When a market reaches maturity, the numerous competing firms consolidate into a small number of major competitors. Consider the personal-computer market. It once had numerous strong competitors: AST, Gateway, Compaq, Dell, HP, IBM, etc. Now, there are only a few major players: HP, Dell, and Lenovo.
The same happened in the market for 0x86 processors. The market once had numerous strong competitors: AMD, Nexgen, Cyrix, Centaur, and Intel. Now, there are only 2 major players: AMD and Intel.
The search market is facing a similar consolidation -- in 2 phases. The market once had numerous strong competitors: Microsoft, Google, AltaVista, Yahoo, AskJeeves, etc. After the first phase of consolidation, there are 3 major players: Microsoft, Yahoo, and Google. Now, the market is entering the second phase of consolidation. Like the personal computer, the search tool is a commodity product with almost no product differentiation. A search on Yahoo works just like a search on Microsoft Live. Why do we need 3 essentially identical products on the market?
The market appears to be consolidating into (1) Google being the major player and (2) the merger of Microsoft and Yahoo being the minor player. The recent loss of search market share from Yahoo to Google is also nudging Yahoo into being acquired by Microsoft.
Yahoo is leaning in that direction by giving preference to IE7.
All the comparisons that I have seen involve installing Windows Vista and XP on a hardware configuration that is recommended for Vista.
I wish to see a comparison for the benefit of millions of users who do not want to (or who cannot afford to) upgrade to new hardware. This comparison would involve installing Vista and XP on a hardware configuration that is the minimum configuration recommended for XP (yes, XP). To enhance the comparison, we should include RedHat Linux.
The second source suggests that the isotope composition is the signature that
identifies a specific power plant. However, the Atomic Weapons Establishment declined to give
the location of the plant.
I am sticking to my original guess of the culprit: a renegade group in Russia. Various reports have indicated that numerous factions, answering to no one, operate within the Russian government. One of these factions likely committed the crime.
Putin is just too smart to kill someone in such a blatant way. He would have known that such a gruesome murder would have serious negative consequences.
$500 is not expensive but also is not cheap. There are better uses for that money.
As well, how much can an elementary-school kid get out of a laptop besides playing some games and doing e-mail? Playing games and sending e-mail can be learned in a day. They do not require the kid to own a laptop. He can learn that mindless simple stuff on the library's computer.
The story might be different with a high-school student. He would have enough mathematical knowledge or scientific reasoning to do some nifty projects for the local science fair. Alternatively, he could also use the laptop to write insightful political research papers solving the Iraq quagmire in which Washington is stuck.
The Thai government should consider buying a laptop for all freshmen in high school instead of the pouty kids in elementary school.
Of course, the first computer lesson in high school is "Here is how you write biting commentary in Slashdot. The Slashdotters love that stuff."
The name that you are seeking is "Gary Kildall". His work revolutionized the operating system (OS) on personal computers (PC), and many of his ideas survive into the modern PC OS.
To summarize a very long story, an employee at Seattle Computer Products (SCP) cloned (i.e., ripped off) CP/M, which Kildall developed. Bill Gates, the young founder of Microsoft, licensed an OS to IBM, but this OS was not yet under the control of Gates. In other words, Gates sold a product that he did not actually have. After inking the deal with IBM, Gates then bought a permanent liftime license to SCP's OS. That OS morphed over a two decades into the infamous line of Windows OSes.
As for Kildall, he understandably became very bitter. Kildall was financially well off, but he never achieved either the fame or the wealth that Gates achieved. If Gates had gotten the billion-dollar wealth but Kildall had gotten the fame (for his work on OSes), then Kildall would probably have accepted the outcome. However, Kildall achieved neither the fame nor the wealth. The bitterness drove Kildall to essentially commit suicide by drinking himself to death. He died in a bar.
I understand Kildall's feelings. Someone had screwed me in the same way that Gates screwed Kildall.
Why is pornography worse than prostitution? Pornography is about fantasy. Prostitution is about reality, and in China, prostitutes are sometimes children.
The Russians are slowly modernizing their government and their economy. At this stage of economic development, there is little resources for government projects that most rich nations can afford. Consider Japan. Before 1977, the Japanese made little progress on space projects. Most of the national budget funded the development of infrastructure to support the economy.
There is no reason to lament the fact that most Russians prefer to be bankers instead of cosmonauts. Russia is simply not at the right economic stage to splurge on space programs. During the Cold War, the Russians spent heavily on space projects, but that situation is due to government intervention (in the economy) against the will of the people. That intervention wrecked the economy.
When Russia becomes rich like the rest of the West, then the Russians will return to space. Given the the incredible accomplishments of Russian mathematicians, I expect that a Russian genius will decipher and advance the work of Burkhard Heim. In so doing, he shall develop the first working prototype of a warp drive. (The Americans have already developed phasers, which can be deployed on a jet fighter. Are the Japanese working on shields?)
However, that is just an illusion for now. Right now, we must concentrate on steering Russia towards developing a true democracy and a real economy not based solely on commodities. The current pathetic state of Russia is partially due to the shenanigans of the Harvard elite.
During the Cold War, the USA (and the rest of the West) had a gentleman's agreement with the USSR. Moscow would send spies to the USA but would not engage in outright assassinations in the USA. Similarly, Washington would send spies to the USSR but would not engage in outright assassinations in the USSR. The USA and the USSR were locked in a cat-and-mouse game but would never actually commit physical violence on the opponent's soil.
For this reason, I strongly doubt that Putin ordered the assassination of Alexander Litvinenko. He was on Western soil (i.e., Great Britain), and, by the terms of gentleman's agreement, was in the "safe" zone. If he had been in Russia and continued to be a Russian citizen, then Putin would have killed him, regardless of whether he is a permanent resident of Britain.
Someone outside of the official Russian government killed him, but who would want to kill him?
Currently, many reports claim that the Russian government is in chaos. It has numerous renegade factions that actually support criminal elements and that coordinate assassinations. These factions operate outside of the control of the official Russian government lead by Putin. These factions are likely implicated in the murder of Anna Politkovskaya.
