A disposable printer has already been made--it's called an Epson. I've had two, and I can't seem to get more than halfway through a cartridge before I need to replace it because it has dried out. I spend more time cleaning than printing (I print maybe once a month). I also don't seem to get decent prints until the third print on the expensive glossy paper.
I typically buy a printer based on ink cartridge cost. But that is not the only factor in the equation. So, I'll probably pay more money up front and get a Canon or a laser color printer. I'm pretty much sick of the bogus tricks the ink jet printer companies have been playing on customers.
Lexmark has only ruined their market for anyone savvy. After I heard of them trying to use DRMC tactics to ensure profits on their cartridges, I put them on my DO NOT BUY list.
I hope more consumers stay aware of abusive companies. Next on my list is WalMart, or companies that get goods from Saipan.
Dvorak right? Yes, it can happen. If you say the same thing for twenty years. Steve Jobs reason for porting was that Intel has better portable power, and maybe a better roadmap in the future. Possibly even DRM. One other benefit may be that it will make it easier for developers after they switch over. The PowerPC chip is currently superior to the Intel chip for Watt to Power ratio--the main shortfalls in speed probably have more to due with compiler optimizations. Intel's larger market provides for more optimization resources--so some of the deficiencies in the design can be overcome.
Moving developers to XCode will soften the transition. Dvorak is still a hack, and his logic and marketing sense are still flawed. Steve Jobs reasons are based more on the future of where technology is going, rather than the present that Dvorak harped on. Of course, I haven't bothered to read Dvorak -- I don't need to. To predict what he will say, simply go with whatever is the market leader -- then figure out what would most benefit that market leader. Like, once Apple moves to Intel, it should just move developers to C Sharp and Visual Studio instead of XCode.
But while this system may run Windows applications as well... other PC manufacturers will probably not be able to run OS X.
Overall, this will help Linux, because anyone moving an app or game to OS X on Intel will be moving it to UNIX on Intel. Current and future OS X releases will see better compatibility for running Linux applications (like X11 now). Dvorak will predict that the sun will rise tomorrow and that this is proof that Linux will fail.
Even though the broken watch can actually be correct eventually-- I am not going to use it to tell time. Dvorak and Enderle are examples of what I think has gone wrong with advertiser sponsored opinions. I've been better at predicting future developments then the two of those hacks put together--and I don't even have a press pass (not bragging, I'm just pointing out how low the bar is).
You are right-- I was confusing a desktop with a server. A compromised server would have to be reformatted--unless of course you could compare it to an image. Thanks for the correction.
I think the future of CPUs will be Intel, AMD and IBM. I don't see any room for FreeScale. Though they might have a great chip to offer--it will be OK compared to everything else when someone will have any way to ship with a FreeScale motherboard. There are so many other investments in a platform then just the chip.
Then you have to be sure that they can deliver and keep improving year after year. I'd hate to be a vendor that depended on freescale as my only option. Of course, FreeScale could have just announced something that is in development, so that people might think its just around the corner and not lose faith--its been known to happen.
My guess is that FreeScale will fail and then transition into specialty chips. This venture is too little, too late.
One note on parent post; SOI is a process technology--not a particular RISC or Power architecture. I'll agree that IBM has more patents and has better tech. But Intel has better production experience in FABs. X86 architecture will have a lot of junk that Mac OS X won't use--but everything else is pretty similar (except for being "registry starved" on the PC).
The main issue with moving to Intel is drivers and support for applications that don't use xCode. In a year + 1/2, I think Apple will have addressed that. I think the transition will be smoother than the one to OS X.
Short term, IBM's multicore should be much faster than Intel's. Intel's latest chip seems to be a slapped together to beat AMD's which is superior. Also, if games are any indication, all 3 console manufacturers moving to Power chips has to have some effect. I guess I would have to go with Job's prediction that Intel had a better roadmap--he has more details on this. I heard some discussion that the "trusted computing" or DRM security on-chip for Intel CPUs in the future was the reason--but I'd have to say it would only be a consideration. Apple could always add a custom ASIC to secure DRM to become a future video platform. The move to Intel is too massive a transition for just DRM. One good piece of news on this is that this means Apple will get WiMax--which is set to create yet another sea change in wireless data transfers and possibly be a means for Internet Services in the future.
My guess is that Apple might choose to go with a modified Intel chip--but I doubt it. Jobs has fallen into the pigeon hole too many times. So what Jobs said was the reason is most probably the reason--power per Watt. I'd have to say, that give and take all pros and cons of every chip--the current AMD multicore 64 bit chip is the top performer. I still lament that lackluster use of Altivec-- it showed such promise.
The big downside of this is, of course, vendors and developers who invested in the platform. Cross-platform vendors will be delighted to be X86-only--but some of the others may become disenchanted (short term). Big endian and little endian may be some issue, but I think Apple has abstracted from this well enough. Marklar is hardly a surprise--I would have thought Apple silly to not keep up a cross-platform development. Supposedly they are using the services of a company that boasts no speed penalty on emulation--but that sounds like a bit of fairy dust.
I really hope that Apple, even though only their computers will run OS X, doesn't make the mistake of making a box that couldn't also run Windows--that would be dumb.
One other issue will be, namely; when does this kill computer sales? I could see buying the next updated Mac in a month or two, but not a PowerPC Mac in July of 2006. What will Apple do to keep people buying? I would hope they'd offer a really good trade-in policy. Like; buy now, and you will be able to upgrade to the latest Intel/AMD machine later for 30% of retail price--kind of the cost of depreciation. If Apple did this (and the really, really should), they could restore consumer confidence so that sales don't tank.
Overall, I'm kind of mixed. Intel and AMD have benefits of mass scale and a lot of designs referenced for the platform. But the PowerPC was cheaper to build and lower power and is overall the most advanced chip (even though it could really use some improvements, most of those are due to GCC and other compilers not being as well optimized as the Intel line).
But once the transition is over, I think Apple can then take advantage of simply improving the OS without having to optimize all the hardware to keep up. Mac OS X just seems to be a better design model to update and improve than Windows--and just wait until you see what third-party developers do with Core Graphics and Core Video. The CEL chip should take advantage of these abstracted processes no matter which platform Apple uses. CEL is where the real power boost of the future is going -- at least where Video and 3D are
I suppose you could actually use a piece of logic to store a charge. The problem with most battery tech is the interface to allow the energy to discharge--all of them tend to bleed energy. So with a molecule sized transistor, you could send it a message saying, yes I want that charge, and it would release it.
Of course, it would take energy to send the message, so you'd probably have a big packet of energy like a watt, and release the whole packet into a capacitor to bleed that off to give you a consistent charge.
It would make a big difference in battery storage.
Personally, I think the the best battery we could have right now would use a loop of superconductor to store huge charges. The only issue is room temperature superconductors--that's when I'll get excited.
If I were using Windows, I'd format and re-install. That's why when Microsoft said; "removed the offending code" it is pretty funny. Because they are removing Windows.
