Maybe more recognition for people contributing to open source. Scanning the web for all open source projects, names, comments, and coming up with some sort of ranking of the top contributors, based on various criteria. Something like a "open source coders rank" algorithm.
In China it is very heavy handed and abusive. In others, very subtle and well disguised. But. Every country has numerous entities monitoring what everyone does online. And there's usually nobody monitoring the monitors.
Go to a financial power center, find the center of crime. Well dressed, groomed, prepared, by an army specialists in PR, marketing, design, security, privacy, and secrecy. But it is laying around there, somewhere. Most surely, the evidence and main coverup is in the security, legal, and accounting divisions. Enron was never alone.
If a company releases a new product, they have to add new features to get you to buy it.
Indeed, Windows is a consumer product, made by a corporation that has stated many times it plans on getting everyone to upgrade everything fairly often. Planned obsolescence is the plan, plainly stated. Many other operating systems don't fall into those categories. Choose.
Microsoft always does this bait and hook game. Already XP can't run IE9, and sites are stopping support for IE8. There's no option, accept Microsoft doesn't maintain support for their OS without forced upgrades, or just don't use it. There are some options.
The thing many people are waiting for I think is some simple way to stream win32 API suport to run any win-app you want, on demand, from one single box sitting on the network. Then get rid of every Microsoft product in sight.
Indeed, transportation and logistics companies would love to use more trains, it is much lower cost and simpler logistically. They don't use more electric transportation simply because it doesn't get approved for building - that's the lobby money from profitable trucking and oil.
Economics however, say that trains are actually more viable in the US than in Europe, precisely because of the long distances. And for freight, there is not the minefield political issue of taking cars from consumers, who are addicted to them. In fact most auto drivers would like to see less large trucks on the roads and streets, leaving more space for cars.
All they need to do is create a new index for import tariffs, putting China at a very high rate. Just derived the formula for the tariff from a nations amount of slave labor, world pollution index, smuggling rates, etc.
and gas prices... and more intrusive government supervision of the internet...
Accusing is a start. But we need proposals on how to stop being completely dependent on corporate services and products, and then talking in circles about what their agendas and political puppets have fed us, via marketing and media. "Should we subsidize the army? The corporations? Private military forces?"
Nonsense. This is an attempt to create endless confusion among everyone, and not ever discuss how to create and own their infrastructure, and avoid being slaves of monthly bills - tax, food, power, communications, transportation, real estate, insurances, and so on.
See what countries pay for gas, and where the developed countries are.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gasoline_and_diesel_usage_and_pricing Country - gas prices (in US$ / US Gallon) Norway - 9.69 Netherlands - 9.35 Denmark 8.90 Sweden 8.90 Finland 8.82 Italy 8.74 France 8.63 United Kingdom 8.63 Belgium 8.44 [...] United States 3.88 [...] Brunei 0.39 Oman 0.31 Bahrain 0.27 Kuwait 0.224 Qatar (Doha) 0.83 Turkmenistan 0.72 Libya - 0.64 Saudi Arabia (Riyadh, Jeddah) 0.45 Venezuela 0.085
That's just going to be a lot of waste no matter what anybody does. The social and monetary cost for a trip to the grocery will always be enormous. There's a reason everything is expensive in Hawaii or Japan -- they are far form everything. That's the whole reason big cities have progressed. It's unlikely world economy and infrastructure will be built around supplies for people who live far from everything, at least not until some equivalent of nuclear fusion comes around.
Electric freight trains. Railroads have proven themselves old and reliable technology. Almost all electric, almost no accidents. About 90% lower cost for freight transportation. Only problem is, since the trains last for decades, the tires don't wear out all the time, and the there's no massive fuel consumption, it doesn't generate lots of other costs. Those massive costs are what feed the truck manufacturing and oil business. But, there is no real change without change. The trucking and oil business industries will have to go do something else. They won't be the first or last industry get shaken up by changes in the world.
If you live in a house, you could just generate your own power. Many cases have less need every day to keep dependending on others and paying for it. http://otherpower.com/
Unleash NYC real estate speculators to build Dubai-like artificial reefs, and get foreigners looking for "safe havens" for their money to buy it all up. Given the financial madness of real estate in nyc and new beachfront property, it will pay for itself a thousand times over.
