Your solution of investing in the infrastructure is completely correct, but is a completely alien concept in modern business practices. Investment is a cost, and so by not investing you're cutting cost and maintaining profit.
AT&T's behavior is endemic in American business today, and has been for god, 20 - 30 years? The US frequently comes in near the bottom, and all too often, dead last when its infrastructure is compared to the other industrialized nations. If you just compare the modernized coast of China, it's infrastructure is better than the United States. Our broadband is horribly slow. Our cell phone system is antiquated and undeveloped. Our electrical system is overstretched and prone to brownouts. Since everyone else can't be "ahead of the curve," we're left with the unescapable conclusion, that we're behind it. We're way behind it when emerging economies are on par with us.
It's not just infrastructure. The auto makers are in collapse (with the notable exception of Ford) not only due to crushing healthcare costs due to retirees, but also because the lack of will to adapt to new trends and technologies. It's embarrassing that after getting their lunch ate by the Japanese back in the 70s when Detroit was turning out crap (in all fairness, American cars today very well made, and can compete in quality with anyone), that they let it happen again by placing all their eggs in the SUV basket while not just ignoring, but actively fighting fuel efficiency standards and slow walking the development of hybrids and all-electrics. Guess who owns that market now?
With electricity, we're told that our infrastructure doesn't suck, but yet a fucking squirrel can cut off 50 million people. Meanwhile we're told to deregulate to decrease costs, but instead we get market manipulation that actually increases costs. (It seems like we always forget why the regulation was put in place the first time, and then we have to repeated learn that companies will screw over the most people in worst possible way, thus harming all of us, all to increase profits.) Then when we do say that we're going to invest in a new electrical infrastructure, and do develop new technologies, we don't. The US is already lagging the world in green technology development.
We make nothing here, except except "exotic financial instruments," and we know how well those work. Yet, people wonder why this is is the second jobless "recovery" in a row. Real unemployment is at 17%, but hey, the Dow Jones Industrials have been on a steady rise since March, so everything is cool. Wages are down, unless you're to top 1%. The Chicago Fed reported that the US has the most unequal wealth distribution of any OCED country. We have government that won't pass reform that 65% of the public wants, because it would hurt the megacorp that bought politician.
We've been asleep at the switch for too damn long, and now we're over the cliff.
When Obama came in and was talking about reform, and infrastructure investment, and new technology investment, I thinking that it was about damn time. Yet, we're not getting it. Instead we get "too big to fail." None of these promises are playing out like he said, because the entrenched interests, and yet you can't vote for the Republicans, because they simply deny there's a problem.
4. Raise prices, lock in more users with contracts and exclusive manufacturers, and buy a tower here and there, just enough to pull people along.
AT&T isn't going to fix this problem, as long as the iPhone is popular. Investment is a cost. And modern American business is about the short(est) term.
So you are stating that the right to assemble can only be exercised on private land? If so done, can the government still bust your door down Waco-style?
When executing a properly obtained search warrant, yes. Which is exactly as it should be.
Ironically, of course, the government never did "bust down" the door at Waco, they were shot at, which is a felony. Then they camped out for weeks, until Koresh burned the place down from the inside. In retrospect, they should have busted down the door the first time.
Apparently, it just says I don't need to get the government's permission to hold a dinner party, but anything else I must get permission from them and, in many cases, pay them fees to freely associate with others in public.
No. You don't have the right to prevent other people from also freely assembling in public. The street belongs to everyone, and if you're keeping me from using my street, then fuck you.
You just want to do whatever you want an screw everyone else in the meantime. That's anarchy, and the rest of society doesn't like it.
No one wants to live in the world you want to live in.
Trains are great for crossing urban centers. A train from San Diego to LA would have been great when I lived in SD and worked in LA. Fix that problem, then we can talk about bullet trains.
You know, Tricky Dick Nixon promised us that Amtrak would only be living on the public teat for a couple of years, and then private investors would buy it. Didn't work out that way.
Which was obviously bullshit, because the railroads were getting out of passenger rail service because it was unprofitable. This is different because it's a proven technology being applied to a known market.