In my opinion, one of these factions orchestrated the murder of Litvinenko because he was aggressively investigating the murder of Politkovskaya. Putin would never have killed him; Putin is a veteran of the KGB and clearly understood the gentleman's agreement.
In the development of aerospace technology, Japan has always trailed the USA until now. For many years, the Japanese have been working on an unmanned space shuttle, nicknamed "HOPE-X". The craft somewhat resembles the American space shuttle.
NASDA, the Japanese space agency that has morphed into JAXA, successfully tested a protoype. The program has been canceled due to lack of funding. JAXA intends to use the experimental data and the design schematics for this prototype to develop a manned space plane.
Did the United Force Air Force somehow "borrow" the Japanese experimental data and design schematics to develop the American version of an unmanned space plane?
There is no truly free market. There are, however, relatively free markets. They exist entirely in the West: USA, Japan, Canada, Sweden, etc.
China is not a free market. Combining a free market and a non-free market by allowing desperate labor from the non-free market to flood into the free market is not "allowing the free market to work". Combining a free market and a non-free market creates a (much larger) non-free market, not a free market. The reason that desperate labor exists in a non-free market like China (or Mexico) is that the government has damaged the operation of the free market. This desperate labor, if it is allowed to flood into the free market, represents a form of indirect government intervention (i.e. intervention by the government of the non-free market) into the free market.
The economic laws of supply and demand work properly only in a free market.
Also, illegal aliens from Mexico damage the operation of the corrective forces of supply and demand in the unskilled labor market in the USA. Wages and working conditions remain permanently depressed due to the illegal aliens.
Shortages and surpluses of labor are normal -- and powerful -- forces in a free market. A shortage corrects the underpricing of labor, and surpluses correct the overpricing of labor. If a company cannot find enough information-technology (IT) workers at a salary of $80,000, then that salary is below the equilibrium market price at which supply meets demand. So, the company is underpricing its labor and must increase the salary (and must improve working conditions) to get more labor. There is plenty of labor at the right price.
There is no need for the government to "fix" shortages by importing desperate labor in the form of H-1B workers or illegal aliens. When the government "fixes" a shortage, the government is damaging the normal operation of the free market. The free market works fine without government intervention.
Regrettably, most politicians (and some journals like the "Wall Street Journal") cater to certain segments of the population and outright lie about how economic laws work. For example, many Republicans favor big agri-businesses and claim that the American economy will be irreparably damaged unless Washington allows illegal aliens to pick fruits and vegetables. Many Democrats favor ethnic pressure groups like La Raza and make an identical claim.
Journals like the "Wall Street Journal" use an even sneakier strategy. The Journal repeatedly claims that increasing the American population is wonderful because doing so increases the wealth of the nation via increasing human capital. To a point, this claim is true. Consider an economy of exactly one person. That economy is pathetically poor because one person, regardless of how smart she is, cannot be equally skilled in all areas of work. Here, when I refer to wealth, I am referring to wealth per capita (i.e., GDP per capita), also known as personal wealth. If the 1-person economy grew into a 2-person economy, we can easily imagine that the wealth doubles or triples: one person is tending the vegetable garden while the other person is protecting the grass hut from wild animals.
However, consider an economy with 100 million people. If we doubled the size of this economy, then its wealth does not double. The wealth increases by substantially less than 1 percent. After a certain population size, each doubling of the population brings a rapidly decreasing percentage gain in the wealth.
The game that the WSJ plays is to ignore this concept of diminishing returns. Further, the WSJ deceptively says that doubling the population doubles the total weath (i.e., the total GDP, not the GDP per capita). Though that statement is true, it does nothing for the actual wealth that you experience. What you experience is GDP per capita, not total GDP.
Finally, there is a trade-off between (for example) a 0.1% increase in personal wealth (i.e., GDP per capita) and annoyances (e.g., pollution) created by a doubling of the American population.
By the way, identical comments about diminishing returns apply to global trade. Onces a global free market reaches a certain size, it captures most of the advantages of a large amount of human capital. The USA loses almost nothing by restricting our free trade to only free markets, which includes (at the moment) only Western nations. We should slam our markets shut to non-free markets like India, China, and Mexico. The tiny percentage gain in personal wealth (i.e., the GDP per capita) that we get by including India, China, and Mexico is completely offset by their damaging impact on Americans in the unskilled-labor market. China indirectly erodes the quality of life for Americans in the unskilled-labor market.
Then, along comes the WSJ to deceptively talk about total wealth (i.e., the total GDP) in absolute numbers, say, an increase in total GDP of $15 billion dollars. $15 billion is an eye-popping number. However, divide that number of the number of Americans to get the GDP per capita, and you see only an increase of $50. Is $50 worth destroying the quality of life for Americans in the unskilled-labor market?
A free market is one where goods and services (including labor) are subject to normal market forces. Such is not the case in India, China, and Mexico.
In particular, in the case of Mexico, if a free market existed, there would be plenty of jobs for everyone.
Combining a free market like the USA and a non-free market like Mexico does not create a free market. Combining 2 free markets creates a bigger free market.
Combining a free market and a non-free market does not create a free market. The combined market damages the operation of free-market economics in the USA. The non-free market, for example, damages the movement of wages in the the American unskilled-labor market.
Shortages and surpluses of labor are normal -- and powerful -- forces in a free market. A shortage corrects the underpricing of labor, and surpluses correct the overpricing of labor. If a company cannot find enough information-technology (IT) workers at a salary of $80,000, then that salary is below the equilibrium market price at which supply meets demand. So, the company is underpricing its labor and must increase the salary (and must improve working conditions) to get more labor. There is plenty of labor at the right price.
There is no need for the government to "fix" shortages by importing desperate labor in the form of H-1B workers or illegal aliens. When the government "fixes" a shortage, the government is damaging the normal operation of the free market. The free market works fine without government intervention.
