[this] guy triple majors at Harvard, with his buddy from Jr. High, who is double majoring and they start a dating service... He He. Either venture capitalists are retarded, or these guys are too smart for humanity [not having any other information-- I think it's the prior].
It's expensive to continually upgrade fab facilities, marketing material, etc. Sitting on a successful product with inflated prices is a serious profit maker. AMD is simply reaping the rewards for kicking the hell out of the P4. Congrats to them. I don't blame them a bit. They've been skating on razor thin margins for quite awhile. I hope that AMD has addressed the majority of their production issues in the last year (they're gonna need it).
OTOH, Intel has been fattening (and has expanded into MANY other markets) and until recently hasn't had to really work to keep a nice lead on AMD in the processor market. So, now they will have to turn around processors faster than AMD (which is likely why they just switched to 65nm processing before moving into Merom processors). That's just business.
It shapes up as a nice fight (finally). I can't wait. I want a dual core CPU for around $100. Maybe then I'll get off of my 3000+XP processor. Yes, the consumer wins in a competitive market (FWIW, I've never built an Intel system... but I've built a LOT of AMD ones (and one Cyrix)). I only hope that AMD has enough designs stable and in reserve to keep ahead of Intel for another 5 years. AMD is still the serious underdog here.
Okay, I'm no genius, but it appears that this is set up this way for (wink/nudge) tax reasons. I don't know about KK, but often the distributor is the same corp. as the producer (at least for these large budget deals)??? If not, then I'd bet it's a colluding oligopoly.
I would imagine (or, it wouldn't surprise me to learn...) that there's a 'floating' percentage that the distributor takes to make sure that there is never ANY producer's net (monkey points.. that's funny) and the producer's gross is inline with an average to pay the 20% for the actors. [dammit, where's my tinfoil hat!?]
The corporate structure simply has nifty ways of hiding the money so that the tax take is small (and the ACTUAL profits, paid as owner distributions, wages, and executive loans, are high) and most of the money stays in "hollywood."
I'm no expert, as I mentioned, but I realize when GM reports 'net losses' of $X billion that it's not really LOSSES, but they are able to claim a LOT of exemptions and expenses (some real-- some not).
For your next film, you should forfeit half of your *worthless* 'monkey points' for audit rights... I bet they'd balk.
As evidence of the distributor's collusion, Lionsgate dist. (who doesn't really have a competitor) is basically sucking up all the films that are too risky for mainstream corp. hollywood to finance outright. Then they take the profits (as above) and distribute them to the colluding accounts of the oligopoly. They only buy the rights to the ones that create 'buzz.' This is a 'legit.' mafia... I don't think it's a secret, either.
By the way, thanks for being a writer. I've had fantasies about becoming a writer, but the risk/reward is too low. I'm glad it's working out for you....
If you were referring to '...powerful...' from my earlier post... I meant business-power not computing-power. I agree, Dell hardware is 'built to last...' about 2 years.
The more I think of it, if Dell were to adopt a (stripped) version of Linux that worked ONLY with its business edition of PC and performed well with an Office pkg.... Man, that could be powerful.
I don't think that Apple could/should drop the hardware (I don't mean to infer that you were recommending it--I'm just reinforcing your point).
If they drop the hardware, then they have to start supporting junk hardware to increase their market... which is bad (too many external dependencies). Also, it would take all of their staff... They can't compete with MS unless they have a competitive advantage. With so many options of roughly equivalent hardware, it's easier and more profitable to compete on the OS vs. the hardware (Apple's old model competed on both).
I think that Apple could reasonably compete with MS if they would streamline their OS to just plain *haul ass* and use every available performance trick in their *heavily enforced* hardware configuration (e.g. the recent USB power consumption bug in Windows shouldn't matter to a Mac with the same hardware).
This is a good competitive advantage since M$ couldn't just stop supporting all those other drivers and hardware devices... I, for one, think that Apple's move to Intel was an important move for them to compete head-to-head with MS (in the OS market). Where they've moved to widely available hardware (ATI, etc) their parts should come down in price, and their margins should increase....
Really, it's a pretty (damn) good business model. I've never used an Apple/Mac, but I'm contemplating a mini (to address the inevitable "fanboy" argument)... Business-wise they're spot on.
I won't pretend to understand it all... my math isn't that great. However, it seems that they've taken a pretty good understanding of the current models of gravity and simply fit them together over varying intensities of fields. Essentially, they 'fit the curves' for all observable gravitational fields (using pretty good coverage of physics and math). Now, again, I'm no expert, but I don't think they've been able to find anything observable that does not fit their function, which accounts for the curvature of galaxies.
"As two final remarks, we note (1) that multiply imaged gravitational systems present a challenge to all MOND/TeVeS interpolating functions (cf. Zhao et al. 2006) and (2) that the dark matter potential is fundamentally different from the scalar field, although the two are sometimes degenerate in fitting rotation curves. Indeed, there is no equivalent of EFE in dark matter; hence, the dark matter potential
enjoys more freedom."
It's interesting to me for a couple of reasons: As this thread has mentioned his humility is refreshing, and the paper doesn't discount dark matter entirely. This last is why I replied to your post. I thought that you'd like to read the paper and I thought that you'd like to know that dark matter isn't discounted-- probably for the reasons that you pointed out (I don't know).