I've ridden on both Amtrak and high speed rail (Deutsche Bahn ICE), and there is simply no comparison. Amtrak is slow and cramped, and a throughly frustrating experience. The fact that it's faster to drive than ride, shows just how worthless Amtrak is. Amtrak should die, but doesn't because the reps from all the rural states (ironically, the ones that rail the most against "big government" and "government waste") continue fund it as being necessary. As the Amtrak Commissioner said back in the late 90s, they lose money on every run. They lose money on the capital expenditures on the high traffic Northeast Corridor, and they lose money on every trip on everywhere else. DB ICE on the other hand, is FAST and comfortable. I'd prefer it flying any day. Big seats. The ability to walk around. Tables. It's great. An American would say, "This is the future of travel!", while everyone else in the world would say, "It's 20 years old, jackass."
building the whole system will provide a lot of meaning full jobs.
Nope. It shifts jobs from productive activities to wealth-destroying government waste.
Oh come on. Public infrastructure as always provided jobs, and promoted investment. There's already significant travel between SF and LA, and Cal HSR simply takes advantage of this situation.
Oh, and the people of California want it. How do I know this? We put it to a vote.
That said I have heard stories about corruption in the US over energy. I believe some company in California was producing rolling blackouts to increase the price or some such.[citation needed] But that doesn't have much to do with supply and demand.
That company was Enron, and the federal government, specifically the FERC, refused to investigate on a party line vote (GOP majority) at the time, because 1) it was making a hell of a lot of money for their corporate friends, and 2) it was damaging the political career of Democrat California governor Gray Davis, so much so it culminated with Davis's recall and election of Schwarnegger. Recall that the White House at the time repeatedly refereed to the blackouts in the most populous state in the union, and the 5th largest world economy as "California's problem.") The most important thing to remember about the California power crisis was that it was caused by the deregulation of the electrical production industry in California. Far from creating a market where power would be cheap, an electrical trading cartel was created where supply was manipulated for private profit, and public harm. (Also recall that in free market, both sides of a transaction benefit.)
Oh absolutely, but the big advantage that hybrids have right now is that they take advantage of the existing infrastructure. Until there's either higher capacity batteries (like the article suggests) or more charging stations then that's what's viable today. By it's very nature, a hybrid is a transition technology, and we're in a time of transition.
Technically you don't need to charge at home. If you can charge at your destination, then that's good enough. I've seen several companies that have been introducing charging stations, and Berkeley has stations installed in several of its downtown city owned parking garages. Of course, probably none of this helps you, but it shows that it can be done, IF you have a progressive enough environment.
Congratulations. You have just argued for the violent overthrow of the government, in a public forum. In a time of war. An argument could be made that you just committed treason. Bravo. Instead, I'll just ask, Why do you hate America? And If you don't love America, why don't you just leave? We in Real America(tm), don't want you here. Go away.
Can't say I have the balls to put myself in the firing line
Wanting (other) people should risk their lives for your narrow and unpopular political beliefs, while refusing to take that risk yourself. You truly are a conservative. Dick "I had other priorities" Cheney would be proud.
Clearly, you've never heard of "food deserts." In the US, there are large areas of cities, predominately in the poor parts of town, where there are literally no grocery stores. If you don't have a car, and the bus system either doesn't go, or makes it very arduous to get to a grocery store in richer part of town, you simply don't go. Instead you head down to Mickey D's or the 7-Eleven and buy something to eat. No one believes that it's healthy, but you do what you've got to do. The NYT and the NYC Dept of City Planning reported on this phenomenon, complete with maps overlaying income, food availability, and obesity and diabetes rates.
But logically speaking taking action before you know the consequence of the action can be very bad. Many of the demands made to mitigate postulated anthropogenic global warming involve considerable expense, so all the things that we know for sure need doing (like feeding people) that might otherwise be done with the money constitutes the minimum opportunity cost.
Of course the irony is that the people benefiting from the status quo have always whined about the cost, even when at the time it was trivial. The sad fact is, that since AGW is a positive feedback loop, the longer we have delayed taking steps to slow/reverse the process, the harder and more expensive it becomes.
The maximum would be far greater - we might well cause one climate catastrophe as we seek to avert the other.
Yeah. It would be really a shame if more people took mass transit.
You tell people that District 9 is a movie about alien apartheid, you may not get much of a response. Tell them that it's a Peter Jackson movie, and interest skyrockets, because people have enjoyed his work before.
Which is really a shame since it's really a Neill Blomkamp movie. Same thing with 9 and and Shane Acker. Watching the previews, you'd think Tim Burton did it. Granted, in this case promoting the exec producer is giving a boost to the film, but there's no reason to give the actual writer-director the short shrift, when plenty of movies are billed "From executive producer Uncle Moneybags, comes the latest film by director Mr. Filmmaker..."
