It is arrogant and condescending to imply that the Chinese people cannot "handle" a more open system.
Nonsense. China put up the Great Firewall. That doesn't provide a warm-fuzzy feeling that they can handle change. From my limited knowledge of Chinese history, my impression is that change comes very slowly to China, if at all.
You statements seem unfounded and contrary to observations in plain view.
Right. That, and the fact that this isn't an MP3 and it's an entirely different format. But yes, aside from that fact, you are correct it's just like an MP3.
That because anyone can be in marketing. Seriously. It is, by far, the easiest discipline in business school. Because of that, anyone and everyone can join the marketing program and get a degree. You see, if you join finance, management info systems, logistics, or some other "hard" business discipline, then you actually have to work and learn something. Marketing, by nature, is a "softer" discipline and therefore, caters to a lower common denominator.
Why do you think there are so many goddamn marketing graduates?
Actually, the entire world has come to agreement that unrestrained capitalism doesn't work.
I never claimed that, nor would I support such a statement. We know unrestrained capitalism doesn't work. And for the record, the most populous nation on earth (China) is no more communist than I am an Aborigine. Sheesh. You are all over the place and you have no idea what you are talking about so I think we are done here.
As I said before, come better prepared next time and maybe we can have a fruitful discussion.
I am the gp. If you reread my original post, it is not you who I am insulting, it is your ideas. I do that because they are worthy of insult. Allow me to demonstrate...
You replied, "Because the owners aren't the just deservers of the benefits of the labor. Duh."
Are you serious? That's it? That's the best evidence of your point you can come up with? Like I said earlier, not only are you espousing communist ideals, but you grossly simplify "how things work". You advocate an economic system of labor and ownership that has been proven the world over as a failure. "Reasonable" payments for capital outlay? Who determines what is "reasonable"? Brother...it's clear you are in way over your head on this one.
Methinks you need to come a little better prepared next time. You can think however you want, but the entire world recognizes communism as a failure - and rightfully so!
I'm actually not clear that I believe corps have to make money. I think we could have a perfectly functional economy with everything run non-profit. Any additional profits should go to the employees
I can't believe this shit gets modded up on/. Without trying to flame you, are you a communist? If you are not, then how do you explain your gross oversight regarding the current owners? Are you actually suggesting that we "take" the profits from the current owners and "give" them to the workers, who rightfully deserve them? Why should the workers get the profit when the investors are the ones who started and built the company in the first place? (ie: without investor money, there is no company and investors only invest if they think there will be profit)
Get this through your skull: ALL private companies in the US are owned by someone. And those "someones" are real people like you and me. You act like you can just take whatever profits are there and give them to the workers. Well, that's all great and good in Candyland but in the real world....why do you want to fuck over the current owners by redistributing their rightful profit to non-owners?
Your post is so typical on/. You are not an owner....so it's OK to take from other owners "because it's the right thing to do". There's a lot of that line of thinking going around and it's high time for it to be challenged. The workers should have NO right to the profits of a company if they are not investors/owners of said company. If you disagree, then take some of your hard earned salary, go buy some shares and become an owner. Then you get a say on things just like the rest of the owners/investors/shareholders.
BTW, is it your expectation that life is "fair"? If so, I can't help you. I am sorry. It just doesn't work like that.
So I can trade these currencies on any one of a number of currency exchanges, such as Forex? (/sarchasm)
I am recalling all of the statutory and regulatory requirements for currency traders. It goes without saying, they are substantial. Does that mean each player in the game needs to be regulated as a currency trader and follow the same regulatory requirements? What if you have multiple accounts? Does that mean you are now a hedge fund with a whole new set of regs? Can I go short on these currencies? If so, how would the mechanics of that work? etc, etc, etc....
Lastly, what safeguards are in place to make sure it is a fair marketplace and noone can "corner the market" or otherwise manipulate it in an illegal way?
With about 5 minutes of armchair regulatory and legal analysis I can already see this is going to have significant unintended consequences.
(Bonus points: Currency traders --- what other regs do you have to follow that would not work on a virtual currency in a game?)
Isn't one of the goals of encryption to make your message indecipherable from random noise?
How would one know whether you downloaded an encrypted file or just downloaded some random noise?
