1. Most Americans _are_ high skilled workers, at least when compared to other nations. We're a nation of skilled, high productivity workers. We're also the worlds 3rd (or second, depending upon how you slice it) largest exporter. Is everyone a rocket scientist? Of course not. But are most Americans only qualified for bulk manual labor? No.
2. There's nothing wrong with "old" workers in general. The problem is fat, unhealthy, old workers. Obesity is an epidemic in this country, and although the morbidly obese don't end up "old", the overweight do, and they end up unhealthy. Unable to walk properly, wracked with pain, and generally having several chronic conditions which preclude working. If we aged gracefully in this country there wouldn't be any problem with working till 70-75, since life expectancies would _easily_ go up to 90+. And, most people would _easily_ be mostly functional until 85+.
Seriously, these days, the difference between being 55 and 70 is vastly overwhelmed by the difference between being a normal weight and obese. If we solved our obesity epidemic, we wouldn't have these problems, our health care bill would be smaller, and people would (happily!) work longer.
Not in the least bit dishonest. There are *many* faults with Comcast, but this aspect of their service (and, I think, their Sandvine throttling of bittorrent) are totally legitimate.
Comcast advertises their connection like this: a 6 Mbps download, 384 upload, with a temporary "up to 20 second" boost to 12 Mbps download and 2 Mbps upload.
How is this _at all_ disadvantageous to the customer? If you are downloading small files, or browsing the web, you're golden. And by small I mean 5-15 Megs, which is actually a significant amount of data.
*About their "throttling" of bittorrent. First, it _only_ affects seeding, not when the when you are downloading and uploading. And it only throttles uploading when you are affecting network capacity. In the mornings, or late evenings, I see my seeds upload properly. Isn't this how a well managed network is *supposed* to work?
For god sakes people; its obvious that we aren't paying for 16 Mbps guaranteed bandwidth. We're paying for best effort, and who doesn't want to see interactive tasks prioritized over bulk transfers (small files versus large files?). Also, I've got the "Blast!" service from Comcast, and while I don't always see my 16 Mbps, I generally see above 10 Mbps.
Are they dishonest? Sure, their service costs too much, and they have these extremely goofy discount pricing schemes. Plus, their customer service isn't the best. But is their network management poor? I don't think so.
You said "both will have the same acceleration until (water/air) drag is involved"
That's untrue!
You might be thinking of gravity; in which case mass is irrelevant to the rate of acceleration, rather, drag is what matters. That's because gravity is a constant force. Engines, on the other hand, are not a constant force. A engine which puts out less force (60 HP) will accelerate mass X at a slower rate than an engine which puts out more force or power. (300 HP). There's a simple discussion of this here: http://www.procivic.com/pages-horsepower_torque/index.html
Think of a body in a vacuum, in space, with no gravitational pull. Lets talk about two hypothetical baseballs. Assume the smaller one has a mass of 1 kg, while the larger one has a mass of 100,000 kg. Drag and weight are irrelevant, as there is no friction in space, and no gravity. If we apply a 10 Netwon force to each, the first one will accelerate at 10 m/s^2, while the second one will accelerate at.1 mm/s^2. Of course, Torque is an axial form of force, however, there is a linear relationship between torque and hp at any given RPM, and there is also a linear relationship between Torque and Force at any given radial distance.
Several of Google's services have "paid-for" versions which are ad-free: Google Earth Google Apps Google Appliances Also, Google SketchUp Pro, and a few others. Many of these don't even send data back to Google.
As long as they can monetize it, Google will sell it; it doesn't have to just be an ad platform, and I think that their mobile push is an attempt at diversification away from Ads.
I don't think Google is an Ad company; I think it is an information company, and so far the best way they've found to turn high-end information management into revenue is via ads; but if they can find alternative revenue generators I'm sure they be happy to do so.
So, as in TFA, you think the film making license to "The Lord of the Rings" universe for life+something is = approximately $65,000?
If that's the case, then I think the total contribution of copyright to the economy is far too low to justify the enforcement dollars the government needs to spend on guarding all this "life+something" IP. Perhaps we would be better off decriminalizing copyright infringement, in the hope that we could eliminate some of the hundreds of millions spent yearly on the protection of assets worth a few thousand dollars?
Or, perhaps, those assets are worth far more than that, but because the very notion of IP is screwy, copyright is an ineffective tool at guarding the little guys interest, since the big guy will just push the little guy around, and even use copyright to screw the consumers?
For most of the current Cenozoic era, Co2 levels have been *higher* than they currently are. The *only* possible issue with "global warming" right now is whether or not the rapid rate of change in Co2 levels will be damaging, not the absolute level of Co2 in the atmosphere.
For example, during the Jurassic period, Co2 levels were at 1800 ppm. During the Cambrian period, Co2 levels were 5000 ppm. Currently, Co2 levels are at 378 ppm, and even if we burn ALL known sources of Fossil Fuels it is unlikely we will drive that above 900 ppm or so.
That's why whenever I see protectionist liberals, I call them selfish bastards. Globalization is the *most* efficient tool of wealth redistribution from the rich to the poor, worldwide. Just look at the Western (EU + US) trade imbalance with the Asian tigers & India.
Vastly more wealth has been transferred from the hands of the rich to the poor due to the last 15 years of globalization than the 50 years of Foreign Aid offered by the West AND the USSR.
Socialism (especially International Socialism) absolutely fails in attempting to redistribute wealth. Globalization *is proven* to be the answer to world poverty. The only important points are to keep it fair (no monopolies or corruption, please), and to open up closed states (I'm looking at you, Africa, and North Korea.)
I think life in the third world is similar to life in medieval societies; brutal, cruel, and short. Hunter/gatherer societies go through boom/bust periods of feast and famine, not to mention the ravages of indigenous diseases. Beyond that, I don't subscribe to pure cultural relativism. I believe all humans are created equal, I believe men are socially equal to women, and I don't believe in human sacrifice.
If one comes across a society that routinely kills 1 in 4 of its female children, how should one react? Particularly if the females of this society are not agreeable to this practice. Or just rights violations in general; Saudi Arabia continues its practices of female subjugation, cruel punishments, and feudal rule because they "don't want to be saved" by western norms.
Or we can generalize; do you believe that cultures which utilize slavery should be permitted to continue this practice? What about self-destructive societies? One doesn't have to look much further than Rapa Nui to find a people who destroyed their environment and thus went extinct.