Defining a "hit" as one of the top ten or top 1000 or any absolute number is stupid. It reminds me of a political joke in the Soviet Union, where the result of a race between two athletes, a Russian and an American, was reported in the press as "the Russian came in second while the American was next to the last". In electrical and electronics engineering threshold values are often defined as the point where the power is one half of the maximum, the so-called "-3 dB" points.
There are 17,770 movies in the Netflix Prize training set. 1000 movies account for 5.63% of movies for the entire dataset. This 5% account for 63% of all rentals. If you use your threshold of "half of the maximum," then you have the top 100 movies. More to the point, your threshold definition using decibels is predicated on the data being normally distributed, and this data conforms to a power distribution, most likely Zip-Ian.
Getting back to your point of defining a "hit" based on profitability, that too is poor way of defining it. It's much easier for a very cheap film to make multiples of it's budget in revenue, but still no one sees it. Number of viewers has always been the traditional way of defining a hit. Revenue is just proxy for that.
why is this that fellow that is responsible for getting the records - this was obviously not his goal and if he is charged for it then it is just laughable.
What the hell is this supposed to mean? Since when has committing a crime unintentionally ever been a defense?
"Oh officer! I wasn't INTENDING to kill all the cancer stricken orphans when I driving drunk, speeding, and firing my gun wildly! I just intending to disturb the peace!" "Oh! Well, that's a horse of a different color! I'll let you go with a warning then. Just try and keep it down next time. People are trying sleep around here." "Will do!"
but why is the hospital getting the money - they are guilty of criminal negligence in handling patients' data so they should be paying not getting paid.
1. It's criminal trespassing to access a computer without permission. Which he did by sending the spyware to someone with the intent to observe them. 2. The hospital didn't hand out the data. It was stolen. It's still theft even if I leave the door wide open. It wasn't his. He has it, as a result of his actions.
to me it looks like one more example of justice system malfunctioning. It is not a great malfunction but shows that punishment and the crime are matched not by the facts but by the random acts of gov. officials. Was it not something that american constitution tried to prevent?
The opinion of someone who is woefully ignorant of the law, the intent of the law, common law, and basic morality, but yet somehow is an expert on constitutional law.
It must be tough being so smart and surrounded by so many people that are blind to your brilliance.
I wonder how it came to be that one would be permitted to check web-based email in the hospital's pediatric cardiac surgery department?
And exactly why wouldn't be allowed? It's not like the computer is sitting in the surgery theater. Especially given that arbitrary restrictions of computer usage negatively impact productivity.
This incident could very well be the least of their problems for all they know.
It doesn't matter. If they can produce this stuff in any volume, it will drive the price of oil down for everyone. If they can do it in enough volume to supply the entire United States (not likely), then other companies will spring up doing the same thing, which will also drive the price down to just above the cost of production. That's how a free marketplace is supposed to work.
That's how economics works for elastic priced goods, in a free market. Neither of which exist here.
1. Oil is inelastically priced. People will pay whatever the price is. When oil hit $130 a barrel, no one stopped consuming oil. More importantly, $70 a barrel is considered a deal, when it was priced at $40 a barrel not that long ago.
2. There is not a free market for oil. The oil is dominated by an international cartel (OPEC) that literally sets the price of oil. Oil comes on to the market to move prices down. Oil comes off of the market to drive prices up. If this technology would begin to impact prices by increasing supply, OPEC will cut production to keep the supply low. Perhaps not before driving the price down to unprofitability.
Your faith in The Market(tm) is misguided, because as you examine how the largest players in the national international economies work, one can only come to the inescapable conclusion, that they quite literally, don't play by the same rules as you.
They delude you into thinking that you and them are on the same side, but you are not one of them. You are their resource, to manipulate and exploit.
Class war? Forget it. That war is over. The middle class lost.
Slashdot Mirror
Your solution of investing in the infrastructure is completely correct, but is a completely alien concept in modern business practices. Investment is a cost, and so by not investing you're cutting cost and maintaining profit.