Finally, your oft-stated argument that "better that ten guilty men go free than one innocent man suffer" is specious. The ten guilty men will almost certainly victimize other innocents
Oddly, you make his point for him. We know they will victimize others and yet, we still hold "presumption of innocence" as one of the highest moral and legal values in our country.
Yes, employers can discriminate based on gender. Go look up bonafide occupational qualification (aka: bfoq) and the Hooters court case associated with it.
but is it legal to deny someone a job opportunity based on an alleged crime for which they were completely pardoned?
Uhh, yes. There is no "right" to a job in the USA. You can be denied for ANY reason except race, religon, or sexual orientation and those are hard to prove.
Why in the world would you think any employer "must" hire someone? Are you kidding me? The USA is a hire and fire at-will country and always has been. It doesn't even make sense to consider whether an employer "must" hire someone they don't want to hire because any employer in their right mind would simply eliminate the position before they would hire someone who is forced upon them. This isn't France.
I kinda-sorta give you a pass because it appears you are Non-US. I'd only point out that this distinction is one major difference between the USA and the rest of the world. There is no right to a job in the USA at all.
While we are at it, let's do the same thing for how inflation, unemployment, public health statistics, education metrics, and poverty rates are calculated.
Inflation is measured by the CPI, aka the consumer price index. There is also the PPI, the producers price index. There are half a dozen other indexes that attempt to measure inflation. All of them are published and available to anyone who wants to review the details.
The Bureau of Labor Statistics publishes unemployment data. Again, it's available to anyone who wants to read and inspect it. Same for education metrics and poverty. Every metric collected is published and reviewable by the public, however, you could easily argue we are not collecting the right metrics and data. To me, that is a fair point but it does not address the openness of the data.
In other words, the data for these items you laid out is available, well studied, and well debated. Climate change is nowhere near as "open" as these other subjects you mention.
Right. And in the US, states usually use a point system. Get too many points and your driver's license gets revoked. Solves the same problem (people not respecting and following the laws) and isn't a hidden income redistribution effort.
It's wrong to give a rich guy a harsher punishment because he's rich just like it's wrong to give a poor guy a harsher punishment because he's poor.
There's general agreement in the industry that we're near peak oil. No! There is not. I am in the industry and you are simply incorrect from top to bottom. Dude, you can't just say shit and make it true...
Lots of good recommendations but I can't believe nobody has mentioned the most important thing to executives: dollars and cents!
If things run reasonably smoothly at your locale, then the only other thing I care about is this: what are you doing to lower costs and make more money for us? Assuming you are not in govt or some non-profit, the profit is all we care about it. Anything else is just doublespeak for "profit".
How about telling him what you are doing to drive a 5% reduction in costs next year? Get creative. At worst, even if it doesn't work out, they will at least know you are focusing on the right thing: the bottom line. Then do it again next year. The point here is this: you should be relentless in your pursuit of driving money to the bottom line. ie: profits. That is the minimum expectation for anyone working for a business. Yes, by being employed, you are on a team. Act like it and try to attain the team's goals (profit).
Too many IT shops operate as one giant suckfest for money. Then, when having to explain themselves, they hide behind fancy jargon and technology -- none of which the typical executive cares about.
When making money from movies becomes difficult if not impossible, they'll just stop making them.
Right! And the timeframe for that happening is: never
Movies will always be made. If you can round up 50 ppl in your neighborhood to view your crappy version of Blair Witch Project III, then there is a good chance you can do that and make a profit. The cost of producing video now is almost nil. Putting it together into something compelling is an entirely different story, though.
Either way, we'll still have movies. Only the quality will differ.
I love the idea, that in a capitalist economy, resources that are not used efficiently, get reallocated to live another day.
Let me explain...
Investor A buys the rights to the Terminator series years ago. That turned out to be a bad investment because they couldn't make a profit on that purchase. For that reason, and I am sure many others, the Investor that did this took huge losses and ultimately filed bankruptcy.
Here is where we break from "the way things used to work for over 230 yrs" to "Obama's change". (sorry, the politics can not be avoided)
Instead of propping up this bad investment (insert whatever rationale you want), we force the Investor to declare bankruptcy. As part of that process, the "assets" are put up for auction as creditors are paid as much as possible with the auction proceeds. This is a beautiful system in how it works. Nobody goes to prison. Nobody dies. Instead, the people who should take the hit (Investors) are the ones who actually take the hit and furthermore, the assets live to see another day (and another owner who might create MORE wealth out of this franchise).
