The chart on the right shows the amount of aid given to developing countries. It is shown as percent of the Gross National Income, so it includes both aid given by corporations and by individuals.
Apologies that in my post I said GDP, when apparently it's GNI.
Now suppose I move your brain's data into another organic brain, electronic brain, or anything else of the source. Would you continue to "live"? Would YOU continue to live?
Yes, and yes.
How do you reconcile this to the concept of cloning?
If I create a construct out of flesh and blood that has exactly the same physical make up as you, and then I copy the sum total of your brain to implant in this clone, are you now alive in two places at once? If I then shoot you in the face (erasing the original copy), are you still alive?
Of course not- there are now two creatures, both with independent minds of their own, but who (at point of creation) are completely identical. Shooting you in the face will still kill you, but there will be an identical twin (with the same memories) to mourn over your death. I could clone you repeatedly, every 60 years, forever- but that doesn't mean you'd experience living forever. You'd just be being replaced by new people with your memories and mindset. For obvious reasons, the same logic holds true for a mechanical clone as it would for a meaty one.
I think that that in itself disproves the notion of a soul. In this example, we're creating new creatures simply by putting together the appropriate bits, and copying some data. Unless some part of this process "magically" triggers the creation of a soul, no soul can be accounted for. Was the last neuron being grafted, or the last memristor soldered into place, the one that triggered a soul to spring into existence? Or was it the moment the data was uploaded- does copying brain data also copy the ethereal soul?
Every (recent) generation HAS been alive to witness the Golden Age of science. More good science and technological invention has happened since the industrial revolution than the rest of history combined. We've gone from abacuses to pentium processors, from horseback to space shuttle, from musket to rockets-to-Mars and H-bombs.
There's no good reason to assume that the pace will slacken off now, since discovery seems to breed new discovery. Neuroscience is computationally very tricky to study- super-computers are getting more powerful, almost unimaginably so, every year. Lets keep hold of that optimism.
The life from TFA appears to be based on exactly the same mechanisms as conventional life on Earth- DNA, RNA, ATP, what have you- just with the material swapped.
Assuming that there are plenty of other variations to this system that would work, both minor and major, it would be extremely coincidental if two totally separate trees of life ended up with exactly the same system. Therefore it's probably a sane assumption that this arsenic-based life is directly related (that is, evolved from) conventional phosphate-based life.
Still bloody amazing though. Alters our view of what a habitable planet is considerably, which is great news for anyone hoping for extraterrestrial life discoveries in our civilization's lifetime.
Add to this that, usually, who is the first country in a troubled area with actual aid (food, money, resources)? Who provides most of these resources at the end of the day?
Not to belittle the contribution the US makes to the world, or the generosity of individual US citizens (which I'm sure is pretty similar to the generosity of individuals everywhere), but I think you'd be surprised how little the US gives, as a proportion of it's overall economy, compared to the rest of the developed world.
As you can see, as a proportion of GDP, the US gives less aid than Norway, Luxembourg, Denmark, Sweden, The Netherlands, Portugal, France, Belgium, Switzerland, Ireland, the UK, Finland, Germany, Canada, Spain, Australia, Austria, New Zealand, Greece and Japan. That's based on figures from 2005, and includes government, private and corporate donations. The site also criticizes the US for tying nearly 90% of aid given to products produced in the US- compare to other countries that do the same trick with less than 10% of aid given.
That site also ranks countries on a variety of other factors, from economic competitiveness, environmental cleanliness, gender equality and quality of life. It makes for interesting reading. It should be noted that the US doesn't exactly dominate many of these categories.
Just for the record, those cables have a normal circulation of over 3 million recipients (according to Channel 4 News tonight).
That is, anything contained in those cables was already available to be read by more than 3 million people within the US government/civil service/military/etc.
They were never meant to be "private". They just weren't meant to be read by us mere plebs for fear of a PR nightmare.
