Yes. Your post should have been moderated up as "informative".
But... interactive experiences? That's a tad weird.
I could see, say, a coin-op low-capacity jukebox embedded in one, or perhaps a touch-screen-based feedback/survey system, but either are still a tad strange in my book.
When one schmo buys up a number of names that *just happen* to all coincide to what very large investment banks want, and these names *just happen* to have absolutely nothing to do with the schmo's business (personal or commercial), and then *just happens* to call up the investment banks and solicit large (re: multiple orders of magnitude greater than the original price) amounts of money for the domains, which *aren't* being used -- it's pretty darn clear.
I agree that the types can cause problems. For a lot of my code, I've got my own typedef.h that aliases things like int32 to types native to that machine. Why? Because I'm reading/writing binary data to network storage, accessible to different platforms, as well as transferring it over the network, and it *really* matters that I know what size data I'm using. That, plus the endianness (the convention being to use big-endian on disk or wire...).
OTOH, the Java docs that I've seen didn't even bother to mention the endianness issue -- a bit of a bother considering that one has to know about it if you're not requiring that java be used at both ends. Turns out that it seemed to be big-endian on all platforms that I tried, a Good Thing.
C/C++ also aren't that bad if you're used to thinking abstractly. Then, pointers aren't a problem at all if you're not doing rampant dynamic memory allocation (especially in C++, with destructors, combined with class methods if you want to be truly evil and lazy)...
OO-style programs behave in fundamentally different ways. Their memory allocation patterns tend to involve smaller but far more numerous chunks; their function calls are more frequent, with shorter methods; and if you use multiple inheritance, then you're doing more memory lookups for vtbl foo. Therefore, you find somewhat more instruction cache misses and so forth; and with more frequent function calls, you find things like a greater number of cycles devoted to things like save/restore.
Ergo, different optimizations may impact OO-style programs in different ways compared to straight C; and it may be possible to design an architecture that minimizes the extra overhead.
Here's a citation that may interest you:
"Quantifying Behavioral Differences Between C and C++ Programs", by Calder, Grunwald and Zorn; it appeared in the _Journal of Programming Languages_, 2:4, 1994.
Have you seen XForms? It's strictly X, making it not completely portable, but...
...it allows a C programmer to graphically layout a simple GUI, specifying callback functions and arguments. It then generates headers and.c such that your application can start the GUI quite easily.
Being mostly a C/C++/Perl programmer w/ a slight distaste for the AWT, and a greater one for Tk (which, to be fair, has graphical layout tools like XF, and *is* portable to Windows as well as Unix boxen), I find it useful.
Admittedly, the designer isn't *that* powerful (for instance, while the code will let you have a scrolling list of drawable canvasses, the designer does not appear to have a way to do that -- so what you do is write a scrollbar callback that does a left or right shift), it still lets one put up a decent utility pretty darn fast without worrying about packing or so forth.
You don't have to use all that many of the C++ features as long as some are useful -- such as overloading. For some applications, you wouldn't use templates, multiple inheritance, or a boatload of other stuff, but a handful of classes and some of the syntactic sugaring can save you time -- and it's not strictly C anymore.
Why just versus the [domestic] Gov't? They're not the only folks with the technical know-how.
Think folks like disgruntled techies trying to grab payroll data. Or somebody stealing a competitor's secrets. Or so forth. There are, potentially, circumstances under which somebody would be willing and able to attempt TEMPEST ELINT surveillance, but not send folks to do a B&E or a little physical coercion...
You'd probably want to factor in not only answers, but reaction times -- to decide whether somebody's just randomly hitting keys and being a Dorkus maximus, or whether they're pondering a bit too long...
Figure that questions may intersect somewhat to detect inconsistencies that'd also possibly flag a BSer. Figure also on questions with particularly blatant answers, with the same purpose. Figure on seemingly tangential questions.
Perhaps it might be used in an attempt to deflect liability once another such event happens -- the reasoning being that so-and-so should have noticed behavior, and therefore should have stopped it...
Hell, I could see a [school] admin discreetly pushing this product on *parents*, or at least trying to ask:
"Do you know what your kid is up to? [And if not, how can you call yourself a parent?]"
My take on it is that the logical approach for the NSA would be to monitor specific hosts and links -- in particular, international links, such as those relating to *all* embassies (ours, as well as theirs, if there are international operations as well. Ours because the odds are quite good most nations would be interested in infiltrating a large embassy.)
