The auther Cordwainer Smith had exactly your thought and wrote some stunning stories about the Underpeople (as he called them). See "The Ballad of Lost C'Mell", "The Dead Lady of Clown Town", and "Norstrillia".
Also see "The Time Machine" by H. G. Wells, and "The Last Castle" by Jack Vance.
Since the cost of production and benefit of consuming goods and services vary from person to person, mutually beneficial exchange is possible.
What if the marginal cost of production and distribution were nearly zero for almost everything and everybody? If that were so, what would be the point of exchanging goods? And if there were little or no exchange, what would be the point of capitalism?
We already have that situation in the software world: the cost of making another copy of gcc and sending it through the Internet to anywhere in the world is nearly zero. People contribute because they feel like doing it, and everyone gets to enjoy the most humongous pool of software in history -- all for free. Welcome to the incredibly rich world of Open Source.
In the coming decades, it is conceivable that nanotechnology will do for the material world what Open Source is already doing for the immaterial world of software. In other words, nanotechnology can make the marginal cost of producing something -- anything -- nearly zero. Yes: free food, free houses, free jet airplanes. The cost may not actually be zero, but it will be so low that it may as well be free. Maybe you'll work one day a year to help maintain the robotic infrastructure that allows you and everyone else to enjoy a lifestyle that medieval kings would envy. In such a world of overwhelming plenty, what is the use of capitalism?
So you see, capitalism is not forever. It is not a law of nature; it is merely a tool which we can choose to throw away if it no longer serves us as well as something else.
So the racist now is out in the open for all to see. And to judge.
Much as a bigot like you may hate to admit it, the fact is that Chinese technology did completely change the Western world. And as I have said before, you don't have to take my word for it: just read Francis Bacon, one of the first European scientists.
Even if you ignore Bacon (bigots are good at ignoring uncomfortable facts), you would have to explain why nearly every historian names the printing press as the trigger for Europe's exit from the Dark Ages.
Your only chance to recover your smug feelings of European superiority is to insist that China did not invent the the papermaking process and the printing press. You would have to do some fast talking (or lying) because the evidence is overwhelmingly against you.
When you lose an argument on all the merits, you fall back on general insult and disparagement. Way to go buddy.
You are plain ignorant. The Greeks produced more than China? Don't make me laugh. In mathematics, China kept up, on its own, with all of the West and was at times far ahead. And in literature, China leaves the Greeks, the Romans -- and in fact, all of the West combined -- in the dust. The only reason you don't know this is that you probably can't read Chinese. If you could, you would know about the 300,000 ancient volumes carefully preserved at the Beijing National Library -- and that is only a small fraction of what has been published in China.
The West leapt ahead of China for one main reason: because the Mongol invasion of the West brought along a huge amount of Chinese technology. And I do mean huge: see the seven massive volumes of Joseph Needham's Science and Civilisation in China. And remember Francis Bacon's conclusion in 1620, that Chinese technology (but he wasn't aware that it was Chinese technology) had completely changed his world.
The Mongol invasion (ca 1200 AD) was a disaster for the countries that were devastated, but in the long run it caused the invigoration of the West. China did not benefit from a similar cross pollination -- until recently. I expect China to resume leading the world in many areas, very soon.
Not so. You might imagine that paper was derived from papyrus because of the similarity of the names (assigned by Westerners, you will note). But they are not at all alike. Do you have any idea how paper is made? Any idea at all?
The fact is that the West was unable to duplicate the invention of paper: for 1600 years after the stuff became common in China, Europeans were still gluing papyrus reeds together or scraping sheepskin. Paper was an extremely nonobvious and great invention.
why make such a fuss about paper. What about the thousands and thousands of other inventions from the West
Some inventions are more important than others. Without China's contributions (paper and printing) the Western Renaissance would almost certainly not have gotten started. The West would now be stuck in the Dark Ages, while China, armed with paper and printing, might have had another renaissance of its own (it's had several already, and almost had an industrial revolution -- twice -- before the West started exploring the world).
And the fact that you try so hard to deny China any credit is proof that, deep down, you realize how important the Chinese inventions were.
