest in aircraft. Boeing have been treading water since the 747-400. They need something bold; Sonic Cruiser was a good concept but not in line with what anyone was buying (if the dotcom craze had continued, they'd probably have sold loads of them them). But Dreamliner is just another mid-size mid-haul airliner (altho' it does have transatlantic range), it's hard to see what the USP is.
I don't care if the A380 might have a better "concept". Airbus engineers take shortcuts in their design of metal-composite joints that are just plain Bad Engineering, and I'm going to avoid flying on an Airbus jet if at all possible after what I've heard regarding their tail designs from someone familiar with the industry.
Well I've flown in Airbuses for years and I've never had a tail fin come off:-)
As someone working in the aerospace industry I cannot help but wonder: how do these guy expect to develop such a plane in such a very short time? Unless it is heavily based on an existing design. Usually it takes up to 10 years to bring a plane up to production.
Advances in materials are allowing the team to evaluate new composite and aluminum possibilities
the team is looking at incorporating health-monitoring systems that will allow the airplane to self-monitor and report maintenance requirements
It is expected that advances in engine technology will contribute as much as 8 percent of the increased efficiency
New technologies and processes are in development to help Boeing and its partners achieve unprecedented levels of performance
In other words, it's based on a lot of assumptions that have yet to be proved. They haven't even decided what to make it out of yet, so no serious design studies can have been done. If this was a software product, we'd call it vapour. Perhaps this product is "vapour trail":-)
is being aimed precisely at airlines that are being forced to become more efficient in order to stay afloat. And Boeing is expecting the first sales to be to Asian airlines anyway.
It's a gamble. Both Boeing and Airbus have realized that airlines want flexibility to cater to different passenger mixes on different routes. Airbus are going after the few-large-planes model: an A380 can sit 800 passengers in an all-economy configuration, or 550 in a mixed configuration that also includes entertainment facilites like shops (or casinos or bars or whatever). The stretch A380 will be able to seat 1000 in all-economy. It gives the airlines the ability to take advantages of economies of scale on busy routes for low fares, or to customize their aircraft into a premium service for people who are willing to pay. For example, when the economy picks up, it will be easy to attract investment bankers to fly from London to SF on a plane that has proper conference facilities (meeting rooms, comms, etc). Flat(ish) beds in business class are great for the redeye, but what if you could have showers too? And so forth...
Boeing are going after a different kind of flexibility, the many-small-planes model. The idea behind Sonic Cruiser was a premium for a faster service on mid-haul routes. The Dreamliner may be meeting a need that doesn't exist; certainly Asian airlines are huge fans of large airliners, they have the passenger numbers and distances that justify them. But the Dreamliner is in a bit of a funny niche. It has some of the facilities on board that business travellers would pay for - but without the amenities that allow the airlines to generate revenue actually in flight. If they all come kitted out with the fancy comms, how do you cater to budget travellers, especially on short haul routes where no-one really cares about entertainment anyway? You might be able to use them profitably on some business routes (i.e. London to Frankfurt) where everyone on board is a business traveller, but for a mixed load of business people and vacationers (say London to NYC) does Dreamliner cater to all those budgets?
I think that Airbus have the right idea, apart from the fact that the A380 standard - let alone the stretch - is so damn big that it will require upgrades to airport infrastructure to handle it. Everything from being able to board and deplane through existing terminals to just being able to park them in a hangar! But for mid to long haul routes, they're pretty compelling. I just don't see where Dreamliner fits in - too elaborate for short to mid, not elaborate enogh for mid to long and long.
Depending on just how serious you are about being without power for that long a period you may really need to consider an all-out power consumption analysis, as well as other more conventional factors.
Agreed. My experience on a recent trip to Iceland was that my Sony Stamina(tm) battery ran out before my Sony Memory Stick(tm) in my Sony Camera(tm).
Of course, "living off the land" counts for tech too. If he can just buy new storage on the way, he can just pop the previous one out and Fedex it home.
So thatâ(TM)s 0.66$ per hour..Almost ONE TENTH (!) of the MINIMUM wage in the US. And all those people have four year degrees in Engineering or are MBA'S.