On another OS, like MacOS X, UNIX or even maybe NT 3.5 or Windows 2K (if you know a lot) you can actually fix the OS. Our IT people don't have any repair software at all--they always format and install. This works only because most of the people they service just work with documents in the usual applications. But, when I set up my computer, it is set up for video editing, design, programming, web development, multimedia, communications services, maybe a webserver, etc. On My Mac, I create cloned OSs and I can actually "FIX" things.
So when you say Well, what would you do? it tells me that you aren't even aware of another way of coexisting with a computer. OK. Maybe you are, but it points out that this is the "ONLY" way to fix a Windows XP install. The thing is to blinking convoluted to repair.
Yes, the document will be open but not the "patent". Too many lawsuits have chiseled away at Microsoft's proprietary formats -- so the horse is already out of the barn.
The new patent and sue strategy should be much more profitable and successful. If Microsoft can be a good company and make a buck, or be evil and make a buck and 2 pennies, they'll go for the $1.02 solution every time.
I think they enjoy "putting one over" on everyone. I can just imagine the backslapping on this new "open format" plan.
A company where I used to work created a number of multimedia projects for NASA. I actually got to visit NASA Marshall. A lot of great people are still there. By the way, many are total fans of Von Braun and still regard some of his designs as feasible.
For NASA to be saved, you'd have to have a powerful politician to take the reigns and build a skunkworks from hand-picked people. Mostly, I think there are a lot of discouraged people who have had nothing GREAT to inspire them for decades--so a racehorse becomes a plow mule because he doesn't see the point in doing anything that will make waves. The problem is, you'd need someone who understood the issue and was a totally dedicated advocate. I know I'll get chaff for this, but we need an "Al Gore" for NASA. Anyone who reads up on the early push would realize that the DotCom boom would never have occured in America without that kind of leadership. The only other alternative is someone like Bill Gates deciding he is through with the daily grind and doesn't care about making money anymore. I think you'd have to burn at least a $100 Billion to just get the ball rolling.
But we won't have that kind of leader until we get the dead wood out of the White House. Maybe Ross Perot -- does anyone still think that man was spouting nonsense with his conspiracy theories anymore? OK-- I think he's crazy, but he was also right.
About a year ago I was looking for airline tickets on the usual web aggregators. I found about $175 for a ticket to Miami. Later, when checking the price, I couldn't find any for less than $250.
When I later used a computer to check again at another office, the price was like $190.
I thought I was savvy, but your comments just made this click for me... wow, what a dirty trick. They know you are interested, and by slowly upping the "bid" each time you access the site, they are making you think you've got to hurry up and buy before it's too late.
Next time I fly, I'm going to pocket as many extra peanuts as I can swindle out of the attendant!
I don't think a prize will work. Getting anything into outer space is expensive and complicated. The fact that some individual entrepreneurs can get a rocket out of the atmosphere doesn't mean they can do anything useful. They would have to have a few Billion and be positive they could do it first. So the prize would have to be more than what it would cost the government to do it. Which would be the same as just picking the one or two corporations that could do it. Actually, you'd have to either coordinate a dozen companies or build a new company from scratch just to make it to the moon--one that had no product it could sell our current revenue. Sounds a lot like a government to me.
I see a lot of problems with NASA--but it will also take a government funded entity like NASA to do it. Government is the exact RIGHT entity to take on projects that don't have a pay-off in the near future but that benefit society.
Businesses are really great. But they are designed to make a profit and not to benefit the most people with the least money. There is a lot of necessary overhead is businesses to manage and procure money.
Again, NASA is bloated and not as efficient as they could be. But parts of NASA have managed the impossible. You just need to get the political hacks and bureaucrats out of the organization. Many of the greatest engineers and scientists have not been driven by money. An organization like NASA is a haven for them to just work on the thought problems and not be concerned with pushing a resume. Maybe NASA can't be fixed, but you aren't going to get to Mars without the government paying someone to do it. If you make it an external company, then you are picking one company to receive benefits that other companies and taxpayers won't. At this scale, you don't necessarily get any efficiency with a corporation.
I don't like the Mars mission because it isn't driven by science--and the money could be better spent creating an infrastructure in space first. Also, it's something that Bush wanted, so you know all the money will be missing and it will be somehow, a minor clerks fault who endagered lives by pointing out that the hydrogen tanks are leaking. But don't gripe about the money unless you first speak out about the collosal amounts of funds spent on military and corporate welfare.
I want to save taxpayer money too. But let's not get all huffy about a Billion $ Mars Rover when we have 25 stealth bombers that are pretty much useless.
You are correct that anyone can tell how much traffic a website gets without knowing the people accessing it. Pretty easy to tell what gets hits and what doesn't.
Equally stupid argument would be to say you will stop using Slashdot because you are so afraid the Slashdot owners will call your wife and tell her about your Slashdot ramblings.
I am nervous already. If a few slashdot users were hauled in to court--or more likely, detained without court intervention based on a "conspiracy" charge-- I think that a lot more anti-government posts would be anonymous. They haven't done this yet (as far as I know)--but under the Patriot Act, they can. There is no oversight to make sure they did they right thing, other than people protesting that somehow "Jimmy" is no longer around. I'm not impressed with the argument "they haven't done that yet". Well, I never thought the government would pay churches to do public service projects. Or have a policy of torture. Or pay $ Billions to private corporations to serve troops food. Or hire mercenaries. Or prop up the currency. Or a hundred other things that I thought I'd never see from America.
So yes, Anonymity is important for people to express themselves in ways that are important to them, but are censored by government or theology. Now more than ever.
I pay for a lot of things. I don't do drugs. And I don't cheat on my wife.
However. That is good for me. It does not impress me when someone says how honest or loyal or religious they are. Good for them if they are. But no big deal. To me, being good is its own reward.
Why am I making this point? The whole point of our Democracy is government subject to the will of the people. We give people gun permits and laws and ask them to not to harm others. For most people, they do the right thing. We ask people not to steal and most people do not. So, it is an honor system. The government has power and control so long as it doesn't abuse it (well, at least that was the attempt with how the founding fathers structured the government).
When people are anonymous, the honor system breaks down. Hence P2P. Anonymous people do and say things they otherwise wouldn't. But is that wrong? Current news shows that people who suck up and kick down, no matter how unscrupulous, get promoted as long as they support the status quo. Whistle blowers and people of conscience, who go out on the limb, whether it be for investigative journalism or to speak out about corruption, are fired or worse.
Then we have to worry about the coming storm of thought police. How soon until we get public humiliation again (stockades) or tattoo the letter "A" on people's forehead. I've heard worse suggestions on the Neal Bortz show.
But P2P is a check and a balance on corporate and morality control. Anyone with any clue (a rhetorical arguement, but I don't wish to argue that the world is round) can see that corporations have the upper hand with creating protective laws and influencing law enforcement. The government shouldn't be in the business of protecting profits--somehow forgotten in our brainwashed heads is the notion of utility and what government is for. Could you imagine the FBI following a shoplifter home? Or, more accurately, imprisoning someone for making a copy of a dress design on their own sewing machine? In the first place, copyright infringement is not theft--it is loss of revenue. And using laws and police to ensure a profit margin is taking tax payer money. Additionally, we already pay a "tax" on all sorts of media because it "could" be used for copyright infringement. So how can anyone be stealing a product we all paid for?