I'm explicitly including "friendly" nations here, because they spy on us as well and their interests do not necessarily coincide with ours.
Add to that perhaps sensitive Nat'l Security-related companies, such as certain defense contractors, for the purpose of detecting interesting leaks.
There's little reason to believe that sending inane keyword sequences does anything more than DOS your own provider's mail server, which in a corporate environment is grounds to get you fired (as in an individual who mailed *everybody* at Lockheed, and downed their network for several hours according to a story yesterday in the WSJ). Fact is, the NSA could not be bothered to scan most mail, and they certainly would use better than a simple keyword -- or even crypto -- search.
------------------------------------------------ -- 19.What happens after the first year?
You may be treated like all other students when it comes to financial aid. That is a question you should ask an offering college and get a written response. To some colleges, it will make sense to continue this arrangement; for others it will not. ------------------------------------------------ -
They really, really, should emphasize that more, especially the bit about getting a written response (on official letterhead and everything, no doubt), rather than making it question #19 on their FAQ.
I seem to remember members of my school's _College of Fine Arts_ complaining when aid that had been given the first year was not extended to latter years, calling it a "bait-and-switch".
Generally, if a CEO fails, he can be booted out by the board (if the company's still intact). It's (probable, if he's famous...) possible he'll get an insanely good severance package, but that's a different flamewar... An important detail, here, is that the stockholders, the owners, have a say in selections and decisions.
On the other hand, it's almost impossible to guarantee post-secondary universal education without government assistance. Mandating low tuition without grants would leave schools high and dry.
Among other things,
* Either tuition becomes price-controlled, set to (low) Gov't levels, in which case schools become more dependent on alumni gifts and research grants, or the Gov't makes up the difference for higher tuitions, in which case schools have less reason to set remotely sane tuition levels.
* It may exacerbate the strange practice of deliberately taking on debt with large purchases, not paying off a mortgage quite as quickly, and so forth, in order to exaggerate need. It's done today, but would be even more common if need-based aid were universally extended.
* Students become assured of being able to afford college, providing significantly less effort to strive in high school. Those that do, may find this a short-sighted approach. Merit-based aid suffers.
* Without actually improving education at the primary and secondary level, one may find a large number of students who normally could use the money but who are still basically unqualified for most universities. *This* is perhaps the most important thing we can do to prepare people for college -- get to 'em young. I'm probably not the first to advocate Mentat-style training, and only half tongue-in-cheek.
It's not good to send unprepared students to competitive universities.
* There is a danger that this funding would need to be rationed, leading to things like national qualifying exams that decide where a student should go (such as to a vocational school, or so forth). It's questionable as to whether this is best for students.
I seem to remember, that at least several years ago, that Germany had a three-track system based on exams. Those that performed well, got taxpayer-funded tuition. Those that did not, were shunted off to other schools. If that's correct, it's pretty dangerous compared to a system where a student on the edge can at least talk to Admissions staff and possibly convince them otherwise.
There's already a college-vs-college bidding process, so it's a natural evolutionary step.
As an example of C-v-C bidding, realize that:
* Certain (pretty good) universities have *VERY* liberal scholarship offers. At least before '94, Case Western Reserve U. had a such a policy that applied if you're SAT score exceeded 1400 (not that unusual...) and your QPA exceeded something like 3.2 or 3.5. The amount? $12K / year *grant*. I don't know if they still do this.
That's one of the few uses of an SAT.
* Certain schools compete with each other for the same students. A student that might be at the top tier at CWRU, say, might also be a candidate quite interesting to Carnegie Mellon; CMU also is interested in snarfing people who might otherwise go to MIT (which, at least at that time, had minimal merit-based aid IIRC).
The net result is that with an offer in hand from one school, a competing school may consider 'sweetening the pot'.
Do they really? Keep in mind that a major criteria IS academic potential, which can reduce your tuition bill to basically $0/year for four years at even an expensive private university.
Not everybody has to go to a top-tier private university, in the same way that not everybody is equally fit to join MLB as a relief pitcher let alone a starter, and most people really should not be CEOs managing global conglomerates, or international diplomats, or...
Universities only have a limited number of slots before the system is overwhelmed. Selection should NOT be random...
* Interface improvements: perhaps add a '?' command that identifies what you're aiming at.