Contrast this with all the shit going on around us here in the States and you'll have to forgive me if I am bit twitchy with my "Celebrate Capitalism" trigger finger. It's just refreshing to know it's still around since everyone in charge seems to have forgotten...
I am astounded at how bad file explorer is in Vista. That single program is probably the reason I have not "upgraded" yet. I use file explorer all the time so I am especially sensitive to this change.
I will never understand how file explorer gets WORSE as you go higher in releases. How is that possible?!?! Is there somekind of grand MSFT strategy to wean people from file explorer entirely? I just don't understand a computer operating system that does not allow easy navigation of its file and folder structure.
Note, I am not saying everyone is like me. Rather, I am saying there are enough "me's" out there that this could not have gone unnoticed at MSFT.
Ok, fair enough. Who would you suggest is better qualified to write a report like this? The Armed forces who are actually doing the fighting? Think tanks? God-forbid, politicians? The general public? Who, exactly, is better qualified to do the research and write a report like this?
Also, are your "doubts" based on anything at all or is that just somekind of gut feeling you have?
I am asking because some of us on this site see the things they speak of in this report. This isn't some esoteric intelligentsia news story. This stuff that is happening in our sandbox and has for multiple years now.
Ok, I understand everything you laid out but again....it seems like Rapid7 is "using" the metasploit code - which does not necessarily require them to ouright buy the company. (sidenote: we all agree that they can not rescind what was done in the past. That "stuff" lives forever under whatever license it was released under).
Why would someone buy anything open-source unless the copyrights came with it? The alternative, is to "use" the open-source product and just conform to GPL or whatever the license requirements are. That seems so much simpler than buying the entire company and compensating everyone who has/had a stake.
The part that has me stumped is this: there are plenty of ways Rapid7 could have leveraged this guys code and product. Why did they decide to buy him outright, instead of just licensing the code? What do they gain by buying him out over and above what is already gained by using the open-source code?
I've seen trademarks mentioned in a few responses but that brings up another set of questions: who "owns" the trademark for an open-source proejct? If the trademark is bought, who gets compensated? How is that sorted out?
Others mentioned forking the code. Ok, fair enough. Then why didn't Rapid7 just fork metasploit and do what they wanted to do with it? They don't have to buy it to be able to use it. It's already available under open-source licensing. I guess what I am asking is: why would someone buy metasploit instead of just forking the dev tree. One costs lots of money. The other alternative is free. Both achieve the same result. (Rapid7 gets to release a new product based on Metasploit)
I'd like to buy sendmail and apt-get. How much would those two cost me?
I am not clear on how open-source projects get "sold" to commercial entities. I understand how companies can use open source but I don't understand how companies buy and sell open-source programs.
Can someone smarter than me lay out, in business terms, how this works? Was Metasploit a corporation? If so, what kind? Was it an S-corp? C-Corp? LLC? LLP? What were the mechanics of the sale? What approvals were needed from what stakeholders? etc, etc. Basically, I want to know about the buyers and the sellers and less about the actual product.
It seems odd to me that "someone" would benefit financially by selling the work of an open-source program. Wouldn't you need to compensate all contributors (which I am sure is a nightmare)? If not, I am in the wrong biz. Instead, I should start an open-source program, get other people to contribute, and then sell it for my own personal gain.
I could be wrong but I don't think that is allowed, right? So how does all this work? Or am I hopelessly naive?....
First of all, we need a citation on that Model-T mpg number. I am skeptical but I will take you at your word for the time being. Second, is it wrong? Well, no not really. I can't really say I am all that surprised about it. To demonstrate my point, lemme ask a few questions about your Model-T, if I may:
1. Did it have powered air conditioning?
2. Did it have a powered radio?
3. Power brakes?
4. Power steering?
5. Powered wipers?
Are you seeing the keyword yet or do I need to go on? Power has to come from somewhere. Where do you think all the features in a modern car are powered from?
As with all things engineering, there are trade-offs to be made.
Using your rationale, I should trade in my Chevy Tahoe and get a Model-T. Uhhhh, no thanks. You first.
Slashdot Mirror
It is arrogant and condescending to imply that the Chinese people cannot "handle" a more open system.
Nonsense. China put up the Great Firewall. That doesn't provide a warm-fuzzy feeling that they can handle change. From my limited knowledge of Chinese history, my impression is that change comes very slowly to China, if at all.