So, P2P works to force companies to provide utility. If they can't be more convenient or useful as a company--what Utility do they provide a citizen of the United States? Copyright and patent law was originally intended to provide some compensation in order to reward innovators. Except for a few circumstances, these days it does the reverse and is merely a treasure to reward those who own--not innovators. I doubt one in a hundred even knows what "the consumer is sovereign" means. But not working for the status quo doesn't pay in mass media, so you won't here it mentioned.
P2P has more of an effect on "control" than it does on "profit". The fact that X mp3s have been downloaded does not translate to X mp3s would be bought. In fact, it is argueable that music sales might decrease, without downloadable works.
I'd much rather live in a country that allows people to do wrong. Holland is a better place ot live than Saudi Arabia. Seems that so many people want good things controlled and legislated, they don't realize that they don't get to decide WHAT is controlled and legislated--only the biggest pig at the trough wins.
So I'm in favor of anything that allows for the anonymous transfer of information. I may not avail myself of it, but it also allows for an outlet when corporations and governments overreach. If someone could get a CD for $1 or a movie for $3 on iTunes, do you think this would even be a discussion?
We don't make the world better, if it could--possibly, inflict damage on profit margins.
Kind of reverse of the priorities we should have.
My son is getting Asthma, as are about 30% of children in the USA. But there is no alarm, no-multibillion dollar search for the cause. Everytime there are some constitutional rights to get rid of, "it's for the children". I just hope our kids are healthy enough to enjoy all the corruption we are trying to protect them from.
I am sure someone out there has a web site comparing Star Trek to Star Wars. I can't resist, however, arguing about who can kick the most ass.
Basically, I think on hand-to-hand the Star Wars gang is going to pound any Trek denizens to sand. Unless they are fighting Data, or one of the mighty morphing creatures.
On technology, Star Trek beats Star Wars, except strangely, in the technology of making people survive battles. Star Trek seems to have an unscientific aversion to cloning or implants --unless they go horribly wrong.
Star Wars ships seem to go faster, for no other reason than it seems that Lucas is uninterested in the "journey" of space travel. But SW shields seem to be less powerful. ST weapons are many orders of magnitude more powerful.
SW may have the force, but in ST, people accidentally get God-like powers as often as they might get killed. So watch out for an occasionally Hyper Evolved Kirk.
SW doesn't have transporters, but ST doesn't have sound effects in space (you only hear the blasts inside the ships). OK, I basically have no point here other than SW doesn't have transporters.
SW has a lot more cool and funky war machines. Most weapons systems seem kind of useless--in the grand scheme. Other than tie fighters dodging about, big ships seem to just stand broadside of each other and fire. For some reason, computers just can't seem to automatically home into a target (in ether Universe). I'm sure some gamers would argue these points, but they are, of course, playing games. Tactics, or troop strategies seem to be better in SW--because basically, in ST, all you do is go through an excessively large air vent, and nobody has thought to add a motion detector. At least in SW, somebody has to sneak around and disable something--and they never have a man wearing a corset, using a double-handed slam as though that were the coolest fighting technique and advanced civilization can come up with. And for some reason, in ST, only good guys can shoot straight. But ST seems to work better with large strategies, like inventing a new use for the deflector array, while in SW, somebody is just going to have to die--a nod towards realism, I suppose.
In SW, all races are more or less on the same level, with humans somehow being the best model to clone for troops. In ST, even having an extra heavy eyebrow can mean a race has telepathy --so different creatures matter. Even Wookies don't have Borg strength. Generally in SW, it's all about the Force and robots are wimps. In ST, machines are more of a real threat, though they are used much less (perhaps all those "Discarded Doomsday machines that keep killing" issue might have made its point). I only have one comment on this; why has nobody talked about the issue of EMP shielding? Of course, shielding life forms is even tougher. Everyone on a future battlefield will have to, at least where goggles. I mean, flooding the area with blinding laser light is just pretty obvious.
When you add it all up, you realize that both these Sci-Fi epics are pretty weak on anything important to say about technology, fighting or how people will be influenced by said technology. But I still think those walkers are cool looking. So who cares?
So. The bunny is becoming fuzzier because that will get it more sympathy?
It takes a few hundred years for many animals to adapt behaviors to humans.
I'm not really arguing with you. Just pointing out that there are limits to evolution. Depending upon extra-species sympathy would be a very complicated adaptation that would require a very stable environment and a lot longer. There are examples of complicated extra-species behaviour in nature, but they all of them that I have seen look like they took a LOT of stability and time to develop.
If you are talking about "the world mind" or the mass subconsciousness of humans, then maybe, but it might be hard to rely on.
The only problem I have, is that we don't need to be giving excuses to 4 year olds. We need to get the kids to eat their fruits and vegetables and not eat sugary cereals. Explaining about minerals or simple carbohydrates just gives the wily kid a "way out".
There is such a small "down side" to following an enviro-friendly policy. The worst is that you waste some money, or make a few companies less efficient, or do something of no benefit (like with some nuclear regulation) that is based on poor science.
Right now, we are all stuck in this massive experiment. Where we are destroying things we can't replace, for what? An extra profitable quarter? And most of the benefits, like to a power plant that gets to avoid an expensive air scrubber--end up being paid for many times over by others. So that one utility makes a 5% bonus, I spend a few thousand more dollars in health care. It not only doesn't make economic sense, the anti-environmentalists are just suicidal children.
So, the adults in the room need to put aside their squabbles about esoteric details and send the kids to their room without dinner until they can sit down and eat their peas.
Gee. Give you an example of another life form on earth that could farm and wear clothes and that went extinct.
Do you have to wait for an example? How about just populations of people?
Easter Island. Rome (they deforested and created smog burning iron ore out of mines to keep their expansionist war machine going. It is thought that the lead lining of their water pipes lead to widespread retardation and emotional instability--especially in their leaders). New Zealand. Indigenous people are gone--clear enough? There are quite a few islands on our side of the atlantic that were wiped out, either by war or disease. When the Spanish invaded the Aztecs, only one in 25 people survived--merely due to not being adapted to European disease like Cholera.
About 90% of the Flu epidemics come from China. Why? Because they fertilize with human waste. The run-off goes into ponds where they raise fish. The birds and pigs that also live on the farms are part of this mini-ecosystem. Suffice to say, that in epidemiology, that if a bacterium, pest or virus has another ecosystem to rely on, then the transmission vehicle (like people) are cannon fodder. Another example is Malaria that wipes out millions, because its environment is Misquitoes--which are undamaged by it.
There have been a few books on this subject of humans wiping themselves out because either by Religious doctrine or an out of touch leadership (in fact, it is almost always the case of rulers who are separated from the plight of the people, that you find the biggest issues of environmental disaster). I don't really have the time to look them all up. Suffice to say, that if you want, you can find a lot of examples of whole societies and races of people vanishing due to either over-exploiting their environment or to transforming their natural environment too quickly, thus producing crossover diseases (like avian flu).