I think you missed the point (but perhaps not). A bale of cocaine would be summarily removed to the evidence locker... probably in downtown *major metro area*. No one would go carving into the thing to check to see whether there was a nuke inside (they'd want to weigh it for the inevitable press release)... A simple remote detonation... bingo! You flatten at least one *major metro area* precinct. If it were a big enough 'bale' it may go into the federal building, too.
I'm actually quite clueless about what they do in cases of large seizures, but I don't think it matters. It (likely) goes somewhere inland, and the cops/agents wouldn't likely look for a 'second' offense when they find a bale of cocaine.
I guess the beauty of that plan is that if it gets through, you could pay for the costs of the nuke with the proceeds of selling a bale of coke to the plastic surgeons in said *major metro area* before you detonate the bomb...
FWIW, The OP's point (joke) is well-made and scientific sniping isn't really necessary, although your knowledge does add to the discussion... Perhaps it was a bit mis-placed, though? I'm not trying to be a dick, just giving a little constructive criticism...
There's a local bar, which used to be called "Jeep's" for the owner's nickname... Well, rumor has it that Chrysler sued and it's no longer called that. I don't have 1st hand (or even 2nd hand) info on the suit, but that's the 'word on the street'-- or it was 10-15 years ago when it happened.
Really? I'm curious as to why you think so. My reasoning was as follows:
OLTP- online transaction processing... (light datasets, mostly inserts/updates, a bit of processing) OLAP- online analytical processing... (cubes, stars, and other random geometrical shapes;) HUGE datasets)...
I'll give you that I've not worked on a truly OLAP system, but I get the impression that the processing end is fairly heavy, given that (some) analytical data needs to be derived (not to mention that some data-transformation usually needs to occur to move OLTP type stuff into the OLAP datastructure). Also, given the rather large datasets (usually historic data from an OLTP system) these are prime targets for technology like partitioning, etc.
I'm not a DBA, like I said, but why did you think the opposite?
In this world of outsourcing, companies want to buy "enterprise" software packages, experts, and "solutions" (whatever the hell that means) for a cheap price from a local company (IMO- mainly to avoid responsibility for potential failure). If these tools are not free, then there are no experts/packages/solutions avaialable because these smaller companies cannot afford to buy "enterprise" databases... enter: free licenses sized for consultant shops.
As for the post asking why these solutions are preferred to the OSS varieties, it's really pretty simple: Large companies won't spend money on non-branded enterprise software. I used to work on an app written in Sybase's ASA (non-enterprise). Well, it worked really well. For the amount of data and the amount of processing required for the app, it was sweet! No DBA required. Anyhow, we went to sell it to other customers (large gov't contractors) and the first Q I got was... Does it work with Oracle? We ended up converting it to work with SS2000 (this was for a large company in Canada, actually) because they wouldn't allow ASA on their servers. It's dumb, IMO.
Most OLTP databases would be much more efficiently done in 'lighter' databases. OLAP... sure, do it in one of the big databases.
For the average Joe, I'd say that they are unable to read at a very complex level (I read somewhere that 60+% of Americans are functionally illiterate-- of course I may have misunderstood that *hehe*).
If I have one pet-peave it's that people don't understand size (is a mega-byte bigger than a kilobyte?). How big should an email attachment be? How fast is fast for an internet connection? I get those questions a lot. Actually, I try to make them understand that their 2.5MB email sent to their entire family (most of which is on dial-up) is uncool, but they don't get it-- ever.
I'm glad you at least have your eyes open enough to ask the question.
By way of my explanation I'll take a little detour. Businesses regularly accept crappy products from all kinds of vendors... Let me say that it's not just partners, suppliers, etc. but contract work, too. I can't rant hard enough to demonstrate the long parade of shitty subcontractors that have sold my (and others') idiotic management chain into buying (at some exhorbitant cost) some service that doesn't even resemble 'expertise.'...but I digress.
Fact is, the reason you are searching for comes to this example of the management mentality....
I'm busy. I have a lot of meetings to attend. I have to produce my excel spreadsheet that demonstrates why I need more resources to complete my projects so that at the end of the year I can justify my own pay raise to my bosses. I don't have time to learn another operating system. If we could just hire someone else to administer the Windows update software, then I could 1. solve a huge company risk (justify pay raise) 2. hire another underling (justify pay raise) 3. save everyone else the pain of re-learning how to do their work (be a hero) and 4. continue to use my stupid excel spreadsheet template without having to read anything by way of training myself on a new OS (justify pay raise). Total time outlay (for me): 2 days. One hiring, one orienting the newbie. Risk to my job: 0. I'm seen as proactive, and if something happens, I have someone to blame.
BTW, hiring an underling is only an option IF the company has been stung by the rather vacuous security model of Windows. If that hasn't happened, then mgr above hires a half-witted subcontractor (at twice the rate) and uses that to justify 'being proactive' and covering his ass in case of a security break-down. Then the next year he saves money by hiring a full-time patch administrator...
On yet another note, it's not as if ANY operating system/software system/product/etc is perfect. M$ sells 'perfect enough'. The realities of business are not what I learned in school. Sure, I'm jaded-- I've been out of college for about 5 years, now. The most precious resources are not $$, reputation, talent, etc. Time is the most valuable resource. Oddly, a manager's time is infinitely more valuable than a workers. Why? Because he has to live with his time constraints, and he makes the decisions. Changing to *nix systems would COST all of the valuable resources: time, comfort, confidence, and scapegoats.
