In terms of violating intellectual property rights,
Last time I looked, there is no such thing as "intellectual property rights". There is copyright law, patent law, and trademark law. These three are commonly grouped as "intellectual property" in the media, but that phrase has no legal standing.
As far as I can tell, no Cisco copyright was violated; no patents were infringed; and no trademarks were fraudulently used. Thus nothing illegal has occurred.
The only remaining possibility in the U.S. is a violation of the DMCA, which Cisco hasn't mentioned. The DMCA is pretty complex, but as far as I can see, the only way it would apply here is if Cisco had encrypted their information and Lynn had decrypted it for commercial purposes. I don't know if compiling source code to object code counts as encryption for the DMCA, and the purposes of the "decryption" are a fair stretch in that context anyway. So I don't see that as being a legal problem here either.
But the doom-sayers all assume that demand for oil is inelastic, which would be a surprise as it would be the first such commodity ever discovered.
The problem as I understand it is that although the demand is indeed elastic, it cannot shrink without causing a corresponding shrinkage of the economy - particularly in North America, where all infrastructure built since WWII has been built on the assumption of infinite supplies of cheap oil. This includes industrial infrastructure, commercial infrastructure, residential infrastructure, transportation infrastructure, food production infrastructure, everything.
The only way to reduce the demand for oil given all this oil-dependent infrastructure is to build a new infrastructure. Unfortunately it would require probably the rest of the oil remaining in the entire world to replace all of that infrastructure, and that cannot happen - not that anyone is even trying.
So the demand for oil will indeed decline as the price increases, but this reduction in demand will be accompanied by a corresponding reduction in economic activity, standard of living, and population. This is what they call the "die-off".
It would help somewhat if North America stopped allowing immigration, but that's not about to go over politically either.
In an earlier company my desktop workstation was a Sparc server for the other Sparc users in my group (3 or 4 of them). One day I was moving cubicles, and I completely forgot that my machine was a server, so I just shut it down and moved it over. I immediately got a bunch of complaints from the guys who couldn't access their files any more.:)
We're in for such a rude awakening when the oil runs out.
We're in for such a rude awakening much earlier than that. Long before the oil runs out, the demand is going to exceed the supply. More specifically, the supply follows a rough bell curve shape, and we are pretty much at the peak now. This means that although demand is rising faster and faster (especially as India and China start to think that their billions of people all need cars), the supply is more or less immediately going to start to decrease. When this happens, the price is going to go ballistic. (And $60/barrel isn't ballistic, not by a long shot.) So long before we run out of the stuff, it is going to become totally uneconomical to use it for little things like driving to work.
That is true, and coal can be substituted in a number of areas where we currently use oil. Of course coal has its own problems, not least of which is that it is more than a little radioactive. But I've heard interesting things about IGCC power plants (integrated gasification combined cycle), which seem to be a good way to use coal cleanly to produce electricity at fairly high efficiencies. And there is certainly a lot of room to reduce our current energy usage without turning into a third world country right away. One thing is for sure: interesting times lie ahead.
And as you say, coal is not so good for aircraft - nor is nuclear power. One way or the other, I think air travel is soon going to be a thing of the past.
Yeah, and that's not even the really depressing part. The really depressing part is when you realize that the entire infrastructure for growing and shipping food for 6 billion people on this planet is also critically dependent on that cheap oil.
Progress as we've come to know it is no longer feasible. Even the status quo is no longer feasible. Regression is inevitable. The only question is how far, and how fast - and how many people will have to starve to death in the process. (And those of us in the colder climates have the additional worry of freezing to death while we're starving.)
I can't think of another example of backward progress.
Have no fear, there will be more examples soon. All this "progress" we've experienced so far is based on oil, and cheap plentiful oil at that. What do you think is going to happen when oil more or less overnight stops being cheap and plentiful? I predict a whole lot of backward progress.
If you thought the loss of supersonic air travel was a backward step, wait until you see what the loss of subsonic air travel will look like.
Good question. All these predictions of what's going to be happening in 2015 can only be made by ignoring the impending reduction or cessation of unsustainable economic and geological activity. By 2015, it's unlikely that anyone but the most wealthy will be able to afford to fly anywhere, or indeed drive a car to the grocery store. Supersonic commercial transport, indeed! Count yourself lucky if it's still possible to even set sail for Japan in 2015, never mind booking steamship passage. In a more likely scenario, most industrialized nations will be at war over the remaining dwindling supplies of oil.