Regrettably, most politicians (and some journals like the "Wall Street Journal") cater to certain segments of the population and outright lie about how economic laws work. For example, many Republicans favor big agri-businesses and claim that the American economy will be irreparably damaged unless Washington allows illegal aliens to pick fruits and vegetables. Many Democrats favor ethnic pressure groups like La Raza and make an identical claim.
Journals like the "Wall Street Journal" use an even sneakier strategy. The Journal repeatedly claims that increasing the American population is wonderful because doing so increases the wealth of the nation via increasing human capital. To a point, this claim is true. Consider an economy of exactly one person. That economy is pathetically poor because one person, regardless of how smart she is, cannot be equally skilled in all areas of work. Here, when I refer to wealth, I am referring to wealth per capita (i.e., GDP per capita), also known as personal wealth. If the 1-person economy grew into a 2-person economy, we can easily imagine that the wealth doubles or triples: one person is tending the vegetable garden while the other person is protecting the grass hut from wild animals.
However, consider an economy with 100 million people. If we doubled the size of this economy, then its wealth does not double. The wealth increases by substantially less than 1 percent. After a certain population size, each doubling of the population brings a rapidly decreasing percentage gain in the wealth.
The game that the WSJ plays is to ignore this concept of diminishing returns. Further, the WSJ deceptively says that doubling the population doubles the total weath (i.e., the total GDP, not the GDP per capita). Though that statement is true, it does nothing for the actual wealth that you experience. What you experience is GDP per capita, not total GDP.
Finally, there is a trade-off between (for example) a 0.1% increase in personal wealth (i.e., GDP per capita) and annoyances (e.g., pollution) created by a doubling of the American population.
By the way, identical comments about diminishing returns apply to global trade. Onces a global free market reaches a certain size, it captures most of the advantages of a large amount of human capital. The USA loses almost nothing by restricting our free trade to only free markets, which includes (at the moment) only Western nations. We should slam our markets shut to non-free markets like India, China, and Mexico. The tiny percentage gain in personal wealth (i.e., the GDP per capita) that we get by including India, China, and Mexico is completely offset by their damaging impact on Americans in the unskilled-labor market. China indirectly erodes the quality of life for Americans in the unskilled-labor market.
Then, along comes the WSJ to deceptively talk about total wealth (i.e., the total GDP) in absolute numbers, say, an increase in total GDP of $15 billion dollars. $15 billion is an eye-popping number. However, divide that number of the number of Americans to get the GDP per capita, and you see only an increase of $50. Is $50 worth destroying the quality of life for Americans in the unskilled-labor market?
Until 2006, the Western nations had an effective regimen for controlling the spread of nuclear weapons. That regimen is called the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT). The idea behind the NPT is that its signatories agree to 2 main points: (1) if a nation does not have nuclear weapons, then it will not develop them and (2) if a nation has already built such weapons, then it will not export them or their technology. In exchange for committing to these points, the existing nuclear powers will give (outright) nuclear technology to the signatories to help them to develop nuclear power for peaceful uses. A third, implied but very important, point about the NPT is that its signatories make no judgment about the "goodness" or "badness" of a government. In this way, even notorious governments would agree to commit to the NPT.
What happened in 2006? Washington agreed to bend the rules in order to cater to Indian ruthlessness. New Delhi gave an ultimatum to Washington. The Indians would support the strategic American objectives of promoting human rights and democracy if and only if Washington (1) gives nuclear technology to New Delhi (in violation of the NPT) and (2) significantly increases the number of Indian H-1B workers allowed to enter the USA.
Given the paucity of supporters (due to the Iraq fiasco), Washington was eager to buy new friends in order to deal effectively with Beijing. So, Washington agreed to all the Indian demands.
Note that the Indians have refused to sign the NPT. Moreover, New Delhi has agressively developed nuclear weapons and is willing to sell nuclear technology to anyone.
Unfortunately, catering to Indian ruthlessness significantly weakened the American position on stopping the proliferation of nuclear weapons. Seeing how Washington kowtowed to the Indians, both the Iranians and the North Koreans are refusing to end their nuclear-weapons programs. Many other nations (including current signatories of the NPT) are now seeking such weapons.
The NPT died in 2006, and Washington killed it.
During 1993 - 2000, American foreign policy was exemplary. During 2001 - 2006, American foreign policy has been a series of grave missteps, miscalculations, and outright stupidity. What happened?
Core Problem: Human Over-population
on
Oceans Empty By 2048?
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
The fish stocks are declining to the point of extinction simply because the human population is too large. There is not enough fish to satiate the appetites of all 6 billion people.
Buying farm-raised fish is not the answer. To raise such fish, the farmers harvest other fish from the oceans in order to feed the fish on the farms. The end result is still the depletion of the wildlife in the oceans.
The only and correct solution is to stop growing the human population. However, no one wants to talk about over-population because talking about it usually elicits accusations of "bigot" or "racist".
The political mantra in the USA is that growing the population is wonderful. Both the "Wall Street Journal" (WSJ) and the "New York Times" (NYT) supports it. Both the WSJ and the NYT argue that unfettered immigration enriches everyone; talk about over-population runs contrary to unfettered immigration.
Over-population reminds me of global warming. Both are very serious problems, yet most people just do not feel the immediacy and seriousness of these problems. So, they hesitate to do anything that is substantive in fixing these problems -- until the day that the huge calamity (i.e. famine or environmental disaster) hits.
According to a news flash from Fox News, "North Korea successfully tested of a nuclear weapon late Sunday night, a senior Bush administration official confirmed to FOX News." Several news organizations are reporting that Washington has not yet confirmed the nuclear test, but apparently Fox News just received confirmation from a senior official in Washington.
We are entering dangerous times, and the Bush administration made a tragic mistake in its dealings with India. Washington has signed the NPT, and by the terms of the treaty, its signatories agree to ban the transfer of nuclear technology to any nation that refuses to sign the NPT. The NPT further stipulates that any signatory which has not yet developed nuclear weapons shall not pursue their development.