DISCLAIMER: I am not, nor have I ever been, a manager in any reasonably sized company. So, my perspective is that of a worker. The views and opinions expressed are derived from observation.
as in "BIG BROTHER." I had a friend who did an R&D project for DARPA...
It had something to do with 'impromptu wireless networking' bots that could be deployed to do some surveillance type stuff. There was lots of redundancy checking, distributed computing, etc. It was pretty cool, but under-funded.
BTW... no, I didn't RTFA. Some of these articles just aren't worth it. So, if I got the wrong idea, just let me enjoy retaining 80% of my body heat because of my tin-foil hat. It's cold outside and my gas [heat] bill was WAY too much this month.
Patents and Copyrights were a good idea that have been abused by companies. They were designed, as I understand it, to allow new ideas to come onto the market with some period where the originator could get established before the mega-corps could use their tech. (unless they compensated the patent/copyright holder). Then mega-corps decided to use them 'defensively' and evil ensued.
Both patents and copyrights need to be re-worked. I think one of the key concepts is that corporations should not be allowed to hold patents or copyrights... only individuals. Neither should be fund-able from corporate money, either. Also, litigation, etc. as a result of a patent shouldn't be allowed to be funded by corporations, either. I also think that licenses should be held only by individuals. So, the makers/license-holders of M$ Outlook could be sued for using someone's tech. without compensation, or permission. Importantly, realize that a 'company' doesn't mean that it's a corporation. Sole proprietorships should be allowed this device.
I was interested to learn that patents (and copyrights?) can be held on biological matter, too. I could patent you (prior 'art' not withstanding) and your children would likely be in violation of my patent. So, another key is deciding that certain things shouldn't be patentable. As well as naturally occuring biological material, I think that business processes, etc. should NOT be patentable.
I agree with 5.
3 seems like a step in absolutely the wrong direction (the intent being to give small companies and individuals a chance to establish themselves before the full weight of competition comes to bear).
I think that 2 is kinda funny. Legal-ese is a nod to the FACT that language is imprecise, at best. Ideas are difficult to express (art?) clearly, completely, and unambiguously. That's just a fact. Perhaps the patent office should demand an executive summary (a design doc) : ) Think of writing 'code' as a simile here. I write 'code' to tell the computer PRECISELY what to do... then I have to comment it.
If I get 4 correctly, then you are saying that a patent should be like a theory (with a reproducible experiment?), which can be disproven, but is considered a fact until such a time that it's proven wrong. Interesting approach. I kinda like it.
IMHO, I guess a judge (another case where specialized judges would be nice) or maybe a patent clerk would have to decide whether that patent and/or copyright should be considered disproven. Then it gets tricky... awarding damages to the REAL originator is tough, but possible.
That's a good post! You presented a possible solution (and didn't just bitch)!
Joe doesn't know *exactly* what he wants. He knows that he wants something that does (roughly) X. He goes to mega-corporate software vendor (i.e. Best Buy, Amazon, etc) and says/types X. Well, software salesman or reviews, or whatever tell him that for 9.95 he can have a limited version of [perhaps] concise software, for 19.95 he can have the mother-of-all apps (MOAP) from another mega-corporation. Joe decides that he should just get mega-corporation's software because he wants "to be able to... in the future... after I figure it out." What he doesn't realize is that mega-corporation put all those features in to appeal to the broadest audience and put the software together in a huge time-crunch. Where the concise software is [hopefully] 1. easier and 2. less problematic it is also 3. useful to fewer people. Where the MOAP software was 1. harder and 2. more problematic it also was 3. already bought and paid for by more Joes (i.e more profitable). Joe takes MOAP home, installs it, tries to figure out how to do X (successful, or not-- doesn't matter), and then promptly forgets about that software.
What open source tends to forget is that that Joe pays for marketing, brand recognition, R&D, and, yes, the software. What [some] mega-corporations tend to forget is that "free" (as in beer AND as in choice) is the most powerful marketing/brand recognition word ever used. M$ tends not to forget (free internet browser, free media player, free Express versions of development software) that "free" only needs to be mentioned... not realized.
On a bit of a higher level, consumers (in the US anyway) can't and don't like to make decisions. They'd rather that it's a bit more expensive now and avoid another decision. Decision == work. Many little [maybe free] apps require many more decisions than one [potentially expensive] MOAP. Teach your children to *enjoy* decision making and we can change this...
There is a reactor designed called an advanced breeder reactor. It's as close to an energy machine as I've ever seen... This type of reactor uses U238, which we (the US) are currently storing as waste (at huge expense). As a by-product of the consumption of this fuel it creates plutonium (the downside), as well as enough fuel to 'seed' another reactor (breeding, in a sense). This reactor was slated to be built, but due to the weapons-grade plutonium by-product, it was deemed unsafe and discontinued. According to people that I know (I used to work at the Idaho National Lab-- a cornerstone of US nuclear reactor design and development) there is enough U238 in storage-- as waste-- that we would could provide the energy needs for the US for several hundred years.
So, to answer one question, there's plenty of fuel. This is just the tip of the iceberg, as far as I'm concerned. This technology has been known for 30 years. There are bound to be technological leaps and bounds in the science of nuclear energy, but collectively we're afraid to try. As evidence of our collective fear, I point to the, IMO, over-zealous regulation/legislation, which makes it impossibly expensive to investigate making nuclear power *more* safe (I believe that it's safer/healthier than coal now).