Why is this modded "insightful"? These people aren't working 5 hrs just to afford a latte in Starbucks! They're earning, and spending, in Rupees. The Rupee equivalent of $5000 US allows you to live very well in places like Bangalore, even tho' you couldn't live on that at all in NYC or SF. $1200/year for an entry level job is a pretty fair wage there, considerably better paid than the average (equivalent to $460).
The reason these numbers look so low in USD is to do with USD being a "hard" currency (usable for international trade) and the Rupee being "soft" (mostly only used internally). Laws of supply and demand mean that hard currencies (USD, GBP, EUR, JPY, CHF and so on) are very strong relative to soft currencies. You cannot use the exchange rate as a tool to judge living standard however. You must also factor in local costs.
That way the capitalists would come out OK no matter which side won the war. (Well, unless the communists took over..)
Well, if you didn't do what an Axis government wanted you to, you ended up dead. If a technically skilled employee did resign, he would simply be conscripted and ordered to do whatever he did anyway. It's not as simple as the board just sitting down making a policy on it.
Census machines at the time were tailor-made for the sought use. For example, you had to devise punch cards for each use, and know what each meant.
There's a "race" question even on modern day census forms, tho'. I remember filling mine in "other" since I'm not a member of one of the state-approved minorities. That question, in retrospect, was used to single out Jews, but at the time, I'm sure it appeared to be just as much the state's business as any other question on the form.
There was a Hollerith building in Auschwitz (IBM was IBM/Hollerith, at the time) with (amongst others) IBM staffs.
It would be foolish to assume that there was no overlap between the two groups "IBM Germany employees" and "Nazi party members" in the 1930s. But back in the modern day, most IBM employees weren't even born back then - how can you blame them for those events? And how can you expect each individual employee to subscribe to the same political beliefs as the company? After all, I bet there are some Nader voters working for Shell.
"it's like a bank robbery was made with a Ford truck driven by a Ford employee.. you can't blame ford for that, do you?"
Companies should be responsible for acts their employees commit outside of work? An interesting perspective, but not one that's particularly likely or desirable.
IBM even made machines that were sold to Nazi Germany before WW2 and used to administrate the execution of Jews. Or so I heard.
They sold census-tabulating machines, that's true. It's not as if the Germans said "Hi, we'd like some machines to help us exterminate Jews please". Every nation takes censuses periodically, so there was nothing to raise a red flag.
You can't blame IBM for this, otherwise it just gets ridiculous... after all, Ford isn't responsible if a bank robber makes his getaway in a Ford truck, is it?
last time I checked it was 'int' main(args) not 'void' main(args)
Just after I hit preview, I thought about that, but I had forgotten an exit(0);, so it was a choice between adding that and changing main from int to void. I chose the latter... too much Java I guess:-)
I think - correct me if I'm wrong - you're using it to mean "people who aren't in upper management.".
I mean "people who don't have anyone reporting to them". The people in an organization - however talented and qualified - who follow rather than issue instructions. Such people spend all their time doing what they do. Next level up, you might have 2-4 direct reports, and you might spend 20-30% of your time "managing" and the rest doing what your functional speciality is. A few rungs up, and you will spend nearly all your time managing a department full of specialists, but not actually doing much programming, accounting, surgery or whatever.
A programmer's corollary to that statement might be - "when you get to the Larry Wall level, you can learn to program well in any language very quickly". Or something to that effect.
People like Larry Wall are the exceptions that prove the rule. How many programmers are there who use perl relative to programmers who actually work on the perl interpreter itself? 1000? 100,000? There isn't room for very many Larry Walls, Linuses, Stallmans in the world.
And as has been said, who adds more value to an organization? The programmer or the manager who screws up his requirements and adds inane, uneducated constraints?
Ever wonder why there are so many bad managers? It's because the people who could manage projects competently would rather whine about it than do something about it. Manage or be managed, it's your choice.
Hint: If you think a manager contributes more to the bottom line than a programmer, you're wrong.
I do know that without managers, salesmen, marketeers and all those other jobs that "geeks" sneer at, said geeks don't get paid. And for all their talk about "open source", they all like to be able to pay the rent and buy groceries.