So, either we listen to a few whiney Environmentalists and tree huggers and spend about 1% of GDP on pollution regulation and things like the CDC. Use conservation and education to compete in the global marketplace. Winner--everyone.
Or we do it the NeoCon way. Let the dice fall where they may. Spend 10% of GDP to dominate and bomb other countries and take their resources. Support tyrants around the world so that they can give contracts to US companys to clear cut forests for hamburgers. Risks; nuclear armageddon or eco-failure. Upside; A few people get 10 mile-long yachts instead of merely 300 ft yachts.
Soon, you won't get propaganda about there being "no global warming". You will get propaganda about the "benefits of global warming". Just wait. A few purchased scientists to spread FUD are not going to be able to cover up a cascading ice field in Antarctica.
Gee. I think I'll side with the more "conservative" approach and not risk destroying the planet.
Look, I get the "nature is not just fuzzy bunnies" argument. Though simplistic, it is true. But you also don't "get" that things like a rain forest developed over millions of years and most animals live synergistically. Meaning, the tiger isn't in an arms race to develop bigger teeth and always get faster. The tiger would quickly run out of food.
Also, in environments where there is plenty of food, you find animals competing more with sexual selection rather than with direct competition. If it were all "survival of the fittest", nature would never have Peacocks. Everything would be ugly, drab killing machines. But that is far from what we see in nature.
This old discussion about "survival of the fittest" needs to evolve. Darwins theory involved "survival of the fittest". There are also more modern "theories" of evolution and perhaps there are many ways that creatures evolve. The one fact is that "things change" and that is evolution. The process of "how things change" is very complex and subtle.
But humanity is a collective society. We don't get thicker pelts, we get jackets at the Mall. This collective chest beating of a certain persuasion in our society is idiotic at best. Trying to apply a macho world view to policies over environment results in the Asthma epidemics and deforestation that we are currently hurtling into.
Do you really want to just survive? Couldn't we like, use retroviruses to improve genetic diseases. Educate and heal everyone, and compete to have extra nice things rather than on basic survival? Why can't we just be nice to eachother, and raise up the least among us? Do we have to let some go without, so that a lucky few can have 10 times the fortune they have now? You want no limits on the top or the bottom of wages but somehow you want torte reform? Can you not see who your brainwashing benefits?
If you follow your worldview to its ultimate conclusion, you would already be obsolete. In your world view, Shakespeare and Einstein can't exist, because they would be lousy at making money or running away from Tigers. There would be no leisure time to ponder beyond the mud outside our huts.
I'm sick and tired of waiting for you nuckle-draggers to grow up. I'm not going to live in your world, so you get out of mine. Find an island with Donald Trump so you can exploit eachother to your hearts content.
You are expecting that these nuckle-draggers have thought about this argument?
If it is about the environment or social supports then "evolution". If it is about education then "creationism". If it is about people that they like winning its "values". If the other side wins then its "corruption". If the other side cheats "where's the outrage". If their side is accused of cheating its "a conspiracy theory". If a country that is not on our side has a tsunami its "God's Will". If it is a county in the bible belt with a fire its "a catastrophy of nature".
It is a mish mosh of thoughtful sounding phrases, more heat than light.
This is what is called "convenient logic". It would be a nightmare connecting this person's world view a graph of what they think is right and wrong.
Yes. We need more animals and plants adapted for obnoxious car fumes and toxic waste.
Editors Note: I think I'll skip an intelligent arguement about how we have distorted the environment, and that the last mass extinction that the earth experinced was 65 million years ago and resulted in the dominant species of the time dying out and just make fun of this really callous and stupid suggestion.
Maybe I should just go extinct and make room for Superior NeoCons and other Social Darwinists (who are strangley pro-Intelligent Design).
Obviously, obnoxious fumes don't bother Colin Smith.
No Species has a right to exist --Colin Smith, 2005
No American has a right to a job --Carli Fiorina, 2004
No stinkin' kids in my yard -- Cranky Geeser, 1980
If you don't like America, then get out. --McCarthy
Kill 'em all and let God sort them out. --Patton?
I think, that the next person who talks about "survival of the fittest", needs to demonstrate what they are talking about by hot oil wrestling a tiger. Because, I survive with my wits, I will not only be on the otherside of the cage, but I'll sell tickets and popcorn.
Being able to bribe a politician is actually an effective system for deciding how good companies are at "getting things done".
If we just made the systems about bribes, and got rid of all the laws that made these companies have to jump through hoops to pretend that it is about efficiency or that they are the best company for the job but we can't see anything that documents that. Over time "direct" bribes would have to become more and more grandiose as companies vie for the honor of government largess. Eventually, with market forces, bribing politicians will be more expensive that providing great products. And business that actually provide services will be better able to compete on utility, rather than on who can lose the most integrity.
Perhaps, we could have taxpayers receive money, of what is bid to buy the public airwaves in order to transmit more propaganda. Right now, I get propaganda and nobody subsidizes my home. Or maybe--coupons! I could see a "news segment" on Good Morning America talking about the wonders of processed cheese. Then, a Velveeta coupon from ABC in my mailbox the next morning. There are advantages to a more "open corruption".
Of course, before market forces on "campaign donations" could ever achieve this effect, our economy would implode. Since that is bound to happen anyway, the only question left is; "which system will buy me a mule and a plow sooner?" We should all ponder this.
So, I recommend that, instead of wasting $8 Billion for Halliburton to squirrel away about 10% for what amounts to KP Duty. We just directly bribe the Bush family with $1 Billion to "just go away." I'm not a vengeful person, I think we should just set up a donation to make good things happen. If it takes a lot of "direct donations", then so be it. Funneling money to all the crooks and parasites these days is so much more inefficient--it's cost us a $1 Trillion over the past 6 years. We need to just buy out the top dogs. If we had done this during the Cold War with the USSR, we could have sent the entire Politburo to the South of France for a measely 20 Billion $, rather than the $500 Billion (give or take a $ Trillion) that Reagan wasted (of course, at the end, he was trying to sneak them money to stay afloat--curious).
Downloadable low-rez movies... that would really hurt the PTP market--it might even be an infringement. A 320x240 and grainy picture on a computer with sound like it's coming from a real,authentic, fast food drive through would be plenty good enough for about half the market. I mean, some people think they are eating good food at a restaurant if some manager decorated with ferns.
Appreciation of quality and the desire to pay for it made Apple a niche product. Nobody would go to a theater to see a special effects film with 7.1 surround sound and 2k resolution. There are so many examples where quality and service are a recipe for failure. It could have killed McDonalds and WalMart. Thank goodness Ray Kroc and Sam Walton were such visionaries.
Next, you'll say, allowing downloads of tv shows that you see broadcast on Classic TV for free would be OK? Making it legal would really kill the charm and guilty pleasure you feel watching a Seinfeld AVI at 3 am--rather than watching it at 4pm on Nickelodeon or 5pm on Turner or 6pm on UPN. Wow, come to think of it, Seinfeld is pretty ubiquitous...