* Changing it so you represent your current shell, or perhaps the Doom process itself... (or, alternately, Deathmatch -- and you've got to protect your own processes as well.:)
* Think _Doom II_. What happens with Arch-viles, and the cubes that spawn monsters?
* Perhaps different rooms could represent different priorities, or alternately UIDs. With the latter, keys can be used to limit power (lock the doors).
* Cyberdaemons with 10x rate-of-fire (and invisible rockets!) and hit points might be able to seek-and-destroy unauthorized processes on their own.;-)
But, er, what does he gain? There's diminishing returns.
There's only so many ads that one can buy, before the nation gets sick of the buyer. This is particularly so if said billionaire already has a high profile and a not particularly sterling reputation...
Look at Perot; his wealth did not help him overcome his eccentricity. Forbe's wealth may actually count against him, by stirring up resentment -- particularly if he opens his mouth on taxes.
Unless you buy up the media itself -- and no one entity is allowed to dominate, say, radio; probably the same for television, as well, and possibly newspapers -- you can't prevent your opponents from being heard, either.
If you advocate the election or defeat of a specific candidate, you may need to put up a notice, and report it to the FEC (if the value exeeds $1K), according to the section on "Independent Expenditures". However, it may perhaps be unlimited if it's *not* targetted at/for a specific candidate, and is independent of various organizations and political folks...
Has the FEC targetted anybody but the pro-impeachment feller?
{smirk}Not{/smirk} that I'm suggesting anything here, but...
Unless they're willing to go *THWACK* beating on sites left and right -- discussion groups such as Slashdot included, and almost everybody that posts to certain USENET groups, and so forth... but it smacks of retribution.
It'd be nice if somebody asks Gore, Hillary (who, apparently, wishes to appear in favor of campaign-finance reform... yeah, whatever, Hillary), George the Younger, Dole, and McCain 'bout this move.
It's not tax-deductible, in general, if the IRS thinks the non-profit is political. Political activity is grounds for removal of non-profit status; e.g. if a public university uses official assets to support an Al Gore rally, for instance.
If speech is a contribution, then so, arguably, is volunteering for a campaign or simply doing ANYTHING remotely related to politics. How might they compute the cost? Well, using the FEC logic and extrapolating, factor in food, shelter, transportation and all the other necessities...
Newspaper editorials become contributions.
Showing up at a rally and providing a boost by expressing your support on national TV is a contribution.
Delivering a sermon against sin could easily be taken as a contribution.
Oops. Has anybody at the FEC read the Constitution lately?
Perhaps there's a relative lack of reading? It's easier to develop -- and use, on a daily basis, without conscious effort -- better language skills if reading literature happens to be a primary diversion, or if academic training has included such as a major component. Quasi-formal writing, such as a high school-level paper on the historical encroachment of the Roman Catholic Church into matters temporal during the Middle Ages, usually explicitly demands good writing, while reading authors who strive for quality rather than mass-market appeal provide interesting examples.
Alternately, one can spend time in front of an N64 developing twitch skills.
It also does not help if high schools feel compelled to reduce the difficulty of coursework in a bizarre attempt to raise students' self-esteem.
Of course, many of us -- including yours truly -- arguably should not complain about lax standards, likely not being able ourselves to pass the exams of, say, a century ago...
Classes in Marxism? Nope. I just use the primary sources, like reading the works of Marx, Engels and comrades instead, including their blasted Manifesto of 1848.
Marx's theories are essentially irrelevant. Assuming that equitable distribution is possible, that centrally planned economies work, that people would work en masse without merit-based compensation, that capitalist industrialism would implode, and so forth -- just about EVERY assumption that he makes is incorrect. Since these are required for the efficacy of his recommendations, the latter can be ignored as impractical.
It's like planning intergalactic manned spaceflight, but requiring that one be able to warp space/time by creating huge gravitonic forces completely beyond our understanding and probable capabilities.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes. Your post should have been moderated up as "informative".
But... interactive experiences? That's a tad weird.
I could see, say, a coin-op low-capacity jukebox embedded in one, or perhaps a touch-screen-based feedback/survey system, but either are still a tad strange in my book.
When one schmo buys up a number of names that *just happen* to all coincide to what very large investment banks want, and these names *just happen* to have absolutely nothing to do with the schmo's business (personal or commercial), and then *just happens* to call up the investment banks and solicit large (re: multiple orders of magnitude greater than the original price) amounts of money for the domains, which *aren't* being used -- it's pretty darn clear.