Yes, it certainly looks like the housing market is going to crash, and the question is what else will go with it? Some analyses I've seen indicate that when the current "credit bubble" bursts, a lot of other sectors of the economy will partially collapse too, as people stop spending money on non-essentials in order to keep a roof over their heads (if they're lucky) and food on their table.
This is a bad time to be looking at a financial crash, because there is an energy crash looming too, and surviving an energy crash (in anything like the form we want our civilization to have) looks like it will require a large amount of capital to build non-petroleum-dependent infrastructure. But where's that capital going to come from if there's a financial crash going on at the same time??
Re:My findings (Dvorak and Kinesis)
on
Advocating Dvorak
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
I would agree with kahei's assessment - you will get more ergonomic benefit from a Kinesis than from switching to Dvorak. Of course the ultimate is Kinesis + Dvorak, which is what I use at home (I have two of the darn things, and I might have to buy a third one for work!) At work I don't have a Kinesis, so I use the Dvorak layout on a regular flat keyboard, and does it ever suck compared to the Kinesis.
It's hard to describe the effortless feeling of typing on a Kinesis with a Dvorak layout once you get used to it. It's so smooth and natural that you hardly feel like you're typing at all. It does take some time to adapt - for me it was about a month for the Dvorak layout and a week or two for the Kinesis. It might be shorter if you try adapting to both at the same time, or it might just be more frustrating.
If you want to retain the moral high ground, you must only traffic in materials that should be public domain, but are not due to extensions. Even under pre-extension copyright rules, the latest three Star Wars films, for example, would still be protected by copyright.
True. According to the earliest copyright acts enacted in North America (Copyright Act of 1790), the original copyright term was fourteen years, with an option to extend for another fourteen (the conditions for this extension may or may not have included the author's being alive at the time of extension). So, under these rules, SW Episode IV should now be public domain, but Episodes V and VI would not be (assuming the original extension period would have been applied for and granted under the original rules). Also note that only the original edition is (or rather, should be) public domain; the subsequent re-releases are not yet.
I have a copy of SW Episodes IV-VI (original theatrical release) on laserdisc. I will be doing my part to distribute them as they become available to the public domain under the original terms of copyright!
That's a good point. And while we're at it, why are there 16/8 multicast subnets? And what exactly are Ford, Halliburton, Eli Lilly, Apple, H-P, IBM, and the U.K. Social Security Department doing with their 16 MILLION public, globally allocated IP addresses EACH??? Or what is BBN doing with their 48 MILLION addresses? And then there's BNR, now known as Nortel Networks, which needs fewer and fewer addresses each week. I think a/24 should be plenty for them. (ba-dum ching!)
It looks to the casual observer like there are lots of free addresses, or rather, there WOULD be, with a bit of reorganization and housecleaning...
I just hope that all the cars they are planning to sell this project to aren't fueled by petroleum, because that's a dead-end market if I ever saw one.
Perhaps they should think about a market that might actually have a future, like bicycle-casting!
I'm using Sympatico DSL and I cannot seem to run Azureus successfully any more either. My PPPoE connection starts going up and down like a yo-yo pretty much as soon as I start Azureus. It used to run fine. I'm having a hard time believing that this problem is due to a misconfiguration on my end - it seems suspiciously like Sympatico is detecting the traffic pattern (doesn't matter what port I use) and causing my connection grief. The connection remains flaky for an hour or so after I stop running Azureus, too. I can FTP/HTTP files upstream and downstream at full bandwidth with no problem. Only Azureus appears to cause it to go out to lunch.
While there are certainly some people that fit your description, most of the internet-boom-ITers who weren't any good are now out of the industry.
I'm inclined to disagree with this claim. I've talked to a variety of recruiters in the last couple of years, including the one who hired me, and the message I get is always the same: the tech job market is full of crappy applicants who barely know one end of a power cord from the other. There is definitely a regional effect - I am in a high-tech-centric area and the conditions will certainly vary if you are living in the middle of nowhere trying to get a local high-tech job. But the conditions here are unequivocal - the chaff from the high-tech boom has not gone away, but at the same time, there are job openings coming up constantly.
I know one fellow who is trying to hire, and he's gone through hundreds of resumes and dozens of interviews without finding a competent software developer. He keeps trying to hire me, but I am already gainfully employed, and he is doing Windoze development - ick!