Save P2P and keep grainy, low quality videos with poor service and transmission reliability illegal. Are you trying to kill the gray market? In the end sir, have you no decency? Have you no decency? Good day sir. I say good day.
Slashdot Mirror
A disposable printer has already been made--it's called an Epson. I've had two, and I can't seem to get more than halfway through a cartridge before I need to replace it because it has dried out. I spend more time cleaning than printing (I print maybe once a month). I also don't seem to get decent prints until the third print on the expensive glossy paper.
I typically buy a printer based on ink cartridge cost. But that is not the only factor in the equation. So, I'll probably pay more money up front and get a Canon or a laser color printer. I'm pretty much sick of the bogus tricks the ink jet printer companies have been playing on customers.
Lexmark has only ruined their market for anyone savvy. After I heard of them trying to use DRMC tactics to ensure profits on their cartridges, I put them on my DO NOT BUY list.
I hope more consumers stay aware of abusive companies. Next on my list is WalMart, or companies that get goods from Saipan.
Dvorak right? Yes, it can happen. If you say the same thing for twenty years. Steve Jobs reason for porting was that Intel has better portable power, and maybe a better roadmap in the future. Possibly even DRM. One other benefit may be that it will make it easier for developers after they switch over. The PowerPC chip is currently superior to the Intel chip for Watt to Power ratio--the main shortfalls in speed probably have more to due with compiler optimizations. Intel's larger market provides for more optimization resources--so some of the deficiencies in the design can be overcome.
Moving developers to XCode will soften the transition. Dvorak is still a hack, and his logic and marketing sense are still flawed. Steve Jobs reasons are based more on the future of where technology is going, rather than the present that Dvorak harped on. Of course, I haven't bothered to read Dvorak -- I don't need to. To predict what he will say, simply go with whatever is the market leader -- then figure out what would most benefit that market leader. Like, once Apple moves to Intel, it should just move developers to C Sharp and Visual Studio instead of XCode.
But while this system may run Windows applications as well... other PC manufacturers will probably not be able to run OS X.
Overall, this will help Linux, because anyone moving an app or game to OS X on Intel will be moving it to UNIX on Intel. Current and future OS X releases will see better compatibility for running Linux applications (like X11 now). Dvorak will predict that the sun will rise tomorrow and that this is proof that Linux will fail.
Even though the broken watch can actually be correct eventually-- I am not going to use it to tell time. Dvorak and Enderle are examples of what I think has gone wrong with advertiser sponsored opinions. I've been better at predicting future developments then the two of those hacks put together--and I don't even have a press pass (not bragging, I'm just pointing out how low the bar is).
You are right-- I was confusing a desktop with a server. A compromised server would have to be reformatted--unless of course you could compare it to an image. Thanks for the correction.
I think the future of CPUs will be Intel, AMD and IBM. I don't see any room for FreeScale. Though they might have a great chip to offer--it will be OK compared to everything else when someone will have any way to ship with a FreeScale motherboard. There are so many other investments in a platform then just the chip.
Then you have to be sure that they can deliver and keep improving year after year. I'd hate to be a vendor that depended on freescale as my only option. Of course, FreeScale could have just announced something that is in development, so that people might think its just around the corner and not lose faith--its been known to happen.
My guess is that FreeScale will fail and then transition into specialty chips. This venture is too little, too late.
Of course, I could be wrong. Just an opinion.
One note on parent post; SOI is a process technology--not a particular RISC or Power architecture. I'll agree that IBM has more patents and has better tech. But Intel has better production experience in FABs. X86 architecture will have a lot of junk that Mac OS X won't use--but everything else is pretty similar (except for being "registry starved" on the PC).
The main issue with moving to Intel is drivers and support for applications that don't use xCode. In a year + 1/2, I think Apple will have addressed that. I think the transition will be smoother than the one to OS X.
Short term, IBM's multicore should be much faster than Intel's. Intel's latest chip seems to be a slapped together to beat AMD's which is superior. Also, if games are any indication, all 3 console manufacturers moving to Power chips has to have some effect. I guess I would have to go with Job's prediction that Intel had a better roadmap--he has more details on this. I heard some discussion that the "trusted computing" or DRM security on-chip for Intel CPUs in the future was the reason--but I'd have to say it would only be a consideration. Apple could always add a custom ASIC to secure DRM to become a future video platform. The move to Intel is too massive a transition for just DRM. One good piece of news on this is that this means Apple will get WiMax--which is set to create yet another sea change in wireless data transfers and possibly be a means for Internet Services in the future.
My guess is that Apple might choose to go with a modified Intel chip--but I doubt it. Jobs has fallen into the pigeon hole too many times. So what Jobs said was the reason is most probably the reason--power per Watt. I'd have to say, that give and take all pros and cons of every chip--the current AMD multicore 64 bit chip is the top performer. I still lament that lackluster use of Altivec-- it showed such promise.
The big downside of this is, of course, vendors and developers who invested in the platform. Cross-platform vendors will be delighted to be X86-only--but some of the others may become disenchanted (short term). Big endian and little endian may be some issue, but I think Apple has abstracted from this well enough. Marklar is hardly a surprise--I would have thought Apple silly to not keep up a cross-platform development. Supposedly they are using the services of a company that boasts no speed penalty on emulation--but that sounds like a bit of fairy dust.
I really hope that Apple, even though only their computers will run OS X, doesn't make the mistake of making a box that couldn't also run Windows--that would be dumb.
One other issue will be, namely; when does this kill computer sales? I could see buying the next updated Mac in a month or two, but not a PowerPC Mac in July of 2006. What will Apple do to keep people buying? I would hope they'd offer a really good trade-in policy. Like; buy now, and you will be able to upgrade to the latest Intel/AMD machine later for 30% of retail price--kind of the cost of depreciation. If Apple did this (and the really, really should), they could restore consumer confidence so that sales don't tank.
Overall, I'm kind of mixed. Intel and AMD have benefits of mass scale and a lot of designs referenced for the platform. But the PowerPC was cheaper to build and lower power and is overall the most advanced chip (even though it could really use some improvements, most of those are due to GCC and other compilers not being as well optimized as the Intel line).
But once the transition is over, I think Apple can then take advantage of simply improving the OS without having to optimize all the hardware to keep up. Mac OS X just seems to be a better design model to update and improve than Windows--and just wait until you see what third-party developers do with Core Graphics and Core Video. The CEL chip should take advantage of these abstracted processes no matter which platform Apple uses. CEL is where the real power boost of the future is going -- at least where Video and 3D are
I suppose you could actually use a piece of logic to store a charge. The problem with most battery tech is the interface to allow the energy to discharge--all of them tend to bleed energy. So with a molecule sized transistor, you could send it a message saying, yes I want that charge, and it would release it.
Of course, it would take energy to send the message, so you'd probably have a big packet of energy like a watt, and release the whole packet into a capacitor to bleed that off to give you a consistent charge.
It would make a big difference in battery storage.
Personally, I think the the best battery we could have right now would use a loop of superconductor to store huge charges. The only issue is room temperature superconductors--that's when I'll get excited.