Okay, having said that... there is a problem with our ability to improve our nuclear technology. That problem is the last 30 years-- where nothing was done in the field (due to FUD). In those 30 years the leading minds have forgottem and gotten old and sometimes have left the US in favor of work in more reasonable countries. In essence, I'm not sure that we have the expertise any longer. It will be expensive and difficult to get the US nuclear programs working again. I only guess that the UK is the same.
Is it worth it for the US, or any country? Yes. I think so. However, you've got an oil industry crony in the W.H. and trillions of lobby dollars spent by US energy corps and, according to many, the old KGB and other foreign govs, which have instilled a real fear about nuclear energy (according to the stories the old USSR didn't want us to develop *infinite* energy to feed our economy).
There is currently an initiative to build what they call the Gen 4 reactor. There has been some discussion as to which design to try. 'Pebble Bed' was discussed, but there are cooling issues to overcome (I can't speak intelligently on that... I wrote the software which tracked the nuclear waste-- IANANE). El Presidente seems enamored with hydrogen reactors, last I heard. My bets on whether we actually do it are placed on 'no.' The current project is woefully under-funded and crazily mis-managed.
Regarding waste... I know a bit about what is stored as waste... Mainly, it's PPE (personal protective equipment-- rubber gloves and the like) and junk. Anytime something even remotely (and I mean REMOTELY) connected with nuclear fuel, or waste, or contamination is discarded it becomes waste. The VAST majority (99%) of waste isn't nasty. Quite a lot can be permanently disposed of in a safe manner, but people start to freak out (FUD again). The other 1% can be stored until we figure out a cost-effective manner to send it to the sun. Right now, we store it all, and that contributes to more FUD.
I probably sound a bit like a fanboy... maybe I am. There IS an energy crisis. Renewables are nowhere near (at least as far as I know) ready to produce the amount of energy that nuclear does/can; it has been operationally tested worldwide.
Solving the political problems... That's another matter.
We naturally select for addictive personality. In fact, I'd say that another word, more positively connotative, is 'driven.' The Chinese are a pretty driven people, and have naturally selected this trait (they aren't alone in this). Now, since information is at their fingertips, they're addicted to it.
I'm not saying that it shouldn't be treated. I'm saying the opposite, in fact. What I am hoping to add to the discussion is the idea that all addictions are *probably* genetic. Certain ethnicities have been shown to have a propensity toward certain addictions (native americans to alcoholism for example).
You know that consumerism? That burning desire to be super-successful? It's natural (as in nature vs. nurture) addictive personality. You are more likely (albeit slightly) to have an addiction to drugs, alcohol, power, adrenaline, sex, etc. than your parents. We even embrace that as 'rebeliousness.'
If I'm right, then this has dire consequences for society over the (really) long term.
I guess I only get to do this once (I won't be a noob after this). I finally decided that I'd had enough of the M$onopoly and DRM. So, I went out and looked at the different distributions of Linux. To be fair, I installed Mandrake (several years ago), but never really used it. So, after a bit of research, I decided on Suse 10.0. Why? Well, I like the idea of the Reiser FS, and I like free. OpenSuse seemed like a good fit. I also didn't want something terribly complex (I'm a noob, and I'd like to switch the whole family-- who are even more noob than I am). I'm a bit disappointed, honestly. Here's my review.
I have two physical disks in the home PC and I'd emptied out space on the second disk awhile back and had installed FC4. However, when I rebooted, I went directly into Windows XP. I never really solved that issue (which I assume was with GRUB) because I didn't really want FC4 anyway.
I figured that I could simply install Suse over the top of the partitions, etc. and, hopefully, could fix the boot issue. I was already beyond the understanding of the typical PC user. So, this really may not be fair, but the Suse installation was quite painful.
Why? I'll explain. I popped in the CD1 and rebooted. The installation started fine. Okay, a particularly ugly screen asks which language; same (really) ugly screen asks me to accept a license; same (hideously) ugly screen asks about a timezone. Then it hits... I can't honestly remember what the responses were like the first time through, but by the fourth time, I was pretty frustrated with the amount of time that it was taking to 'analyze' the software configuration-- over which I had not yet had any control.
The partitioning was screwed up, but I expected that. This partitioning issue was the real reason that I went through the process several times. Part of it IS my fault, but part of it is Suse's. First time through, it wants to resize the Windows partition, I say 'no', let's use the partitions that I already have setup for Linux... It bombs. It can't deal with that because it wants the partition to be (physically?) at the 'end' of the disk-- WTF?
Okay, reboot into XP and move all the data off the end partition. I note, with some interest, that I am able to see the Linux stuff out there. This is something that I didn't expect. So, I decided that I'd wack all the partitions and make them one, big, unpartitioned space at the end of the drive. Moved all the stuff off and created a new partition at the 'front' of the drive. Moved everything there. Rebooted and started the install again. Damn thing didn't recognize hdb (I tried several times). All that space... worthless. The installation wants to resize the Windows partition... Damn!
Reboot into XP and create a new, big NTFS partition on the (hdb) second drive, and move everything out there. Now, I have an empty space on the primary drive, which is probably better, but I've now spent several hours moving files and watching Suse analyze the software configuration. Reboot into the install. Everything seems to be going okay. Bam!
Unable to mount the Windows partitions (I think it was trying to set 'mount points'... I can't be sure (noob)). Interestingly, it had recognized the hdb this time. Some (other) wierd thing happens and I hang! WTF!?