You statements seem unfounded and contrary to observations in plain view.
since it's basically mp3's with built in ads
Right. That, and the fact that this isn't an MP3 and it's an entirely different format. But yes, aside from that fact, you are correct it's just like an MP3.
That because anyone can be in marketing. Seriously. It is, by far, the easiest discipline in business school. Because of that, anyone and everyone can join the marketing program and get a degree. You see, if you join finance, management info systems, logistics, or some other "hard" business discipline, then you actually have to work and learn something. Marketing, by nature, is a "softer" discipline and therefore, caters to a lower common denominator.
Why do you think there are so many goddamn marketing graduates?
Never underestimate the path of least resistance.
Actually, the entire world has come to agreement that unrestrained capitalism doesn't work.
I never claimed that, nor would I support such a statement. We know unrestrained capitalism doesn't work. And for the record, the most populous nation on earth (China) is no more communist than I am an Aborigine. Sheesh. You are all over the place and you have no idea what you are talking about so I think we are done here.
As I said before, come better prepared next time and maybe we can have a fruitful discussion.
I am the gp. If you reread my original post, it is not you who I am insulting, it is your ideas. I do that because they are worthy of insult. Allow me to demonstrate...
You replied, "Because the owners aren't the just deservers of the benefits of the labor. Duh."
Are you serious? That's it? That's the best evidence of your point you can come up with? Like I said earlier, not only are you espousing communist ideals, but you grossly simplify "how things work". You advocate an economic system of labor and ownership that has been proven the world over as a failure. "Reasonable" payments for capital outlay? Who determines what is "reasonable"? Brother...it's clear you are in way over your head on this one.
Methinks you need to come a little better prepared next time. You can think however you want, but the entire world recognizes communism as a failure - and rightfully so!
I'm actually not clear that I believe corps have to make money. I think we could have a perfectly functional economy with everything run non-profit. Any additional profits should go to the employees
/. Without trying to flame you, are you a communist? If you are not, then how do you explain your gross oversight regarding the current owners? Are you actually suggesting that we "take" the profits from the current owners and "give" them to the workers, who rightfully deserve them? Why should the workers get the profit when the investors are the ones who started and built the company in the first place? (ie: without investor money, there is no company and investors only invest if they think there will be profit)
/. You are not an owner....so it's OK to take from other owners "because it's the right thing to do". There's a lot of that line of thinking going around and it's high time for it to be challenged. The workers should have NO right to the profits of a company if they are not investors/owners of said company. If you disagree, then take some of your hard earned salary, go buy some shares and become an owner. Then you get a say on things just like the rest of the owners/investors/shareholders.
I can't believe this shit gets modded up on
Get this through your skull: ALL private companies in the US are owned by someone. And those "someones" are real people like you and me. You act like you can just take whatever profits are there and give them to the workers. Well, that's all great and good in Candyland but in the real world....why do you want to fuck over the current owners by redistributing their rightful profit to non-owners?
Your post is so typical on
BTW, is it your expectation that life is "fair"? If so, I can't help you. I am sorry. It just doesn't work like that.
So I can trade these currencies on any one of a number of currency exchanges, such as Forex? (/sarchasm)
I am recalling all of the statutory and regulatory requirements for currency traders. It goes without saying, they are substantial. Does that mean each player in the game needs to be regulated as a currency trader and follow the same regulatory requirements? What if you have multiple accounts? Does that mean you are now a hedge fund with a whole new set of regs? Can I go short on these currencies? If so, how would the mechanics of that work? etc, etc, etc....
Lastly, what safeguards are in place to make sure it is a fair marketplace and noone can "corner the market" or otherwise manipulate it in an illegal way?
With about 5 minutes of armchair regulatory and legal analysis I can already see this is going to have significant unintended consequences.
(Bonus points: Currency traders --- what other regs do you have to follow that would not work on a virtual currency in a game?)
Isn't one of the goals of encryption to make your message indecipherable from random noise?
How would one know whether you downloaded an encrypted file or just downloaded some random noise?
Some men also want to see the world burn...
Finally, your oft-stated argument that "better that ten guilty men go free than one innocent man suffer" is specious. The ten guilty men will almost certainly victimize other innocents
Oddly, you make his point for him. We know they will victimize others and yet, we still hold "presumption of innocence" as one of the highest moral and legal values in our country.