You might have mentioned sheepskin too, because that was almost as easy to make. Papyrus is made by mashing plants together by hand, carefully aligning the fibers for maximum adhesion. Needless to say, that is a slow and very expensive process.
The point is not to have someting to write on, because even the cavemen had something, namely rock surfaces. The point is to have cheap, abundant, and light writing surfaces. Sumerian clay tablets had the first two properties, but your back would break if you tried to carry a book.
You might say that paper was the first product of mass manufacturing! Of course, a cheap writing medium was a prerequisite for the printing press: there is no point in being able to print a zillion copies of a book if the cost of the papyrus alone would break the bank.
By the way, the invention of paper was unique: it appeared in China by 200 BC, during the Han Dynasty; in Europe 1600 years later, people were still scraping sheepskin for writing material. Papermaking was clearly a very nonobvious process, for which the world owes China an extremely deep debt.
Paper and the printing press come as a tandem; and together, they revolutionized the world. You don't have to take my word for it; take the word of Francis Bacon, perhaps the first European scientist:
It is well to observe the force and effect and consequences of discoveries. These are to be seen nowhere more conspicuously than in those three which were unknown to the ancients, and of which the origin though recent is obscure; namely, printing, gunpowder, and the magnet. For these things have changed the whole face and state of things throughout the world; the first in literature, the second in warfare, the third in navigation; whence have followed innumerable changes; insomuch that no empire, no sect, no star, seems to have exerted more power and influence over human affairs than these changes. -- Novum Organum (1620)
Bacon thought the critical inventions were "recent", so he was probably unaware that they all came from China.
I am waiting for the fundamental inventions not the parasitic ones
Every invention builds on previous work, so your "nonparasitic" invention is never going to come -- from anywhere.
Sure they are good at refining things, but name one modern invention or discovery they have produced.
I would mention the Chinese invention of paper and the printing press. When combined, these two triggered more progress than was achieved in all of human history prior to these inventions. (The incredible impact of the printing press is why the West has tried so hard to steal credit for it, even though Gutenberg was 700 years late, and used many Chinese techniques, such as rice glue, in his system. Slightly more honest Westerners assign Gutenberg credit for the movable-type printing press, but even for that he was over 400 years behind the Chinese.)
But you wanted something "modern". How about "laser cooling", which earned Steven Chu the primary credit for the 1997 Nobel Prize in Physics?
This was for sure not an obvious trick, which is partly why it was worth a Nobel: lasers were famous for zapping things with their heat; who would have thought of using them for cooling things to record low temperatures (microkelvins)!
But the main reason that laser cooling earned Chu a Nobel so quickly (most winners have to wait for decades) is that once you cool things down to microkelvins, quantum effects start becoming visible in macroscopic amounts of matter. Laser cooling is already responsible for an almost unending stream of breakthroughs: Bose-Einstein condensates, quantum computers, slowing light, near-field optics, new phases of matter, et cetera, et endless cetera.
Or is there another way to render the idea of software patents weightless (in the legal sense)?
Yes there is. The free software world will eventually carry a very big stick indeed, because a huge pile of people will be deeply invested into it. Right now our supporters are basically IBM and similar companies, but eventually most of industry will be on our side.
Microsoft is desperately trying to keep the cost of a PC pumped up so as to justify the high price of Windows and Office. But technology is inexorably reducing the hardware cost. Eventually, Microsoft's desperately raised levees will break, and they will be overwhelmed by the rising tide of technology. Companies all around the world will eventually realize that they will save a ton of money by moving to Linux. When that happens, Microsoft will be toast.
Twitchy, aren't you? For good reason, probably. I said that Bush was much, much worse, and I meant it. There are things worse than torture, but not many. And Bush is the Torturer in Chief.
It's called the commander in chief role. While I will agree that Presidents tend to overstep their bounds, with Bush being no exception. If you want examples of others abusing their power I can probably dig one up for every President to ever sit in office. The country has a history of a power strugle between the branches since before the Constitution was ever even finalized.
Right, and by writing the above you're hoping that we won't notice the immense difference between bad and worse. Bush is much, much worse.
I am looking for a word processor that can handle transitioning between 4 written/spoken languages (English, Norwegian, Spanish, and Hebrew) at least as well as Word does.
