The development of the P4 was a technical failure, but it was also a valuable phase in Intel's life.
The drop in AMD marketshare from 20% to 11% demonstrates that the design succeeded in the marketplace. Intel won the MHz war. Although they tried to extend it one generation too far with Prescott and are scrambling to redesign and remarket.
He said, "Christian political movement that have hijacked America's politics in the last 45 years try to pretend that the spot they hold is their divine right and that they have always held it".
It's been hijacked longer than 45 years, as a pointed out. In fact look farther back at the role the Second Great Awakening had on abolition of slavery, and settlement of the west.
Although our goverment institutions are barred from participating in religion, they are not immune from religion. Most people are religious, and are guided by their faith. People make up goverment, people make decisions in goverment, and people are influenced by religion.
Personally I'm agnostic, but I can't deny that religion has been one of the largest and longest lasting influences on American history.
A computer programmer is to a computer scientist as a mechanic is to a mechanical engineer
Actually the difference is even greater. Programmer:Comp Sci is equivalent to Mechanic:Physicist. Mechanical engineering equivalent in the programming world is software/computer engineer.
A computer scientist or physicist can spend their entire career being productive without solving or dealing with a real world problem. CS doesn't even necessarily involve computers (think encryption algorithms)
What you are saying, that America has always been a Christian nation the way it is today, is a nice little fairy tale, but it simply isn't true.
What about the religious special interest groups like the anti-saloon league and Woman's Christian Temperance Union which got the 18th amendment passed.
I certainly hope that the court would have a system whereby scope of the publication didn't matter, and the only thing that mattered was that it was offered in some way to the public.
Scope should matter, otherwise you can claim it was public if you put it on display in a locked filing cabinet, in a disused bathroom the door to which has a sign which reads 'beware the Leopard'. The threshold for making something public isn't all that high. It just has to have reasonable access to those skilled in the art. For example if you post your code on sourceforge, sell the program on ebay, or have it available at popular download site, it is sufficient to meet the threshold.
Does a comment in a blog count? Does it matter if the public information had a limited distribution (Say, 5 people read it)?
Depends on the blog. If it does not require registration and has something to do with the subject of your invention, it should count.
Does it matter if you cannot verify the date at which something was offered to the public?
Yes. If you cannot prove when something was published, you cannot demonstrate prior art. You don't need the exact date of publish, but you must prove that it was created sometime before the patent application was filed.
Does it matter if the public information had a limited distribution (Say, 5 people read it)?
Private distribution is not public. Otherwise I could give the invention to my brother and claim publishing.
It will always be up to the courts to arbitrate what constitutes publicly known; but if you look I'm sure there is plenty of precidence to guide you.
To me this change to who files first is Microsoft using it's Washington connection to change the law so Microsoft can go after Apple for the iPod, which Apple did before Microsoft files a patent.
Given iPods were shipping and easily accessable before the application, Apple basically "published" the invention. So prior art still stands.
Seems to me the inventor, not neccessarly the first filer aught to have some rights. Or this whole system goes to the lawyers who file trivial and fradulent patents while others try to make our life better.
The flip side is arbitrating who invented something first, which is much messier. Imagine having to sift through emails, notes, and various other paperwork and trying to figure out when the invention was actually made. You can invent something and not have a final design. So then you're trying to arbitrate where in the evolution of the invention it actually had some or all of the parts covered in the patent application that are being infringed upon by the other invention.
1) what does it mean "publish"? If I describe my invention in some totally obscure journal that nobody who works in the field is ever likely to read, does it count?
No.
"(B) REASONABLE AND EFFECTIVE AC 5
CESSIBILITY.--For purposes of subparagraph
6 (A)--
7 ''(i) subject matter is reasonably ac 8
cessible if persons of ordinary skill in the
9 art to which the subject matter pertains
10 are able to gain access to the subject mat 11
ter by without resort to undue efforts; and 12 (ii) subject matter is effectively ac 13
cessible if persons of ordinary skill in the
14 art to which the subject matter pertains
15 are able to comprehend the content of the
16 subject matter without resort to undue ef 17
forts."