I agree that the types can cause problems. For a lot of my code, I've got my own typedef.h that aliases things like int32 to types native to that machine. Why? Because I'm reading/writing binary data to network storage, accessible to different platforms, as well as transferring it over the network, and it *really* matters that I know what size data I'm using. That, plus the endianness (the convention being to use big-endian on disk or wire...).
OTOH, the Java docs that I've seen didn't even bother to mention the endianness issue -- a bit of a bother considering that one has to know about it if you're not requiring that java be used at both ends. Turns out that it seemed to be big-endian on all platforms that I tried, a Good Thing.
C/C++ also aren't that bad if you're used to thinking abstractly. Then, pointers aren't a problem at all if you're not doing rampant dynamic memory allocation (especially in C++, with destructors, combined with class methods if you want to be truly evil and lazy)...
*Which* assembly language? A MIPS dialect? Alpha? x86? PPC? etc.
VB, arguably, is a far cry from the original BASIC, with the latter's (GW, anyway...) 64KB limit and so forth.
Is it LISP, or [Common] Lisp?
Add:
ML (e.g. SML/NJ)
sh and/or csh
Smalltalk
Haskell
Machine language (any)
OO-style programs behave in fundamentally different ways. Their memory allocation patterns tend to involve smaller but far more numerous chunks; their function calls are more frequent, with shorter methods; and if you use multiple inheritance, then you're doing more memory lookups for vtbl foo. Therefore, you find somewhat more instruction cache misses and so forth; and with more frequent function calls, you find things like a greater number of cycles devoted to things like save/restore.
Ergo, different optimizations may impact OO-style programs in different ways compared to straight C; and it may be possible to design an architecture that minimizes the extra overhead.
Here's a citation that may interest you:
"Quantifying Behavioral Differences Between C and C++ Programs", by Calder, Grunwald and Zorn; it appeared in the _Journal of Programming Languages_, 2:4, 1994.
Have you seen XForms? It's strictly X, making it not completely portable, but...
.c such that your application can start the GUI quite easily.
...it allows a C programmer to graphically layout a simple GUI, specifying callback functions and arguments. It then generates headers and
Being mostly a C/C++/Perl programmer w/ a slight distaste for the AWT, and a greater one for Tk (which, to be fair, has graphical layout tools like XF, and *is* portable to Windows as well as Unix boxen), I find it useful.
Admittedly, the designer isn't *that* powerful (for instance, while the code will let you have a scrolling list of drawable canvasses, the designer does not appear to have a way to do that -- so what you do is write a scrollbar callback that does a left or right shift), it still lets one put up a decent utility pretty darn fast without worrying about packing or so forth.
*shrug*
You don't have to use all that many of the C++ features as long as some are useful -- such as overloading. For some applications, you wouldn't use templates, multiple inheritance, or a boatload of other stuff, but a handful of classes and some of the syntactic sugaring can save you time -- and it's not strictly C anymore.
Why just versus the [domestic] Gov't? They're not the only folks with the technical know-how.
Think folks like disgruntled techies trying to grab payroll data. Or somebody stealing a competitor's secrets. Or so forth. There are, potentially, circumstances under which somebody would be willing and able to attempt TEMPEST ELINT surveillance, but not send folks to do a B&E or a little physical coercion...
The glow? Feh. They've got jellyfish genes, so it'd be REALLY cool to give 'em tentacles. Right.
A glowing Christmas tree with stinging tentacles -- what better way to frighten the neighbor's dog?
{g}
Hey, at least they'd be easier to find, should they ever get loose. :)
And it'd justify some mighty strange "Dumbo" parodies...
You'd probably want to factor in not only answers, but reaction times -- to decide whether somebody's just randomly hitting keys and being a Dorkus maximus, or whether they're pondering a bit too long...
Figure that questions may intersect somewhat to detect inconsistencies that'd also possibly flag a BSer. Figure also on questions with particularly blatant answers, with the same purpose. Figure on seemingly tangential questions.
Perhaps it might be used in an attempt to deflect liability once another such event happens -- the reasoning being that so-and-so should have noticed behavior, and therefore should have stopped it...
Hell, I could see a [school] admin discreetly pushing this product on *parents*, or at least trying to ask:
"Do you know what your kid is up to? [And if not, how can you call yourself a parent?]"