When the government of California starts speaking Norwegian, you'll have a point then.
And I wonder how durable the newfangled incandescent bulb is. I find it suspicious that the article mentions nothing about that.
Regardless of how efficient the new bulb is, it will be a net loss to the environment (and possibly to everyone's pocketbook) if it only lasts half as long as a normal bulb.
Reality suggests there wont be a lot of public support for this effort or its logical expressed outcome, but I wish them luck.
You underestimate how much resentment the normal computer user has for Microsoft now. The support for the freedom fighters will not be loud but it will be massive.
Novell doesn't care about betrayal, unless it affects their bottom line. Now, you and I both know that Novell's decision will affect their bottom line.
Don't worry. Novell's survival hinges on being able to make money from Linux services; in other words, they will live or die by the Red Hat business model. However, you need credibility to succeed in the services game, and Novell has just flushed theirs down the toilet. Expect them to be hit with the mother of all boycotts. They will start whimpering soon.
Did you really post this question on/.? People have been asking this question for thousands of years. Personally, I don't think there's a blanket definition on what is the point of religion. Religion is what you choose to make of it. Every individual on this earth has a unique relationship with the God or gods they choose to (or not to believe). The real question is "what is the point of religion to you?"
I can certainly respect and live with enlightened people like yourself. It's the fanatics on all sides, the ones who froth to impose their interpretation of the Bible/Koran/Torah/Mahabarata on everyone -- violently if necessary -- who make me ill.
Well, if chapter 2 of Genesis had no need to repeat the creation of the beasts, then why did it repeat the creation of the plants (2:5), and then the creation of man (2:7)? It's pretty sloppy -- definitely not "divine" quality -- if you ask me.
You should note that the first story is the creation of the world, while the second story is the creation of a garden. They are two separate creations.
The first few verses of Genesis 2 are just as universal as Genesis 1; they do not only apply to Eden. Here is 2:5
And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.
No man or beast yet, that is clear, and not a mention of the Garden of Eden. Man appears for the first time in 2:7.
And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
Still no beasts yet. And crucially, no Garden of Eden either, not yet. Thus Genesis 2 says that man came into the world before the beasts; this contradicts Genesis 1.
And I don't believe these stories are supposed to be taken literally, anyway (Christian does not automatically mean creationist). They were teaching stories written during the Babylonian exile. The Tower of Babel story is essentially ridiculing the religion of their masters.
Well, the Bible's main claim to fame is that it is the revealed Word of God. If it is not literally true, then its vagueness and ambiguity makes it no more conclusive than science is about the ultimate questions, right? And if that is so, what is the point of religion? Science at least has literally mountains of evidence backing it up.
I guess what I and at least a few others here are getting at is this: the Bible is very often misquoted. This is not the Bible's fault. In most cases, the problem exists between the book and the chair.
Not the Bible's fault? It contradicts itself many times. For example, in Genesis 1, man is created after the beasts. But in Genesis 2, man was created before the beasts. Both parts of Genesis cannot be correct.
So which parts of the Bible are accurate, and which are bilge? And if some parts are garbage, are there any implications for the credibility of the whole?
Slashdot Mirror
Also see "The Time Machine" by H. G. Wells, and "The Last Castle" by Jack Vance.
The above post was mine. (I forgot to log in.)
What if the marginal cost of production and distribution were nearly zero for almost everything and everybody? If that were so, what would be the point of exchanging goods? And if there were little or no exchange, what would be the point of capitalism?
We already have that situation in the software world: the cost of making another copy of gcc and sending it through the Internet to anywhere in the world is nearly zero. People contribute because they feel like doing it, and everyone gets to enjoy the most humongous pool of software in history -- all for free. Welcome to the incredibly rich world of Open Source.
In the coming decades, it is conceivable that nanotechnology will do for the material world what Open Source is already doing for the immaterial world of software. In other words, nanotechnology can make the marginal cost of producing something -- anything -- nearly zero. Yes: free food, free houses, free jet airplanes. The cost may not actually be zero, but it will be so low that it may as well be free. Maybe you'll work one day a year to help maintain the robotic infrastructure that allows you and everyone else to enjoy a lifestyle that medieval kings would envy. In such a world of overwhelming plenty, what is the use of capitalism?