2) Filing patent application is supposed to publish the invention, however nowdays there are so many application being filed that it is easy for an individual invention to get lost in the noise, especially if the invention is intentionally described in some obscure way.
It's the patent examiner's job to ensure that the patent is understandable by sombody with "ordinary skill in the art"
Patents were supposed to encourage progress of technology by protecting the financial interests of the inventor
I would agree with the grandparent post. The goverment (in theory) represents the public at large. Essentially the patent system is a means by which the public purchases the disclosure of information with a limited-term monopoly.
This monopoly does not grant or guarantee profits, only that the inventor can control how the invention is used. Typically this monopoly power is used to gain profit, which has the side effect of also encouraging capital investment. However, it can also be used to ensure nobody else controls/profits from the idea. (eg IBM opening up their patents up to the open source community)
But he and Skoric concede that other types of games and contexts might have negative impacts. 'This game featured fantasy violence, while others featuring outer space or even everyday urban violence may yield different outcomes.'
Outer space violence may yield different outcomes? Yeah, I guess kids could be influenced to steal the space shuttle with their phasers. At least it's good to know, that social "scientists" have proven WoW won't make me stand in my front yard for weeks at a time killing bugs and bunnies.
So the rise in video games has caused a decline in unemployment.
Unemployment is the number of workers who are actively seeking employment. If you're unemployed and playing video games all day, then you're not seeking employment, hence the lower unemployment rate.:)
Hence
some higher intelligence -- beyond human intelligence --
must be involved in creating such organisms. But now, we
are stepping closer to make one on our own. What does that
say about humans? Are we becoming a god?
I don't think Intelligent Design necessarily states it has to be an intelligence beyond humans. It states that natural processes is insufficient to explain the development of organisms, therefore some sort of intelligent manipulation was involved. I don't see how intelligent manipulation by people to create new organisms refutes that argument.
Not saying ID is right, just that this particular field of science doesn't directly refute its claims
Still, it would be a lot cheaper to change the game than to try to catch people based on what's in their heads
It's difficult for casinos to introduce new games because people don't want to play it. Rarely do people play games they don't know. Some games, like craps or roulette, can be intimidating because there are many bets, and many things going on at once. Also, players are afraid of messing with the "flow" of a game. If the guy next to you sees you're playing stupid, and he starts to lose, he's going to be pissed at you. That's why many casinos actually host sessions to teach people the rules and familiarize them with the way the game is played. They want you to have fun losing your money, so that you'll be happy to lose even more.
Easily faked, but not necessarily usable. Imagine if each chip had a unique encrypted serial number, and the casino had the ability to track each chip's location and compare to a central database. If you duplicated the RFID on a chip, you'd set off alarms, as there would be 2 of the same chip in the casino. If you managed to crack the encryption and create your own unique serial number you'd set off alarms as chips would be in the casino which were not in the database. Even a simple system which doesn't need to be aware of all chips in circulation offer great security. Just track the RFID of the chip when it is played to the database of chips in the bank, and in circulation. If the ID is in the bank, or doesn't appear in the database then you know a dupe has been played. Other dupes of the same chip could not be played without setting off alarms until that first chip has exited the bank, which could be a long time (and it would be very difficult for a player to know when or if it happens).
But never never never come out with some thing so revolutionary that breaks the industry cycle...I for one love my tech, but it would be nice to see something real disruptive come along.
You can't have something that breaks the industry and make money though. You need to have the support of suppliers, customers, partners, software makers, and provide it with full support at a reasonable price. AMD & Intel often demo revolutionary tech, however, the marketplace isn't always ready for it.