My take on it is that the logical approach for the NSA would be to monitor specific hosts and links -- in particular, international links, such as those relating to *all* embassies (ours, as well as theirs, if there are international operations as well. Ours because the odds are quite good most nations would be interested in infiltrating a large embassy.)
I'm explicitly including "friendly" nations here, because they spy on us as well and their interests do not necessarily coincide with ours.
Add to that perhaps sensitive Nat'l Security-related companies, such as certain defense contractors, for the purpose of detecting interesting leaks.
There's little reason to believe that sending inane keyword sequences does anything more than DOS your own provider's mail server, which in a corporate environment is grounds to get you fired (as in an individual who mailed *everybody* at Lockheed, and downed their network for several hours according to a story yesterday in the WSJ). Fact is, the NSA could not be bothered to scan most mail, and they certainly would use better than a simple keyword -- or even crypto -- search.
From the eCollegebid FAQ:
- --
- -
-----------------------------------------------
19.What happens after the first year?
You may be treated like all other students when it comes to financial aid. That is a question you should ask an offering college and get a written response. To some colleges, it will make sense to continue this arrangement; for others it will not.
-----------------------------------------------
They really, really, should emphasize that more, especially the bit about getting a written response (on official letterhead and everything, no doubt), rather than making it question #19 on their FAQ.
I seem to remember members of my school's _College of Fine Arts_ complaining when aid that had been given the first year was not extended to latter years, calling it a "bait-and-switch".
Generally, if a CEO fails, he can be booted out by the board (if the company's still intact). It's (probable, if he's famous...) possible he'll get an insanely good severance package, but that's a different flamewar... An important detail, here, is that the stockholders, the owners, have a say in selections and decisions.
On the other hand, it's almost impossible to guarantee post-secondary universal education without government assistance. Mandating low tuition without grants would leave schools high and dry.
Among other things,
* Either tuition becomes price-controlled, set to (low) Gov't levels, in which case schools become more dependent on alumni gifts and research grants, or the Gov't makes up the difference for higher tuitions, in which case schools have less reason to set remotely sane tuition levels.
* It may exacerbate the strange practice of deliberately taking on debt with large purchases, not paying off a mortgage quite as quickly, and so forth, in order to exaggerate need. It's done today, but would be even more common if need-based aid were universally extended.
* Students become assured of being able to afford college, providing significantly less effort to strive in high school. Those that do, may find this a short-sighted approach. Merit-based aid suffers.
* Without actually improving education at the primary and secondary level, one may find a large number of students who normally could use the money but who are still basically unqualified for most universities. *This* is perhaps the most important thing we can do to prepare people for college -- get to 'em young. I'm probably not the first to advocate Mentat-style training, and only half tongue-in-cheek.
It's not good to send unprepared students to competitive universities.
* There is a danger that this funding would need to be rationed, leading to things like national qualifying exams that decide where a student should go (such as to a vocational school, or so forth). It's questionable as to whether this is best for students.
I seem to remember, that at least several years ago, that Germany had a three-track system based on exams. Those that performed well, got taxpayer-funded tuition. Those that did not, were shunted off to other schools. If that's correct, it's pretty dangerous compared to a system where a student on the edge can at least talk to Admissions staff and possibly convince them otherwise.
There's already a college-vs-college bidding process, so it's a natural evolutionary step.
As an example of C-v-C bidding, realize that:
* Certain (pretty good) universities have *VERY* liberal scholarship offers. At least before '94, Case Western Reserve U. had a such a policy that applied if you're SAT score exceeded 1400 (not that unusual...) and your QPA exceeded something like 3.2 or 3.5. The amount? $12K / year *grant*. I don't know if they still do this.
That's one of the few uses of an SAT.
* Certain schools compete with each other for the same students. A student that might be at the top tier at CWRU, say, might also be a candidate quite interesting to Carnegie Mellon; CMU also is interested in snarfing people who might otherwise go to MIT (which, at least at that time, had minimal merit-based aid IIRC).
The net result is that with an offer in hand from one school, a competing school may consider 'sweetening the pot'.
Do they really? Keep in mind that a major criteria IS academic potential, which can reduce your tuition bill to basically $0/year for four years at even an expensive private university.