Maybe I'm a hopeless modernist, but I think the stable 'native' society you are imaging i more of a bohemian myth, really. This isn't to say that modern societies can't evolve into some kind of totalitarian nightmare (see Third Reich); but on the whole, I think that there are a lot of positive things human civilization has discovered, and I find it sad that these things are not universal.
No, but that's mainly because I've got a limited budget, and existing business interests in other places in northern and western africa, eastern europe, and latin america.
I've a feeling I've seen similar villages to the one discussed in the article, though.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again. One of the biggest shocks to me in my life was when I visited a small village in Ethiopia dominated by a former communal farm. One of the middle level farm workers asked me, in English, why the U.S. maintained such high subsidies on cotton and rice; why wouldn't the U.S., master of free trade, import Ethiopian cotton and rice?
They didn't want aid; they didn't want "education". They wanted to know why we refused to buy their products, even though their products were produced more cheaply than ours.
How do you answer that? Coming from someone who makes less in a month than I might spend in a night.
Maybe it is just me, but there is only one answer; abject shame, apologies, and a decision to try one's hardest to pursue business in the forgotten realms of this planet.
I hate to be a first-world asshole, but why would be happy that a third world village is dependent upon its diaspora? Why is this an acceptable state of affairs? Doesn't it bother anyone that these means of communication aren't really sparking commerce?
Instead of sending them food, cellphones, water, or weapons, why not send them some capitalism? Microloans, an active press to fight corruption, and education in systems of law and governance?
Decades of assistance to the third world, and all manner of socialist leaders ready to aid and reform have done little except generate more poverty. Perhaps, instead of giving to the third world, we should start taking; in the form of purchasing agricultural goods, in ecotourism, and other friendly means to transfer money to these areas while simultaneously encouraging (and rewarding!!) hardwork?
It is very, very difficult to motivate yourself to do anything, and create anything, particularly in terrible conditions, without payoff. I think the current state of the third world proves this.
It is difficult for me to watch people prescribe aid, because foreign aid tends to be useless, and siphoned off into corruption. It would be far better to encourage a vibrant economy, both here (by ending 1st world agricultural subsidies), and abroad (by buying good and products from "known good" third world sources).
This is not a post to say that I support BPL. I don't know enough about the issues.
However, if the technology is out there to deploy ubiquitous broadband communication infrastructure over existing low-gauge copper, I don't see what the fuss is all about. The radio spectrum is a public good; if deploying BPL means that hundred of millions of people can be connected to the internet via high-speed connection, I think it makes sense that the FCC should seek to either relocate amateur radio to other frequencies, or even eliminate the allocation altogether.
In Russia, you can get 100 Mbit/sec internet over BPL. If that is scalable, I'm sorry, but it doesn't seem that the public good of the airwaves should be monopolized by the needs of an elite few.
Is Verizon deploying FiOS with expectations of profits in 2 quarters?
Did Sprint begin its WiMax investments in 2006 with expectations of profits in 2 quarters?
Did T-Mobile purchase vast quantities of Spectrum for a deployment of 3G in 2009 (back in 2005)?
Are the Cable companies making investments into DOCSIS 3.0 for 2009-2010 deployments?
Time and time again, people ignore that companies whose names are not AT&T are investing in the future of broadband. You want someone to blame for the poor state of communication infrastructure in this country?
Blame AT&T. They were the monopoly that started it all, and SBC went ahead and rebuilt it (using many of the same executives) like Frankstein's Monster.
I'm a Paul-ite, however, I think our military is doing a pretty good job of defeating guerillas ethically in two third-world countries.
The funny (and sad) thing to me is that people expected it to be quickly. The Army clearly understands the need to rebuild Iraq and Afghanistan; they learned this lesson from the ORIGINAL insurgency in Afghanistan. We sponsored the insurgents against the Soviets; however, after the Soviets pulled out, we let the state rot.
The American intelligence community very clearly understands this, and you can see how the military is changing attitudes in the variety of Sunni provinces in Iraq.
It shocks me to think that people believe you could go from an invading power to a positive political movement in under month. These types of things take years; look at Germany and Japan.
I very firmly believe that if we were to stay involved in Iraq, and continued to pour ever-increasing billions into reconstruction, all the while obeying the wishes of a real democratic Iraqi government, it wouldn't take more than another decade to generate a significant amount of support for "the Americans". The question is, obviously, is this vast expense in our interest?
There are three options when a super power fights a war against an insurgency: FIght it quickly, fight it ethically, and fight it cheaply.
You get to choose two, and unless one of those two is ethically, you loose in the long run anyways. And the nature of the American political system is that we have to fight all wars quickly, so that leaves the options kind of pre-determined.
The problem with American broadband isn't the industry. The problem is AT&T. Most other companies are making large investments. AT&T is out there trying to legislatively and financially rebuild their monopoly.
That's _all_. AT&T(the new SBC) controls something like 60% of the US telco market. AT&T has no interested in next-gen broadband. Ergo, at least 60% of the US will be stuck in broadband hell.
Look at other providers. Most cable companies provide unlimited downloads (up to something ridiculous, like 200-600 gb per month). Comcast is 8-16 Mbps. RCN is 10-20 Mbps. Even the smaller providers are 6-15 Mbps. And every one of these companies is serious about deploying DOCSIS 3.0, bringing node population way down, and boosting speeds to the 50-100 Mbps range in the next year or so.
Look at Verizon. It's on an ambitious "wire our entire footprint with fiber" plan, at vast expense (hundreds of billions). Currently advertising 15/5 Mbps service, it is well known that they are designing the system to easily support 200+ Mbps connection (and provide enough bandwidth for the forseeable future).
Look at Sprint/Verizon Wireless/T-Mobile. T-Mobile is on track to launch a nationwide HSDPA 3G network by the end of the year. Sprint/Verizon have rolled out EVDO RevA nationwide, and are currently planning Revs B and C. Sprint is also on track with a massive WiMax deployment nationwide.
Look at the FCC. We're radically reorganizing the airwaves to free up huge blocks of spectrum for large investments into 2-way highspeed digital transmission. We're preparing for a complete transition of all broadcast from standard def analog to HD digital, and the subsequent free up of airwaves.
And of course, these developments proceed fastest in markets with competition. Verizon is pushing FiOS to 25 Mbps in Comcast markets, where Comcast has moved its cable to 16+ Mbps. Optimum Online is at 30 Mbps in competitive markets.