I'm sure they could come out with a 10Ghz super chip, using custom fab equipment and custom designs. The problem is it would be too expensive, they could only supply a few parts, there would be no associated equipment that is compatible, and no software that runs on it. Also the risk is by the time the market does catch up something better could come along
Sure, go to the US-Mexico border. As soon as you cross the border give me all your money, then go to sleep. When you wake up, you'll have a new pile of money.:)
Just like the whole point of Poker is lying. Sure, its unethical to lie, but not when your playing Poker, that's what makes it fun.
Sure its unethical to steal someone's stuff, but not when your playing a game where that's the understood point. Even if you use a bot to do it, IMHO
But it is not against the rules of poker to lie, it is against the rules to bring in an ace from your sleeve though. Just as it's against the rules to use a bot in Lineage.
"My dog unplugged the controller" "My little brother kept TKing me" "Power was out" "My dad put a virus on my comp" "This game gives me seizures" "I'll never use this in the real world"
Your analogy does not work for one simple reason. This is computer repair. You know, viruses, root kits. These things could have been used to place the illegal files on the drive in the first place.
And people can break the lock and put a body in the trunk, hide drugs under your seat, tape a handgun underneath the car, use the car to commit a crime.
What happens when evil kiddie porn hacker roots your box and uses it as an FTP server for all his kiddie porn hacker friends? Your machine becomes kiddie porn central, slows to a crawl because of bandwidth saturation, and your directories are stuffed with illegal files. You, not being a 1337 HAX0R DUD3 unhook it, take it to the computer repair guy, and the computer repair guy finds illegal files you were unaware of.
What you are describing is a legal defense argument. It doesn't change the fact that illegal material was found on the computer.
Instead of fixing the problem, he instead turns you in to the cops as a kiddie porn wanker. Your life is ruined. You loose your job, your wife leaves you, and you aren't allowed to see your own kids without a social worker present.
What if he does fix the problem, but the person actually was a criminal, continues to download, is caught. After poking around the cops find that the tech had infact serviced the computer and seen the illegal material. They accuse him of covering up the crime, and his life is ruined, etc. etc. Would you risk going to jail over somebody who couldn't properly maintain their computer?
Actually, that's exactly what I'd do if I was servicing a client's machine and was confronted with the situation. I'd return it to them having done nothing with it and politely inform them that by doing any work on it I would be putting myself in an unpleasant position.
It's too late though. Once you've seen something you're a witness to a crime. Morally I don't think the relationship between a person and their neighborhood computer technician merits the same level of "trust" and protection as a person with their spouse, religious advisor, doctor, or lawyer.
I wish i had the funds to start a true olympic games
Hence the need for commercialization. I'd say the real problem isn't commercialization, it's over saturation due to the IOC trying to line their corrupt pockets. They've forgone controlling of sponsors and ensuring tasteful representation in hopes of getting millions more.
We can't just wave our hands and say "train for better jobs!" when the existing jobs run out.
We also shouldn't say just sit there and do nothing, while everybody else takes care of you. In your two examples, though short term those people found themselves out of jobs, long term they better positioned themslves to get new jobs when they arise. During the same time many people trained in computers (some even high school drop outs) and became contributing members to the economy. Some started new companies, some gained skills that allowed them to move to other industries, some are happily still working in their jobs. While some businesses from this time failed, many succeeded. The boom wasn't just for the dotcoms many of which failed. Shipping, infrastructure, business services also boomed during this time. Most of those created jobs stayed around.
We cannot talk about the West's prosperity without including the sweatshops doing our dirty work for essentially "free". Where is the tide that lifts the boats in Malaysia, Indonesia, Honduras, China, etc.? They are now integral parts of our economy but reap far less benefit from it.
This is a relative assessment. Many of those countries didn't benefit as much, but they did benefit. If you look at where they were, rather than comparing them to the western lifestyle they had a net gain. The trade defecit was an example of the redistribution of wealth. The middle east has prospered because it has resources the west wants, asia has prospered because it provides needed labor. Further, the economic and infrastructure growth stimulated by western investments have put those countries in better position. Now the internal growth of India and China, outpaces the foreign investments and those countries overall are growing faster, to the point where western countries see them as competitive threats. Compare this with regions such as latin america and africa which have historically seen less foreign investment.