I really don't see what's the deal, besides an oil industry investing in a massive PR program to convince us all that their oil is the only source of power. If all the oil and coal in the world disappeared tomorrow, I'm sure lots of power sources would be built at record speeds. Power of any kind needed, clean or any other, The whole debate just relegated to the history books. Once necessity hits the fan, the creative juices will create self-powering airplanes that run infinetely. Oh wait, that's done already.
It's still getting worse, and it still has to be done. Technically it actually seems easier every day to create always more sources of power, but politics and established economic interests mandates that people react to disasters after the fact. I'd just build nuclear reactors and electric trains everywhere, large but gradually increasing taxes on polluters, and subsidies for clean power. Heck, we're spending a ton of money and risks importing shiploads of raw materials for power.
After years of horrible persecution of scientists and accusing them of crimes for the results of their research and voicing their opinion, taking us back to the middle ages, perhaps now they will gain a bit more respect. But we're still far from paying them anything near what they deserve, anywhere in the world.
Let's have laws linking the right to privacy of the public and scientists, to the rights to privacy of corporate executives, politicians. Let's see if they will relinquish their rights to have private talk corrupt practices. And since they are representatives of public servants of public-supported, publicly owned, legally public entities, they should have very few rights to privacy.
Revolutionary would be printing more 3d printers to make them widespread. Printing guns is premature at this point for 3d printers. After they are widespread, if someone prints guns it will have no consequence to the rest of us.
However legality is only a small part of being able to *actually* to do something. In any country whatever you do is going to be scrutinized based on it's popularity first and foremost. With the authorities, the neighbors, the population, job, friends and family. And many of those can easily stop you from doing something, especially if they have wide support. Even if *they* are breaking the law. It's called a free society, and the paper law is only a small part of it. We take advantage of it all the time. Many things are illegal on paper, but so immensely popular, nobody can really stop it. The gray area is very big, really.
I guess I actually sounded legit, I didn't make the irony evident enough. Say "America" and "USA" twenty times in any phrase and they will eat up whatever. Even if you tell them to waste their money, buy wasteful dirty things, and then buy the "solution" so they dont choke to death, buying bottled air forever, if they want to breathe properly.
That makes it bad for the American economy and interests. It will sacrifice jobs in the energy industry in the name of some liberal, unproven, uncientific, utopian, dreamy, touchy-feely ideals and global warming paranoia, proposing that investing less in American energy is necessary and even productive. People who buy diesel, gas, and oil products are Americans who believe in invesing in power for their productivity, enterprise, and lifestyle. It is simple math, the power-to-weight ratio of any combustion engine has simply never been beat.
In addition, stopping global warming will waste an opportunity for an entire future upcoming market and jobs in the unique products, research, and know-how using exclusive US technology for cleaning up an environment and keeping Americans and their clients supplied with clean, breathable air.
The money is at the crux of the matter. The technology, politics, legislation, public opinion, will all follow once it is decided who gets the money. As I see it, at this point the money basically goes to the auto and fuel industries, and they are behind much of what people are debating about. The people spending the money are mostly disorganized and not aware of the size of their financial outlays, or not seeing many options. If you get together a bunch of companies which spend enormous amounts of money on transportation, and are not profiting from this business, I think we will have a significant lobby group. Supermarkets, stores, consumers, manufacturers, delivery companies, farmers, most businesses simply spend huge amounts just getting their stuff around. They have no option but to pay out for the use of trucks, drivers, fuel, taxes, insurance, and roads, mostly. If a cluster of non-trucks-and-oil companies in big cities get together with city governments to find ways to get rid of their trucks, the traffic, noise, and expense associated with them, that might be successful. Say if 2000 stores in NYC, SF, or London, got allied with city government and some tech companies, to invent some federated-automated-electric-night-truck-drones-delivery system downtown, that might work.
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe more recognition for people contributing to open source. Scanning the web for all open source projects, names, comments, and coming up with some sort of ranking of the top contributors, based on various criteria. Something like a "open source coders rank" algorithm.