So you see, capitalism is not forever. It is not a law of nature; it is merely a tool which we can choose to throw away if it no longer serves us as well as something else.
Much as a bigot like you may hate to admit it, the fact is that Chinese technology did completely change the Western world. And as I have said before, you don't have to take my word for it: just read Francis Bacon, one of the first European scientists.
Even if you ignore Bacon (bigots are good at ignoring uncomfortable facts), you would have to explain why nearly every historian names the printing press as the trigger for Europe's exit from the Dark Ages.
Your only chance to recover your smug feelings of European superiority is to insist that China did not invent the the papermaking process and the printing press. You would have to do some fast talking (or lying) because the evidence is overwhelmingly against you.
You are plain ignorant. The Greeks produced more than China? Don't make me laugh. In mathematics, China kept up, on its own, with all of the West and was at times far ahead. And in literature, China leaves the Greeks, the Romans -- and in fact, all of the West combined -- in the dust. The only reason you don't know this is that you probably can't read Chinese. If you could, you would know about the 300,000 ancient volumes carefully preserved at the Beijing National Library -- and that is only a small fraction of what has been published in China.
The West leapt ahead of China for one main reason: because the Mongol invasion of the West brought along a huge amount of Chinese technology. And I do mean huge: see the seven massive volumes of Joseph Needham's Science and Civilisation in China. And remember Francis Bacon's conclusion in 1620, that Chinese technology (but he wasn't aware that it was Chinese technology) had completely changed his world.
The Mongol invasion (ca 1200 AD) was a disaster for the countries that were devastated, but in the long run it caused the invigoration of the West. China did not benefit from a similar cross pollination -- until recently. I expect China to resume leading the world in many areas, very soon.
The fact is that the West was unable to duplicate the invention of paper: for 1600 years after the stuff became common in China, Europeans were still gluing papyrus reeds together or scraping sheepskin. Paper was an extremely nonobvious and great invention.
why make such a fuss about paper. What about the thousands and thousands of other inventions from the West
Some inventions are more important than others. Without China's contributions (paper and printing) the Western Renaissance would almost certainly not have gotten started. The West would now be stuck in the Dark Ages, while China, armed with paper and printing, might have had another renaissance of its own (it's had several already, and almost had an industrial revolution -- twice -- before the West started exploring the world).
And the fact that you try so hard to deny China any credit is proof that, deep down, you realize how important the Chinese inventions were.
You might have mentioned sheepskin too, because that was almost as easy to make. Papyrus is made by mashing plants together by hand, carefully aligning the fibers for maximum adhesion. Needless to say, that is a slow and very expensive process.
The point is not to have someting to write on, because even the cavemen had something, namely rock surfaces. The point is to have cheap, abundant, and light writing surfaces. Sumerian clay tablets had the first two properties, but your back would break if you tried to carry a book.
You might say that paper was the first product of mass manufacturing! Of course, a cheap writing medium was a prerequisite for the printing press: there is no point in being able to print a zillion copies of a book if the cost of the papyrus alone would break the bank.
By the way, the invention of paper was unique: it appeared in China by 200 BC, during the Han Dynasty; in Europe 1600 years later, people were still scraping sheepskin for writing material. Papermaking was clearly a very nonobvious process, for which the world owes China an extremely deep debt.
Paper and the printing press come as a tandem; and together, they revolutionized the world. You don't have to take my word for it; take the word of Francis Bacon, perhaps the first European scientist:
Bacon thought the critical inventions were "recent", so he was probably unaware that they all came from China.I am waiting for the fundamental inventions not the parasitic ones
Every invention builds on previous work, so your "nonparasitic" invention is never going to come -- from anywhere.
I would mention the Chinese invention of paper and the printing press. When combined, these two triggered more progress than was achieved in all of human history prior to these inventions. (The incredible impact of the printing press is why the West has tried so hard to steal credit for it, even though Gutenberg was 700 years late, and used many Chinese techniques, such as rice glue, in his system. Slightly more honest Westerners assign Gutenberg credit for the movable-type printing press, but even for that he was over 400 years behind the Chinese.)