We've not yet figured out how to make the mercantilist system provide improved life for all, which was the original point of allowing businesses leave to compete with each other (Adam Smith).
While the lifetyle of the poor today is inferior to that of the rich today, overall it is superior that of the poor in the past (starvation, disease, etc). Essentially the market keeps shifting the bell-curve higher. Barring some miraculous technology, there will never be a system that provides everything for everybody. There will always be unfulfilled wants, because resources are limited.
Suppose everyone is fully trained: where will the jobs come from to employ us all?
Who says everybody has to work. There are systems that exist that support those not working, they don't provide the most desireable lifestyle, but people can survive. Of course, we should always try to encourage people to work. We can only get out of the economy what gets put in. The more poeple who contribute, the more people can gain.
5. We give all people XYZ and retain the economy of all-things-not-XYZ so that people can compete and earn more to achieve ABC.
6. Some people will be happy with XYZ. Some will want ABC. We let the future sort it out.
7....because we will eventually reach a point where XYZ is essentially free but only a few people can afford ABC at all.
My response is: 5. What is XYZ and who defines it? 6. We already have systems such as welfare that provide basic needs. It is enough for basic food and shelter, but those receiving it still complain. Fact is almost nobody is happy with just XYZ, they want to live where they want, eat what they want, dress how they want. People will live in LA or New York with higher costs of living, rather than in lower cost cities and states. 7. We reached that point already. Of course, but we keep redefining XYZ, making luxuries into necessities. Shelter of today is filled with luxuries that didn't exis
Slashdot Mirror
The development of the P4 was a technical failure, but it was also a valuable phase in Intel's life.
The drop in AMD marketshare from 20% to 11% demonstrates that the design succeeded in the marketplace. Intel won the MHz war.
Although they tried to extend it one generation too far with Prescott and are scrambling to redesign and remarket.
I'm always foolishly choosing the better technology instead of the better marketing
Great technology products like:
BetaMax
NeoGeo
DEC Alpha
Atari Lynx
MiniDisc
He said, "Christian political movement that have hijacked America's politics in the last 45 years try to pretend that the spot they hold is their divine right and that they have always held it".
It's been hijacked longer than 45 years, as a pointed out. In fact look farther back at the role the Second Great Awakening had on abolition of slavery, and settlement of the west.
Although our goverment institutions are barred from participating in religion, they are not immune from religion. Most people are religious, and are guided by their faith. People make up goverment, people make decisions in goverment, and people are influenced by religion.
Personally I'm agnostic, but I can't deny that religion has been one of the largest and longest lasting influences on American history.
A computer programmer is to a computer scientist as a mechanic is to a mechanical engineer
Actually the difference is even greater. Programmer:Comp Sci is equivalent to Mechanic:Physicist.
Mechanical engineering equivalent in the programming world is software/computer engineer.
A computer scientist or physicist can spend their entire career being productive without solving or dealing with a real world problem. CS doesn't even necessarily involve computers (think encryption algorithms)
What you are saying, that America has always been a Christian nation the way it is today, is a nice little fairy tale, but it simply isn't true.
What about the religious special interest groups like the anti-saloon league and Woman's Christian Temperance Union which got the 18th amendment passed.
I certainly hope that the court would have a system whereby scope of the publication didn't matter, and the only thing that mattered was that it was offered in some way to the public.
Scope should matter, otherwise you can claim it was public if you put it on display in a locked filing cabinet, in a disused bathroom the door to which has a sign which reads 'beware the Leopard'.
The threshold for making something public isn't all that high. It just has to have reasonable access to those skilled in the art. For example if you post your code on sourceforge, sell the program on ebay, or have it available at popular download site, it is sufficient to meet the threshold.
Does a comment in a blog count? Does it matter if the public information had a limited distribution (Say, 5 people read it)?