Reboot into the install... smooth sailing... recognizes and is able to mount the windows partitions... loading the software... CD3 won't read (tried several times)... that's odd.
Take CD3 and put it in wife's computer. It reads. I put it back in. It reads and the install continues... wow... that was close.
By this point, Windows TCO is looking better and better. I'm frustrated.
Finally, I get it installed. Now the moment of truth... the reboot. If the Grub issue wasn't resolved, Linux is still not for me-- I've had it. The issue was resolved, though, and I now have a dual boot Suse and XP machine! Moved some data, cleaned some stuff off of windows, and went to bed.
I was not trying to be over-critical, and I'm with you whole-heartedly on "frustration with the death of a thousand cuts..." I was just calling your attention to the fact that you are standing in line to get your next cut... I also venture a guess that your skills are not useless (and wouldn't be in Alabama), and your key quality (teachability, if that's a word) is evident and valuable-- anywhere... No need to go to BFE (and work at Walmart) to find a cheaper house than that. There are major metro areas with cheaper homes.
I normally don't post unless I feel pretty strongly. In this case, I really feel pretty strongly for you. I've been there-- though not exactly, nor in as tough a position. It sucks.
You've started a couple interesting discussions. First, if you like your job, then spending 10-12 hours there should be enjoyable. If you don't enjoy it... why spend that much time? I can tell by the resentment in your post that you don't like your job.
I understand your plight, and I don't want to preach, but maybe you should live somewhere else. I don't really know where you live, but 600k is a lot for a house.
I saw an interesting talk-show with the guy who played Gandolph in LOTR-- he's British (may be a knight, too). The other American guests were bitching about paying too many taxes. Anyhow, he was saying that he doesn't mind paying taxes... "The more I make, the more I'm taxed," he said. He was saying that he likes the things that his taxes provide. It relates to another poster's point. The other poster was saying that "you don't like the way that they are spending your money." Fair enough. You should make a list of all the things that you like, which taxes provide.. Perhaps: Police, roads, libraries, schools, fire departments, hospitals, research and development, etc. Then you should boil those down to your core values: safety, convenience, etc.
Then you should look at all those things that you don't like about tax spending (welfare), and you should re-evaluate how those things effect you... For instance, welfare reduces crime (increases safety). So, you'd spend your mythical 'extra' 5 hours a day reloading guns and scared to leave your home. Not all programs will relate directly to your priorities. That's the beauty of your right to vote.
What's the solution? Give people like yourself the money to strike out on your own in business (or whatever) to create jobs. The more jobs, the more taxes can be spread across the base, the more you can invest in new business, ad insanity. In other words... tax the rich and give middle class tax cuts.
It's sad that you are that stressed and making 150k/year (I consider that upper class money). Like I mentioned, maybe you should move, if the houses aren't worth that much (time and or money) to you. You must realize that you are saying that you think those houses are worth that much, because you are buying them. I bet it's a quiet neighborhood... no one is ever home.
What ticks me off is that you are the reason that absolute $ items like cars are so damn expensive. Whether you live in CA or W.VA or ID a car costs (roughly) the same. It's much less expensive to you. A car isn't worth that much to me, but I have to pay it... I can't just move.
I'm with you... I've always thought that the reason that Apple went to Intel was not because of their processors, but because of their WiMax stuff and their low-power architecture (for laptops and small consumer electronic devices). I think WiMax, etc. will provide the capability to stream TV programming to a computer.
Well, we've seen that Apple can, indeed, integrate a computer with a screen, and the Mac mini (although I'm not sure how successful they've been with it) is evidence that they are going toward consumer electronics and away from what we call a general-purpose computer.
Those few factors (plus maybe a NAND HDD), and a trend toward IPTV provide you with a completely wireless (except the power cable) Stereo/TV/Internet/Video game appliance sitting/hanging from your wall.
Now enter iTunes. Apple expands and creates iTV and iMovies, and BANG... you're the 'digital hub' that Apple is striving for...
I think that it's possible for Apple to become a major player in the globalization of digital media. 'The Steve' is enough of an ego-maniac to try it, too.
Let's let history judge Steve Jobs the reason that Farenheit 451 came to pass. : )
In my neighborhood, there is a project called UTOPIA (www.utopianet.org). That project is a state sponsored infrastructure to provide fiber-optic network to everyone within its member cities. Qwest and Comcast don't like it much, because there are already providers of TV, VOIP, and data lining up to use the infrastructure. These providers simply use the infrastructure and pay the state for the use of it. This is pretty cool, IMHO, because the state will allow free competition on their network. Even I (yes, little old me) could start up a webmail/webhost system and become an ISP... Or, as a consumer, I won't need a phone line, and I won't need cable... Screw em all! They'll have to compete with other companies over service (rather than infrastucture). Basically, this removes the barriers to entry into many of the Internet related markets for these communities.
So, short story long... I don't really agree with your theory because there are (1) other alternatives and (2) because even though WIMAX/wifi or even BPL may provide 'last mile' service.. you're still going to have to pay a profit driven company to use their infrastructure.
Before I get flamed for suggesting that government is capable of maintaining the infrastructure in a cost-effective manner, let me say one thing. I work in IT for the state, and the people that I work with care about doing a good job. They are not inherently inefficient. In fact, there is a philosophy that everyone here works under that we want to do what we can in the most efficient manner possible. Our government is interested in capitalism (free market, profits, etc.) and is very conservative. I think that this network will be great for businesses and citizens in our area.