A company that thinks "programmer".equals("the bottom rung") will eventually having nothing but bottom-rung programmers.
All functional specialists - programmers, accountants, marketeers, whatever - are bottom rung. The more you advance within an organization, the more of a generalist you become. That's because in order to get things done, you need to understand more and more about how the other parts of the company work. When you get to CEO level, you are a complete generalist - watch the careers of any CEOs and you'll see them freely move between industries, because by that time, they are beyond functional speciality.
In any other career, it is expected that you will move into management. Teacher? Become a principal. Lawyer? Become a partner in the firm. Doctor? Manage a department and eventually a hospital. Academic? Supervise graduate students and write grant proposals. Marine? Get promoted onto the General Staff, leave the running through the mud to the young officers. See where I'm going with this?
But "geeks" don't want to do that. "But I'm a hacker!" they say, and insist on remaining on the bottom rung of the organization. But the people on the bottom rung are the ones with the lowest pay and the least job security in any organization! But, geeks expect to have the pay and the security without taking on the responsibility that traditionally comes with it.
The answer is clear - geeks need to start taking their careers seriously and stop idolizing people like ESR. For all his skill with termcap, ESR knows nothing about Corporate America(tm) and taking advice from the Hacker's Dictionary on what to aspire to is professional suicide.
expecting the machine to handle internal people mailing 10 meg+ attachments to 900 people at once and not buckle under the load
Incidentally, Exchange handles this easily - it'll store one copy of the attachment and just put a reference to it in 900 mailboxes.
Microsoft's Exchange marketing spiel (shared folders! forms! scheduling!
If you need these things, you'll need Exchange or Notes. Open source simply doesn't have those features. Sure, you could probably implement them using Open Source (i.e. writing Perl CGI scripts) but why would you?
We all know that nirvana is hard to achieve, so why are we wasting time insulting eraserewind when *instead* we could be hypothesizing about *how* to head towards nirvana a little more??
Because even Nirvana has to be rooted in economic reality. Yes economic, because economics is the science of allocating finite resources to potentially unlimited demand. It is pointless to even have any discussion that requires the assumption that resources are not finite.
And, no, I'm not fucking new here--you probably are, and pretty much ruining it for the rest of us who used to like coming here for insightful discussions about the possibilities of technology.
You will find, based on userid (that number that appears next to everyone's name), that he joined, then 58642 other people, then you. Insults based on "newness", how appropriate when you have proposed the thinking of novel thoughts but a paragraph earlier.
Equally, you could be considered wholefully ignorant of the relevant scripture, in this particular case, defined as the works of William Gibson and, by him, inspired works. That's where "The Matrix" comes from, as well. And, by any chance, does anyone remember who played Johnny Mnemonic, in the film with the same name?
The point is, if the name wasn't a Jewish reference, it would not have raised a red flag with the Egyptian censor. If Gibson had written about "Wion" and the Wachowskis had used that name, the reference to Israel is gone and the Egyptians would simply see it as another action movie. After all, Matrix Reloaded is no heavier on the religion/philosopy than say Phantom Menace. Therefore, the original meaning is the one that actually matters in this context.
Slashdot Mirror
For long-range aircraft, which are optimized for cruise, this has a huge impact on fuel burn. On some routes, the block fuel per passenger for the 777 is 60% of that taken on by the A340!
That's an excellent point, but some airlines (like Virgin) have said that they find that customers prefer quads for long haul; they feel safer. Be interesting to see whether that really offsets the cost of the fuel.
There's still the very much open question of whether world public opinion will tolerate the deaths of 800 people in a single crash. Remember, a single crash can destroy not only an airline but an entire airframe. When an A380 goes down, nobody knows what the response from the flying public will be.
You've got to remember that public opinion isn't rational in terms of numbers. For example, Hindenburg is still the air disaster that has the most notoriety, yet 2/3 of the passengers on board survived; the total death toll was 36. Yes, just 36 - yet Hindenburg is cited whenever anyone tries to use airships commercially, even nice safe helium airships, and even now 66 years later, despite their many advantages, no-one uses airships commercially.