AT&T's behavior is endemic in American business today, and has been for god, 20 - 30 years? The US frequently comes in near the bottom, and all too often, dead last when its infrastructure is compared to the other industrialized nations. If you just compare the modernized coast of China, it's infrastructure is better than the United States. Our broadband is horribly slow. Our cell phone system is antiquated and undeveloped. Our electrical system is overstretched and prone to brownouts. Since everyone else can't be "ahead of the curve," we're left with the unescapable conclusion, that we're behind it. We're way behind it when emerging economies are on par with us.
It's not just infrastructure. The auto makers are in collapse (with the notable exception of Ford) not only due to crushing healthcare costs due to retirees, but also because the lack of will to adapt to new trends and technologies. It's embarrassing that after getting their lunch ate by the Japanese back in the 70s when Detroit was turning out crap (in all fairness, American cars today very well made, and can compete in quality with anyone), that they let it happen again by placing all their eggs in the SUV basket while not just ignoring, but actively fighting fuel efficiency standards and slow walking the development of hybrids and all-electrics. Guess who owns that market now?
With electricity, we're told that our infrastructure doesn't suck, but yet a fucking squirrel can cut off 50 million people. Meanwhile we're told to deregulate to decrease costs, but instead we get market manipulation that actually increases costs. (It seems like we always forget why the regulation was put in place the first time, and then we have to repeated learn that companies will screw over the most people in worst possible way, thus harming all of us, all to increase profits.) Then when we do say that we're going to invest in a new electrical infrastructure, and do develop new technologies, we don't. The US is already lagging the world in green technology development.
We make nothing here, except except "exotic financial instruments," and we know how well those work. Yet, people wonder why this is is the second jobless "recovery" in a row. Real unemployment is at 17%, but hey, the Dow Jones Industrials have been on a steady rise since March, so everything is cool. Wages are down, unless you're to top 1%. The Chicago Fed reported that the US has the most unequal wealth distribution of any OCED country. We have government that won't pass reform that 65% of the public wants, because it would hurt the megacorp that bought politician.
We've been asleep at the switch for too damn long, and now we're over the cliff.
When Obama came in and was talking about reform, and infrastructure investment, and new technology investment, I thinking that it was about damn time. Yet, we're not getting it. Instead we get "too big to fail." None of these promises are playing out like he said, because the entrenched interests, and yet you can't vote for the Republicans, because they simply deny there's a problem.
Goddamn we suck.
4. Raise prices, lock in more users with contracts and exclusive manufacturers, and buy a tower here and there, just enough to pull people along.
AT&T isn't going to fix this problem, as long as the iPhone is popular. Investment is a cost. And modern American business is about the short(est) term.
My point exactly.
AT&T receives goverment aids so the rural area's get supported too
This isn't the 1930s anymore. Are you really sure that subsidies are still required?
So you are stating that the right to assemble can only be exercised on private land? If so done, can the government still bust your door down Waco-style?
When executing a properly obtained search warrant, yes. Which is exactly as it should be.
Ironically, of course, the government never did "bust down" the door at Waco, they were shot at, which is a felony. Then they camped out for weeks, until Koresh burned the place down from the inside. In retrospect, they should have busted down the door the first time.
Apparently, it just says I don't need to get the government's permission to hold a dinner party, but anything else I must get permission from them and, in many cases, pay them fees to freely associate with others in public.
No. You don't have the right to prevent other people from also freely assembling in public. The street belongs to everyone, and if you're keeping me from using my street, then fuck you.
You just want to do whatever you want an screw everyone else in the meantime. That's anarchy, and the rest of society doesn't like it.
No one wants to live in the world you want to live in.
Trains are great for crossing urban centers. A train from San Diego to LA would have been great when I lived in SD and worked in LA. Fix that problem, then we can talk about bullet trains.
And that's EXACTLY WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT! 1 hour 18 minutes.
You know, Tricky Dick Nixon promised us that Amtrak would only be living on the public teat for a couple of years, and then private investors would buy it. Didn't work out that way.
Which was obviously bullshit, because the railroads were getting out of passenger rail service because it was unprofitable. This is different because it's a proven technology being applied to a known market.
I've ridden on both Amtrak and high speed rail (Deutsche Bahn ICE), and there is simply no comparison. Amtrak is slow and cramped, and a throughly frustrating experience. The fact that it's faster to drive than ride, shows just how worthless Amtrak is. Amtrak should die, but doesn't because the reps from all the rural states (ironically, the ones that rail the most against "big government" and "government waste") continue fund it as being necessary. As the Amtrak Commissioner said back in the late 90s, they lose money on every run. They lose money on the capital expenditures on the high traffic Northeast Corridor, and they lose money on every trip on everywhere else. DB ICE on the other hand, is FAST and comfortable. I'd prefer it flying any day. Big seats. The ability to walk around. Tables. It's great. An American would say, "This is the future of travel!", while everyone else in the world would say, "It's 20 years old, jackass."
building the whole system will provide a lot of meaning full jobs.