New Delhi has long refused to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and has aggressively pursued the development of nuclear weapons. Despite this fact and despite the fact that Washington is a signatory to the NPT, Washington has agreed to give nuclear technology to India.
(New Delhi refused to support the strategic American objectives of promoting human rights and democracy unless Washington (1) gives nuclear technology to India and (2) greatly increases the number of Indian H-1B workers allowed to enter the USA.)
How can Washington demand that Pyongyang refrain from developing nuclear weapons when Washington enthusiastically ignores Indian nuclear ambitions? The point of the NPT is to stop the spread of nuclear weapons to any and all nations, irrespective of their form of government.
On Thursday (September 28), Charlie Rose interiewed seven people: Chris Wallace (Fox News), Richard Clarke (Former NSC Counter-Terrorism Advisor), Representative Peter King (NY-R), Lawrence Wright (Author, "The Looming Tower"), David Remnick (Editor, The New Yorker), John Harris (Co-Author, "The Way to Win"), and Al Hunt (Bloomberg News). Richard Clarke made some eye-opening comments about 9/11.
On Friday (September 29), Charlie Rose interviewed three people: Bob Wright (Chairman & CEO, NBC Universal), Michael Isikoff, and David Corn (dual authors of _Hubris:_The_Inside_Story_of_Spin_,_Scandal,_and_t he_Selling_of_the_Iraq_War_). Isikoff and Corn made some insightful comments about the Iraq War.
According to the current administration, Iraq is related to 9/11. Both these interviews would justify anyone's cynicism about the politicians running our nation: the United States of America.
If anyone knows where to find the transcripts for both interviews, please share your information with the SlashDot audience.
Time For All the Baby-Boomers to Stand Up!
on
The Engine of US Jobs
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
According to the first paragraph of an article by the "San Francisco Chronicle", the baby-boom generation has 77 million people, and they begin retirement in 2008, which is only about 1.25 years from now. We should expect that major health problems (associated with old age) occur by age 60, which is 5 years before retirement. Age 60 corresponds to the year 2003. Consequently, the past 3 years has seen a tremendous growth in the health-care industry, and this growth is driven by healthcare for the babyboomers. This growth will continue until the last of the baby-boomers retire around 2025.
There is really no mystery here. More old people means larger government spending on health care. More spending means more jobs in the health care industry.
There are 2 other factors that have increased health-care spending. First is the millions of illegal aliens who have no insurance. They usually go straight to the emergency room, where physicians do not refuse service (even to people without insurance). The services are not paid by the illegal aliens but are paid by the government.
Illegal aliens do become sick. They often work at grueling, backbreaking work. There is no incentive for American businesses (that employ illegal labor) to improve the working conditions because they can always find another desperate laborer if the current laborer becomes too sick to work. After all, the USA has an open-border policy with Mexico and the rest of South/Central America.
The other factor that has increased health-care spending is the excessive hours which Americans are forced to work. "60 Minutes", the renowned CBS program, recentedly reported that the average American now works more hours than even the average Japanese. These additional hours of work take a severe toll on workers' health. For example, 60+ hours of computer work per week leads to cardiovascular problems due to lack of exercise. The excessive hours also strain family relations, leading to the need for counseling or psychotherapy. In Silion Valley, the divorce rate is about 30% higher than the national rate.
In an ideal society, crimes committed by very powerful people should result in very severe penalties. Crimes committed by less powerful people should result in less severe penalties. Here, one form of power is money.
I am not suggesting that we should have 2 standards of punishment: one for powerful (usually quite rich) people and one for less powerful (usually less rich) people. Rather, I am suggesting that whenever the law grants a judge or a prosecutor wide discretion in meting a punishment, they should aggressively pursue and severely punish powerful people.
The rationale is that the crimes of powerful people are much more likely to hurt -- or even kill -- people. If a messed-up dude from the ghetto steals a high-end Acura that is worth 3x of his annual salary, then he is injuring principally the owner of the car. On the other hand, if a conniving money manager steals 3x of his annual salary ($300,000) from a mutual fund that he is managing, then he is hurting a large number of people on a large scale ($900,000). We are talking abou completely different orders of magnitude.
Sometimes, the justice system works in the way that I have suggested. For example, a special government-appointed prosecutor filed charges against both Scooter Libby and Bill Clinton for merely lying. The prosecutor acted appropriately.
However, usually, the justice system fails. It often severely punishes (by assigning prison time) the hapless criminal from the ghetto but barely slaps the wrist of the conniving money manager. We know the "deal". Most money managers who have been caught stealing from investors typically settle for both a relatively (i.e., relative to the manager's net worth) small financial penalty and signed statement that explicitly does not admit wrongdoing. The statement typically has the clause, "neither admitting nor denying wrongdoing".
The big question in the HP scandal is whether the justice system will slap Patricia Dunn (the chairperson of the HP board) on the wrist. Is there any chance that the justice system will actually punish her at the level of severity often meted to hapless criminals caught in the ghetto?
Metcalfe's Law explains well why a cellular network grows rapidly. The value of a network grows as the square of the number of members of a network. Here, members are owners of cell phones. As the value increases, more people want to be part of the network. So, more people buy cell phones. Lather. Rinse. Repeat.
"The Washington Post" reports, "California Attorney General Bill Lockyer said yesterday that 'people in high positions" at Hewlett-Packard "could be involved in illegal activity.' 'Do we think a crime occurred?' Lockyer said. 'Yes.' But he said the attorney general's office was still trying to figure out 'who did what, when.'"
According to a report by the "San Francisco Chronicle", Patricia Dunn (the chair of the HP board of directors) ordered the execution of the criminal act.
Give Lockyer's position on this matter, the attorney general will certainly pursue a criminal case against Dunn. She may spend some time in prison since the issue at hand is a criminal matter, not a civil one.
w33t (978574) wrote, "This doesn't make sense to me. I mean, I guess it should, but how can one patent a format?"