I imagine in the near future a commercial:
For the sexy salesman in you, it's Oxy Toe Sin, because you want them to do your bidding.
It will be sold in little displays by plaid jackets everywhere. Or next to Rufees.
If I were using Windows, I'd format and re-install. That's why when Microsoft said; "removed the offending code" it is pretty funny. Because they are removing Windows.
On another OS, like MacOS X, UNIX or even maybe NT 3.5 or Windows 2K (if you know a lot) you can actually fix the OS. Our IT people don't have any repair software at all--they always format and install. This works only because most of the people they service just work with documents in the usual applications. But, when I set up my computer, it is set up for video editing, design, programming, web development, multimedia, communications services, maybe a webserver, etc. On My Mac, I create cloned OSs and I can actually "FIX" things.
So when you say Well, what would you do? it tells me that you aren't even aware of another way of coexisting with a computer. OK. Maybe you are, but it points out that this is the "ONLY" way to fix a Windows XP install. The thing is to blinking convoluted to repair.
Yes, the document will be open but not the "patent". Too many lawsuits have chiseled away at Microsoft's proprietary formats -- so the horse is already out of the barn.
The new patent and sue strategy should be much more profitable and successful. If Microsoft can be a good company and make a buck, or be evil and make a buck and 2 pennies, they'll go for the $1.02 solution every time.
I think they enjoy "putting one over" on everyone. I can just imagine the backslapping on this new "open format" plan.
A company where I used to work created a number of multimedia projects for NASA. I actually got to visit NASA Marshall. A lot of great people are still there. By the way, many are total fans of Von Braun and still regard some of his designs as feasible.
For NASA to be saved, you'd have to have a powerful politician to take the reigns and build a skunkworks from hand-picked people. Mostly, I think there are a lot of discouraged people who have had nothing GREAT to inspire them for decades--so a racehorse becomes a plow mule because he doesn't see the point in doing anything that will make waves. The problem is, you'd need someone who understood the issue and was a totally dedicated advocate. I know I'll get chaff for this, but we need an "Al Gore" for NASA. Anyone who reads up on the early push would realize that the DotCom boom would never have occured in America without that kind of leadership. The only other alternative is someone like Bill Gates deciding he is through with the daily grind and doesn't care about making money anymore. I think you'd have to burn at least a $100 Billion to just get the ball rolling.
But we won't have that kind of leader until we get the dead wood out of the White House. Maybe Ross Perot -- does anyone still think that man was spouting nonsense with his conspiracy theories anymore? OK-- I think he's crazy, but he was also right.
About a year ago I was looking for airline tickets on the usual web aggregators. I found about $175 for a ticket to Miami. Later, when checking the price, I couldn't find any for less than $250.
When I later used a computer to check again at another office, the price was like $190.
I thought I was savvy, but your comments just made this click for me... wow, what a dirty trick. They know you are interested, and by slowly upping the "bid" each time you access the site, they are making you think you've got to hurry up and buy before it's too late.
Next time I fly, I'm going to pocket as many extra peanuts as I can swindle out of the attendant!
I don't think a prize will work. Getting anything into outer space is expensive and complicated. The fact that some individual entrepreneurs can get a rocket out of the atmosphere doesn't mean they can do anything useful. They would have to have a few Billion and be positive they could do it first. So the prize would have to be more than what it would cost the government to do it. Which would be the same as just picking the one or two corporations that could do it. Actually, you'd have to either coordinate a dozen companies or build a new company from scratch just to make it to the moon--one that had no product it could sell our current revenue. Sounds a lot like a government to me.
I see a lot of problems with NASA--but it will also take a government funded entity like NASA to do it. Government is the exact RIGHT entity to take on projects that don't have a pay-off in the near future but that benefit society.
Businesses are really great. But they are designed to make a profit and not to benefit the most people with the least money. There is a lot of necessary overhead is businesses to manage and procure money.
Again, NASA is bloated and not as efficient as they could be. But parts of NASA have managed the impossible. You just need to get the political hacks and bureaucrats out of the organization. Many of the greatest engineers and scientists have not been driven by money. An organization like NASA is a haven for them to just work on the thought problems and not be concerned with pushing a resume. Maybe NASA can't be fixed, but you aren't going to get to Mars without the government paying someone to do it. If you make it an external company, then you are picking one company to receive benefits that other companies and taxpayers won't. At this scale, you don't necessarily get any efficiency with a corporation.
I don't like the Mars mission because it isn't driven by science--and the money could be better spent creating an infrastructure in space first. Also, it's something that Bush wanted, so you know all the money will be missing and it will be somehow, a minor clerks fault who endagered lives by pointing out that the hydrogen tanks are leaking. But don't gripe about the money unless you first speak out about the collosal amounts of funds spent on military and corporate welfare.
I want to save taxpayer money too. But let's not get all huffy about a Billion $ Mars Rover when we have 25 stealth bombers that are pretty much useless.
You are correct that anyone can tell how much traffic a website gets without knowing the people accessing it. Pretty easy to tell what gets hits and what doesn't.
Equally stupid argument would be to say you will stop using Slashdot because you are so afraid the Slashdot owners will call your wife and tell her about your Slashdot ramblings.
I am nervous already. If a few slashdot users were hauled in to court--or more likely, detained without court intervention based on a "conspiracy" charge-- I think that a lot more anti-government posts would be anonymous. They haven't done this yet (as far as I know)--but under the Patriot Act, they can. There is no oversight to make sure they did they right thing, other than people protesting that somehow "Jimmy" is no longer around. I'm not impressed with the argument "they haven't done that yet". Well, I never thought the government would pay churches to do public service projects. Or have a policy of torture. Or pay $ Billions to private corporations to serve troops food. Or hire mercenaries. Or prop up the currency. Or a hundred other things that I thought I'd never see from America.
So yes, Anonymity is important for people to express themselves in ways that are important to them, but are censored by government or theology. Now more than ever.
You think only China needs dissidents? I'm thinking that we in the United States may need this pretty soon.
Of course, I should be posting "Anonymous".
I pay for a lot of things. I don't do drugs. And I don't cheat on my wife.
However. That is good for me. It does not impress me when someone says how honest or loyal or religious they are. Good for them if they are. But no big deal. To me, being good is its own reward.
Why am I making this point? The whole point of our Democracy is government subject to the will of the people. We give people gun permits and laws and ask them to not to harm others. For most people, they do the right thing. We ask people not to steal and most people do not. So, it is an honor system. The government has power and control so long as it doesn't abuse it (well, at least that was the attempt with how the founding fathers structured the government).
When people are anonymous, the honor system breaks down. Hence P2P. Anonymous people do and say things they otherwise wouldn't. But is that wrong? Current news shows that people who suck up and kick down, no matter how unscrupulous, get promoted as long as they support the status quo. Whistle blowers and people of conscience, who go out on the limb, whether it be for investigative journalism or to speak out about corruption, are fired or worse.
Then we have to worry about the coming storm of thought police. How soon until we get public humiliation again (stockades) or tattoo the letter "A" on people's forehead. I've heard worse suggestions on the Neal Bortz show.