I'm sure N. Korea is under no illusion as to their relationship with China. And China is under no illusion as to their relationship with N. Korea. But when they want to publicly back N. Korea, they can't afford for their non-public criticisms to be out in the public domain.
It's more like Sky TV (satellite) letter Virgin Media (cable) advertise on their channels. Which they do.
Scratch that, that's not great either. It's more like being able to read the e-edition of "Macworld" Apple magazine on your Windows 7 PC. Which you can.
Hell, let's extrapolate further. Would it be OK for Apple to block the ability to play podcasts on your iPod if they're critical of Apple products, perhaps from a blogger who is a big fan of Linux? How about listening to music with lyrics that satirizes Steve Jobs? Blocking a "Slashdot" app from their app store because of Slashdot's well known hostility to both MS and Apple (a la this story)?
Even if it's not illegal (it's probably not) and even if they're well within their rights to do it (they probably are) it's still a douchey thing to do.
I didn't say it wasn't illegal. Anything can be illegal, you just have to pass a law. In some countries, it's illegal to wear a beard, or illegal to eat non-halal.
What I said is that it's non-violent. No-one is hurt, nothing is damaged, the only harm that is done is much the same harm as every form of legal protest does- loss of business. Notably, neither of your two quotes called it an act of violence.
To call it "violent" is a nakedly political statement, and completely false.
Fair point I suppose. I was thinking more of traditional comparisons, like Macbooks to Dell Inspirons, or iPod Nanos to the £10 freebies that get given away with trainers.
Maybe they're hoping he'll just fold, not want to spend the time and money to defend himself (you know, like all the other victims.) Can it be that they believe they are that scary? To an attorney?
Not just an attorney. An attorney who's own modus operandi is to persuade people to defend themselves against frivolous litigation by selling them affordable self-help packs.
I really struggle to believe that any collection of even moderately intelligent people could be that stupid.
The biggest problem with the Euro is that it is an apolitical mechanism tied to nationalistic politics of old.
No-one complains that the dollar is shared by economies as disparate as farming Kansas, oil rich Texas, or banking hub New York. No-one complains that "Wyoming had to bail out New York" during the banking crisis, or that New York had to bail out Michigan when the car industry crashed.
But when car-building Germany has to bail out one of the other states in the eurozone, suddenly it's "why are we bailing out those no-good foreigners?" time. Or when one of the economies seems to be booming out of control and needs pulling back into check, it's "meddling foreigners trying to wreck our booming golden age!".
Greece and Ireland were allowed to sprint into an unsustainable bubble, and there was no central mechanism to tell them to stop. And now Germany, the UK, Denmark etc. have to bail them out, there is disproportionate resentment.
Once the political grandstanding subsides, the Euro could work. Until then, it's just one long nationalistic rant waiting to happen.
Apple is no more of a threat to MS's corporate workstation market than Ferrari is to Ford's family car business.
Apple machines are luxury products. Pricey, high quality, top brand products. Owned by low volume individuals (a few hundred dollars extra isn't much when you're only buying one) or specialist shops (marketing, media, etc.).
Like Ferraris, people who own them will say they're worth every penny. Like Ferrari, going mass market would be the death of their business model.
Your business place gets it's lobby inhabited by 200 people completing a non-violent sit in, which hampers customers and employees from doing business. Loss of business means loss of income to pay your salary if you work for them. Until the sit in ends, you're out of work. You now have no income to feed your family. Non-violent enough for you?
Thousands of people take to the streets to participate in a non-violent march against your company's practices; loss of reputation puts customers off doing business with you. Loss of business means loss of income to pay your salary if you work for them. Until the protests end, you're out of work. You now have no income to feed your family. Non-violent enough for you?
A party is elected which campaigns to outlaw some unfavourable business practice; they pass a law that prevents you from making money the same way you always have. You're out of work. You now have no income to feed your family. Non-violent enough for you?
I think you've just successfully categorized every form of legitimate protest as "violent". Good job you're not in charge of lawmaking.
I wonder idly if you're from an ethnic minority. I'd bet not.