The BBC report states, "Italian patents company Sisvel alleges that SanDisk refuses to pay licensing fees it needs to playback MP3 files." In other words, the Slashdot article starting this discussion is poorly worded. The issue is, in fact, the patent for the algorithm (that decodes the format, thus enabling playback), not the format itself.
Still, the cost of licensing the patent should not be a concern for the consumer -- i.e., you and me. If the licensing cost ever became too high and impacted sales of the product, then the industry would just switch to another decoding algorithm (and accompanying format). Think RAMBUS DRAM versus DDR2 SDRAM.
Google is starting to resemble Norman in a "Star Trek" episode (titled "I, Mudd") about a planet of androids. Norman is an android. When Kirk and Spock ask him how he plans to take over the Federation, Norman says something like "We (androids) will serve the humans. They will be happy. They will come to depend on us, and they will be happy. And we will control." <typical omnious "Star Trek" music>
Certainly, most users are quite happy to use Google. Google offers a bunch of free but useful stuff: programs, tools, image databases, etc.
In order to colonize space, we must be able to travel on a human-time scale. Otherwise, we are trapped in our solar system. In fact, we are effectively confined to the region between Venus and Mars: traveling from Earth to Mars takes about 6 months. Forget about going to the next galaxy.
The only way out of this dilemma is to look for phenomenon that goes beyond our current understanding of physics. One possibility is the new model (of physics) developed by Burkhard Heim. He postulated additional dimensions beyond the 4 known ones: 3 spatial dimensions plus time. Using these additional dimensions, he rewrote general relativity in a quantum framework.
From this model, Heim developed a theory that enabled physicists to accurately calculate the masses of the fundamental particles. Unfortunately, this theory is the only part (of his work) that has been peer-reviewed in a journal.
Is the rest of his theory true? If it is true, it would have incredible ramifications. It means that we can build a hyperdrive to power a spacecraft to mars in about 3 hours. The hyperdrive would shove the spacecraft into a strange place which is outside of our standard universe of 4 dimensions; in that strange place, the speed of light is much faster than that in our universe. The hyperdrive would then push the spacecraft along one of those additional dimensions (beyond the basic 4 dimensions), powering the spacecraft towards Mars along that other worldly dimension.
The American military thinks that Heim's model is valid and is actually attempting to build a prototype of the hyperdrive.
Slashdot Mirror
The same happened in the market for 0x86 processors. The market once had numerous strong competitors: AMD, Nexgen, Cyrix, Centaur, and Intel. Now, there are only 2 major players: AMD and Intel.
The search market is facing a similar consolidation -- in 2 phases. The market once had numerous strong competitors: Microsoft, Google, AltaVista, Yahoo, AskJeeves, etc. After the first phase of consolidation, there are 3 major players: Microsoft, Yahoo, and Google. Now, the market is entering the second phase of consolidation. Like the personal computer, the search tool is a commodity product with almost no product differentiation. A search on Yahoo works just like a search on Microsoft Live. Why do we need 3 essentially identical products on the market?
The market appears to be consolidating into (1) Google being the major player and (2) the merger of Microsoft and Yahoo being the minor player. The recent loss of search market share from Yahoo to Google is also nudging Yahoo into being acquired by Microsoft.
Yahoo is leaning in that direction by giving preference to IE7.
I wish to see a comparison for the benefit of millions of users who do not want to (or who cannot afford to) upgrade to new hardware. This comparison would involve installing Vista and XP on a hardware configuration that is the minimum configuration recommended for XP (yes, XP). To enhance the comparison, we should include RedHat Linux.
1. Deadly polonium traced to Russian nuclear plant
2. Plot Thickens as Spy Poison is Traced to a Nuke Plant in Putin's Russia
The second source suggests that the isotope composition is the signature that identifies a specific power plant. However, the Atomic Weapons Establishment declined to give the location of the plant.
I am sticking to my original guess of the culprit: a renegade group in Russia. Various reports have indicated that numerous factions, answering to no one, operate within the Russian government. One of these factions likely committed the crime.
Putin is just too smart to kill someone in such a blatant way. He would have known that such a gruesome murder would have serious negative consequences.
$500 is not expensive but also is not cheap. There are better uses for that money.
As well, how much can an elementary-school kid get out of a laptop besides playing some games and doing e-mail? Playing games and sending e-mail can be learned in a day. They do not require the kid to own a laptop. He can learn that mindless simple stuff on the library's computer.
The story might be different with a high-school student. He would have enough mathematical knowledge or scientific reasoning to do some nifty projects for the local science fair. Alternatively, he could also use the laptop to write insightful political research papers solving the Iraq quagmire in which Washington is stuck.
The Thai government should consider buying a laptop for all freshmen in high school instead of the pouty kids in elementary school.
Of course, the first computer lesson in high school is "Here is how you write biting commentary in Slashdot. The Slashdotters love that stuff."
To summarize a very long story, an employee at Seattle Computer Products (SCP) cloned (i.e., ripped off) CP/M, which Kildall developed. Bill Gates, the young founder of Microsoft, licensed an OS to IBM, but this OS was not yet under the control of Gates. In other words, Gates sold a product that he did not actually have. After inking the deal with IBM, Gates then bought a permanent liftime license to SCP's OS. That OS morphed over a two decades into the infamous line of Windows OSes.
As for Kildall, he understandably became very bitter. Kildall was financially well off, but he never achieved either the fame or the wealth that Gates achieved. If Gates had gotten the billion-dollar wealth but Kildall had gotten the fame (for his work on OSes), then Kildall would probably have accepted the outcome. However, Kildall achieved neither the fame nor the wealth. The bitterness drove Kildall to essentially commit suicide by drinking himself to death. He died in a bar.
I understand Kildall's feelings. Someone had screwed me in the same way that Gates screwed Kildall.
Yet, the government gives an implicit "okay" to prostitution. About 33% of Chinese men returning from the mainland to Hong Kong have purchased the services of a prostitute.