In China it is very heavy handed and abusive. In others, very subtle and well disguised. But. Every country has numerous entities monitoring what everyone does online. And there's usually nobody monitoring the monitors.
Go to a financial power center, find the center of crime. Well dressed, groomed, prepared, by an army specialists in PR, marketing, design, security, privacy, and secrecy. But it is laying around there, somewhere. Most surely, the evidence and main coverup is in the security, legal, and accounting divisions. Enron was never alone.
Perhaps words don't always mean things. Given how much of social life is dominated by lies and falsehood.
If a company releases a new product, they have to add new features to get you to buy it.
Indeed, Windows is a consumer product, made by a corporation that has stated many times it plans on getting everyone to upgrade everything fairly often. Planned obsolescence is the plan, plainly stated. Many other operating systems don't fall into those categories. Choose.
Linux sucks as a desktop os
Microsoft always does this bait and hook game. Already XP can't run IE9, and sites are stopping support for IE8. There's no option, accept Microsoft doesn't maintain support for their OS without forced upgrades, or just don't use it. There are some options.
The thing many people are waiting for I think is some simple way to stream win32 API suport to run any win-app you want, on demand, from one single box sitting on the network. Then get rid of every Microsoft product in sight.
Indeed, transportation and logistics companies would love to use more trains, it is much lower cost and simpler logistically. They don't use more electric transportation simply because it doesn't get approved for building - that's the lobby money from profitable trucking and oil.
Economics however, say that trains are actually more viable in the US than in Europe, precisely because of the long distances. And for freight, there is not the minefield political issue of taking cars from consumers, who are addicted to them. In fact most auto drivers would like to see less large trucks on the roads and streets, leaving more space for cars.
All they need to do is create a new index for import tariffs, putting China at a very high rate. Just derived the formula for the tariff from a nations amount of slave labor, world pollution index, smuggling rates, etc.
and gas prices...
and more intrusive government supervision of the internet...
Accusing is a start. But we need proposals on how to stop being completely dependent on corporate services and products, and then talking in circles about what their agendas and political puppets have fed us, via marketing and media. "Should we subsidize the army? The corporations? Private military forces?"
Nonsense. This is an attempt to create endless confusion among everyone, and not ever discuss how to create and own their infrastructure, and avoid being slaves of monthly bills - tax, food, power, communications, transportation, real estate, insurances, and so on.
See what countries pay for gas, and where the developed countries are.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gasoline_and_diesel_usage_and_pricing
Country - gas prices (in US$ / US Gallon)
Norway - 9.69
Netherlands - 9.35
Denmark 8.90
Sweden 8.90
Finland 8.82
Italy 8.74
France 8.63
United Kingdom 8.63
Belgium 8.44
[...]
United States 3.88
[...]
Brunei 0.39
Oman 0.31
Bahrain 0.27
Kuwait 0.224
Qatar (Doha) 0.83
Turkmenistan 0.72
Libya - 0.64
Saudi Arabia (Riyadh, Jeddah) 0.45
Venezuela 0.085
That's just going to be a lot of waste no matter what anybody does. The social and monetary cost for a trip to the grocery will always be enormous. There's a reason everything is expensive in Hawaii or Japan -- they are far form everything. That's the whole reason big cities have progressed. It's unlikely world economy and infrastructure will be built around supplies for people who live far from everything, at least not until some equivalent of nuclear fusion comes around.
Electric freight trains. Railroads have proven themselves old and reliable technology. Almost all electric, almost no accidents. About 90% lower cost for freight transportation. Only problem is, since the trains last for decades, the tires don't wear out all the time, and the there's no massive fuel consumption, it doesn't generate lots of other costs. Those massive costs are what feed the truck manufacturing and oil business. But, there is no real change without change. The trucking and oil business industries will have to go do something else. They won't be the first or last industry get shaken up by changes in the world.
If you live in a house, you could just generate your own power. Many cases have less need every day to keep dependending on others and paying for it.
http://otherpower.com/
Unleash NYC real estate speculators to build Dubai-like artificial reefs, and get foreigners looking for "safe havens" for their money to buy it all up. Given the financial madness of real estate in nyc and new beachfront property, it will pay for itself a thousand times over.