Nope. It shifts jobs from productive activities to wealth-destroying government waste.
Oh come on. Public infrastructure as always provided jobs, and promoted investment. There's already significant travel between SF and LA, and Cal HSR simply takes advantage of this situation.
Oh, and the people of California want it. How do I know this? We put it to a vote.
It's a subsidy on corn. There's no tariff on sugar.
That said I have heard stories about corruption in the US over energy. I believe some company in California was producing rolling blackouts to increase the price or some such.[citation needed] But that doesn't have much to do with supply and demand.
That company was Enron, and the federal government, specifically the FERC, refused to investigate on a party line vote (GOP majority) at the time, because 1) it was making a hell of a lot of money for their corporate friends, and 2) it was damaging the political career of Democrat California governor Gray Davis, so much so it culminated with Davis's recall and election of Schwarnegger. Recall that the White House at the time repeatedly refereed to the blackouts in the most populous state in the union, and the 5th largest world economy as "California's problem.") The most important thing to remember about the California power crisis was that it was caused by the deregulation of the electrical production industry in California. Far from creating a market where power would be cheap, an electrical trading cartel was created where supply was manipulated for private profit, and public harm. (Also recall that in free market, both sides of a transaction benefit.)
You can read more at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_electricity_crisis
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/blackout/
Moral of the story: You can't trust deregulation
Oh absolutely, but the big advantage that hybrids have right now is that they take advantage of the existing infrastructure. Until there's either higher capacity batteries (like the article suggests) or more charging stations then that's what's viable today. By it's very nature, a hybrid is a transition technology, and we're in a time of transition.
Thus the logic behind the Volt. (Finally an electric car that doesn't look like ass, and doesn't cost 100k!)
Technically you don't need to charge at home. If you can charge at your destination, then that's good enough. I've seen several companies that have been introducing charging stations, and Berkeley has stations installed in several of its downtown city owned parking garages. Of course, probably none of this helps you, but it shows that it can be done, IF you have a progressive enough environment.
Congratulations. You have just argued for the violent overthrow of the government, in a public forum. In a time of war. An argument could be made that you just committed treason. Bravo. Instead, I'll just ask, Why do you hate America? And If you don't love America, why don't you just leave? We in Real America(tm), don't want you here. Go away.
Can't say I have the balls to put myself in the firing line
Wanting (other) people should risk their lives for your narrow and unpopular political beliefs, while refusing to take that risk yourself. You truly are a conservative. Dick "I had other priorities" Cheney would be proud.
Clearly, you've never heard of "food deserts." In the US, there are large areas of cities, predominately in the poor parts of town, where there are literally no grocery stores. If you don't have a car, and the bus system either doesn't go, or makes it very arduous to get to a grocery store in richer part of town, you simply don't go. Instead you head down to Mickey D's or the 7-Eleven and buy something to eat. No one believes that it's healthy, but you do what you've got to do. The NYT and the NYC Dept of City Planning reported on this phenomenon, complete with maps overlaying income, food availability, and obesity and diabetes rates.
But logically speaking taking action before you know the consequence of the action can be very bad. Many of the demands made to mitigate postulated anthropogenic global warming involve considerable expense, so all the things that we know for sure need doing (like feeding people) that might otherwise be done with the money constitutes the minimum opportunity cost.
Of course the irony is that the people benefiting from the status quo have always whined about the cost, even when at the time it was trivial. The sad fact is, that since AGW is a positive feedback loop, the longer we have delayed taking steps to slow/reverse the process, the harder and more expensive it becomes.
The maximum would be far greater - we might well cause one climate catastrophe as we seek to avert the other.
Yeah. It would be really a shame if more people took mass transit.
You tell people that District 9 is a movie about alien apartheid, you may not get much of a response. Tell them that it's a Peter Jackson movie, and interest skyrockets, because people have enjoyed his work before.