Yes, employers can discriminate based on gender. Go look up bonafide occupational qualification (aka: bfoq) and the Hooters court case associated with it.
My previous post stands.
but is it legal to deny someone a job opportunity based on an alleged crime for which they were completely pardoned?
Uhh, yes. There is no "right" to a job in the USA. You can be denied for ANY reason except race, religon, or sexual orientation and those are hard to prove.
Why in the world would you think any employer "must" hire someone? Are you kidding me? The USA is a hire and fire at-will country and always has been. It doesn't even make sense to consider whether an employer "must" hire someone they don't want to hire because any employer in their right mind would simply eliminate the position before they would hire someone who is forced upon them. This isn't France.
I kinda-sorta give you a pass because it appears you are Non-US. I'd only point out that this distinction is one major difference between the USA and the rest of the world. There is no right to a job in the USA at all.
While we are at it, let's do the same thing for how inflation, unemployment, public health statistics, education metrics, and poverty rates are calculated.
Inflation is measured by the CPI, aka the consumer price index. There is also the PPI, the producers price index. There are half a dozen other indexes that attempt to measure inflation. All of them are published and available to anyone who wants to review the details.
The Bureau of Labor Statistics publishes unemployment data. Again, it's available to anyone who wants to read and inspect it. Same for education metrics and poverty. Every metric collected is published and reviewable by the public, however, you could easily argue we are not collecting the right metrics and data. To me, that is a fair point but it does not address the openness of the data.
In other words, the data for these items you laid out is available, well studied, and well debated. Climate change is nowhere near as "open" as these other subjects you mention.
Is it even possible for anyone to find out all the possible illegal uses of technolgies like cloud computing?
Yes, it is possible. However, it is the same as trying to win a war against jealousy or envy.
Right. And in the US, states usually use a point system. Get too many points and your driver's license gets revoked. Solves the same problem (people not respecting and following the laws) and isn't a hidden income redistribution effort.
It's wrong to give a rich guy a harsher punishment because he's rich just like it's wrong to give a poor guy a harsher punishment because he's poor.
There's general agreement in the industry that we're near peak oil.
No! There is not. I am in the industry and you are simply incorrect from top to bottom. Dude, you can't just say shit and make it true...
Lots of good recommendations but I can't believe nobody has mentioned the most important thing to executives: dollars and cents!
If things run reasonably smoothly at your locale, then the only other thing I care about is this: what are you doing to lower costs and make more money for us? Assuming you are not in govt or some non-profit, the profit is all we care about it. Anything else is just doublespeak for "profit".
How about telling him what you are doing to drive a 5% reduction in costs next year? Get creative. At worst, even if it doesn't work out, they will at least know you are focusing on the right thing: the bottom line. Then do it again next year. The point here is this: you should be relentless in your pursuit of driving money to the bottom line. ie: profits. That is the minimum expectation for anyone working for a business. Yes, by being employed, you are on a team. Act like it and try to attain the team's goals (profit).
Too many IT shops operate as one giant suckfest for money. Then, when having to explain themselves, they hide behind fancy jargon and technology -- none of which the typical executive cares about.
how about we up our standards a luittle instead and start requiring better engineering instead of treating updates as acceptable and normal
Which option do you think costs less?
There's your answer.
When making money from movies becomes difficult if not impossible, they'll just stop making them.
Right! And the timeframe for that happening is: never
Movies will always be made. If you can round up 50 ppl in your neighborhood to view your crappy version of Blair Witch Project III, then there is a good chance you can do that and make a profit. The cost of producing video now is almost nil. Putting it together into something compelling is an entirely different story, though.
Either way, we'll still have movies. Only the quality will differ.
I love the idea, that in a capitalist economy, resources that are not used efficiently, get reallocated to live another day.
Let me explain...
Investor A buys the rights to the Terminator series years ago. That turned out to be a bad investment because they couldn't make a profit on that purchase. For that reason, and I am sure many others, the Investor that did this took huge losses and ultimately filed bankruptcy.
Here is where we break from "the way things used to work for over 230 yrs" to "Obama's change". (sorry, the politics can not be avoided)
Instead of propping up this bad investment (insert whatever rationale you want), we force the Investor to declare bankruptcy. As part of that process, the "assets" are put up for auction as creditors are paid as much as possible with the auction proceeds. This is a beautiful system in how it works. Nobody goes to prison. Nobody dies. Instead, the people who should take the hit (Investors) are the ones who actually take the hit and furthermore, the assets live to see another day (and another owner who might create MORE wealth out of this franchise).