The only bad thing I see happening to good people in the high tech market since the crash is that it now takes a substantial amount of work to craft a resume that will distinguish you, as a skilled experienced developer, from the hundreds or thousands of wanna-bes who are trying to get a job doing something they know very little about. I can only imagine that one day, these people will have to get honest work doing something they are qualified for - but that hasn't happened in any big way yet.
What will happen is that price of oil will slowly continue to rise for decades.
While I think your analysis is fairly insightful, I disagree with your assertion that the price of oil will slowly rise for decades.
History has shown that when the demand for a critical resource such as electricity or oil exceeds the supply, the price does not rise "slowly". When California experienced electricity shortages, the spot market price went up by a factor of 10 in a matter of months. This is not a slow increase - this is a spike. Crude oil futures were trading on the NYMEX last year at $35/barrel; this year it is $50/barrel. That is an increase of 50% in one year - not what I would call "slow". The problem that many are worried about is that the price of this essential commodity will rise much faster than our ability to replace our cheap-oil-dependent infrastructure with some alternative. This will lead to recession, depression, and possibly crash.
The only thing that can make the price of oil go down is for the demand to decrease faster than the supply is decreasing. However, unless we suddenly come up with some way to make our economy run on something other than petroleum, this means our economy will also decrease as our energy usage decreases. The problem with that scenario is that our economy is not geared to decrease - it can either grow (increase) or crash. There is no middle ground.
So when I fly my paraglider for a decent XC, say 65k in around three hours,
Nice XC there! My best is currently 42 km in my hang glider, which is still pretty fair. It took me about two hours, so I guess my average speed is similar to yours. But I'm usually not flying for speed, but for scenery and distance. Nothing like drifting over the countryside at 5,000'! (Not having made many XC flights of that sort of distance, I always get a kick out of how long it takes a motorized vehicle to come and get me!)
And just to keep somewhat on topic on the subject of fuel, I keep thinking about ways of launching HG/PG that don't require fuel. A sailplane fellow once mentioned that his club used to launch sailplanes with big bungee cords. I wonder how that would work for a foot-launched wing... maybe there would be too much stored energy in a bungee cord, but how about a small team of runners with a less-elastic rope...
Good on them. Do you know how much land they would control that would stay with Canada? And does that cover various important resources like hydro power stations etc.? I would like to think this is only an academic issue, but with those separatists, you never know.
It would be pretty funny if both the natives and the Eastern Townships separated from Quebec after Quebec separated from Canada... there wouldn't seem to be a whole lot of it left.
I personally always figured that if Quebec separated their language would be doomed.
I've always wondered what the Natives (Amerindians and Inuit) would do if Quebec separated. Would they separate from the separated Quebec, either to become independent or to stay with the rest of Canada? If so, how much of their land would they take with them? And how much would be left to the French Quebecers? I think the natives would have the last laugh, since they can probably lay claim to most of the land and resources that currently makes up Quebec - and such claims would have a lot more force after Quebec unilaterally declares that the existing Confederation deal no longer applies to them.
Where's this job you're talking about and how do I it?
I'm not talking about 'a job' in particular. I'm talking about the total productivity of our society relative to the amount of work required to put food on everyone's table and a roof over everyone's head. How that work is apportioned out to individual members of society is currently suboptimal and depends quite a lot on your skills and your location. For example, the company I work for is willing to let me work 1 day a week for $300 a day. That works out to $1200 a month, which is more than enough for subsistence living, especially since you'd be paying nearly no taxes at that income level, and even more so if you live in an area where you don't need a lot of heating in the winter and cooling in the summer. I work in high tech and so my wages are probably higher than those of the average musician, to pick another career at random. So your mileage may vary. My mileage varies too because I'm supporting a family, one which prefers a lifestyle above the subsistence level.
The point the OP was making was that the promise of a "golden future" was not being fulfilled, but what [s]he failed to take into account was that as our productivity has increased, so have our expectations - at exactly the same rate. So the net amount of work that everyone is doing has not changed one bit. But this does not mean that the dream has not come true.
BTW: Anyone remember 20-30 years ago the golden future that was painted for us -- that automation would mean that no one would have to work more than one day a week (or something like that). Whatever happened to that dream ?