In 1988, the USS Vincennes accidentally shot down an Iranian airliner, killing 290 civilians plus the crew. Off the top of your head, without using a reference, can you even remember what type of airliner it was, or the flight number? And that's by no means the worst air disaster in history.
So public opinion isn't as easy as that to predict. And if it were, I doubt the reaction would be substantially different if 400 people died (present day 747) or 800 (A380). Both will just be reported as "hundreds" by the press anyway.
Give me a web interface showing all the connections and each end's ip address, how about a simple bargraph showing bandwidth use per connection also?
The way Open Source works is if someone wants something, they write it themselves, perhaps using other Open Source things as a base. Saying "give me X feature" rarely results in it happening.
Do you suppose the have been developmentaly idle in the past 8 years
No, but if they haven't decided what materials to make it out of, they don't know how much it will weigh, hence they cannot even know the area of its wings! That is why I say that no serious design studies can have been done - they are providing images on the website that can only have come from an artist's conceptual drawings, not an engineer's CAD workstation.
I don't work in aerospace, but as a frequent flyer and a former mech eng, I take an interest in aircraft. Boeing have been treading water since the 747-400. They need something bold; Sonic Cruiser was a good concept but not in line with what anyone was buying (if the dotcom craze had continued, they'd probably have sold loads of them them). But Dreamliner is just another mid-size mid-haul airliner (altho' it does have transatlantic range), it's hard to see what the USP is.
I don't care if the A380 might have a better "concept". Airbus engineers take shortcuts in their design of metal-composite joints that are just plain Bad Engineering, and I'm going to avoid flying on an Airbus jet if at all possible after what I've heard regarding their tail designs from someone familiar with the industry.
:-)
Well I've flown in Airbuses for years and I've never had a tail fin come off
Some quotes:
In other words, it's based on a lot of assumptions that have yet to be proved. They haven't even decided what to make it out of yet, so no serious design studies can have been done. If this was a software product, we'd call it vapour. Perhaps this product is "vapour trail"
is being aimed precisely at airlines that are being forced to become more efficient in order to stay afloat. And Boeing is expecting the first sales to be to Asian airlines anyway.
It's a gamble. Both Boeing and Airbus have realized that airlines want flexibility to cater to different passenger mixes on different routes. Airbus are going after the few-large-planes model: an A380 can sit 800 passengers in an all-economy configuration, or 550 in a mixed configuration that also includes entertainment facilites like shops (or casinos or bars or whatever). The stretch A380 will be able to seat 1000 in all-economy. It gives the airlines the ability to take advantages of economies of scale on busy routes for low fares, or to customize their aircraft into a premium service for people who are willing to pay. For example, when the economy picks up, it will be easy to attract investment bankers to fly from London to SF on a plane that has proper conference facilities (meeting rooms, comms, etc). Flat(ish) beds in business class are great for the redeye, but what if you could have showers too? And so forth...
Boeing are going after a different kind of flexibility, the many-small-planes model. The idea behind Sonic Cruiser was a premium for a faster service on mid-haul routes. The Dreamliner may be meeting a need that doesn't exist; certainly Asian airlines are huge fans of large airliners, they have the passenger numbers and distances that justify them. But the Dreamliner is in a bit of a funny niche. It has some of the facilities on board that business travellers would pay for - but without the amenities that allow the airlines to generate revenue actually in flight. If they all come kitted out with the fancy comms, how do you cater to budget travellers, especially on short haul routes where no-one really cares about entertainment anyway? You might be able to use them profitably on some business routes (i.e. London to Frankfurt) where everyone on board is a business traveller, but for a mixed load of business people and vacationers (say London to NYC) does Dreamliner cater to all those budgets?
I think that Airbus have the right idea, apart from the fact that the A380 standard - let alone the stretch - is so damn big that it will require upgrades to airport infrastructure to handle it. Everything from being able to board and deplane through existing terminals to just being able to park them in a hangar! But for mid to long haul routes, they're pretty compelling. I just don't see where Dreamliner fits in - too elaborate for short to mid, not elaborate enogh for mid to long and long.
Depending on just how serious you are about being without power for that long a period you may really need to consider an all-out power consumption analysis, as well as other more conventional factors.