Competition works. The markets push these large behemoths to invest in new technologies, and they are rolling out this stuff as fast as can be expected. Towers are being refitted, huge quantities of equipment are being purchased, and the various ISPs are tearing up the streets installing new copper and fiber.
All of that, except in AT&T territory. Which is, of course, most of the country. Compared to all of this, AT&T's plan is a hybrid fiber-copper network (that all the cable companies and Verizon rolled out years ago), blanketing markets with advertising claiming that you don't need more than 6 Mbps down, and 768k up; and, of course, using its monopoly profits to underprice its broadband (we can only sell you 3-6 Mbps, but you can get it for $14.99 a month!).
Figure out a way to fix AT&T, and the rest of the industry will drag us into the future, and you'll see that our regulatory framework makes sense. Ignore AT&T, and no amount of incentive will fix things, because those robberbarrons running the company will figure out a way to pocket the money and continue to not invest in anything.
Middle Eastern states may blame the US/Israel alot, but they have absolutely no problem waging war upon one another, as well as waging impressive civil wars.
There's a specificity to criticisms of Vista that we didn't have with XP before, because the primary response to most XP complaints was, "Wait for Longhorn (then Vista). It'll fix everything, and I won't have to relearn everything, and all my software will work."
Now, Vista is here. It didn't fix everything. Not all your software works, and you DO have to relearn things.
As such, Apple, which makes a _superior_ product, at a significant higher initial investment (you do, at least, have to buy a bunch new software and hardware), starts to make sense to people, and the transition to FL/OSS, typically which has a good degree of "irritation" associated with it (higher GUI learning barrier to entry than Apple, less commercial software, driver issues with commodity hardware), is seen as less irritating than the transition to Vista.
Microsoft is making it's own monopoly slowly less effective, since the upgrade to the newest MS is more difficult than a changeover to Apple or Linux.
Now, lets play a game for a second. Imagine that MS was "bought" by new management. They went out, and decided they would use a BSD kernel, or maybe even the Linux kernel. Forget Xorg, they implement a closed-sourced Windows GUI on top of either BSD or Linux, and go on to implement.NET 2.0 on top of this. This might be a closed-source Xserver, or this might be something else, but either way, its pedal-to-the-metal, no compatibility cruft kinda stuff. DirectX 11 would be the "gaming" framework for this system, and MS could feel free to break compatibility here, just as they did with DX10.
Now, this new kernel is designed to be total Xen aware, and runs at Dom0. A userspace interface is developed to create a complete, transparent emulation of Vista, XP, 2000, 98, or whatever, in DomN. After the underlying OS is installed, it is updated to the latest version, sandboxed via internal NAT, port forwarded where necessary, and applications Windows are displayed rootlessly. The last piece of the puzzle is working with Nvidia, ATI, and Intel to come up with a 3D driver virtualization system, with a "server" driver on Dom0, and "clients" on DomN (why do we always end up sounding like Xorg, huh?).
Now, we've created a NextWindows that is NOTHING like Vista, with 100% Vista/2000/XP/98/Whatever support, whereby developers are "strongly encouraged" to use secure, interpreted languages such as C# and Java, forcing the use of the simple, clean.NET frameworks. Once this product was released, MS could then take the BSD kernel, define it as a "standard" OS kernel, generate an ISO standard surrounding it, fund a foundation that continues to develop this kernel (we'll call it MNU), and strongly encourage other OS developers to use this "standard" kernel as well. After all, there are plenty of historical reasons as to why the computing world should center around BSD.
Sounds like OS X, doesn't it?
After a year or 3, MS could decide not to be involved with kernel development anymore; hell, as long as they continue to develop the kernel "standards", they could even it make it the responsibility of PC/Server vendors to "choose" who they bought the kernel from.
IMHO, the ideal position for MS to be in would be to monopolize the Windows API middleware. Make it run _everywhere_. Make it easy to develop with. Make it so that if Joe Blow wanted to, he could install it on top of Ubuntu; but make it Ubuntu's job to make it work properly, while simultaneously shipping copies of the Windows middleware with -all- shipping PCs.
Alas, I think this is not to be. For whatever reason, I think MS has decided to make a last stand on its Windows monopoly, and Microsoft will continue to dominate OS sales until some disruptive technology wipes it out. The massive redwood tree that is Microsoft continues to withstand storm after storm, but the rotten core is preventing growth, and one day a storm will come that annihilated it.
Which is too bad, really, because with the concentration of wealth that MS has accumulated it could potentially be a very positive force in the market, rather than the drag it currently represents.
Starting over from scratch can be a really good thing, if you start over with something simple and elegant. The problem with the Vista "do-over" is that Microsoft will see that as "re-engineer Vista", which is not the idea. Create a sandbox that can support Vista's gordian knot of crap, and build a new, simpler environment for that sandbox to operate in. 90% of Microsoft's code these days is about "legacy" support. Look at OOXML. Look at Win32. Look at Vista.
Sandbox the "legacy" stuff, and you can strip out oodles of code. There's a reason that Linux distributions can do all of what Vista can, but contain an order of magnitude less code.
Current Notes: The current shown per wire size listed above is based on 1 amp/ 700 Circular mils, other tables provide different current per wire size, and different current for open air ~ check your local electrical code for the correct current capacity [Ampacity]. The 1 amp/ 700 Circular mils seems to be the most conservative, other sites provide/allow for 1 amp per 200 or 300 Circular mil. For shot wire lengths use 1A/200 Circular mil, for longer wire runs use 300 Circular mil, and for very long wire runs use the table above, 1 amp / 700 Circular mil.
*shrug* I guess take it with a grain of salt, electrical faults scare me, and I don't have any problem being extra conservative. I did say that you could potentially multiply the capacity number by 2x or 3x.
I'll assume this is a serious query. It isn't all that obvious.
A 20gauge cord is most likely not capable of carrying enough amperage to power your beer fridge without either A)heating up, or B)outright failing.
Situation A: A 100ft cord that heats up to unsafe temperatures may start a fire with any number of low-flashpoint items between your garage and basement.
Situation B: Failing outright means that the cord heats up to sufficient temperatures in order melt the insulation off, exposing bare, high-temperature, semi-high voltage wires to the environment. They may spark, which can easily start a fire, the insulation might burn or char, and the exposed wires represent an electrocution hazard. This would be unsafe for a 4ft core, but a 100ft cord represents a line of death stretching the length of your house.