It's always fine when it happens to other people. If every time you flew you were sidelined into a "security" line- predominantly non-white, under 50, male, etc., while all the nice "American" looking people got to waltz through an open door, you might feel a little more strongly about the injustice. "I'm a Christian American with Mexican ancestry!", you might cry- but to the guy with the colour chart, you're just another darky that needs his shoes checking and his underwear fondling.
They don't WANT you to opt of the manual search. That's time consuming, and unpleasant for all (security agent included). They'd much rather you waltz through their scanner and get on with your flight.
That is why, so say the cynics, they have made manual searches so unpleasant and humiliating. They have to offer you that alternative, but they'd really rather you didn't take it.
And you only need to look at the profligacy of devices with that "Apple idock connector" thing (not sure exactly what it's supposed to be called), when the only devices that support them are Apple's portables. Infuriatingly; I haven't seen a decent set of minispeakers that are compatible with a regular MP3 player for years.
Laptops, which are more than capable gaming platforms, won't be going anywhere for a long time. Your iPad or Galaxy might be fun and might be a good substitute for some tasks, but I've yet to meet a single soul who has ditched their main PC for a tablet or smartphone.
And while we're on the subject, tablets aren't exactly "low spec". Compared to the PCs of only a couple of years ago, these tablets can hold their own quite nicely. Maybe PC game devs might be forced to hold back on the bloat a little for the next few years, but I'm not going to cry over that.
Why must we go "the guy and site are based in Egypt, therefore they must be related to terrorism!".
Not every one of the billion or so Muslims (quarter of the world's population, dontchaknow) is a terrorist. That's just indulgent media nonsense, and you mustn't give in to it.
Their EU partners are expected to contribute billions to bail them out. Their finances are in such a mess in part because they charge so little corporation tax (relying on consumer taxes instead). Their low corporate taxes have poached many of the biggest companies from their EU neighbours- neighbours who consider their own spending better balanced and more responsible.
It's easy to see why the likes of Germany and the UK might not like the sound of giving Ireland lots of money to enable them to continue to undercut their responsible tax policies.
MS sells Windows, and you can run Google applications and web services on it. Google sells Android and you can use MS applications and web services on that. Am I missing the point of this story somewhere?
I honestly can't see it coming as a surprise to Google that their OPEN SOURCE software might be used in ways other than what they dictate. They're au fait with how open source works, I doubt this is an unforeseen problem.
Google know that they control the (official) Android application market, many of the applications use their advertising software/schemes, many of the companies that are manufacturing Android phones will be contributing to its development, and Google gets all important publicity/mindshare. Whatever benefits Google thought they were getting out of starting a free and open mobile OS presumably still stands.
Intelligent, dedicated laymen attempting to navigate the courts (and doing anything else that isn't philanthropic) generally have their own interests at heart, not those of the broader society. It is those latter, broader interests that laws are supposed to serve, not the interests of any one individual. The concept is called "rule of law", to be contrasted with "rule of man". Personally, I think where we are is a fine place for us to be.
Of course the chap from TFA was biased. Intrinsically. He was, of course, trying to defend his position and bring a claim against another party. The other guys were biased too- they were trying to argue their case just as much.
You misunderstand what it is that I (and I'm guessing many others, by the tone of the thread) find abhorrent. The law should never be allowed to become so complicated as to become completely opaque to anyone who hasn't dedicated decades to studying it (unless, of course, there really is no alternative). If a person of decent intelligence is willing to dedicate time to researching their case, there really should be no reason they shouldn't be capable of equalling trained lawyers. Lawyers should be a shortcut, a way for people to avoid time consuming research, people who's knowledge can make life easier. They shouldn't be mandatory.
I am trying to get across a concept that others have said far more impressively. Franz Kafka illustrated it well in The Trial (read it, if you haven't). The protagonist is accused, tried and sentenced, in a trial lasting many years, without ever understanding the case against him; he is forced, after many attempts to gain insight, to put himself entirely at his lawyer's mercy. Looking at the state of some of our defamation or intellectual property law, we're not so far from this now.