Why is pornography worse than prostitution? Pornography is about fantasy. Prostitution is about reality, and in China, prostitutes are sometimes children.
There is no reason to lament the fact that most Russians prefer to be bankers instead of cosmonauts. Russia is simply not at the right economic stage to splurge on space programs. During the Cold War, the Russians spent heavily on space projects, but that situation is due to government intervention (in the economy) against the will of the people. That intervention wrecked the economy.
When Russia becomes rich like the rest of the West, then the Russians will return to space. Given the the incredible accomplishments of Russian mathematicians, I expect that a Russian genius will decipher and advance the work of Burkhard Heim. In so doing, he shall develop the first working prototype of a warp drive. (The Americans have already developed phasers, which can be deployed on a jet fighter. Are the Japanese working on shields?)
However, that is just an illusion for now. Right now, we must concentrate on steering Russia towards developing a true democracy and a real economy not based solely on commodities. The current pathetic state of Russia is partially due to the shenanigans of the Harvard elite.
For this reason, I strongly doubt that Putin ordered the assassination of Alexander Litvinenko. He was on Western soil (i.e., Great Britain), and, by the terms of gentleman's agreement, was in the "safe" zone. If he had been in Russia and continued to be a Russian citizen, then Putin would have killed him, regardless of whether he is a permanent resident of Britain.
Someone outside of the official Russian government killed him, but who would want to kill him?
Currently, many reports claim that the Russian government is in chaos. It has numerous renegade factions that actually support criminal elements and that coordinate assassinations. These factions operate outside of the control of the official Russian government lead by Putin. These factions are likely implicated in the murder of Anna Politkovskaya.
In my opinion, one of these factions orchestrated the murder of Litvinenko because he was aggressively investigating the murder of Politkovskaya. Putin would never have killed him; Putin is a veteran of the KGB and clearly understood the gentleman's agreement.
By the way, I despise Putin. This despot is currently broadcasting Russian propaganda via a satellite-delivered broadcast called "Russia Today". When Moscow tried to brutalize the Georgians, "Russia Today" omitted broadcasting the Georgian point of view. "Russia Today" is almost as biased as Al Jazeera.
NASDA, the Japanese space agency that has morphed into JAXA, successfully tested a protoype. The program has been canceled due to lack of funding. JAXA intends to use the experimental data and the design schematics for this prototype to develop a manned space plane.
Did the United Force Air Force somehow "borrow" the Japanese experimental data and design schematics to develop the American version of an unmanned space plane?
The opium that is creationism is some damned powerful stuff.
China is not a free market. Combining a free market and a non-free market by allowing desperate labor from the non-free market to flood into the free market is not "allowing the free market to work". Combining a free market and a non-free market creates a (much larger) non-free market, not a free market. The reason that desperate labor exists in a non-free market like China (or Mexico) is that the government has damaged the operation of the free market. This desperate labor, if it is allowed to flood into the free market, represents a form of indirect government intervention (i.e. intervention by the government of the non-free market) into the free market.
The economic laws of supply and demand work properly only in a free market.
Also, illegal aliens from Mexico damage the operation of the corrective forces of supply and demand in the unskilled labor market in the USA. Wages and working conditions remain permanently depressed due to the illegal aliens.
There is no need for the government to "fix" shortages by importing desperate labor in the form of H-1B workers or illegal aliens. When the government "fixes" a shortage, the government is damaging the normal operation of the free market. The free market works fine without government intervention.
Regrettably, most politicians (and some journals like the "Wall Street Journal") cater to certain segments of the population and outright lie about how economic laws work. For example, many Republicans favor big agri-businesses and claim that the American economy will be irreparably damaged unless Washington allows illegal aliens to pick fruits and vegetables. Many Democrats favor ethnic pressure groups like La Raza and make an identical claim.
Journals like the "Wall Street Journal" use an even sneakier strategy. The Journal repeatedly claims that increasing the American population is wonderful because doing so increases the wealth of the nation via increasing human capital. To a point, this claim is true. Consider an economy of exactly one person. That economy is pathetically poor because one person, regardless of how smart she is, cannot be equally skilled in all areas of work. Here, when I refer to wealth, I am referring to wealth per capita (i.e., GDP per capita), also known as personal wealth. If the 1-person economy grew into a 2-person economy, we can easily imagine that the wealth doubles or triples: one person is tending the vegetable garden while the other person is protecting the grass hut from wild animals.
However, consider an economy with 100 million people. If we doubled the size of this economy, then its wealth does not double. The wealth increases by substantially less than 1 percent. After a certain population size, each doubling of the population brings a rapidly decreasing percentage gain in the wealth.
The game that the WSJ plays is to ignore this concept of diminishing returns. Further, the WSJ deceptively says that doubling the population doubles the total weath (i.e., the total GDP, not the GDP per capita). Though that statement is true, it does nothing for the actual wealth that you experience. What you experience is GDP per capita, not total GDP.
Finally, there is a trade-off between (for example) a 0.1% increase in personal wealth (i.e., GDP per capita) and annoyances (e.g., pollution) created by a doubling of the American population.
By the way, identical comments about diminishing returns apply to global trade. Onces a global free market reaches a certain size, it captures most of the advantages of a large amount of human capital. The USA loses almost nothing by restricting our free trade to only free markets, which includes (at the moment) only Western nations. We should slam our markets shut to non-free markets like India, China, and Mexico. The tiny percentage gain in personal wealth (i.e., the GDP per capita) that we get by including India, China, and Mexico is completely offset by their damaging impact on Americans in the unskilled-labor market. China indirectly erodes the quality of life for Americans in the unskilled-labor market.
Then, along comes the WSJ to deceptively talk about total wealth (i.e., the total GDP) in absolute numbers, say, an increase in total GDP of $15 billion dollars. $15 billion is an eye-popping number. However, divide that number of the number of Americans to get the GDP per capita, and you see only an increase of $50. Is $50 worth destroying the quality of life for Americans in the unskilled-labor market?
In particular, in the case of Mexico, if a free market existed, there would be plenty of jobs for everyone.