Take a look at http://www.interfacebus.com/Reference_Cable_AWG_Sizes.html . Those are conservative numbers for load carrying capacity, and deemed "safe" for 100ft or longer runs. You can potentially multiply those numbers by 2-3 for shorter runs.
Even so, 20 gauge wire should really only be used for a 2-6 amp load; and on the lower end of that scale for a longer (100 ft+) run. A pretty average, smallish home fridge has a "max" current draw of 15 amps. Even your beer-mini-fridge probably draws 7-8 peak. 7-8 is greater than 2, and as such, is a fire hazard. And, with a 100ft run, most people would probably stick it under a rug, which results in even MORE heat buildup.
The thing about it that makes it worse is that the circuit breaker will only protect you against over-current based upon the wiring load (assuming the electrician did a good job), not electrical cords, particularly wimpy electric cords. The only time the circuit breaker will kick in is after the electrical cord has shorted, and it may be too late by that point. If its a ground fault, and not a fire, and not an electrocution, a GFCI circuit might protect you, but it'll probably be too late for that, as well.
That all being said, it's not common knowledge; but it should be. It takes a bit to educate yourself on this stuff, but its important knowledge, and a lot of lives could be saved, and fires stopped, if they taught this stuff in highschool.
IMHO, its a bit pretentious to say that this, stuff is "common sense". The little endian nature of the gauge scale (not to mention that it is logarithmic so 19 gauge is 2x the diameter of 20 gauge), and the unclear nature of the warnings on the stuff is kinda useless. It would make far more sense to make the Amperage of all devices clearer (peak), and simply put "This cable can carrying X amps at Y temperature, and is unsafe for use at higher temperatures" on extension cables.
My bad, but I think there is a different way to look at it. I'm definitely not clear enough in expressing it, and it's not something that you find in academia (it is, however, prevalent in midsized business).
Here is my definition of "believing in the free market":
All things political, sociological, and cultural should be evaluated in an economic context. Any attempt to influence these fields should be examined through the lens of fiat, with a simultaneous study as to the economic results of that fiat. Any act of fiat which cannot be microeconomically examined should be broken down into smaller and more localized effects in that given field, until such time that an action can be evaluated both micro and macroeconomically. Actions which _cannot_ be evaluated in this context (such as 90% of the crap justified under the interstate commerce clause) should not be considered. Furthermore, economic consequences should be considered as a game, with values assigned in a multivariate analysis designed to account for economic preference (for example, $50,000,000 saved by French consumers on free shipping by Amazon may not be equal to $50,000,000 spent on brick and mortar stores in France, since the later might be conceived as culturally necessary). This decision making process should be used when evaluating legislative proposals.
I don't necessarily believe an absolute laissez-faire system will resolve all problems. I don't think anarchy is the answers. Clearly, fraud is a problem. Environmental contamination isn't good, either. Violence shouldn't really have a price on it, and you have to pay for a government some how. Man also has a vested interest in seeing that his neighbors don't starve to death, or end up homeless on the street, both for reasons of compassion, and for the misery of seeing your neighborhood in shambles. And there are other issues, like human rights, protection of non-human species, and research into the world of unknown risk (asteroids, anyone; looking for planet killer asteroids isn't exactly a profitable profession). But drug prohibition? Running guns and organs? Minors with alcohol? Abortion? Immigration?
Thinking that you can really control any of these thing with something as flimsy as a "law" is goofy, even with an army to back you up. Economics, not law, decides things in the human world, and the sole function of government should be to try and work within a fundamentally economic framework, not seek to redefine it.
That, to me, is a modern, and pragmatic belief in the Free Market(TM).
You're right, this analysis I speak of is hard. And people will make mistakes while doing it. But how we decide on who are our politicians should be similar to how we decide who will run our midsized businesses; those that are incompetent at figuring this kind of thing out should be allowed to play.
At least in areas with competition. Now, in places where you have a choice, the providers will compete based on GB per month per $$.
Is this a good thing? Doesn't this mean that market value for bandwidth will drive companies to upgrade their equipment?
It would be _excellent_ for local governments to encourage this sort of behavior while providing incentives for new entrants to the ISP market. In fact, I think it would change the way the U.S. broadband infrastructure worked.
And eventually, some provider would find the "correct" quantity of bandwidth to satisfy most customers, and then the financial model necessary to justify rapid last mile improvements will be there.
Frankly, the reason we don't have "really fast" last mile connections is because the ISPs of America (except for AT&T, which is just bent on being backwards, and Verizon, which is already working on "really fast") are terrified of what super-duper connections to each customer will do. Comcast/TW could _easily_ setup their network to burst 50-500 mbps downstream, and split nodes as needed (that's a fairly static per subscriber cost). The fear is what would happen X subscribers began using an average of 25 mbps 24/7, breaking their financial model in the backbone costs. Even if this is _unlikely_, the risk is such that a public company will be unlikely to try it; simply because this is what caused @home, to fail.
Find the "right" number, that you have to offer "5 TBs" per month for $XXXX, and you know that your customers will unlikely use more than that on a monthly basis, and you know that if a customer does you more than that you can bill them for it, and suddenly there's nothing wrong with spending a fixed network upgrade cost to buildout nodes capable of bursting 500 mbps downstream to _each_ customer.
The key is competition. The market will function to find this "appropriate" number, and even make sure that ISPs are passing on the correct level of "per GB" cost, if and only if there are enough ISPs around to keep each other honest. The big issue here is last-mile costs, and I think that new technologies (WIMAX and others), plus localities providing incentives and rights of way could resolve this.
Until then, however, capped pricing will be counterintuitive, because it is less profitable for a monopolist to delivery oodles of bandwidth cheaply than for it to gouge consumers (look up monopolist pricing in an economic text book). What we need, as always, for the free market to function is low barriers to entry.
Slashdot Mirror
A couple points:
1. Most Americans _are_ high skilled workers, at least when compared to other nations. We're a nation of skilled, high productivity workers. We're also the worlds 3rd (or second, depending upon how you slice it) largest exporter. Is everyone a rocket scientist? Of course not. But are most Americans only qualified for bulk manual labor? No.
2. There's nothing wrong with "old" workers in general. The problem is fat, unhealthy, old workers. Obesity is an epidemic in this country, and although the morbidly obese don't end up "old", the overweight do, and they end up unhealthy. Unable to walk properly, wracked with pain, and generally having several chronic conditions which preclude working. If we aged gracefully in this country there wouldn't be any problem with working till 70-75, since life expectancies would _easily_ go up to 90+. And, most people would _easily_ be mostly functional until 85+.