What a depressing indictment of our system that the thought of an intelligent, dedicated layman attempting to navigate the courts without expensive guidance is considered "naive at best and dangerous and worst".
You're right of course. But isn't that a horrible place for us to be in?
You could use the exact same arguments to ask "why the flying fuck didn't Microsoft release it for Windows 7 too". If it's such an amazing piece of hardware for it's price (I'm told it's a perfectly capable motion capture device, and you've just said that it's dirt cheap for them to manufacture), it's tricky to see why they'd limit themselves to simulated tennis and virtual pets.
If they're making such a killing on selling these units, as you suggest, and if they're such handy devices- why haven't they been plugging it as their own, almost unique, well branded entrant into the general hardware market?
I'm not saying your point is wrong- far from it. I just genuinely can't see the logic here.
But then, this is Ballmer's Microsoft we're talking about. Trying to spot strategy there is like trying to knit with egg noodles.
Every dollar you give to a) engineers b) scientists c) computer technicians d) all the other support staff involved in programmes like this is a dollar that is pumped into your domestic economy. It's just as much a fiscal stimulus as the $600 billion quantitative easing programme that the Federal Reserve is about to embark on.
In fact it's better, in a few different ways:
1) It doesn't rely on a trickle down effect- which always risks part of the money you put in being leached away from its intended purpose (such as foreign banks benefiting from QE, having negligible effect on the US economy).
2) You train and retain highly skilled workers who are useful in all sorts of other industries (some of which are highly profitable export industries).
3) People on normalish salaries tend to spend a far greater proportion of the money you give them than those on 6 figure salaries. Give $100,000 to 3x IT techies, it'll get spent far faster than giving it to 1x Wall Street financier. And spending is what makes the economy go round.
Slashdot Mirror
From the site I linked:
The chart on the right shows the amount of aid given to developing countries. It is shown as percent of the Gross National Income, so it includes both aid given by corporations and by individuals.
Apologies that in my post I said GDP, when apparently it's GNI.
Yes, and yes.
How do you reconcile this to the concept of cloning?
If I create a construct out of flesh and blood that has exactly the same physical make up as you, and then I copy the sum total of your brain to implant in this clone, are you now alive in two places at once? If I then shoot you in the face (erasing the original copy), are you still alive?
Of course not- there are now two creatures, both with independent minds of their own, but who (at point of creation) are completely identical. Shooting you in the face will still kill you, but there will be an identical twin (with the same memories) to mourn over your death. I could clone you repeatedly, every 60 years, forever- but that doesn't mean you'd experience living forever. You'd just be being replaced by new people with your memories and mindset. For obvious reasons, the same logic holds true for a mechanical clone as it would for a meaty one.
I think that that in itself disproves the notion of a soul. In this example, we're creating new creatures simply by putting together the appropriate bits, and copying some data. Unless some part of this process "magically" triggers the creation of a soul, no soul can be accounted for. Was the last neuron being grafted, or the last memristor soldered into place, the one that triggered a soul to spring into existence? Or was it the moment the data was uploaded- does copying brain data also copy the ethereal soul?
Every (recent) generation HAS been alive to witness the Golden Age of science. More good science and technological invention has happened since the industrial revolution than the rest of history combined. We've gone from abacuses to pentium processors, from horseback to space shuttle, from musket to rockets-to-Mars and H-bombs.
There's no good reason to assume that the pace will slacken off now, since discovery seems to breed new discovery. Neuroscience is computationally very tricky to study- super-computers are getting more powerful, almost unimaginably so, every year. Lets keep hold of that optimism.
The life from TFA appears to be based on exactly the same mechanisms as conventional life on Earth- DNA, RNA, ATP, what have you- just with the material swapped.