But P2P is a check and a balance on corporate and morality control. Anyone with any clue (a rhetorical arguement, but I don't wish to argue that the world is round) can see that corporations have the upper hand with creating protective laws and influencing law enforcement. The government shouldn't be in the business of protecting profits--somehow forgotten in our brainwashed heads is the notion of utility and what government is for. Could you imagine the FBI following a shoplifter home? Or, more accurately, imprisoning someone for making a copy of a dress design on their own sewing machine? In the first place, copyright infringement is not theft--it is loss of revenue. And using laws and police to ensure a profit margin is taking tax payer money. Additionally, we already pay a "tax" on all sorts of media because it "could" be used for copyright infringement. So how can anyone be stealing a product we all paid for?
So, P2P works to force companies to provide utility. If they can't be more convenient or useful as a company--what Utility do they provide a citizen of the United States? Copyright and patent law was originally intended to provide some compensation in order to reward innovators. Except for a few circumstances, these days it does the reverse and is merely a treasure to reward those who own--not innovators. I doubt one in a hundred even knows what "the consumer is sovereign" means. But not working for the status quo doesn't pay in mass media, so you won't here it mentioned.
P2P has more of an effect on "control" than it does on "profit". The fact that X mp3s have been downloaded does not translate to X mp3s would be bought. In fact, it is argueable that music sales might decrease, without downloadable works.
I'd much rather live in a country that allows people to do wrong. Holland is a better place ot live than Saudi Arabia. Seems that so many people want good things controlled and legislated, they don't realize that they don't get to decide WHAT is controlled and legislated--only the biggest pig at the trough wins.
So I'm in favor of anything that allows for the anonymous transfer of information. I may not avail myself of it, but it also allows for an outlet when corporations and governments overreach. If someone could get a CD for $1 or a movie for $3 on iTunes, do you think this would even be a discussion?
You are better at the whole point here.
We don't make the world better, if it could--possibly, inflict damage on profit margins.
Kind of reverse of the priorities we should have.
My son is getting Asthma, as are about 30% of children in the USA. But there is no alarm, no-multibillion dollar search for the cause. Everytime there are some constitutional rights to get rid of, "it's for the children". I just hope our kids are healthy enough to enjoy all the corruption we are trying to protect them from.
I am sure someone out there has a web site comparing Star Trek to Star Wars. I can't resist, however, arguing about who can kick the most ass.
Basically, I think on hand-to-hand the Star Wars gang is going to pound any Trek denizens to sand. Unless they are fighting Data, or one of the mighty morphing creatures.
On technology, Star Trek beats Star Wars, except strangely, in the technology of making people survive battles. Star Trek seems to have an unscientific aversion to cloning or implants --unless they go horribly wrong.
Star Wars ships seem to go faster, for no other reason than it seems that Lucas is uninterested in the "journey" of space travel. But SW shields seem to be less powerful. ST weapons are many orders of magnitude more powerful.
SW may have the force, but in ST, people accidentally get God-like powers as often as they might get killed. So watch out for an occasionally Hyper Evolved Kirk.
SW doesn't have transporters, but ST doesn't have sound effects in space (you only hear the blasts inside the ships). OK, I basically have no point here other than SW doesn't have transporters.
SW has a lot more cool and funky war machines. Most weapons systems seem kind of useless--in the grand scheme. Other than tie fighters dodging about, big ships seem to just stand broadside of each other and fire. For some reason, computers just can't seem to automatically home into a target (in ether Universe). I'm sure some gamers would argue these points, but they are, of course, playing games. Tactics, or troop strategies seem to be better in SW--because basically, in ST, all you do is go through an excessively large air vent, and nobody has thought to add a motion detector. At least in SW, somebody has to sneak around and disable something--and they never have a man wearing a corset, using a double-handed slam as though that were the coolest fighting technique and advanced civilization can come up with. And for some reason, in ST, only good guys can shoot straight. But ST seems to work better with large strategies, like inventing a new use for the deflector array, while in SW, somebody is just going to have to die--a nod towards realism, I suppose.
In SW, all races are more or less on the same level, with humans somehow being the best model to clone for troops. In ST, even having an extra heavy eyebrow can mean a race has telepathy --so different creatures matter. Even Wookies don't have Borg strength. Generally in SW, it's all about the Force and robots are wimps. In ST, machines are more of a real threat, though they are used much less (perhaps all those "Discarded Doomsday machines that keep killing" issue might have made its point). I only have one comment on this; why has nobody talked about the issue of EMP shielding? Of course, shielding life forms is even tougher. Everyone on a future battlefield will have to, at least where goggles. I mean, flooding the area with blinding laser light is just pretty obvious.
When you add it all up, you realize that both these Sci-Fi epics are pretty weak on anything important to say about technology, fighting or how people will be influenced by said technology. But I still think those walkers are cool looking. So who cares?
So. The bunny is becoming fuzzier because that will get it more sympathy?
It takes a few hundred years for many animals to adapt behaviors to humans.
I'm not really arguing with you. Just pointing out that there are limits to evolution. Depending upon extra-species sympathy would be a very complicated adaptation that would require a very stable environment and a lot longer. There are examples of complicated extra-species behaviour in nature, but they all of them that I have seen look like they took a LOT of stability and time to develop.
If you are talking about "the world mind" or the mass subconsciousness of humans, then maybe, but it might be hard to rely on.
The only problem I have, is that we don't need to be giving excuses to 4 year olds. We need to get the kids to eat their fruits and vegetables and not eat sugary cereals. Explaining about minerals or simple carbohydrates just gives the wily kid a "way out".
There is such a small "down side" to following an enviro-friendly policy. The worst is that you waste some money, or make a few companies less efficient, or do something of no benefit (like with some nuclear regulation) that is based on poor science.
Right now, we are all stuck in this massive experiment. Where we are destroying things we can't replace, for what? An extra profitable quarter? And most of the benefits, like to a power plant that gets to avoid an expensive air scrubber--end up being paid for many times over by others. So that one utility makes a 5% bonus, I spend a few thousand more dollars in health care. It not only doesn't make economic sense, the anti-environmentalists are just suicidal children.
So, the adults in the room need to put aside their squabbles about esoteric details and send the kids to their room without dinner until they can sit down and eat their peas.
Gee. Give you an example of another life form on earth that could farm and wear clothes and that went extinct.
Do you have to wait for an example? How about just populations of people?
Easter Island.
Rome (they deforested and created smog burning iron ore out of mines to keep their expansionist war machine going. It is thought that the lead lining of their water pipes lead to widespread retardation and emotional instability--especially in their leaders).
New Zealand. Indigenous people are gone--clear enough?
There are quite a few islands on our side of the atlantic that were wiped out, either by war or disease. When the Spanish invaded the Aztecs, only one in 25 people survived--merely due to not being adapted to European disease like Cholera.
About 90% of the Flu epidemics come from China. Why? Because they fertilize with human waste. The run-off goes into ponds where they raise fish. The birds and pigs that also live on the farms are part of this mini-ecosystem. Suffice to say, that in epidemiology, that if a bacterium, pest or virus has another ecosystem to rely on, then the transmission vehicle (like people) are cannon fodder. Another example is Malaria that wipes out millions, because its environment is Misquitoes--which are undamaged by it.