Contrast this with all the shit going on around us here in the States and you'll have to forgive me if I am bit twitchy with my "Celebrate Capitalism" trigger finger. It's just refreshing to know it's still around since everyone in charge seems to have forgotten...
I am astounded at how bad file explorer is in Vista. That single program is probably the reason I have not "upgraded" yet. I use file explorer all the time so I am especially sensitive to this change.
I will never understand how file explorer gets WORSE as you go higher in releases. How is that possible?!?! Is there somekind of grand MSFT strategy to wean people from file explorer entirely? I just don't understand a computer operating system that does not allow easy navigation of its file and folder structure.
Note, I am not saying everyone is like me. Rather, I am saying there are enough "me's" out there that this could not have gone unnoticed at MSFT.
Ok, fair enough. Who would you suggest is better qualified to write a report like this? The Armed forces who are actually doing the fighting? Think tanks? God-forbid, politicians? The general public? Who, exactly, is better qualified to do the research and write a report like this?
Also, are your "doubts" based on anything at all or is that just somekind of gut feeling you have?
I am asking because some of us on this site see the things they speak of in this report. This isn't some esoteric intelligentsia news story. This stuff that is happening in our sandbox and has for multiple years now.
Ok, I understand everything you laid out but again....it seems like Rapid7 is "using" the metasploit code - which does not necessarily require them to ouright buy the company. (sidenote: we all agree that they can not rescind what was done in the past. That "stuff" lives forever under whatever license it was released under).
Why would someone buy anything open-source unless the copyrights came with it? The alternative, is to "use" the open-source product and just conform to GPL or whatever the license requirements are. That seems so much simpler than buying the entire company and compensating everyone who has/had a stake.
The part that has me stumped is this: there are plenty of ways Rapid7 could have leveraged this guys code and product. Why did they decide to buy him outright, instead of just licensing the code? What do they gain by buying him out over and above what is already gained by using the open-source code?
I've seen trademarks mentioned in a few responses but that brings up another set of questions: who "owns" the trademark for an open-source proejct? If the trademark is bought, who gets compensated? How is that sorted out?
Others mentioned forking the code. Ok, fair enough. Then why didn't Rapid7 just fork metasploit and do what they wanted to do with it? They don't have to buy it to be able to use it. It's already available under open-source licensing. I guess what I am asking is: why would someone buy metasploit instead of just forking the dev tree. One costs lots of money. The other alternative is free. Both achieve the same result. (Rapid7 gets to release a new product based on Metasploit)
I'd like to buy sendmail and apt-get. How much would those two cost me?
I am not clear on how open-source projects get "sold" to commercial entities. I understand how companies can use open source but I don't understand how companies buy and sell open-source programs.
Can someone smarter than me lay out, in business terms, how this works? Was Metasploit a corporation? If so, what kind? Was it an S-corp? C-Corp? LLC? LLP? What were the mechanics of the sale? What approvals were needed from what stakeholders? etc, etc. Basically, I want to know about the buyers and the sellers and less about the actual product.
It seems odd to me that "someone" would benefit financially by selling the work of an open-source program. Wouldn't you need to compensate all contributors (which I am sure is a nightmare)? If not, I am in the wrong biz. Instead, I should start an open-source program, get other people to contribute, and then sell it for my own personal gain.
I could be wrong but I don't think that is allowed, right? So how does all this work? Or am I hopelessly naive?....
First of all, we need a citation on that Model-T mpg number. I am skeptical but I will take you at your word for the time being. Second, is it wrong? Well, no not really. I can't really say I am all that surprised about it. To demonstrate my point, lemme ask a few questions about your Model-T, if I may:
1. Did it have powered air conditioning?
2. Did it have a powered radio?
3. Power brakes?
4. Power steering?
5. Powered wipers?
Are you seeing the keyword yet or do I need to go on? Power has to come from somewhere. Where do you think all the features in a modern car are powered from?
As with all things engineering, there are trade-offs to be made.
Using your rationale, I should trade in my Chevy Tahoe and get a Model-T. Uhhhh, no thanks. You first.