Which is really a shame since it's really a Neill Blomkamp movie. Same thing with 9 and and Shane Acker. Watching the previews, you'd think Tim Burton did it. Granted, in this case promoting the exec producer is giving a boost to the film, but there's no reason to give the actual writer-director the short shrift, when plenty of movies are billed "From executive producer Uncle Moneybags, comes the latest film by director Mr. Filmmaker..."
Defining a "hit" as one of the top ten or top 1000 or any absolute number is stupid. It reminds me of a political joke in the Soviet Union, where the result of a race between two athletes, a Russian and an American, was reported in the press as "the Russian came in second while the American was next to the last". In electrical and electronics engineering threshold values are often defined as the point where the power is one half of the maximum, the so-called "-3 dB" points.
There are 17,770 movies in the Netflix Prize training set. 1000 movies account for 5.63% of movies for the entire dataset. This 5% account for 63% of all rentals. If you use your threshold of "half of the maximum," then you have the top 100 movies. More to the point, your threshold definition using decibels is predicated on the data being normally distributed, and this data conforms to a power distribution, most likely Zip-Ian.
Getting back to your point of defining a "hit" based on profitability, that too is poor way of defining it. It's much easier for a very cheap film to make multiples of it's budget in revenue, but still no one sees it. Number of viewers has always been the traditional way of defining a hit. Revenue is just proxy for that.
It's Zipfian.
And that's why they cross at the corner.
In Soviet Russia Linux runs YOU!
why is this that fellow that is responsible for getting the records - this was obviously not his goal and if he is charged for it then it is just laughable.
What the hell is this supposed to mean? Since when has committing a crime unintentionally ever been a defense?
"Oh officer! I wasn't INTENDING to kill all the cancer stricken orphans when I driving drunk, speeding, and firing my gun wildly! I just intending to disturb the peace!"
"Oh! Well, that's a horse of a different color! I'll let you go with a warning then. Just try and keep it down next time. People are trying sleep around here."
"Will do!"
but why is the hospital getting the money - they are guilty of criminal negligence in handling patients' data so they should be paying not getting paid.
1. It's criminal trespassing to access a computer without permission. Which he did by sending the spyware to someone with the intent to observe them.
2. The hospital didn't hand out the data. It was stolen. It's still theft even if I leave the door wide open. It wasn't his. He has it, as a result of his actions.
to me it looks like one more example of justice system malfunctioning. It is not a great malfunction but shows that punishment and the crime are matched not by the facts but by the random acts of gov. officials. Was it not something that american constitution tried to prevent?
The opinion of someone who is woefully ignorant of the law, the intent of the law, common law, and basic morality, but yet somehow is an expert on constitutional law.
It must be tough being so smart and surrounded by so many people that are blind to your brilliance.
Go home and cry in your Ayn Rand novel.
I wonder how it came to be that one would be permitted to check web-based email in the hospital's pediatric cardiac surgery department?
And exactly why wouldn't be allowed? It's not like the computer is sitting in the surgery theater. Especially given that arbitrary restrictions of computer usage negatively impact productivity.
This incident could very well be the least of their problems for all they know.
I fail to see what you're implying. Elaborate.
It doesn't matter. If they can produce this stuff in any volume, it will drive the price of oil down for everyone. If they can do it in enough volume to supply the entire United States (not likely), then other companies will spring up doing the same thing, which will also drive the price down to just above the cost of production. That's how a free marketplace is supposed to work.
That's how economics works for elastic priced goods, in a free market. Neither of which exist here.
1. Oil is inelastically priced. People will pay whatever the price is. When oil hit $130 a barrel, no one stopped consuming oil. More importantly, $70 a barrel is considered a deal, when it was priced at $40 a barrel not that long ago.
2. There is not a free market for oil. The oil is dominated by an international cartel (OPEC) that literally sets the price of oil. Oil comes on to the market to move prices down. Oil comes off of the market to drive prices up. If this technology would begin to impact prices by increasing supply, OPEC will cut production to keep the supply low. Perhaps not before driving the price down to unprofitability.
Your faith in The Market(tm) is misguided, because as you examine how the largest players in the national international economies work, one can only come to the inescapable conclusion, that they quite literally, don't play by the same rules as you.
They delude you into thinking that you and them are on the same side, but you are not one of them. You are their resource, to manipulate and exploit.
Class war? Forget it. That war is over. The middle class lost.
Good point.
Look-n-feel copyright went down in flames in the Apple v. Microsoft case.
It's not look and feel. It's trade dress.