I see this as a de-facto utility, like water, sewer, etc. Our society has judged phone, TV and Internet service as such. IMHO
Slashdot Mirror
[this] guy triple majors at Harvard, with his buddy from Jr. High, who is double majoring and they start a dating service... He He. Either venture capitalists are retarded, or these guys are too smart for humanity [not having any other information-- I think it's the prior].
It's expensive to continually upgrade fab facilities, marketing material, etc. Sitting on a successful product with inflated prices is a serious profit maker. AMD is simply reaping the rewards for kicking the hell out of the P4. Congrats to them. I don't blame them a bit. They've been skating on razor thin margins for quite awhile. I hope that AMD has addressed the majority of their production issues in the last year (they're gonna need it).
OTOH, Intel has been fattening (and has expanded into MANY other markets) and until recently hasn't had to really work to keep a nice lead on AMD in the processor market. So, now they will have to turn around processors faster than AMD (which is likely why they just switched to 65nm processing before moving into Merom processors). That's just business.
It shapes up as a nice fight (finally). I can't wait. I want a dual core CPU for around $100. Maybe then I'll get off of my 3000+XP processor. Yes, the consumer wins in a competitive market (FWIW, I've never built an Intel system... but I've built a LOT of AMD ones (and one Cyrix)). I only hope that AMD has enough designs stable and in reserve to keep ahead of Intel for another 5 years. AMD is still the serious underdog here.
Okay, I'm no genius, but it appears that this is set up this way for (wink/nudge) tax reasons. I don't know about KK, but often the distributor is the same corp. as the producer (at least for these large budget deals)??? If not, then I'd bet it's a colluding oligopoly.
I would imagine (or, it wouldn't surprise me to learn...) that there's a 'floating' percentage that the distributor takes to make sure that there is never ANY producer's net (monkey points.. that's funny) and the producer's gross is inline with an average to pay the 20% for the actors. [dammit, where's my tinfoil hat!?]
The corporate structure simply has nifty ways of hiding the money so that the tax take is small (and the ACTUAL profits, paid as owner distributions, wages, and executive loans, are high) and most of the money stays in "hollywood."
I'm no expert, as I mentioned, but I realize when GM reports 'net losses' of $X billion that it's not really LOSSES, but they are able to claim a LOT of exemptions and expenses (some real-- some not).
For your next film, you should forfeit half of your *worthless* 'monkey points' for audit rights... I bet they'd balk.
As evidence of the distributor's collusion, Lionsgate dist. (who doesn't really have a competitor) is basically sucking up all the films that are too risky for mainstream corp. hollywood to finance outright. Then they take the profits (as above) and distribute them to the colluding accounts of the oligopoly. They only buy the rights to the ones that create 'buzz.' This is a 'legit.' mafia... I don't think it's a secret, either.
By the way, thanks for being a writer. I've had fantasies about becoming a writer, but the risk/reward is too low. I'm glad it's working out for you....
If you were referring to '...powerful...' from my earlier post... I meant business-power not computing-power. I agree, Dell hardware is 'built to last...' about 2 years.
The more I think of it, if Dell were to adopt a (stripped) version of Linux that worked ONLY with its business edition of PC and performed well with an Office pkg.... Man, that could be powerful.
I don't think that Apple could/should drop the hardware (I don't mean to infer that you were recommending it--I'm just reinforcing your point).
If they drop the hardware, then they have to start supporting junk hardware to increase their market... which is bad (too many external dependencies). Also, it would take all of their staff... They can't compete with MS unless they have a competitive advantage. With so many options of roughly equivalent hardware, it's easier and more profitable to compete on the OS vs. the hardware (Apple's old model competed on both).
I think that Apple could reasonably compete with MS if they would streamline their OS to just plain *haul ass* and use every available performance trick in their *heavily enforced* hardware configuration (e.g. the recent USB power consumption bug in Windows shouldn't matter to a Mac with the same hardware).
This is a good competitive advantage since M$ couldn't just stop supporting all those other drivers and hardware devices... I, for one, think that Apple's move to Intel was an important move for them to compete head-to-head with MS (in the OS market). Where they've moved to widely available hardware (ATI, etc) their parts should come down in price, and their margins should increase....
Really, it's a pretty (damn) good business model. I've never used an Apple/Mac, but I'm contemplating a mini (to address the inevitable "fanboy" argument)... Business-wise they're spot on.
I won't pretend to understand it all... my math isn't that great. However, it seems that they've taken a pretty good understanding of the current models of gravity and simply fit them together over varying intensities of fields. Essentially, they 'fit the curves' for all observable gravitational fields (using pretty good coverage of physics and math). Now, again, I'm no expert, but I don't think they've been able to find anything observable that does not fit their function, which accounts for the curvature of galaxies.
Here's the link to his (short) preliminary paper.
The last bit I found interesting:
"As two final remarks, we note (1) that multiply imaged gravitational systems present a challenge to all MOND/TeVeS interpolating functions (cf. Zhao et al. 2006) and (2) that the dark matter potential is fundamentally different from the scalar field, although the two are sometimes degenerate in fitting rotation curves. Indeed, there is no equivalent of EFE in dark matter; hence, the dark matter potential enjoys more freedom."