Seriously, these days, the difference between being 55 and 70 is vastly overwhelmed by the difference between being a normal weight and obese. If we solved our obesity epidemic, we wouldn't have these problems, our health care bill would be smaller, and people would (happily!) work longer.
Not in the least bit dishonest. There are *many* faults with Comcast, but this aspect of their service (and, I think, their Sandvine throttling of bittorrent) are totally legitimate.
Comcast advertises their connection like this: a 6 Mbps download, 384 upload, with a temporary "up to 20 second" boost to 12 Mbps download and 2 Mbps upload.
How is this _at all_ disadvantageous to the customer? If you are downloading small files, or browsing the web, you're golden. And by small I mean 5-15 Megs, which is actually a significant amount of data.
*About their "throttling" of bittorrent. First, it _only_ affects seeding, not when the when you are downloading and uploading. And it only throttles uploading when you are affecting network capacity. In the mornings, or late evenings, I see my seeds upload properly. Isn't this how a well managed network is *supposed* to work?
For god sakes people; its obvious that we aren't paying for 16 Mbps guaranteed bandwidth. We're paying for best effort, and who doesn't want to see interactive tasks prioritized over bulk transfers (small files versus large files?). Also, I've got the "Blast!" service from Comcast, and while I don't always see my 16 Mbps, I generally see above 10 Mbps.
Are they dishonest? Sure, their service costs too much, and they have these extremely goofy discount pricing schemes. Plus, their customer service isn't the best. But is their network management poor? I don't think so.
No, No, NO :)
.1 mm/s^2. Of course, Torque is an axial form of force, however, there is a linear relationship between torque and hp at any given RPM, and there is also a linear relationship between Torque and Force at any given radial distance.
You said "both will have the same acceleration until (water/air) drag is involved"
That's untrue!
You might be thinking of gravity; in which case mass is irrelevant to the rate of acceleration, rather, drag is what matters. That's because gravity is a constant force. Engines, on the other hand, are not a constant force. A engine which puts out less force (60 HP) will accelerate mass X at a slower rate than an engine which puts out more force or power. (300 HP). There's a simple discussion of this here: http://www.procivic.com/pages-horsepower_torque/index.html
There's a more mathematical discussion her: http://www.heumann.com/m5/hp_torque.html
Think of a body in a vacuum, in space, with no gravitational pull. Lets talk about two hypothetical baseballs. Assume the smaller one has a mass of 1 kg, while the larger one has a mass of 100,000 kg. Drag and weight are irrelevant, as there is no friction in space, and no gravity. If we apply a 10 Netwon force to each, the first one will accelerate at 10 m/s^2, while the second one will accelerate at
What do I expect?
Support for the IMAP IDLE standard.
Why should you be tied to any proprietary e-mail system, when most e-mail servers that support IMAP support IMAP IDLE?
Several of Google's services have "paid-for" versions which are ad-free:
Google Earth
Google Apps
Google Appliances
Also, Google SketchUp Pro, and a few others. Many of these don't even send data back to Google.
As long as they can monetize it, Google will sell it; it doesn't have to just be an ad platform, and I think that their mobile push is an attempt at diversification away from Ads.
I don't think Google is an Ad company; I think it is an information company, and so far the best way they've found to turn high-end information management into revenue is via ads; but if they can find alternative revenue generators I'm sure they be happy to do so.
Both will have the same acceleration until air drag is involved.
Weight has no direct impact on top speed.
Say what?
That's why they continue to use 60HP outboard motors on oil supertankers, right?
So, as in TFA, you think the film making license to "The Lord of the Rings" universe for life+something is = approximately $65,000?
If that's the case, then I think the total contribution of copyright to the economy is far too low to justify the enforcement dollars the government needs to spend on guarding all this "life+something" IP. Perhaps we would be better off decriminalizing copyright infringement, in the hope that we could eliminate some of the hundreds of millions spent yearly on the protection of assets worth a few thousand dollars?
Or, perhaps, those assets are worth far more than that, but because the very notion of IP is screwy, copyright is an ineffective tool at guarding the little guys interest, since the big guy will just push the little guy around, and even use copyright to screw the consumers?
Just a thought.
Offtopic, but---
It simply doesn't follow that Co2 levels haven't ever been this high. That Co2 that we are generating; you know, from fossil fuels?
Where do you think it was before it became fossilized?
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/image277.gif
For most of the current Cenozoic era, Co2 levels have been *higher* than they currently are. The *only* possible issue with "global warming" right now is whether or not the rapid rate of change in Co2 levels will be damaging, not the absolute level of Co2 in the atmosphere.
For example, during the Jurassic period, Co2 levels were at 1800 ppm. During the Cambrian period, Co2 levels were 5000 ppm. Currently, Co2 levels are at 378 ppm, and even if we burn ALL known sources of Fossil Fuels it is unlikely we will drive that above 900 ppm or so.
BIngo!
That's why whenever I see protectionist liberals, I call them selfish bastards. Globalization is the *most* efficient tool of wealth redistribution from the rich to the poor, worldwide. Just look at the Western (EU + US) trade imbalance with the Asian tigers & India.
Vastly more wealth has been transferred from the hands of the rich to the poor due to the last 15 years of globalization than the 50 years of Foreign Aid offered by the West AND the USSR.
Socialism (especially International Socialism) absolutely fails in attempting to redistribute wealth. Globalization *is proven* to be the answer to world poverty. The only important points are to keep it fair (no monopolies or corruption, please), and to open up closed states (I'm looking at you, Africa, and North Korea.)
I dunno about that.
I think life in the third world is similar to life in medieval societies; brutal, cruel, and short. Hunter/gatherer societies go through boom/bust periods of feast and famine, not to mention the ravages of indigenous diseases. Beyond that, I don't subscribe to pure cultural relativism. I believe all humans are created equal, I believe men are socially equal to women, and I don't believe in human sacrifice.
If one comes across a society that routinely kills 1 in 4 of its female children, how should one react? Particularly if the females of this society are not agreeable to this practice. Or just rights violations in general; Saudi Arabia continues its practices of female subjugation, cruel punishments, and feudal rule because they "don't want to be saved" by western norms.