Combining a free market like the USA and a non-free market like Mexico does not create a free market. Combining 2 free markets creates a bigger free market.
Combining a free market and a non-free market does not create a free market. The combined market damages the operation of free-market economics in the USA. The non-free market, for example, damages the movement of wages in the the American unskilled-labor market.
There is no need for the government to "fix" shortages by importing desperate labor in the form of H-1B workers or illegal aliens. When the government "fixes" a shortage, the government is damaging the normal operation of the free market. The free market works fine without government intervention.
Regrettably, most politicians (and some journals like the "Wall Street Journal") cater to certain segments of the population and outright lie about how economic laws work. For example, many Republicans favor big agri-businesses and claim that the American economy will be irreparably damaged unless Washington allows illegal aliens to pick fruits and vegetables. Many Democrats favor ethnic pressure groups like La Raza and make an identical claim.
Journals like the "Wall Street Journal" use an even sneakier strategy. The Journal repeatedly claims that increasing the American population is wonderful because doing so increases the wealth of the nation via increasing human capital. To a point, this claim is true. Consider an economy of exactly one person. That economy is pathetically poor because one person, regardless of how smart she is, cannot be equally skilled in all areas of work. Here, when I refer to wealth, I am referring to wealth per capita (i.e., GDP per capita), also known as personal wealth. If the 1-person economy grew into a 2-person economy, we can easily imagine that the wealth doubles or triples: one person is tending the vegetable garden while the other person is protecting the grass hut from wild animals.
However, consider an economy with 100 million people. If we doubled the size of this economy, then its wealth does not double. The wealth increases by substantially less than 1 percent. After a certain population size, each doubling of the population brings a rapidly decreasing percentage gain in the wealth.
The game that the WSJ plays is to ignore this concept of diminishing returns. Further, the WSJ deceptively says that doubling the population doubles the total weath (i.e., the total GDP, not the GDP per capita). Though that statement is true, it does nothing for the actual wealth that you experience. What you experience is GDP per capita, not total GDP.
Finally, there is a trade-off between (for example) a 0.1% increase in personal wealth (i.e., GDP per capita) and annoyances (e.g., pollution) created by a doubling of the American population.
By the way, identical comments about diminishing returns apply to global trade. Onces a global free market reaches a certain size, it captures most of the advantages of a large amount of human capital. The USA loses almost nothing by restricting our free trade to only free markets, which includes (at the moment) only Western nations. We should slam our markets shut to non-free markets like India, China, and Mexico. The tiny percentage gain in personal wealth (i.e., the GDP per capita) that we get by including India, China, and Mexico is completely offset by their damaging impact on Americans in the unskilled-labor market. China indirectly erodes the quality of life for Americans in the unskilled-labor market.
Then, along comes the WSJ to deceptively talk about total wealth (i.e., the total GDP) in absolute numbers, say, an increase in total GDP of $15 billion dollars. $15 billion is an eye-popping number. However, divide that number of the number of Americans to get the GDP per capita, and you see only an increase of $50. Is $50 worth destroying the quality of life for Americans in the unskilled-labor market?
What happened in 2006? Washington agreed to bend the rules in order to cater to Indian ruthlessness. New Delhi gave an ultimatum to Washington. The Indians would support the strategic American objectives of promoting human rights and democracy if and only if Washington (1) gives nuclear technology to New Delhi (in violation of the NPT) and (2) significantly increases the number of Indian H-1B workers allowed to enter the USA.
Given the paucity of supporters (due to the Iraq fiasco), Washington was eager to buy new friends in order to deal effectively with Beijing. So, Washington agreed to all the Indian demands.
Note that the Indians have refused to sign the NPT. Moreover, New Delhi has agressively developed nuclear weapons and is willing to sell nuclear technology to anyone.
Unfortunately, catering to Indian ruthlessness significantly weakened the American position on stopping the proliferation of nuclear weapons. Seeing how Washington kowtowed to the Indians, both the Iranians and the North Koreans are refusing to end their nuclear-weapons programs. Many other nations (including current signatories of the NPT) are now seeking such weapons.
The NPT died in 2006, and Washington killed it.
During 1993 - 2000, American foreign policy was exemplary. During 2001 - 2006, American foreign policy has been a series of grave missteps, miscalculations, and outright stupidity. What happened?
Buying farm-raised fish is not the answer. To raise such fish, the farmers harvest other fish from the oceans in order to feed the fish on the farms. The end result is still the depletion of the wildlife in the oceans.
The only and correct solution is to stop growing the human population. However, no one wants to talk about over-population because talking about it usually elicits accusations of "bigot" or "racist".
The political mantra in the USA is that growing the population is wonderful. Both the "Wall Street Journal" (WSJ) and the "New York Times" (NYT) supports it. Both the WSJ and the NYT argue that unfettered immigration enriches everyone; talk about over-population runs contrary to unfettered immigration.
Over-population reminds me of global warming. Both are very serious problems, yet most people just do not feel the immediacy and seriousness of these problems. So, they hesitate to do anything that is substantive in fixing these problems -- until the day that the huge calamity (i.e. famine or environmental disaster) hits.
We are entering dangerous times, and the Bush administration made a tragic mistake in its dealings with India. Washington has signed the NPT, and by the terms of the treaty, its signatories agree to ban the transfer of nuclear technology to any nation that refuses to sign the NPT. The NPT further stipulates that any signatory which has not yet developed nuclear weapons shall not pursue their development.
New Delhi has long refused to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and has aggressively pursued the development of nuclear weapons. Despite this fact and despite the fact that Washington is a signatory to the NPT, Washington has agreed to give nuclear technology to India. (New Delhi refused to support the strategic American objectives of promoting human rights and democracy unless Washington (1) gives nuclear technology to India and (2) greatly increases the number of Indian H-1B workers allowed to enter the USA.)
How can Washington demand that Pyongyang refrain from developing nuclear weapons when Washington enthusiastically ignores Indian nuclear ambitions? The point of the NPT is to stop the spread of nuclear weapons to any and all nations, irrespective of their form of government.