But you wanted something "modern". How about "laser cooling", which earned Steven Chu the primary credit for the 1997 Nobel Prize in Physics?
This was for sure not an obvious trick, which is partly why it was worth a Nobel: lasers were famous for zapping things with their heat; who would have thought of using them for cooling things to record low temperatures (microkelvins)!
But the main reason that laser cooling earned Chu a Nobel so quickly (most winners have to wait for decades) is that once you cool things down to microkelvins, quantum effects start becoming visible in macroscopic amounts of matter. Laser cooling is already responsible for an almost unending stream of breakthroughs: Bose-Einstein condensates, quantum computers, slowing light, near-field optics, new phases of matter, et cetera, et endless cetera.
And remember, China is just getting started.
OK, so we'll stick to gasoline engines for the 3 percent of people who work on farms. For a population that small, we could even synthesize the fuel.
Yes there is. The free software world will eventually carry a very big stick indeed, because a huge pile of people will be deeply invested into it. Right now our supporters are basically IBM and similar companies, but eventually most of industry will be on our side.
Microsoft is desperately trying to keep the cost of a PC pumped up so as to justify the high price of Windows and Office. But technology is inexorably reducing the hardware cost. Eventually, Microsoft's desperately raised levees will break, and they will be overwhelmed by the rising tide of technology. Companies all around the world will eventually realize that they will save a ton of money by moving to Linux. When that happens, Microsoft will be toast.
Twitchy, aren't you? For good reason, probably. I said that Bush was much, much worse, and I meant it. There are things worse than torture, but not many. And Bush is the Torturer in Chief.
Right, and by writing the above you're hoping that we won't notice the immense difference between bad and worse. Bush is much, much worse.
Well, she's the Senator from Disney. She's only doing her job.
When the government of California starts speaking Norwegian, you'll have a point then.
And I wonder how durable the newfangled incandescent bulb is. I find it suspicious that the article mentions nothing about that.
Regardless of how efficient the new bulb is, it will be a net loss to the environment (and possibly to everyone's pocketbook) if it only lasts half as long as a normal bulb.
You underestimate how much resentment the normal computer user has for Microsoft now. The support for the freedom fighters will not be loud but it will be massive.
Important facts.
Don't worry. Novell's survival hinges on being able to make money from Linux services; in other words, they will live or die by the Red Hat business model. However, you need credibility to succeed in the services game, and Novell has just flushed theirs down the toilet. Expect them to be hit with the mother of all boycotts. They will start whimpering soon.
One million dollars? Even if you focus that solely on the contents of the Library of Congress, that will be, what, five cents per book?
The above article was mine.
I can certainly respect and live with enlightened people like yourself. It's the fanatics on all sides, the ones who froth to impose their interpretation of the Bible/Koran/Torah/Mahabarata on everyone -- violently if necessary -- who make me ill.
Well, if chapter 2 of Genesis had no need to repeat the creation of the beasts, then why did it repeat the creation of the plants (2:5), and then the creation of man (2:7)? It's pretty sloppy -- definitely not "divine" quality -- if you ask me.
The first few verses of Genesis 2 are just as universal as Genesis 1; they do not only apply to Eden. Here is 2:5
No man or beast yet, that is clear, and not a mention of the Garden of Eden. Man appears for the first time in 2:7. Still no beasts yet. And crucially, no Garden of Eden either, not yet. Thus Genesis 2 says that man came into the world before the beasts; this contradicts Genesis 1.And I don't believe these stories are supposed to be taken literally, anyway (Christian does not automatically mean creationist). They were teaching stories written during the Babylonian exile. The Tower of Babel story is essentially ridiculing the religion of their masters.
Well, the Bible's main claim to fame is that it is the revealed Word of God. If it is not literally true, then its vagueness and ambiguity makes it no more conclusive than science is about the ultimate questions, right? And if that is so, what is the point of religion? Science at least has literally mountains of evidence backing it up.
LOL
Not the Bible's fault? It contradicts itself many times. For example, in Genesis 1, man is created after the beasts. But in Genesis 2, man was created before the beasts. Both parts of Genesis cannot be correct.
So which parts of the Bible are accurate, and which are bilge? And if some parts are garbage, are there any implications for the credibility of the whole?