Or we can generalize; do you believe that cultures which utilize slavery should be permitted to continue this practice? What about self-destructive societies? One doesn't have to look much further than Rapa Nui to find a people who destroyed their environment and thus went extinct.
Maybe I'm a hopeless modernist, but I think the stable 'native' society you are imaging i more of a bohemian myth, really. This isn't to say that modern societies can't evolve into some kind of totalitarian nightmare (see Third Reich); but on the whole, I think that there are a lot of positive things human civilization has discovered, and I find it sad that these things are not universal.
No, but that's mainly because I've got a limited budget, and existing business interests in other places in northern and western africa, eastern europe, and latin america.
I've a feeling I've seen similar villages to the one discussed in the article, though.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again. One of the biggest shocks to me in my life was when I visited a small village in Ethiopia dominated by a former communal farm. One of the middle level farm workers asked me, in English, why the U.S. maintained such high subsidies on cotton and rice; why wouldn't the U.S., master of free trade, import Ethiopian cotton and rice?
They didn't want aid; they didn't want "education". They wanted to know why we refused to buy their products, even though their products were produced more cheaply than ours.
How do you answer that? Coming from someone who makes less in a month than I might spend in a night.
Maybe it is just me, but there is only one answer; abject shame, apologies, and a decision to try one's hardest to pursue business in the forgotten realms of this planet.
I hate to be a first-world asshole, but why would be happy that a third world village is dependent upon its diaspora? Why is this an acceptable state of affairs? Doesn't it bother anyone that these means of communication aren't really sparking commerce?
Instead of sending them food, cellphones, water, or weapons, why not send them some capitalism? Microloans, an active press to fight corruption, and education in systems of law and governance?
Decades of assistance to the third world, and all manner of socialist leaders ready to aid and reform have done little except generate more poverty. Perhaps, instead of giving to the third world, we should start taking; in the form of purchasing agricultural goods, in ecotourism, and other friendly means to transfer money to these areas while simultaneously encouraging (and rewarding!!) hardwork?
It is very, very difficult to motivate yourself to do anything, and create anything, particularly in terrible conditions, without payoff. I think the current state of the third world proves this.
It is difficult for me to watch people prescribe aid, because foreign aid tends to be useless, and siphoned off into corruption. It would be far better to encourage a vibrant economy, both here (by ending 1st world agricultural subsidies), and abroad (by buying good and products from "known good" third world sources).
*shrug*
This is not a post to say that I support BPL. I don't know enough about the issues.
However, if the technology is out there to deploy ubiquitous broadband communication infrastructure over existing low-gauge copper, I don't see what the fuss is all about. The radio spectrum is a public good; if deploying BPL means that hundred of millions of people can be connected to the internet via high-speed connection, I think it makes sense that the FCC should seek to either relocate amateur radio to other frequencies, or even eliminate the allocation altogether.
In Russia, you can get 100 Mbit/sec internet over BPL. If that is scalable, I'm sorry, but it doesn't seem that the public good of the airwaves should be monopolized by the needs of an elite few.
Is Verizon deploying FiOS with expectations of profits in 2 quarters?
Did Sprint begin its WiMax investments in 2006 with expectations of profits in 2 quarters?
Did T-Mobile purchase vast quantities of Spectrum for a deployment of 3G in 2009 (back in 2005)?
Are the Cable companies making investments into DOCSIS 3.0 for 2009-2010 deployments?
Time and time again, people ignore that companies whose names are not AT&T are investing in the future of broadband. You want someone to blame for the poor state of communication infrastructure in this country?
Blame AT&T. They were the monopoly that started it all, and SBC went ahead and rebuilt it (using many of the same executives) like Frankstein's Monster.
I'm a Paul-ite, however, I think our military is doing a pretty good job of defeating guerillas ethically in two third-world countries.
The funny (and sad) thing to me is that people expected it to be quickly. The Army clearly understands the need to rebuild Iraq and Afghanistan; they learned this lesson from the ORIGINAL insurgency in Afghanistan. We sponsored the insurgents against the Soviets; however, after the Soviets pulled out, we let the state rot.
The American intelligence community very clearly understands this, and you can see how the military is changing attitudes in the variety of Sunni provinces in Iraq.
It shocks me to think that people believe you could go from an invading power to a positive political movement in under month. These types of things take years; look at Germany and Japan.
I very firmly believe that if we were to stay involved in Iraq, and continued to pour ever-increasing billions into reconstruction, all the while obeying the wishes of a real democratic Iraqi government, it wouldn't take more than another decade to generate a significant amount of support for "the Americans". The question is, obviously, is this vast expense in our interest?
There are three options when a super power fights a war against an insurgency: FIght it quickly, fight it ethically, and fight it cheaply.
You get to choose two, and unless one of those two is ethically, you loose in the long run anyways. And the nature of the American political system is that we have to fight all wars quickly, so that leaves the options kind of pre-determined.
Yes! Someone actually gets it!
I've made a comment about it here: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=439642&cid=22273362
The problem with American broadband isn't the industry. The problem is AT&T. Most other companies are making large investments. AT&T is out there trying to legislatively and financially rebuild their monopoly.
room.
The problem with broadband in the U.S. is AT&T.
That's _all_. AT&T(the new SBC) controls something like 60% of the US telco market. AT&T has no interested in next-gen broadband. Ergo, at least 60% of the US will be stuck in broadband hell.
Look at other providers. Most cable companies provide unlimited downloads (up to something ridiculous, like 200-600 gb per month). Comcast is 8-16 Mbps. RCN is 10-20 Mbps. Even the smaller providers are 6-15 Mbps. And every one of these companies is serious about deploying DOCSIS 3.0, bringing node population way down, and boosting speeds to the 50-100 Mbps range in the next year or so.
Look at Verizon. It's on an ambitious "wire our entire footprint with fiber" plan, at vast expense (hundreds of billions). Currently advertising 15/5 Mbps service, it is well known that they are designing the system to easily support 200+ Mbps connection (and provide enough bandwidth for the forseeable future).
Look at Sprint/Verizon Wireless/T-Mobile. T-Mobile is on track to launch a nationwide HSDPA 3G network by the end of the year. Sprint/Verizon have rolled out EVDO RevA nationwide, and are currently planning Revs B and C. Sprint is also on track with a massive WiMax deployment nationwide.