It came true. You can work 1 day a week and have a roof over your head and food on the table. What's that? You don't want to eat cold beans and rice while living in someone else's basement? You want your own house in the suburbs with 2.5 SUVs in the driveway, lots of fancy furniture, and all the latest electronic gadgets in the living room? Well, that'll cost you a lot more than 1 day a week, no matter how automated everything gets. I currently have way more space and stuff than I need, and I'm only working 4 days a week supporting a family of 3. We (the North American middle class) are not just living that dream, we are living a lifestyle that people didn't even know they could dream about 100 years ago. Unfortunately almost all of it is built on the widespread availability of cheap oil, and that's all about to come to an end. So enjoy it while you can.
Slashdot Mirror
Last time I looked, there is no such thing as "intellectual property rights". There is copyright law, patent law, and trademark law. These three are commonly grouped as "intellectual property" in the media, but that phrase has no legal standing.
As far as I can tell, no Cisco copyright was violated; no patents were infringed; and no trademarks were fraudulently used. Thus nothing illegal has occurred.
The only remaining possibility in the U.S. is a violation of the DMCA, which Cisco hasn't mentioned. The DMCA is pretty complex, but as far as I can see, the only way it would apply here is if Cisco had encrypted their information and Lynn had decrypted it for commercial purposes. I don't know if compiling source code to object code counts as encryption for the DMCA, and the purposes of the "decryption" are a fair stretch in that context anyway. So I don't see that as being a legal problem here either.
I was going to say 500 pounds of broccoli...
The problem as I understand it is that although the demand is indeed elastic, it cannot shrink without causing a corresponding shrinkage of the economy - particularly in North America, where all infrastructure built since WWII has been built on the assumption of infinite supplies of cheap oil. This includes industrial infrastructure, commercial infrastructure, residential infrastructure, transportation infrastructure, food production infrastructure, everything.
The only way to reduce the demand for oil given all this oil-dependent infrastructure is to build a new infrastructure. Unfortunately it would require probably the rest of the oil remaining in the entire world to replace all of that infrastructure, and that cannot happen - not that anyone is even trying.
So the demand for oil will indeed decline as the price increases, but this reduction in demand will be accompanied by a corresponding reduction in economic activity, standard of living, and population. This is what they call the "die-off".
It would help somewhat if North America stopped allowing immigration, but that's not about to go over politically either.
In an earlier company my desktop workstation was a Sparc server for the other Sparc users in my group (3 or 4 of them). One day I was moving cubicles, and I completely forgot that my machine was a server, so I just shut it down and moved it over. I immediately got a bunch of complaints from the guys who couldn't access their files any more. :)
We're in for such a rude awakening much earlier than that. Long before the oil runs out, the demand is going to exceed the supply. More specifically, the supply follows a rough bell curve shape, and we are pretty much at the peak now. This means that although demand is rising faster and faster (especially as India and China start to think that their billions of people all need cars), the supply is more or less immediately going to start to decrease. When this happens, the price is going to go ballistic. (And $60/barrel isn't ballistic, not by a long shot.) So long before we run out of the stuff, it is going to become totally uneconomical to use it for little things like driving to work.
That is true, and coal can be substituted in a number of areas where we currently use oil. Of course coal has its own problems, not least of which is that it is more than a little radioactive. But I've heard interesting things about IGCC power plants (integrated gasification combined cycle), which seem to be a good way to use coal cleanly to produce electricity at fairly high efficiencies. And there is certainly a lot of room to reduce our current energy usage without turning into a third world country right away. One thing is for sure: interesting times lie ahead.
And as you say, coal is not so good for aircraft - nor is nuclear power. One way or the other, I think air travel is soon going to be a thing of the past.
Yeah, and that's not even the really depressing part. The really depressing part is when you realize that the entire infrastructure for growing and shipping food for 6 billion people on this planet is also critically dependent on that cheap oil.
Progress as we've come to know it is no longer feasible. Even the status quo is no longer feasible. Regression is inevitable. The only question is how far, and how fast - and how many people will have to starve to death in the process. (And those of us in the colder climates have the additional worry of freezing to death while we're starving.)
How's that for depressing?
Have no fear, there will be more examples soon. All this "progress" we've experienced so far is based on oil, and cheap plentiful oil at that. What do you think is going to happen when oil more or less overnight stops being cheap and plentiful? I predict a whole lot of backward progress.
If you thought the loss of supersonic air travel was a backward step, wait until you see what the loss of subsonic air travel will look like.
