No, I can't give you an accurate historical example of anything. To be fair, nobody will be able to give accurate examples against that prediction either. (Yours isn't that accurate, since you made no effort for discovering how rich those countries would be without the barriers.)
Despite that, the hypothesis that trade barriers make people poorer has as good empirical support as an economic theory goes (what is not that much, but there aren't better alternatives). Countries that raise trade barriers tend to grow slower than before, and the ones that lower those barriers tend to grow faster.
My point about humanity being safe is because as soon as we are able to do a better fitted competing being, we'll quite probably also be able to improve ourselves to the point of overturning this competitor.
I place no bet at the robustness of any kind of organism.
Except that there isn't a "auto theft is good for the economy" argument. The GP makes the "auto theft is good for the car company" one, that is completely different.
Ok, maybe. I don't know the US, but they do that all around the world.
Most farmers on Brazil aren't massive corporations. Yet, Monsanto does sue them to the point of putting them out of business (lots of times without evidence).
I can only imagine what such campaing would make on some even less structured countries, like India.
Because artificial machines may be able to deal with a much wider set of chemical reactions than we can. Also because they are inteligently designed and, thus, can be way better optimized than we are.
I'm not very concerned about it destroying the humanity, but I can see how grey goo may disrupt other species.
"The fact that the underlying video and codecs actually work"
Well, that doesn't fit my experience. As far as I remember, before I stopped trying to watch movies on Windows, one needed third-party codecs for everything.
"Programs COULD install themselves to your gnome-panel."
They could also install back doors and format the hard drivers. But they don't, because distro keepers watch them and, more important, because GNOME developers don't scream for everybody that it is a good practice to pollute your desktop.
More yet, if you protect your market, you make your people poorer (except for the owners of protected companies). But that is valid only for protectionism... If you protect your markets from Microsoft (or any other kind of fraud) you'll make our people richer and will increase the competitiveness of your exports (except for items that bundle with Windows).
I doubt that GNU/Linux is certifiable. There are lots of places where GNU people just like being different. Anyway, we live in the time of "Linux compatible" systems, when nobody cares about POSIX anymore.
It is quite unlikely that somebody will be able to weaponize space (at least Earth's orbits, deep space is entirely different). It is way more expensive to put something up there than it is to destroy, disrupt or take over it.
There is an once popular music from the 1970 World (soccer) Cup that used that number. Population has grown, but lots of people can only remember the 120 millions.
"Several huge databases run on PostgreSQL clusters"
If you look at "Decreto 666/2008" you'll see that it almost guarantees that every government body that manipulates geographical data (who doesn't?) uses PostgreSQL to store it (it doesn't mandate Postgre, but it does mandate data formats that can only be obtained on Postgre or some very expensive specialized DBMS). That is quite a new rule, wait for wider adoption the next years.
By the way, that is a very interesting number for a good piece of law.
Public servants normally avoid creating those damn lies and statics. That is because creating such things lead to delays and lots of work. One can divide public servants on mostly two classes, one that wants to get things done, and those hate delays, and another that wants to avoid work, they don't like (tada!) extra work.
Now, there is a minority that get bought by software vendors, but this change will quite likely have a lot of impact despite them.
Slashdot Mirror
No problem, I saw it, and it's already dead.
No, I can't give you an accurate historical example of anything. To be fair, nobody will be able to give accurate examples against that prediction either. (Yours isn't that accurate, since you made no effort for discovering how rich those countries would be without the barriers.)
Despite that, the hypothesis that trade barriers make people poorer has as good empirical support as an economic theory goes (what is not that much, but there aren't better alternatives). Countries that raise trade barriers tend to grow slower than before, and the ones that lower those barriers tend to grow faster.
Ok, disrupt isn't a good word here.
My point was that, as we get better on it, we may become able to outcompete nature, and even replace life entirely
Of course, that doesn't apply to this specific experiment. (Nor anything I'm expecting to happen at the next 50 years...)
My point about humanity being safe is because as soon as we are able to do a better fitted competing being, we'll quite probably also be able to improve ourselves to the point of overturning this competitor.
I place no bet at the robustness of any kind of organism.
Except that there isn't a "auto theft is good for the economy" argument. The GP makes the "auto theft is good for the car company" one, that is completely different.
They aren't that off for real flowers either.
Ok, maybe. I don't know the US, but they do that all around the world.
Most farmers on Brazil aren't massive corporations. Yet, Monsanto does sue them to the point of putting them out of business (lots of times without evidence).
I can only imagine what such campaing would make on some even less structured countries, like India.
Oh, no. You explode just after you get divided by zero. At the exact divizion time you just break everybody's RSA keys.
Because artificial machines may be able to deal with a much wider set of chemical reactions than we can. Also because they are inteligently designed and, thus, can be way better optimized than we are.
I'm not very concerned about it destroying the humanity, but I can see how grey goo may disrupt other species.
You know that it only affects conductors that are, at least, a few meters wide, don't you?
If an EMP has some impact on grey goo it will be making their lives easier once it destroy our machines.
Yeah, that is a good idea. But save it for when somebody comes with a way to differentiate "reading" from "idle".
Well, that doesn't fit my experience. As far as I remember, before I stopped trying to watch movies on Windows, one needed third-party codecs for everything.
They could also install back doors and format the hard drivers. But they don't, because distro keepers watch them and, more important, because GNOME developers don't scream for everybody that it is a good practice to pollute your desktop.
He he... It seems you want KDE ;)
More yet, if you protect your market, you make your people poorer (except for the owners of protected companies). But that is valid only for protectionism... If you protect your markets from Microsoft (or any other kind of fraud) you'll make our people richer and will increase the competitiveness of your exports (except for items that bundle with Windows).
Hum, Gnu is Not Unix!
I doubt that GNU/Linux is certifiable. There are lots of places where GNU people just like being different. Anyway, we live in the time of "Linux compatible" systems, when nobody cares about POSIX anymore.
Yes, but that Al Capone guy was too stupid to get government sponsorship. Microsoft didn't make the same mistake.
Well, it looks like I was sleeping for the last decade... I can't remember PNG displacing GIF.
I, for one, welcome your tape-driven overloads!
But now, seriously, it seems easier that electronic computers go out of style than the Von Neumann architecture.
You mean Google? I don't agree with the GP, but that is quite a bad example...
Because Microsoft wants so.
By the way, the same applies to x86.
Distribution is still a natural monopoly.
It is quite unlikely that somebody will be able to weaponize space (at least Earth's orbits, deep space is entirely different). It is way more expensive to put something up there than it is to destroy, disrupt or take over it.
There is an once popular music from the 1970 World (soccer) Cup that used that number. Population has grown, but lots of people can only remember the 120 millions.
If you look at "Decreto 666/2008" you'll see that it almost guarantees that every government body that manipulates geographical data (who doesn't?) uses PostgreSQL to store it (it doesn't mandate Postgre, but it does mandate data formats that can only be obtained on Postgre or some very expensive specialized DBMS). That is quite a new rule, wait for wider adoption the next years.
By the way, that is a very interesting number for a good piece of law.
Public servants normally avoid creating those damn lies and statics. That is because creating such things lead to delays and lots of work. One can divide public servants on mostly two classes, one that wants to get things done, and those hate delays, and another that wants to avoid work, they don't like (tada!) extra work.
Now, there is a minority that get bought by software vendors, but this change will quite likely have a lot of impact despite them.