Look at the FCC. We're radically reorganizing the airwaves to free up huge blocks of spectrum for large investments into 2-way highspeed digital transmission. We're preparing for a complete transition of all broadcast from standard def analog to HD digital, and the subsequent free up of airwaves.
And of course, these developments proceed fastest in markets with competition. Verizon is pushing FiOS to 25 Mbps in Comcast markets, where Comcast has moved its cable to 16+ Mbps. Optimum Online is at 30 Mbps in competitive markets.
Competition works. The markets push these large behemoths to invest in new technologies, and they are rolling out this stuff as fast as can be expected. Towers are being refitted, huge quantities of equipment are being purchased, and the various ISPs are tearing up the streets installing new copper and fiber.
All of that, except in AT&T territory. Which is, of course, most of the country. Compared to all of this, AT&T's plan is a hybrid fiber-copper network (that all the cable companies and Verizon rolled out years ago), blanketing markets with advertising claiming that you don't need more than 6 Mbps down, and 768k up; and, of course, using its monopoly profits to underprice its broadband (we can only sell you 3-6 Mbps, but you can get it for $14.99 a month!).
Figure out a way to fix AT&T, and the rest of the industry will drag us into the future, and you'll see that our regulatory framework makes sense. Ignore AT&T, and no amount of incentive will fix things, because those robberbarrons running the company will figure out a way to pocket the money and continue to not invest in anything.
Middle Eastern states may blame the US/Israel alot, but they have absolutely no problem waging war upon one another, as well as waging impressive civil wars.
There's a specificity to criticisms of Vista that we didn't have with XP before, because the primary response to most XP complaints was, "Wait for Longhorn (then Vista). It'll fix everything, and I won't have to relearn everything, and all my software will work."
Now, Vista is here. It didn't fix everything. Not all your software works, and you DO have to relearn things.
As such, Apple, which makes a _superior_ product, at a significant higher initial investment (you do, at least, have to buy a bunch new software and hardware), starts to make sense to people, and the transition to FL/OSS, typically which has a good degree of "irritation" associated with it (higher GUI learning barrier to entry than Apple, less commercial software, driver issues with commodity hardware), is seen as less irritating than the transition to Vista.
Microsoft is making it's own monopoly slowly less effective, since the upgrade to the newest MS is more difficult than a changeover to Apple or Linux.
Why point at 98/ME/NT/2000?
.NET 2.0 on top of this. This might be a closed-source Xserver, or this might be something else, but either way, its pedal-to-the-metal, no compatibility cruft kinda stuff. DirectX 11 would be the "gaming" framework for this system, and MS could feel free to break compatibility here, just as they did with DX10.
.NET frameworks. Once this product was released, MS could then take the BSD kernel, define it as a "standard" OS kernel, generate an ISO standard surrounding it, fund a foundation that continues to develop this kernel (we'll call it MNU), and strongly encourage other OS developers to use this "standard" kernel as well. After all, there are plenty of historical reasons as to why the computing world should center around BSD.
Why not point at Mac OS 7,8,9,X?
Now, lets play a game for a second. Imagine that MS was "bought" by new management. They went out, and decided they would use a BSD kernel, or maybe even the Linux kernel. Forget Xorg, they implement a closed-sourced Windows GUI on top of either BSD or Linux, and go on to implement
Now, this new kernel is designed to be total Xen aware, and runs at Dom0. A userspace interface is developed to create a complete, transparent emulation of Vista, XP, 2000, 98, or whatever, in DomN. After the underlying OS is installed, it is updated to the latest version, sandboxed via internal NAT, port forwarded where necessary, and applications Windows are displayed rootlessly. The last piece of the puzzle is working with Nvidia, ATI, and Intel to come up with a 3D driver virtualization system, with a "server" driver on Dom0, and "clients" on DomN (why do we always end up sounding like Xorg, huh?).
Now, we've created a NextWindows that is NOTHING like Vista, with 100% Vista/2000/XP/98/Whatever support, whereby developers are "strongly encouraged" to use secure, interpreted languages such as C# and Java, forcing the use of the simple, clean
Sounds like OS X, doesn't it?
After a year or 3, MS could decide not to be involved with kernel development anymore; hell, as long as they continue to develop the kernel "standards", they could even it make it the responsibility of PC/Server vendors to "choose" who they bought the kernel from.
IMHO, the ideal position for MS to be in would be to monopolize the Windows API middleware. Make it run _everywhere_. Make it easy to develop with. Make it so that if Joe Blow wanted to, he could install it on top of Ubuntu; but make it Ubuntu's job to make it work properly, while simultaneously shipping copies of the Windows middleware with -all- shipping PCs.
Alas, I think this is not to be. For whatever reason, I think MS has decided to make a last stand on its Windows monopoly, and Microsoft will continue to dominate OS sales until some disruptive technology wipes it out. The massive redwood tree that is Microsoft continues to withstand storm after storm, but the rotten core is preventing growth, and one day a storm will come that annihilated it.
Which is too bad, really, because with the concentration of wealth that MS has accumulated it could potentially be a very positive force in the market, rather than the drag it currently represents.
Starting over from scratch can be a really good thing, if you start over with something simple and elegant. The problem with the Vista "do-over" is that Microsoft will see that as "re-engineer Vista", which is not the idea. Create a sandbox that can support Vista's gordian knot of crap, and build a new, simpler environment for that sandbox to operate in. 90% of Microsoft's code these days is about "legacy" support. Look at OOXML. Look at Win32. Look at Vista.
Sandbox the "legacy" stuff, and you can strip out oodles of code. There's a reason that Linux distributions can do all of what Vista can, but contain an order of magnitude less code.
Well, they explain the calculation:
Current Notes:
The current shown per wire size listed above is based on 1 amp/ 700 Circular mils, other tables provide different current per wire size, and different current for open air ~ check your local electrical code for the correct current capacity [Ampacity]. The 1 amp/ 700 Circular mils seems to be the most conservative, other sites provide/allow for 1 amp per 200 or 300 Circular mil. For shot wire lengths use 1A/200 Circular mil, for longer wire runs use 300 Circular mil, and for very long wire runs use the table above, 1 amp / 700 Circular mil.
*shrug* I guess take it with a grain of salt, electrical faults scare me, and I don't have any problem being extra conservative. I did say that you could potentially multiply the capacity number by 2x or 3x.
I'll assume this is a serious query. It isn't all that obvious.
A 20gauge cord is most likely not capable of carrying enough amperage to power your beer fridge without either A)heating up, or B)outright failing.