Good question. All these predictions of what's going to be happening in 2015 can only be made by ignoring the impending reduction or cessation of unsustainable economic and geological activity. By 2015, it's unlikely that anyone but the most wealthy will be able to afford to fly anywhere, or indeed drive a car to the grocery store. Supersonic commercial transport, indeed! Count yourself lucky if it's still possible to even set sail for Japan in 2015, never mind booking steamship passage. In a more likely scenario, most industrialized nations will be at war over the remaining dwindling supplies of oil.
This is a bad time to be looking at a financial crash, because there is an energy crash looming too, and surviving an energy crash (in anything like the form we want our civilization to have) looks like it will require a large amount of capital to build non-petroleum-dependent infrastructure. But where's that capital going to come from if there's a financial crash going on at the same time??
It's hard to describe the effortless feeling of typing on a Kinesis with a Dvorak layout once you get used to it. It's so smooth and natural that you hardly feel like you're typing at all. It does take some time to adapt - for me it was about a month for the Dvorak layout and a week or two for the Kinesis. It might be shorter if you try adapting to both at the same time, or it might just be more frustrating.
True. According to the earliest copyright acts enacted in North America (Copyright Act of 1790), the original copyright term was fourteen years, with an option to extend for another fourteen (the conditions for this extension may or may not have included the author's being alive at the time of extension). So, under these rules, SW Episode IV should now be public domain, but Episodes V and VI would not be (assuming the original extension period would have been applied for and granted under the original rules). Also note that only the original edition is (or rather, should be) public domain; the subsequent re-releases are not yet.
I have a copy of SW Episodes IV-VI (original theatrical release) on laserdisc. I will be doing my part to distribute them as they become available to the public domain under the original terms of copyright!
That's a good point. And while we're at it, why are there 16 /8 multicast subnets? And what exactly are Ford, Halliburton, Eli Lilly, Apple, H-P, IBM, and the U.K. Social Security Department doing with their 16 MILLION public, globally allocated IP addresses EACH??? Or what is BBN doing with their 48 MILLION addresses? And then there's BNR, now known as Nortel Networks, which needs fewer and fewer addresses each week. I think a /24 should be plenty for them. (ba-dum ching!)
It looks to the casual observer like there are lots of free addresses, or rather, there WOULD be, with a bit of reorganization and housecleaning...
I just hope that all the cars they are planning to sell this project to aren't fueled by petroleum, because that's a dead-end market if I ever saw one. Perhaps they should think about a market that might actually have a future, like bicycle-casting!
I'm using Sympatico DSL and I cannot seem to run Azureus successfully any more either. My PPPoE connection starts going up and down like a yo-yo pretty much as soon as I start Azureus. It used to run fine. I'm having a hard time believing that this problem is due to a misconfiguration on my end - it seems suspiciously like Sympatico is detecting the traffic pattern (doesn't matter what port I use) and causing my connection grief. The connection remains flaky for an hour or so after I stop running Azureus, too. I can FTP/HTTP files upstream and downstream at full bandwidth with no problem. Only Azureus appears to cause it to go out to lunch.
I'm inclined to disagree with this claim. I've talked to a variety of recruiters in the last couple of years, including the one who hired me, and the message I get is always the same: the tech job market is full of crappy applicants who barely know one end of a power cord from the other. There is definitely a regional effect - I am in a high-tech-centric area and the conditions will certainly vary if you are living in the middle of nowhere trying to get a local high-tech job. But the conditions here are unequivocal - the chaff from the high-tech boom has not gone away, but at the same time, there are job openings coming up constantly.
I know one fellow who is trying to hire, and he's gone through hundreds of resumes and dozens of interviews without finding a competent software developer. He keeps trying to hire me, but I am already gainfully employed, and he is doing Windoze development - ick!
The only bad thing I see happening to good people in the high tech market since the crash is that it now takes a substantial amount of work to craft a resume that will distinguish you, as a skilled experienced developer, from the hundreds or thousands of wanna-bes who are trying to get a job doing something they know very little about. I can only imagine that one day, these people will have to get honest work doing something they are qualified for - but that hasn't happened in any big way yet.
While I think your analysis is fairly insightful, I disagree with your assertion that the price of oil will slowly rise for decades.