It's interesting to me for a couple of reasons: As this thread has mentioned his humility is refreshing, and the paper doesn't discount dark matter entirely. This last is why I replied to your post. I thought that you'd like to read the paper and I thought that you'd like to know that dark matter isn't discounted-- probably for the reasons that you pointed out (I don't know).
Oops, well... uh, yeah.. Hmmm.. Ok, sorry.
I think you missed the point (but perhaps not). A bale of cocaine would be summarily removed to the evidence locker... probably in downtown *major metro area*. No one would go carving into the thing to check to see whether there was a nuke inside (they'd want to weigh it for the inevitable press release)... A simple remote detonation... bingo! You flatten at least one *major metro area* precinct. If it were a big enough 'bale' it may go into the federal building, too.
I'm actually quite clueless about what they do in cases of large seizures, but I don't think it matters. It (likely) goes somewhere inland, and the cops/agents wouldn't likely look for a 'second' offense when they find a bale of cocaine.
I guess the beauty of that plan is that if it gets through, you could pay for the costs of the nuke with the proceeds of selling a bale of coke to the plastic surgeons in said *major metro area* before you detonate the bomb...
FWIW, The OP's point (joke) is well-made and scientific sniping isn't really necessary, although your knowledge does add to the discussion... Perhaps it was a bit mis-placed, though? I'm not trying to be a dick, just giving a little constructive criticism...
There's a local bar, which used to be called "Jeep's" for the owner's nickname... Well, rumor has it that Chrysler sued and it's no longer called that. I don't have 1st hand (or even 2nd hand) info on the suit, but that's the 'word on the street'-- or it was 10-15 years ago when it happened.
Really? I'm curious as to why you think so. My reasoning was as follows:
OLTP- online transaction processing... (light datasets, mostly inserts/updates, a bit of processing)
OLAP- online analytical processing... (cubes, stars, and other random geometrical shapes;) HUGE datasets)...
I'll give you that I've not worked on a truly OLAP system, but I get the impression that the processing end is fairly heavy, given that (some) analytical data needs to be derived (not to mention that some data-transformation usually needs to occur to move OLTP type stuff into the OLAP datastructure). Also, given the rather large datasets (usually historic data from an OLTP system) these are prime targets for technology like partitioning, etc.
I'm not a DBA, like I said, but why did you think the opposite?
In this world of outsourcing, companies want to buy "enterprise" software packages, experts, and "solutions" (whatever the hell that means) for a cheap price from a local company (IMO- mainly to avoid responsibility for potential failure). If these tools are not free, then there are no experts/packages/solutions avaialable because these smaller companies cannot afford to buy "enterprise" databases... enter: free licenses sized for consultant shops.
As for the post asking why these solutions are preferred to the OSS varieties, it's really pretty simple: Large companies won't spend money on non-branded enterprise software. I used to work on an app written in Sybase's ASA (non-enterprise). Well, it worked really well. For the amount of data and the amount of processing required for the app, it was sweet! No DBA required. Anyhow, we went to sell it to other customers (large gov't contractors) and the first Q I got was... Does it work with Oracle? We ended up converting it to work with SS2000 (this was for a large company in Canada, actually) because they wouldn't allow ASA on their servers. It's dumb, IMO.
Most OLTP databases would be much more efficiently done in 'lighter' databases. OLAP... sure, do it in one of the big databases.
Of course, I'm not a DBA...
For the average Joe, I'd say that they are unable to read at a very complex level (I read somewhere that 60+% of Americans are functionally illiterate-- of course I may have misunderstood that *hehe*).
If I have one pet-peave it's that people don't understand size (is a mega-byte bigger than a kilobyte?). How big should an email attachment be? How fast is fast for an internet connection? I get those questions a lot. Actually, I try to make them understand that their 2.5MB email sent to their entire family (most of which is on dial-up) is uncool, but they don't get it-- ever.
Good Luck
I'm glad you at least have your eyes open enough to ask the question.
...but I digress.
By way of my explanation I'll take a little detour. Businesses regularly accept crappy products from all kinds of vendors... Let me say that it's not just partners, suppliers, etc. but contract work, too. I can't rant hard enough to demonstrate the long parade of shitty subcontractors that have sold my (and others') idiotic management chain into buying (at some exhorbitant cost) some service that doesn't even resemble 'expertise.'
Fact is, the reason you are searching for comes to this example of the management mentality....
I'm busy. I have a lot of meetings to attend. I have to produce my excel spreadsheet that demonstrates why I need more resources to complete my projects so that at the end of the year I can justify my own pay raise to my bosses. I don't have time to learn another operating system. If we could just hire someone else to administer the Windows update software, then I could 1. solve a huge company risk (justify pay raise) 2. hire another underling (justify pay raise) 3. save everyone else the pain of re-learning how to do their work (be a hero) and 4. continue to use my stupid excel spreadsheet template without having to read anything by way of training myself on a new OS (justify pay raise). Total time outlay (for me): 2 days. One hiring, one orienting the newbie. Risk to my job: 0. I'm seen as proactive, and if something happens, I have someone to blame.
BTW, hiring an underling is only an option IF the company has been stung by the rather vacuous security model of Windows. If that hasn't happened, then mgr above hires a half-witted subcontractor (at twice the rate) and uses that to justify 'being proactive' and covering his ass in case of a security break-down. Then the next year he saves money by hiring a full-time patch administrator...