Depends on the blog. If it does not require registration and has something to do with the subject of your invention, it should count.
Does it matter if you cannot verify the date at which something was offered to the public?
Yes. If you cannot prove when something was published, you cannot demonstrate prior art. You don't need the exact date of publish, but you must prove that it was created sometime before the patent application was filed.
Does it matter if the public information had a limited distribution (Say, 5 people read it)?
Private distribution is not public. Otherwise I could give the invention to my brother and claim publishing.
It will always be up to the courts to arbitrate what constitutes publicly known; but if you look I'm sure there is plenty of precidence to guide you.
To me this change to who files first is Microsoft using it's Washington connection to change the law so Microsoft can go after Apple for the iPod, which Apple did before Microsoft files a patent.
Given iPods were shipping and easily accessable before the application, Apple basically "published" the invention. So prior art still stands.
Seems to me the inventor, not neccessarly the first filer aught to have some rights. Or this whole system goes to the lawyers who file trivial and fradulent patents while others try to make our life better.
The flip side is arbitrating who invented something first, which is much messier. Imagine having to sift through emails, notes, and various other paperwork and trying to figure out when the invention was actually made. You can invent something and not have a final design. So then you're trying to arbitrate where in the evolution of the invention it actually had some or all of the parts covered in the patent application that are being infringed upon by the other invention.
1) what does it mean "publish"? If I describe my invention in some totally obscure journal that nobody who works in the field is ever likely to read, does it count?
No.
"(B) REASONABLE AND EFFECTIVE AC
5 CESSIBILITY.--For purposes of subparagraph
6 (A)--
7 ''(i) subject matter is reasonably ac
8 cessible if persons of ordinary skill in the
9 art to which the subject matter pertains
10 are able to gain access to the subject mat
11 ter by without resort to undue efforts; and
12 (ii) subject matter is effectively ac
13 cessible if persons of ordinary skill in the
14 art to which the subject matter pertains
15 are able to comprehend the content of the
16 subject matter without resort to undue ef
17 forts."
2) Filing patent application is supposed to publish the invention, however nowdays there are so many application being filed that it is easy for an individual invention to get lost in the noise, especially if the invention is intentionally described in some obscure way.
It's the patent examiner's job to ensure that the patent is understandable by sombody with "ordinary skill in the art"
Patents were supposed to encourage progress of technology by protecting the financial interests of the inventor
I would agree with the grandparent post. The goverment (in theory) represents the public at large. Essentially the patent system is a means by which the public purchases the disclosure of information with a limited-term monopoly.
This monopoly does not grant or guarantee profits, only that the inventor can control how the invention is used. Typically this monopoly power is used to gain profit, which has the side effect of also encouraging capital investment. However, it can also be used to ensure nobody else controls/profits from the idea. (eg IBM opening up their patents up to the open source community)
But he and Skoric concede that other types of games and contexts might have negative impacts. 'This game featured fantasy violence, while others featuring outer space or even everyday urban violence may yield different outcomes.'
Outer space violence may yield different outcomes? Yeah, I guess kids could be influenced to steal the space shuttle with their phasers.
At least it's good to know, that social "scientists" have proven WoW won't make me stand in my front yard for weeks at a time killing bugs and bunnies.
So the rise in video games has caused a decline in unemployment.
:)
Unemployment is the number of workers who are actively seeking employment.
If you're unemployed and playing video games all day, then you're not seeking employment, hence the lower unemployment rate.
Hence some higher intelligence -- beyond human intelligence -- must be involved in creating such organisms. But now, we are stepping closer to make one on our own. What does that say about humans? Are we becoming a god?
I don't think Intelligent Design necessarily states it has to be an intelligence beyond humans. It states that natural processes is insufficient to explain the development of organisms, therefore some sort of intelligent manipulation was involved. I don't see how intelligent manipulation by people to create new organisms refutes that argument.