There have been a few books on this subject of humans wiping themselves out because either by Religious doctrine or an out of touch leadership (in fact, it is almost always the case of rulers who are separated from the plight of the people, that you find the biggest issues of environmental disaster). I don't really have the time to look them all up. Suffice to say, that if you want, you can find a lot of examples of whole societies and races of people vanishing due to either over-exploiting their environment or to transforming their natural environment too quickly, thus producing crossover diseases (like avian flu).
So, either we listen to a few whiney Environmentalists and tree huggers and spend about 1% of GDP on pollution regulation and things like the CDC. Use conservation and education to compete in the global marketplace. Winner--everyone.
Or we do it the NeoCon way. Let the dice fall where they may. Spend 10% of GDP to dominate and bomb other countries and take their resources. Support tyrants around the world so that they can give contracts to US companys to clear cut forests for hamburgers. Risks; nuclear armageddon or eco-failure. Upside; A few people get 10 mile-long yachts instead of merely 300 ft yachts.
Soon, you won't get propaganda about there being "no global warming". You will get propaganda about the "benefits of global warming". Just wait. A few purchased scientists to spread FUD are not going to be able to cover up a cascading ice field in Antarctica.
Gee. I think I'll side with the more "conservative" approach and not risk destroying the planet.
Look, I get the "nature is not just fuzzy bunnies" argument. Though simplistic, it is true. But you also don't "get" that things like a rain forest developed over millions of years and most animals live synergistically. Meaning, the tiger isn't in an arms race to develop bigger teeth and always get faster. The tiger would quickly run out of food.
Also, in environments where there is plenty of food, you find animals competing more with sexual selection rather than with direct competition. If it were all "survival of the fittest", nature would never have Peacocks. Everything would be ugly, drab killing machines. But that is far from what we see in nature.
This old discussion about "survival of the fittest" needs to evolve. Darwins theory involved "survival of the fittest". There are also more modern "theories" of evolution and perhaps there are many ways that creatures evolve. The one fact is that "things change" and that is evolution. The process of "how things change" is very complex and subtle.
But humanity is a collective society. We don't get thicker pelts, we get jackets at the Mall. This collective chest beating of a certain persuasion in our society is idiotic at best. Trying to apply a macho world view to policies over environment results in the Asthma epidemics and deforestation that we are currently hurtling into.
Do you really want to just survive? Couldn't we like, use retroviruses to improve genetic diseases. Educate and heal everyone, and compete to have extra nice things rather than on basic survival? Why can't we just be nice to eachother, and raise up the least among us? Do we have to let some go without, so that a lucky few can have 10 times the fortune they have now? You want no limits on the top or the bottom of wages but somehow you want torte reform? Can you not see who your brainwashing benefits?
If you follow your worldview to its ultimate conclusion, you would already be obsolete. In your world view, Shakespeare and Einstein can't exist, because they would be lousy at making money or running away from Tigers. There would be no leisure time to ponder beyond the mud outside our huts.
I'm sick and tired of waiting for you nuckle-draggers to grow up. I'm not going to live in your world, so you get out of mine. Find an island with Donald Trump so you can exploit eachother to your hearts content.
Along with cocroaches and misquitoes, we now have Tom DeLay.
These pests are well adapted. Some manufacturers could make a fortune if they found a spray to repel Ditto Heads.
You are expecting that these nuckle-draggers have thought about this argument?
If it is about the environment or social supports then "evolution".
If it is about education then "creationism".
If it is about people that they like winning its "values".
If the other side wins then its "corruption".
If the other side cheats "where's the outrage".
If their side is accused of cheating its "a conspiracy theory".
If a country that is not on our side has a tsunami its "God's Will".
If it is a county in the bible belt with a fire its "a catastrophy of nature".
It is a mish mosh of thoughtful sounding phrases, more heat than light.
This is what is called "convenient logic". It would be a nightmare connecting this person's world view a graph of what they think is right and wrong.
Extinctions are only wrong if they happen to you.
Being able to bribe a politician is actually an effective system for deciding how good companies are at "getting things done".
If we just made the systems about bribes, and got rid of all the laws that made these companies have to jump through hoops to pretend that it is about efficiency or that they are the best company for the job but we can't see anything that documents that. Over time "direct" bribes would have to become more and more grandiose as companies vie for the honor of government largess. Eventually, with market forces, bribing politicians will be more expensive that providing great products. And business that actually provide services will be better able to compete on utility, rather than on who can lose the most integrity.
Perhaps, we could have taxpayers receive money, of what is bid to buy the public airwaves in order to transmit more propaganda. Right now, I get propaganda and nobody subsidizes my home. Or maybe--coupons! I could see a "news segment" on Good Morning America talking about the wonders of processed cheese. Then, a Velveeta coupon from ABC in my mailbox the next morning. There are advantages to a more "open corruption".
Of course, before market forces on "campaign donations" could ever achieve this effect, our economy would implode. Since that is bound to happen anyway, the only question left is; "which system will buy me a mule and a plow sooner?" We should all ponder this.
So, I recommend that, instead of wasting $8 Billion for Halliburton to squirrel away about 10% for what amounts to KP Duty. We just directly bribe the Bush family with $1 Billion to "just go away." I'm not a vengeful person, I think we should just set up a donation to make good things happen. If it takes a lot of "direct donations", then so be it. Funneling money to all the crooks and parasites these days is so much more inefficient--it's cost us a $1 Trillion over the past 6 years. We need to just buy out the top dogs. If we had done this during the Cold War with the USSR, we could have sent the entire Politburo to the South of France for a measely 20 Billion $, rather than the $500 Billion (give or take a $ Trillion) that Reagan wasted (of course, at the end, he was trying to sneak them money to stay afloat--curious).
Downloadable low-rez movies... that would really hurt the PTP market--it might even be an infringement. A 320x240 and grainy picture on a computer with sound like it's coming from a real,authentic, fast food drive through would be plenty good enough for about half the market. I mean, some people think they are eating good food at a restaurant if some manager decorated with ferns.
Appreciation of quality and the desire to pay for it made Apple a niche product. Nobody would go to a theater to see a special effects film with 7.1 surround sound and 2k resolution. There are so many examples where quality and service are a recipe for failure. It could have killed McDonalds and WalMart. Thank goodness Ray Kroc and Sam Walton were such visionaries.
Next, you'll say, allowing downloads of tv shows that you see broadcast on Classic TV for free would be OK? Making it legal would really kill the charm and guilty pleasure you feel watching a Seinfeld AVI at 3 am--rather than watching it at 4pm on Nickelodeon or 5pm on Turner or 6pm on UPN. Wow, come to think of it, Seinfeld is pretty ubiquitous...
Save P2P and keep grainy, low quality videos with poor service and transmission reliability illegal. Are you trying to kill the gray market? In the end sir, have you no decency? Have you no decency? Good day sir. I say good day.