Assuming that there are plenty of other variations to this system that would work, both minor and major, it would be extremely coincidental if two totally separate trees of life ended up with exactly the same system. Therefore it's probably a sane assumption that this arsenic-based life is directly related (that is, evolved from) conventional phosphate-based life.
Still bloody amazing though. Alters our view of what a habitable planet is considerably, which is great news for anyone hoping for extraterrestrial life discoveries in our civilization's lifetime.
Add to this that, usually, who is the first country in a troubled area with actual aid (food, money, resources)? Who provides most of these resources at the end of the day?
Not to belittle the contribution the US makes to the world, or the generosity of individual US citizens (which I'm sure is pretty similar to the generosity of individuals everywhere), but I think you'd be surprised how little the US gives, as a proportion of it's overall economy, compared to the rest of the developed world.
Have a look at the following link:
http://www.vexen.co.uk/countries/best.html#Aid
As you can see, as a proportion of GDP, the US gives less aid than Norway, Luxembourg, Denmark, Sweden, The Netherlands, Portugal, France, Belgium, Switzerland, Ireland, the UK, Finland, Germany, Canada, Spain, Australia, Austria, New Zealand, Greece and Japan. That's based on figures from 2005, and includes government, private and corporate donations. The site also criticizes the US for tying nearly 90% of aid given to products produced in the US- compare to other countries that do the same trick with less than 10% of aid given.
That site also ranks countries on a variety of other factors, from economic competitiveness, environmental cleanliness, gender equality and quality of life. It makes for interesting reading. It should be noted that the US doesn't exactly dominate many of these categories.
Just for the record, those cables have a normal circulation of over 3 million recipients (according to Channel 4 News tonight).
That is, anything contained in those cables was already available to be read by more than 3 million people within the US government/civil service/military/etc.
They were never meant to be "private". They just weren't meant to be read by us mere plebs for fear of a PR nightmare.
I'm sure N. Korea is under no illusion as to their relationship with China. And China is under no illusion as to their relationship with N. Korea. But when they want to publicly back N. Korea, they can't afford for their non-public criticisms to be out in the public domain.
Terrible analogy.
It's more like Sky TV (satellite) letter Virgin Media (cable) advertise on their channels. Which they do.
Scratch that, that's not great either. It's more like being able to read the e-edition of "Macworld" Apple magazine on your Windows 7 PC. Which you can.
Hell, let's extrapolate further. Would it be OK for Apple to block the ability to play podcasts on your iPod if they're critical of Apple products, perhaps from a blogger who is a big fan of Linux? How about listening to music with lyrics that satirizes Steve Jobs? Blocking a "Slashdot" app from their app store because of Slashdot's well known hostility to both MS and Apple (a la this story)?
Even if it's not illegal (it's probably not) and even if they're well within their rights to do it (they probably are) it's still a douchey thing to do.
I didn't say it wasn't illegal. Anything can be illegal, you just have to pass a law. In some countries, it's illegal to wear a beard, or illegal to eat non-halal.
What I said is that it's non-violent. No-one is hurt, nothing is damaged, the only harm that is done is much the same harm as every form of legal protest does- loss of business. Notably, neither of your two quotes called it an act of violence.
To call it "violent" is a nakedly political statement, and completely false.
Fair point I suppose. I was thinking more of traditional comparisons, like Macbooks to Dell Inspirons, or iPod Nanos to the £10 freebies that get given away with trainers.
Maybe they're hoping he'll just fold, not want to spend the time and money to defend himself (you know, like all the other victims.) Can it be that they believe they are that scary? To an attorney?
Not just an attorney. An attorney who's own modus operandi is to persuade people to defend themselves against frivolous litigation by selling them affordable self-help packs.
I really struggle to believe that any collection of even moderately intelligent people could be that stupid.
The biggest problem with the Euro is that it is an apolitical mechanism tied to nationalistic politics of old.
No-one complains that the dollar is shared by economies as disparate as farming Kansas, oil rich Texas, or banking hub New York. No-one complains that "Wyoming had to bail out New York" during the banking crisis, or that New York had to bail out Michigan when the car industry crashed.