Not saying ID is right, just that this particular field of science doesn't directly refute its claims
Still, it would be a lot cheaper to change the game than to try to catch people based on what's in their heads
It's difficult for casinos to introduce new games because people don't want to play it. Rarely do people play games they don't know. Some games, like craps or roulette, can be intimidating because there are many bets, and many things going on at once. Also, players are afraid of messing with the "flow" of a game. If the guy next to you sees you're playing stupid, and he starts to lose, he's going to be pissed at you.
That's why many casinos actually host sessions to teach people the rules and familiarize them with the way the game is played. They want you to have fun losing your money, so that you'll be happy to lose even more.
Whatever method is chosen can be easily faked.
Easily faked, but not necessarily usable. Imagine if each chip had a unique encrypted serial number, and the casino had the ability to track each chip's location and compare to a central database.
If you duplicated the RFID on a chip, you'd set off alarms, as there would be 2 of the same chip in the casino. If you managed to crack the encryption and create your own unique serial number you'd set off alarms as chips would be in the casino which were not in the database.
Even a simple system which doesn't need to be aware of all chips in circulation offer great security. Just track the RFID of the chip when it is played to the database of chips in the bank, and in circulation. If the ID is in the bank, or doesn't appear in the database then you know a dupe has been played. Other dupes of the same chip could not be played without setting off alarms until that first chip has exited the bank, which could be a long time (and it would be very difficult for a player to know when or if it happens).
But never never never come out with some thing so revolutionary that breaks the industry cycle...I for one love my tech, but it would be nice to see something real disruptive come along.
You can't have something that breaks the industry and make money though. You need to have the support of suppliers, customers, partners, software makers, and provide it with full support at a reasonable price. AMD & Intel often demo revolutionary tech, however, the marketplace isn't always ready for it.
I'm sure they could come out with a 10Ghz super chip, using custom fab equipment and custom designs. The problem is it would be too expensive, they could only supply a few parts, there would be no associated equipment that is compatible, and no software that runs on it. Also the risk is by the time the market does catch up something better could come along
Two words: System Seven
If the game is unregulated, is it still stealing and should you still be arrested.
What about gameshows? They are unregulated, yet fraud can be still committed if the contestant cheats.
help me dupe this pile of 20s.
:)
Sure, go to the US-Mexico border. As soon as you cross the border give me all your money, then go to sleep.
When you wake up, you'll have a new pile of money.
Just like the whole point of Poker is lying. Sure, its unethical to lie, but not when your playing Poker, that's what makes it fun. Sure its unethical to steal someone's stuff, but not when your playing a game where that's the understood point. Even if you use a bot to do it, IMHO
But it is not against the rules of poker to lie, it is against the rules to bring in an ace from your sleeve though. Just as it's against the rules to use a bot in Lineage.
"My dog unplugged the controller"
"My little brother kept TKing me"
"Power was out"
"My dad put a virus on my comp"
"This game gives me seizures"
"I'll never use this in the real world"
Hey I'm "blind with age" you insensitive clod!!!
Your analogy does not work for one simple reason. This is computer repair. You know, viruses, root kits. These things could have been used to place the illegal files on the drive in the first place.
And people can break the lock and put a body in the trunk, hide drugs under your seat, tape a handgun underneath the car, use the car to commit a crime.
What happens when evil kiddie porn hacker roots your box and uses it as an FTP server for all his kiddie porn hacker friends? Your machine becomes kiddie porn central, slows to a crawl because of bandwidth saturation, and your directories are stuffed with illegal files. You, not being a 1337 HAX0R DUD3 unhook it, take it to the computer repair guy, and the computer repair guy finds illegal files you were unaware of.
What you are describing is a legal defense argument. It doesn't change the fact that illegal material was found on the computer.
Instead of fixing the problem, he instead turns you in to the cops as a kiddie porn wanker. Your life is ruined. You loose your job, your wife leaves you, and you aren't allowed to see your own kids without a social worker present.