Situation A: A 100ft cord that heats up to unsafe temperatures may start a fire with any number of low-flashpoint items between your garage and basement.
Situation B: Failing outright means that the cord heats up to sufficient temperatures in order melt the insulation off, exposing bare, high-temperature, semi-high voltage wires to the environment. They may spark, which can easily start a fire, the insulation might burn or char, and the exposed wires represent an electrocution hazard. This would be unsafe for a 4ft core, but a 100ft cord represents a line of death stretching the length of your house.
Take a look at http://www.interfacebus.com/Reference_Cable_AWG_Sizes.html . Those are conservative numbers for load carrying capacity, and deemed "safe" for 100ft or longer runs. You can potentially multiply those numbers by 2-3 for shorter runs.
Even so, 20 gauge wire should really only be used for a 2-6 amp load; and on the lower end of that scale for a longer (100 ft+) run. A pretty average, smallish home fridge has a "max" current draw of 15 amps. Even your beer-mini-fridge probably draws 7-8 peak. 7-8 is greater than 2, and as such, is a fire hazard. And, with a 100ft run, most people would probably stick it under a rug, which results in even MORE heat buildup.
The thing about it that makes it worse is that the circuit breaker will only protect you against over-current based upon the wiring load (assuming the electrician did a good job), not electrical cords, particularly wimpy electric cords. The only time the circuit breaker will kick in is after the electrical cord has shorted, and it may be too late by that point. If its a ground fault, and not a fire, and not an electrocution, a GFCI circuit might protect you, but it'll probably be too late for that, as well.
That all being said, it's not common knowledge; but it should be. It takes a bit to educate yourself on this stuff, but its important knowledge, and a lot of lives could be saved, and fires stopped, if they taught this stuff in highschool.
IMHO, its a bit pretentious to say that this, stuff is "common sense". The little endian nature of the gauge scale (not to mention that it is logarithmic so 19 gauge is 2x the diameter of 20 gauge), and the unclear nature of the warnings on the stuff is kinda useless. It would make far more sense to make the Amperage of all devices clearer (peak), and simply put "This cable can carrying X amps at Y temperature, and is unsafe for use at higher temperatures" on extension cables.
My bad, but I think there is a different way to look at it. I'm definitely not clear enough in expressing it, and it's not something that you find in academia (it is, however, prevalent in midsized business).
Here is my definition of "believing in the free market":
All things political, sociological, and cultural should be evaluated in an economic context. Any attempt to influence these fields should be examined through the lens of fiat, with a simultaneous study as to the economic results of that fiat. Any act of fiat which cannot be microeconomically examined should be broken down into smaller and more localized effects in that given field, until such time that an action can be evaluated both micro and macroeconomically. Actions which _cannot_ be evaluated in this context (such as 90% of the crap justified under the interstate commerce clause) should not be considered. Furthermore, economic consequences should be considered as a game, with values assigned in a multivariate analysis designed to account for economic preference (for example, $50,000,000 saved by French consumers on free shipping by Amazon may not be equal to $50,000,000 spent on brick and mortar stores in France, since the later might be conceived as culturally necessary). This decision making process should be used when evaluating legislative proposals.
I don't necessarily believe an absolute laissez-faire system will resolve all problems. I don't think anarchy is the answers. Clearly, fraud is a problem. Environmental contamination isn't good, either. Violence shouldn't really have a price on it, and you have to pay for a government some how. Man also has a vested interest in seeing that his neighbors don't starve to death, or end up homeless on the street, both for reasons of compassion, and for the misery of seeing your neighborhood in shambles. And there are other issues, like human rights, protection of non-human species, and research into the world of unknown risk (asteroids, anyone; looking for planet killer asteroids isn't exactly a profitable profession). But drug prohibition? Running guns and organs? Minors with alcohol? Abortion? Immigration?
Thinking that you can really control any of these thing with something as flimsy as a "law" is goofy, even with an army to back you up. Economics, not law, decides things in the human world, and the sole function of government should be to try and work within a fundamentally economic framework, not seek to redefine it.
That, to me, is a modern, and pragmatic belief in the Free Market(TM).
You're right, this analysis I speak of is hard. And people will make mistakes while doing it. But how we decide on who are our politicians should be similar to how we decide who will run our midsized businesses; those that are incompetent at figuring this kind of thing out should be allowed to play.
At least in areas with competition. Now, in places where you have a choice, the providers will compete based on GB per month per $$.
Is this a good thing? Doesn't this mean that market value for bandwidth will drive companies to upgrade their equipment?
It would be _excellent_ for local governments to encourage this sort of behavior while providing incentives for new entrants to the ISP market. In fact, I think it would change the way the U.S. broadband infrastructure worked.
And eventually, some provider would find the "correct" quantity of bandwidth to satisfy most customers, and then the financial model necessary to justify rapid last mile improvements will be there.
Frankly, the reason we don't have "really fast" last mile connections is because the ISPs of America (except for AT&T, which is just bent on being backwards, and Verizon, which is already working on "really fast") are terrified of what super-duper connections to each customer will do. Comcast/TW could _easily_ setup their network to burst 50-500 mbps downstream, and split nodes as needed (that's a fairly static per subscriber cost). The fear is what would happen X subscribers began using an average of 25 mbps 24/7, breaking their financial model in the backbone costs. Even if this is _unlikely_, the risk is such that a public company will be unlikely to try it; simply because this is what caused @home, to fail.
Find the "right" number, that you have to offer "5 TBs" per month for $XXXX, and you know that your customers will unlikely use more than that on a monthly basis, and you know that if a customer does you more than that you can bill them for it, and suddenly there's nothing wrong with spending a fixed network upgrade cost to buildout nodes capable of bursting 500 mbps downstream to _each_ customer.
The key is competition. The market will function to find this "appropriate" number, and even make sure that ISPs are passing on the correct level of "per GB" cost, if and only if there are enough ISPs around to keep each other honest. The big issue here is last-mile costs, and I think that new technologies (WIMAX and others), plus localities providing incentives and rights of way could resolve this.
Until then, however, capped pricing will be counterintuitive, because it is less profitable for a monopolist to delivery oodles of bandwidth cheaply than for it to gouge consumers (look up monopolist pricing in an economic text book). What we need, as always, for the free market to function is low barriers to entry.
Strangely, Apple has been shipping "conductive" laptops for some time, none of which have exhibited this sort of effect.