But when car-building Germany has to bail out one of the other states in the eurozone, suddenly it's "why are we bailing out those no-good foreigners?" time. Or when one of the economies seems to be booming out of control and needs pulling back into check, it's "meddling foreigners trying to wreck our booming golden age!".
Greece and Ireland were allowed to sprint into an unsustainable bubble, and there was no central mechanism to tell them to stop. And now Germany, the UK, Denmark etc. have to bail them out, there is disproportionate resentment.
Once the political grandstanding subsides, the Euro could work. Until then, it's just one long nationalistic rant waiting to happen.
Apple is no more of a threat to MS's corporate workstation market than Ferrari is to Ford's family car business.
Apple machines are luxury products. Pricey, high quality, top brand products. Owned by low volume individuals (a few hundred dollars extra isn't much when you're only buying one) or specialist shops (marketing, media, etc.).
Like Ferraris, people who own them will say they're worth every penny. Like Ferrari, going mass market would be the death of their business model.
Your business place gets it's lobby inhabited by 200 people completing a non-violent sit in, which hampers customers and employees from doing business. Loss of business means loss of income to pay your salary if you work for them. Until the sit in ends, you're out of work. You now have no income to feed your family. Non-violent enough for you?
Thousands of people take to the streets to participate in a non-violent march against your company's practices; loss of reputation puts customers off doing business with you. Loss of business means loss of income to pay your salary if you work for them. Until the protests end, you're out of work. You now have no income to feed your family. Non-violent enough for you?
A party is elected which campaigns to outlaw some unfavourable business practice; they pass a law that prevents you from making money the same way you always have. You're out of work. You now have no income to feed your family. Non-violent enough for you?
I think you've just successfully categorized every form of legitimate protest as "violent". Good job you're not in charge of lawmaking.
I wonder idly if you're from an ethnic minority. I'd bet not.
It's always fine when it happens to other people. If every time you flew you were sidelined into a "security" line- predominantly non-white, under 50, male, etc., while all the nice "American" looking people got to waltz through an open door, you might feel a little more strongly about the injustice. "I'm a Christian American with Mexican ancestry!", you might cry- but to the guy with the colour chart, you're just another darky that needs his shoes checking and his underwear fondling.
They don't WANT you to opt of the manual search. That's time consuming, and unpleasant for all (security agent included). They'd much rather you waltz through their scanner and get on with your flight.
That is why, so say the cynics, they have made manual searches so unpleasant and humiliating. They have to offer you that alternative, but they'd really rather you didn't take it.
And you only need to look at the profligacy of devices with that "Apple idock connector" thing (not sure exactly what it's supposed to be called), when the only devices that support them are Apple's portables. Infuriatingly; I haven't seen a decent set of minispeakers that are compatible with a regular MP3 player for years.
Where Apple lead, peripheral makers follow.
Laptops, which are more than capable gaming platforms, won't be going anywhere for a long time. Your iPad or Galaxy might be fun and might be a good substitute for some tasks, but I've yet to meet a single soul who has ditched their main PC for a tablet or smartphone.
And while we're on the subject, tablets aren't exactly "low spec". Compared to the PCs of only a couple of years ago, these tablets can hold their own quite nicely. Maybe PC game devs might be forced to hold back on the bloat a little for the next few years, but I'm not going to cry over that.
Why must we go "the guy and site are based in Egypt, therefore they must be related to terrorism!".
Not every one of the billion or so Muslims (quarter of the world's population, dontchaknow) is a terrorist. That's just indulgent media nonsense, and you mustn't give in to it.
And the Irish government is over a barrel.
Their EU partners are expected to contribute billions to bail them out. Their finances are in such a mess in part because they charge so little corporation tax (relying on consumer taxes instead). Their low corporate taxes have poached many of the biggest companies from their EU neighbours- neighbours who consider their own spending better balanced and more responsible.