What if he does fix the problem, but the person actually was a criminal, continues to download, is caught. After poking around the cops find that the tech had infact serviced the computer and seen the illegal material. They accuse him of covering up the crime, and his life is ruined, etc. etc. Would you risk going to jail over somebody who couldn't properly maintain their computer?
Actually, that's exactly what I'd do if I was servicing a client's machine and was confronted with the situation. I'd return it to them having done nothing with it and politely inform them that by doing any work on it I would be putting myself in an unpleasant position.
It's too late though. Once you've seen something you're a witness to a crime.
Morally I don't think the relationship between a person and their neighborhood computer technician merits the same level of "trust" and protection as a person with their spouse, religious advisor, doctor, or lawyer.
I wish i had the funds to start a true olympic games
Hence the need for commercialization.
I'd say the real problem isn't commercialization, it's over saturation due to the IOC trying to line their corrupt pockets. They've forgone controlling of sponsors and ensuring tasteful representation in hopes of getting millions more.
We can't just wave our hands and say "train for better jobs!" when the existing jobs run out.
...because we will eventually reach a point where XYZ is essentially free but only a few people can afford ABC at all.
We also shouldn't say just sit there and do nothing, while everybody else takes care of you. In your two examples, though short term those people found themselves out of jobs, long term they better positioned themslves to get new jobs when they arise.
During the same time many people trained in computers (some even high school drop outs) and became contributing members to the economy. Some started new companies, some gained skills that allowed them to move to other industries, some are happily still working in their jobs. While some businesses from this time failed, many succeeded. The boom wasn't just for the dotcoms many of which failed. Shipping, infrastructure, business services also boomed during this time. Most of those created jobs stayed around.
We cannot talk about the West's prosperity without including the sweatshops doing our dirty work for essentially "free". Where is the tide that lifts the boats in Malaysia, Indonesia, Honduras, China, etc.? They are now integral parts of our economy but reap far less benefit from it.
This is a relative assessment. Many of those countries didn't benefit as much, but they did benefit. If you look at where they were, rather than comparing them to the western lifestyle they had a net gain. The trade defecit was an example of the redistribution of wealth. The middle east has prospered because it has resources the west wants, asia has prospered because it provides needed labor. Further, the economic and infrastructure growth stimulated by western investments have put those countries in better position. Now the internal growth of India and China, outpaces the foreign investments and those countries overall are growing faster, to the point where western countries see them as competitive threats. Compare this with regions such as latin america and africa which have historically seen less foreign investment.
We've not yet figured out how to make the mercantilist system provide improved life for all, which was the original point of allowing businesses leave to compete with each other (Adam Smith).
While the lifetyle of the poor today is inferior to that of the rich today, overall it is superior that of the poor in the past (starvation, disease, etc). Essentially the market keeps shifting the bell-curve higher.
Barring some miraculous technology, there will never be a system that provides everything for everybody. There will always be unfulfilled wants, because resources are limited.
Suppose everyone is fully trained: where will the jobs come from to employ us all?
Who says everybody has to work. There are systems that exist that support those not working, they don't provide the most desireable lifestyle, but people can survive. Of course, we should always try to encourage people to work. We can only get out of the economy what gets put in. The more poeple who contribute, the more people can gain.
5. We give all people XYZ and retain the economy of all-things-not-XYZ so that people can compete and earn more to achieve ABC.
6. Some people will be happy with XYZ. Some will want ABC. We let the future sort it out.
7.
My response is:
5. What is XYZ and who defines it?
6. We already have systems such as welfare that provide basic needs. It is enough for basic food and shelter, but those receiving it still complain. Fact is almost nobody is happy with just XYZ, they want to live where they want, eat what they want, dress how they want. People will live in LA or New York with higher costs of living, rather than in lower cost cities and states.
7. We reached that point already. Of course, but we keep redefining XYZ, making luxuries into necessities. Shelter of today is filled with luxuries that didn't exis