Not everybody has to go to a top-tier private university, in the same way that not everybody is equally fit to join MLB as a relief pitcher let alone a starter, and most people really should not be CEOs managing global conglomerates, or international diplomats, or...
Universities only have a limited number of slots before the system is overwhelmed. Selection should NOT be random...
Interesting possibilities:
:)
;-)
* Interface improvements: perhaps add a '?' command that identifies what you're aiming at.
* Changing it so you represent your current shell, or perhaps the Doom process itself... (or, alternately, Deathmatch -- and you've got to protect your own processes as well.
* Think _Doom II_. What happens with Arch-viles, and the cubes that spawn monsters?
* Perhaps different rooms could represent different priorities, or alternately UIDs. With the latter, keys can be used to limit power (lock the doors).
* Cyberdaemons with 10x rate-of-fire (and invisible rockets!) and hit points might be able to seek-and-destroy unauthorized processes on their own.
But, er, what does he gain? There's diminishing returns.
There's only so many ads that one can buy, before the nation gets sick of the buyer. This is particularly so if said billionaire already has a high profile and a not particularly sterling reputation...
Look at Perot; his wealth did not help him overcome his eccentricity. Forbe's wealth may actually count against him, by stirring up resentment -- particularly if he opens his mouth on taxes.
Unless you buy up the media itself -- and no one entity is allowed to dominate, say, radio; probably the same for television, as well, and possibly newspapers -- you can't prevent your opponents from being heard, either.
See Citizens' Guide to Contributions and the Law, put out by the FEC.
If you advocate the election or defeat of a specific candidate, you may need to put up a notice, and report it to the FEC (if the value exeeds $1K), according to the section on "Independent Expenditures". However, it may perhaps be unlimited if it's *not* targetted at/for a specific candidate, and is independent of various organizations and political folks...
Has the FEC targetted anybody but the pro-impeachment feller?
{smirk}Not{/smirk} that I'm suggesting anything here, but...
Unless they're willing to go *THWACK* beating on sites left and right -- discussion groups such as Slashdot included, and almost everybody that posts to certain USENET groups, and so forth... but it smacks of retribution.
It'd be nice if somebody asks Gore, Hillary (who, apparently, wishes to appear in favor of campaign-finance reform... yeah, whatever, Hillary), George the Younger, Dole, and McCain 'bout this move.
It's not tax-deductible, in general, if the IRS thinks the non-profit is political. Political activity is grounds for removal of non-profit status; e.g. if a public university uses official assets to support an Al Gore rally, for instance.
{sarcasm}Not that would ever happen...{/sarcasm}
If speech is a contribution, then so, arguably, is volunteering for a campaign or simply doing ANYTHING remotely related to politics. How might they compute the cost? Well, using the FEC logic and extrapolating, factor in food, shelter, transportation and all the other necessities...
Newspaper editorials become contributions.
Showing up at a rally and providing a boost by expressing your support on national TV is a contribution.
Delivering a sermon against sin could easily be taken as a contribution.
Oops. Has anybody at the FEC read the Constitution lately?
Perhaps there's a relative lack of reading? It's easier to develop -- and use, on a daily basis, without conscious effort -- better language skills if reading literature happens to be a primary diversion, or if academic training has included such as a major component. Quasi-formal writing, such as a high school-level paper on the historical encroachment of the Roman Catholic Church into matters temporal during the Middle Ages, usually explicitly demands good writing, while reading authors who strive for quality rather than mass-market appeal provide interesting examples.
Alternately, one can spend time in front of an N64 developing twitch skills.
It also does not help if high schools feel compelled to reduce the difficulty of coursework in a bizarre attempt to raise students' self-esteem.
Of course, many of us -- including yours truly -- arguably should not complain about lax standards, likely not being able ourselves to pass the exams of, say, a century ago...
Classes in Marxism? Nope. I just use the primary sources, like reading the works of Marx, Engels and comrades instead, including their blasted Manifesto of 1848.
Marx's theories are essentially irrelevant. Assuming that equitable distribution is possible, that centrally planned economies work, that people would work en masse without merit-based compensation, that capitalist industrialism would implode, and so forth -- just about EVERY assumption that he makes is incorrect. Since these are required for the efficacy of his recommendations, the latter can be ignored as impractical.
It's like planning intergalactic manned spaceflight, but requiring that one be able to warp space/time by creating huge gravitonic forces completely beyond our understanding and probable capabilities.