History has shown that when the demand for a critical resource such as electricity or oil exceeds the supply, the price does not rise "slowly". When California experienced electricity shortages, the spot market price went up by a factor of 10 in a matter of months. This is not a slow increase - this is a spike. Crude oil futures were trading on the NYMEX last year at $35/barrel; this year it is $50/barrel. That is an increase of 50% in one year - not what I would call "slow". The problem that many are worried about is that the price of this essential commodity will rise much faster than our ability to replace our cheap-oil-dependent infrastructure with some alternative. This will lead to recession, depression, and possibly crash.
The only thing that can make the price of oil go down is for the demand to decrease faster than the supply is decreasing. However, unless we suddenly come up with some way to make our economy run on something other than petroleum, this means our economy will also decrease as our energy usage decreases. The problem with that scenario is that our economy is not geared to decrease - it can either grow (increase) or crash. There is no middle ground.
Nice XC there! My best is currently 42 km in my hang glider, which is still pretty fair. It took me about two hours, so I guess my average speed is similar to yours. But I'm usually not flying for speed, but for scenery and distance. Nothing like drifting over the countryside at 5,000'! (Not having made many XC flights of that sort of distance, I always get a kick out of how long it takes a motorized vehicle to come and get me!)
And just to keep somewhat on topic on the subject of fuel, I keep thinking about ways of launching HG/PG that don't require fuel. A sailplane fellow once mentioned that his club used to launch sailplanes with big bungee cords. I wonder how that would work for a foot-launched wing... maybe there would be too much stored energy in a bungee cord, but how about a small team of runners with a less-elastic rope...
Good on them. Do you know how much land they would control that would stay with Canada? And does that cover various important resources like hydro power stations etc.? I would like to think this is only an academic issue, but with those separatists, you never know.
It would be pretty funny if both the natives and the Eastern Townships separated from Quebec after Quebec separated from Canada... there wouldn't seem to be a whole lot of it left.
Too late to cry about that now. That went out the window the first time a non-commercial entity bought a .com domain...
I've always wondered what the Natives (Amerindians and Inuit) would do if Quebec separated. Would they separate from the separated Quebec, either to become independent or to stay with the rest of Canada? If so, how much of their land would they take with them? And how much would be left to the French Quebecers? I think the natives would have the last laugh, since they can probably lay claim to most of the land and resources that currently makes up Quebec - and such claims would have a lot more force after Quebec unilaterally declares that the existing Confederation deal no longer applies to them.
I'm not talking about 'a job' in particular. I'm talking about the total productivity of our society relative to the amount of work required to put food on everyone's table and a roof over everyone's head. How that work is apportioned out to individual members of society is currently suboptimal and depends quite a lot on your skills and your location. For example, the company I work for is willing to let me work 1 day a week for $300 a day. That works out to $1200 a month, which is more than enough for subsistence living, especially since you'd be paying nearly no taxes at that income level, and even more so if you live in an area where you don't need a lot of heating in the winter and cooling in the summer. I work in high tech and so my wages are probably higher than those of the average musician, to pick another career at random. So your mileage may vary. My mileage varies too because I'm supporting a family, one which prefers a lifestyle above the subsistence level.
The point the OP was making was that the promise of a "golden future" was not being fulfilled, but what [s]he failed to take into account was that as our productivity has increased, so have our expectations - at exactly the same rate. So the net amount of work that everyone is doing has not changed one bit. But this does not mean that the dream has not come true.
It came true. You can work 1 day a week and have a roof over your head and food on the table. What's that? You don't want to eat cold beans and rice while living in someone else's basement? You want your own house in the suburbs with 2.5 SUVs in the driveway, lots of fancy furniture, and all the latest electronic gadgets in the living room? Well, that'll cost you a lot more than 1 day a week, no matter how automated everything gets. I currently have way more space and stuff than I need, and I'm only working 4 days a week supporting a family of 3. We (the North American middle class) are not just living that dream, we are living a lifestyle that people didn't even know they could dream about 100 years ago. Unfortunately almost all of it is built on the widespread availability of cheap oil, and that's all about to come to an end. So enjoy it while you can.
I'm sure there are a variety of jokes in various flavours that will come out of this one, but here's what I had in mind:
Great, just what we need. A combination that's even more mediocre than Intel and Microsoft!
Or perhaps you were thinking along these lines:
And I'm sure we'll see:
In Soviet Russia, Chinese hardware and Indian software run YOU!
I haven't figured out how to work the Breast option in here, but someone will, no doubt.