Agreed. My experience on a recent trip to Iceland was that my Sony Stamina(tm) battery ran out before my Sony Memory Stick(tm) in my Sony Camera(tm).
Of course, "living off the land" counts for tech too. If he can just buy new storage on the way, he can just pop the previous one out and Fedex it home.
So thatâ(TM)s 0.66$ per hour..Almost ONE TENTH (!) of the MINIMUM wage in the US. And all those people have four year degrees in Engineering or are MBA'S.
Why is this modded "insightful"? These people aren't working 5 hrs just to afford a latte in Starbucks! They're earning, and spending, in Rupees. The Rupee equivalent of $5000 US allows you to live very well in places like Bangalore, even tho' you couldn't live on that at all in NYC or SF. $1200/year for an entry level job is a pretty fair wage there, considerably better paid than the average (equivalent to $460).
The reason these numbers look so low in USD is to do with USD being a "hard" currency (usable for international trade) and the Rupee being "soft" (mostly only used internally). Laws of supply and demand mean that hard currencies (USD, GBP, EUR, JPY, CHF and so on) are very strong relative to soft currencies. You cannot use the exchange rate as a tool to judge living standard however. You must also factor in local costs.
Anti-fascism is itself a form of fascism. Try again, Ennio.
Umm, that's precisely what he means...
That way the capitalists would come out OK no matter which side won the war. (Well, unless the communists took over..)
Well, if you didn't do what an Axis government wanted you to, you ended up dead. If a technically skilled employee did resign, he would simply be conscripted and ordered to do whatever he did anyway. It's not as simple as the board just sitting down making a policy on it.
Census machines at the time were tailor-made for the sought use. For example, you had to devise punch cards for each use, and know what each meant.
There's a "race" question even on modern day census forms, tho'. I remember filling mine in "other" since I'm not a member of one of the state-approved minorities. That question, in retrospect, was used to single out Jews, but at the time, I'm sure it appeared to be just as much the state's business as any other question on the form.
There was a Hollerith building in Auschwitz (IBM was IBM/Hollerith, at the time) with (amongst others) IBM staffs.
It would be foolish to assume that there was no overlap between the two groups "IBM Germany employees" and "Nazi party members" in the 1930s. But back in the modern day, most IBM employees weren't even born back then - how can you blame them for those events? And how can you expect each individual employee to subscribe to the same political beliefs as the company? After all, I bet there are some Nader voters working for Shell.
"it's like a bank robbery was made with a Ford truck driven by a Ford employee.. you can't blame ford for that, do you?"
Companies should be responsible for acts their employees commit outside of work? An interesting perspective, but not one that's particularly likely or desirable.
IBM even made machines that were sold to Nazi Germany before WW2 and used to administrate the execution of Jews. Or so I heard.
They sold census-tabulating machines, that's true. It's not as if the Germans said "Hi, we'd like some machines to help us exterminate Jews please". Every nation takes censuses periodically, so there was nothing to raise a red flag.
You can't blame IBM for this, otherwise it just gets ridiculous... after all, Ford isn't responsible if a bank robber makes his getaway in a Ford truck, is it?
... was later heard to comment, "Ha ha ha, they are SOOOO dead".
Perhaps he doesn't want to go to England just to get a degree? (And pay a lot of money in the process.)
England's not that far from Norway, and the EU would probably give him a grant to study. I guess it all depends on how serious he is.
I`m aiming for a masters degree in bioinformatics, and I`m uncertain which courses would be good to follow
So take a Master's degree in Bioinformatics. What's to be uncertain about?
last time I checked it was 'int' main(args) not 'void' main(args)
:-)
Just after I hit preview, I thought about that, but I had forgotten an exit(0);, so it was a choice between adding that and changing main from int to void. I chose the latter... too much Java I guess
I think - correct me if I'm wrong - you're using it to mean "people who aren't in upper management.".
I mean "people who don't have anyone reporting to them". The people in an organization - however talented and qualified - who follow rather than issue instructions. Such people spend all their time doing what they do. Next level up, you might have 2-4 direct reports, and you might spend 20-30% of your time "managing" and the rest doing what your functional speciality is. A few rungs up, and you will spend nearly all your time managing a department full of specialists, but not actually doing much programming, accounting, surgery or whatever.