On Friday (September 29), Charlie Rose interviewed three people: Bob Wright (Chairman & CEO, NBC Universal), Michael Isikoff, and David Corn (dual authors of _Hubris:_The_Inside_Story_of_Spin_,_Scandal,_and_t he_Selling_of_the_Iraq_War_). Isikoff and Corn made some insightful comments about the Iraq War.
According to the current administration, Iraq is related to 9/11. Both these interviews would justify anyone's cynicism about the politicians running our nation: the United States of America.
If anyone knows where to find the transcripts for both interviews, please share your information with the SlashDot audience.
There is really no mystery here. More old people means larger government spending on health care. More spending means more jobs in the health care industry.
There are 2 other factors that have increased health-care spending. First is the millions of illegal aliens who have no insurance. They usually go straight to the emergency room, where physicians do not refuse service (even to people without insurance). The services are not paid by the illegal aliens but are paid by the government.
Illegal aliens do become sick. They often work at grueling, backbreaking work. There is no incentive for American businesses (that employ illegal labor) to improve the working conditions because they can always find another desperate laborer if the current laborer becomes too sick to work. After all, the USA has an open-border policy with Mexico and the rest of South/Central America.
The other factor that has increased health-care spending is the excessive hours which Americans are forced to work. "60 Minutes", the renowned CBS program, recentedly reported that the average American now works more hours than even the average Japanese. These additional hours of work take a severe toll on workers' health. For example, 60+ hours of computer work per week leads to cardiovascular problems due to lack of exercise. The excessive hours also strain family relations, leading to the need for counseling or psychotherapy. In Silion Valley, the divorce rate is about 30% higher than the national rate.
I am not suggesting that we should have 2 standards of punishment: one for powerful (usually quite rich) people and one for less powerful (usually less rich) people. Rather, I am suggesting that whenever the law grants a judge or a prosecutor wide discretion in meting a punishment, they should aggressively pursue and severely punish powerful people.
The rationale is that the crimes of powerful people are much more likely to hurt -- or even kill -- people. If a messed-up dude from the ghetto steals a high-end Acura that is worth 3x of his annual salary, then he is injuring principally the owner of the car. On the other hand, if a conniving money manager steals 3x of his annual salary ($300,000) from a mutual fund that he is managing, then he is hurting a large number of people on a large scale ($900,000). We are talking abou completely different orders of magnitude.
Sometimes, the justice system works in the way that I have suggested. For example, a special government-appointed prosecutor filed charges against both Scooter Libby and Bill Clinton for merely lying. The prosecutor acted appropriately.
However, usually, the justice system fails. It often severely punishes (by assigning prison time) the hapless criminal from the ghetto but barely slaps the wrist of the conniving money manager. We know the "deal". Most money managers who have been caught stealing from investors typically settle for both a relatively (i.e., relative to the manager's net worth) small financial penalty and signed statement that explicitly does not admit wrongdoing. The statement typically has the clause, "neither admitting nor denying wrongdoing".
The big question in the HP scandal is whether the justice system will slap Patricia Dunn (the chairperson of the HP board) on the wrist. Is there any chance that the justice system will actually punish her at the level of severity often meted to hapless criminals caught in the ghetto?
Metcalfe's Law explains well why a cellular network grows rapidly. The value of a network grows as the square of the number of members of a network. Here, members are owners of cell phones. As the value increases, more people want to be part of the network. So, more people buy cell phones. Lather. Rinse. Repeat.
"The Washington Post" reports, " California Attorney General Bill Lockyer said yesterday that 'people in high positions" at Hewlett-Packard "could be involved in illegal activity.' 'Do we think a crime occurred?' Lockyer said. 'Yes.' But he said the attorney general's office was still trying to figure out 'who did what, when.' "
According to a report by the "San Francisco Chronicle", Patricia Dunn (the chair of the HP board of directors) ordered the execution of the criminal act.
Give Lockyer's position on this matter, the attorney general will certainly pursue a criminal case against Dunn. She may spend some time in prison since the issue at hand is a criminal matter, not a civil one.
The BBC report states, "Italian patents company Sisvel alleges that SanDisk refuses to pay licensing fees it needs to playback MP3 files." In other words, the Slashdot article starting this discussion is poorly worded. The issue is, in fact, the patent for the algorithm (that decodes the format, thus enabling playback), not the format itself.
Still, the cost of licensing the patent should not be a concern for the consumer -- i.e., you and me. If the licensing cost ever became too high and impacted sales of the product, then the industry would just switch to another decoding algorithm (and accompanying format). Think RAMBUS DRAM versus DDR2 SDRAM.
Certainly, most users are quite happy to use Google. Google offers a bunch of free but useful stuff: programs, tools, image databases, etc.
The users are happy.
The users depend on Google and are happy.
The users install the microphone link to Google.
The users are happy.
And Google controls.
The only way out of this dilemma is to look for phenomenon that goes beyond our current understanding of physics. One possibility is the new model (of physics) developed by Burkhard Heim. He postulated additional dimensions beyond the 4 known ones: 3 spatial dimensions plus time. Using these additional dimensions, he rewrote general relativity in a quantum framework.
From this model, Heim developed a theory that enabled physicists to accurately calculate the masses of the fundamental particles. Unfortunately, this theory is the only part (of his work) that has been peer-reviewed in a journal.
Is the rest of his theory true? If it is true, it would have incredible ramifications. It means that we can build a hyperdrive to power a spacecraft to mars in about 3 hours. The hyperdrive would shove the spacecraft into a strange place which is outside of our standard universe of 4 dimensions; in that strange place, the speed of light is much faster than that in our universe. The hyperdrive would then push the spacecraft along one of those additional dimensions (beyond the basic 4 dimensions), powering the spacecraft towards Mars along that other worldly dimension.
The American military thinks that Heim's model is valid and is actually attempting to build a prototype of the hyperdrive.