It's easy to see why the likes of Germany and the UK might not like the sound of giving Ireland lots of money to enable them to continue to undercut their responsible tax policies.
MS sells Windows, and you can run Google applications and web services on it. Google sells Android and you can use MS applications and web services on that. Am I missing the point of this story somewhere?
I honestly can't see it coming as a surprise to Google that their OPEN SOURCE software might be used in ways other than what they dictate. They're au fait with how open source works, I doubt this is an unforeseen problem.
Google know that they control the (official) Android application market, many of the applications use their advertising software/schemes, many of the companies that are manufacturing Android phones will be contributing to its development, and Google gets all important publicity/mindshare. Whatever benefits Google thought they were getting out of starting a free and open mobile OS presumably still stands.
But even though even Pentagon itself grudgingly admitted that Assange is right, Swedes apparently lack the balls.
They did? Care to elaborate?
Intelligent, dedicated laymen attempting to navigate the courts (and doing anything else that isn't philanthropic) generally have their own interests at heart, not those of the broader society. It is those latter, broader interests that laws are supposed to serve, not the interests of any one individual. The concept is called "rule of law", to be contrasted with "rule of man". Personally, I think where we are is a fine place for us to be.
Of course the chap from TFA was biased. Intrinsically. He was, of course, trying to defend his position and bring a claim against another party. The other guys were biased too- they were trying to argue their case just as much.
You misunderstand what it is that I (and I'm guessing many others, by the tone of the thread) find abhorrent. The law should never be allowed to become so complicated as to become completely opaque to anyone who hasn't dedicated decades to studying it (unless, of course, there really is no alternative). If a person of decent intelligence is willing to dedicate time to researching their case, there really should be no reason they shouldn't be capable of equalling trained lawyers. Lawyers should be a shortcut, a way for people to avoid time consuming research, people who's knowledge can make life easier. They shouldn't be mandatory.
I am trying to get across a concept that others have said far more impressively. Franz Kafka illustrated it well in The Trial (read it, if you haven't). The protagonist is accused, tried and sentenced, in a trial lasting many years, without ever understanding the case against him; he is forced, after many attempts to gain insight, to put himself entirely at his lawyer's mercy. Looking at the state of some of our defamation or intellectual property law, we're not so far from this now.
What a depressing indictment of our system that the thought of an intelligent, dedicated layman attempting to navigate the courts without expensive guidance is considered "naive at best and dangerous and worst".
You're right of course. But isn't that a horrible place for us to be in?
You could use the exact same arguments to ask "why the flying fuck didn't Microsoft release it for Windows 7 too". If it's such an amazing piece of hardware for it's price (I'm told it's a perfectly capable motion capture device, and you've just said that it's dirt cheap for them to manufacture), it's tricky to see why they'd limit themselves to simulated tennis and virtual pets.
If they're making such a killing on selling these units, as you suggest, and if they're such handy devices- why haven't they been plugging it as their own, almost unique, well branded entrant into the general hardware market?
I'm not saying your point is wrong- far from it. I just genuinely can't see the logic here.
But then, this is Ballmer's Microsoft we're talking about. Trying to spot strategy there is like trying to knit with egg noodles.
Every dollar you give to a) engineers b) scientists c) computer technicians d) all the other support staff involved in programmes like this is a dollar that is pumped into your domestic economy. It's just as much a fiscal stimulus as the $600 billion quantitative easing programme that the Federal Reserve is about to embark on.
In fact it's better, in a few different ways:
1) It doesn't rely on a trickle down effect- which always risks part of the money you put in being leached away from its intended purpose (such as foreign banks benefiting from QE, having negligible effect on the US economy).
2) You train and retain highly skilled workers who are useful in all sorts of other industries (some of which are highly profitable export industries).
3) People on normalish salaries tend to spend a far greater proportion of the money you give them than those on 6 figure salaries. Give $100,000 to 3x IT techies, it'll get spent far faster than giving it to 1x Wall Street financier. And spending is what makes the economy go round.