A programmer's corollary to that statement might be - "when you get to the Larry Wall level, you can learn to program well in any language very quickly". Or something to that effect.
People like Larry Wall are the exceptions that prove the rule. How many programmers are there who use perl relative to programmers who actually work on the perl interpreter itself? 1000? 100,000? There isn't room for very many Larry Walls, Linuses, Stallmans in the world.
And as has been said, who adds more value to an organization? The programmer or the manager who screws up his requirements and adds inane, uneducated constraints?
Ever wonder why there are so many bad managers? It's because the people who could manage projects competently would rather whine about it than do something about it. Manage or be managed, it's your choice.
Hint: If you think a manager contributes more to the bottom line than a programmer, you're wrong.
I do know that without managers, salesmen, marketeers and all those other jobs that "geeks" sneer at, said geeks don't get paid. And for all their talk about "open source", they all like to be able to pay the rent and buy groceries.
A company that thinks "programmer".equals("the bottom rung") will eventually having nothing but bottom-rung programmers.
All functional specialists - programmers, accountants, marketeers, whatever - are bottom rung. The more you advance within an organization, the more of a generalist you become. That's because in order to get things done, you need to understand more and more about how the other parts of the company work. When you get to CEO level, you are a complete generalist - watch the careers of any CEOs and you'll see them freely move between industries, because by that time, they are beyond functional speciality.
In any other career, it is expected that you will move into management. Teacher? Become a principal. Lawyer? Become a partner in the firm. Doctor? Manage a department and eventually a hospital. Academic? Supervise graduate students and write grant proposals. Marine? Get promoted onto the General Staff, leave the running through the mud to the young officers. See where I'm going with this?
But "geeks" don't want to do that. "But I'm a hacker!" they say, and insist on remaining on the bottom rung of the organization. But the people on the bottom rung are the ones with the lowest pay and the least job security in any organization! But, geeks expect to have the pay and the security without taking on the responsibility that traditionally comes with it.
The answer is clear - geeks need to start taking their careers seriously and stop idolizing people like ESR. For all his skill with termcap, ESR knows nothing about Corporate America(tm) and taking advice from the Hacker's Dictionary on what to aspire to is professional suicide.
That's a rather strange argument. By your logic, this IM program is superior to Trillian:
expecting the machine to handle internal people mailing 10 meg+ attachments to 900 people at once and not buckle under the load
Incidentally, Exchange handles this easily - it'll store one copy of the attachment and just put a reference to it in 900 mailboxes.
Microsoft's Exchange marketing spiel (shared folders! forms! scheduling!
If you need these things, you'll need Exchange or Notes. Open source simply doesn't have those features. Sure, you could probably implement them using Open Source (i.e. writing Perl CGI scripts) but why would you?
We all know that nirvana is hard to achieve, so why are we wasting time insulting eraserewind when *instead* we could be hypothesizing about *how* to head towards nirvana a little more??
Because even Nirvana has to be rooted in economic reality. Yes economic, because economics is the science of allocating finite resources to potentially unlimited demand. It is pointless to even have any discussion that requires the assumption that resources are not finite.
And, no, I'm not fucking new here--you probably are, and pretty much ruining it for the rest of us who used to like coming here for insightful discussions about the possibilities of technology.
You will find, based on userid (that number that appears next to everyone's name), that he joined, then 58642 other people, then you. Insults based on "newness", how appropriate when you have proposed the thinking of novel thoughts but a paragraph earlier.
Equally, you could be considered wholefully ignorant of the relevant scripture, in this particular case, defined as the works of William Gibson and, by him, inspired works. That's where "The Matrix" comes from, as well. And, by any chance, does anyone remember who played Johnny Mnemonic, in the film with the same name?
The point is, if the name wasn't a Jewish reference, it would not have raised a red flag with the Egyptian censor. If Gibson had written about "Wion" and the Wachowskis had used that name, the reference to Israel is gone and the Egyptians would simply see it as another action movie. After all, Matrix Reloaded is no heavier on the religion/philosopy than say Phantom Menace. Therefore, the original meaning is the one that actually matters in this context.