I really don't see what's the deal, besides an oil industry investing in a massive PR program to convince us all that their oil is the only source of power. If all the oil and coal in the world disappeared tomorrow, I'm sure lots of power sources would be built at record speeds. Power of any kind needed, clean or any other, The whole debate just relegated to the history books. Once necessity hits the fan, the creative juices will create self-powering airplanes that run infinetely. Oh wait, that's done already.
It's still getting worse, and it still has to be done. Technically it actually seems easier every day to create always more sources of power, but politics and established economic interests mandates that people react to disasters after the fact. I'd just build nuclear reactors and electric trains everywhere, large but gradually increasing taxes on polluters, and subsidies for clean power. Heck, we're spending a ton of money and risks importing shiploads of raw materials for power.
After years of horrible persecution of scientists and accusing them of crimes for the results of their research and voicing their opinion, taking us back to the middle ages, perhaps now they will gain a bit more respect. But we're still far from paying them anything near what they deserve, anywhere in the world.
Let's have laws linking the right to privacy of the public and scientists, to the rights to privacy of corporate executives, politicians. Let's see if they will relinquish their rights to have private talk corrupt practices. And since they are representatives of public servants of public-supported, publicly owned, legally public entities, they should have very few rights to privacy.
Revolutionary would be printing more 3d printers to make them widespread. Printing guns is premature at this point for 3d printers. After they are widespread, if someone prints guns it will have no consequence to the rest of us.
However legality is only a small part of being able to *actually* to do something. In any country whatever you do is going to be scrutinized based on it's popularity first and foremost. With the authorities, the neighbors, the population, job, friends and family. And many of those can easily stop you from doing something, especially if they have wide support. Even if *they* are breaking the law. It's called a free society, and the paper law is only a small part of it. We take advantage of it all the time. Many things are illegal on paper, but so immensely popular, nobody can really stop it. The gray area is very big, really.
I guess I actually sounded legit, I didn't make the irony evident enough. Say "America" and "USA" twenty times in any phrase and they will eat up whatever. Even if you tell them to waste their money, buy wasteful dirty things, and then buy the "solution" so they dont choke to death, buying bottled air forever, if they want to breathe properly.
Fuel cells are more efficient, less polluting
That makes it bad for the American economy and interests. It will sacrifice jobs in the energy industry in the name of some liberal, unproven, uncientific, utopian, dreamy, touchy-feely ideals and global warming paranoia, proposing that investing less in American energy is necessary and even productive. People who buy diesel, gas, and oil products are Americans who believe in invesing in power for their productivity, enterprise, and lifestyle. It is simple math, the power-to-weight ratio of any combustion engine has simply never been beat.
In addition, stopping global warming will waste an opportunity for an entire future upcoming market and jobs in the unique products, research, and know-how using exclusive US technology for cleaning up an environment and keeping Americans and their clients supplied with clean, breathable air.
I would assume they did lots of research and concluded that people will pay that value for that service.
The money is at the crux of the matter. The technology, politics, legislation, public opinion, will all follow once it is decided who gets the money. As I see it, at this point the money basically goes to the auto and fuel industries, and they are behind much of what people are debating about. The people spending the money are mostly disorganized and not aware of the size of their financial outlays, or not seeing many options. If you get together a bunch of companies which spend enormous amounts of money on transportation, and are not profiting from this business, I think we will have a significant lobby group. Supermarkets, stores, consumers, manufacturers, delivery companies, farmers, most businesses simply spend huge amounts just getting their stuff around. They have no option but to pay out for the use of trucks, drivers, fuel, taxes, insurance, and roads, mostly. If a cluster of non-trucks-and-oil companies in big cities get together with city governments to find ways to get rid of their trucks, the traffic, noise, and expense associated with them, that might be successful. Say if 2000 stores in NYC, SF, or London, got allied with city government and some tech companies, to invent some federated-automated-electric-night-truck-drones-delivery system downtown, that might work.