On yet another note, it's not as if ANY operating system/software system/product/etc is perfect. M$ sells 'perfect enough'. The realities of business are not what I learned in school. Sure, I'm jaded-- I've been out of college for about 5 years, now. The most precious resources are not $$, reputation, talent, etc. Time is the most valuable resource. Oddly, a manager's time is infinitely more valuable than a workers. Why? Because he has to live with his time constraints, and he makes the decisions. Changing to *nix systems would COST all of the valuable resources: time, comfort, confidence, and scapegoats.
DISCLAIMER: I am not, nor have I ever been, a manager in any reasonably sized company. So, my perspective is that of a worker. The views and opinions expressed are derived from observation.
as in "BIG BROTHER." I had a friend who did an R&D project for DARPA...
It had something to do with 'impromptu wireless networking' bots that could be deployed to do some surveillance type stuff. There was lots of redundancy checking, distributed computing, etc. It was pretty cool, but under-funded.
BTW... no, I didn't RTFA. Some of these articles just aren't worth it. So, if I got the wrong idea, just let me enjoy retaining 80% of my body heat because of my tin-foil hat. It's cold outside and my gas [heat] bill was WAY too much this month.
"There is no spoon."
-Mike
I've said it before, too...
Patents and Copyrights were a good idea that have been abused by companies. They were designed, as I understand it, to allow new ideas to come onto the market with some period where the originator could get established before the mega-corps could use their tech. (unless they compensated the patent/copyright holder). Then mega-corps decided to use them 'defensively' and evil ensued.
Both patents and copyrights need to be re-worked. I think one of the key concepts is that corporations should not be allowed to hold patents or copyrights... only individuals. Neither should be fund-able from corporate money, either. Also, litigation, etc. as a result of a patent shouldn't be allowed to be funded by corporations, either. I also think that licenses should be held only by individuals. So, the makers/license-holders of M$ Outlook could be sued for using someone's tech. without compensation, or permission. Importantly, realize that a 'company' doesn't mean that it's a corporation. Sole proprietorships should be allowed this device.
I was interested to learn that patents (and copyrights?) can be held on biological matter, too. I could patent you (prior 'art' not withstanding) and your children would likely be in violation of my patent. So, another key is deciding that certain things shouldn't be patentable. As well as naturally occuring biological material, I think that business processes, etc. should NOT be patentable.
I agree with 5.
3 seems like a step in absolutely the wrong direction (the intent being to give small companies and individuals a chance to establish themselves before the full weight of competition comes to bear).
I think that 2 is kinda funny. Legal-ese is a nod to the FACT that language is imprecise, at best. Ideas are difficult to express (art?) clearly, completely, and unambiguously. That's just a fact. Perhaps the patent office should demand an executive summary (a design doc) : ) Think of writing 'code' as a simile here. I write 'code' to tell the computer PRECISELY what to do... then I have to comment it.
If I get 4 correctly, then you are saying that a patent should be like a theory (with a reproducible experiment?), which can be disproven, but is considered a fact until such a time that it's proven wrong. Interesting approach. I kinda like it.
IMHO, I guess a judge (another case where specialized judges would be nice) or maybe a patent clerk would have to decide whether that patent and/or copyright should be considered disproven. Then it gets tricky... awarding damages to the REAL originator is tough, but possible.
That's a good post! You presented a possible solution (and didn't just bitch)!
Joe doesn't know *exactly* what he wants. He knows that he wants something that does (roughly) X. He goes to mega-corporate software vendor (i.e. Best Buy, Amazon, etc) and says/types X. Well, software salesman or reviews, or whatever tell him that for 9.95 he can have a limited version of [perhaps] concise software, for 19.95 he can have the mother-of-all apps (MOAP) from another mega-corporation. Joe decides that he should just get mega-corporation's software because he wants "to be able to... in the future... after I figure it out." What he doesn't realize is that mega-corporation put all those features in to appeal to the broadest audience and put the software together in a huge time-crunch. Where the concise software is [hopefully] 1. easier and 2. less problematic it is also 3. useful to fewer people. Where the MOAP software was 1. harder and 2. more problematic it also was 3. already bought and paid for by more Joes (i.e more profitable). Joe takes MOAP home, installs it, tries to figure out how to do X (successful, or not-- doesn't matter), and then promptly forgets about that software.
What open source tends to forget is that that Joe pays for marketing, brand recognition, R&D, and, yes, the software. What [some] mega-corporations tend to forget is that "free" (as in beer AND as in choice) is the most powerful marketing/brand recognition word ever used. M$ tends not to forget (free internet browser, free media player, free Express versions of development software) that "free" only needs to be mentioned... not realized.
On a bit of a higher level, consumers (in the US anyway) can't and don't like to make decisions. They'd rather that it's a bit more expensive now and avoid another decision. Decision == work. Many little [maybe free] apps require many more decisions than one [potentially expensive] MOAP. Teach your children to *enjoy* decision making and we can change this...
There is a reactor designed called an advanced breeder reactor. It's as close to an energy machine as I've ever seen... This type of reactor uses U238, which we (the US) are currently storing as waste (at huge expense). As a by-product of the consumption of this fuel it creates plutonium (the downside), as well as enough fuel to 'seed' another reactor (breeding, in a sense). This reactor was slated to be built, but due to the weapons-grade plutonium by-product, it was deemed unsafe and discontinued. According to people that I know (I used to work at the Idaho National Lab-- a cornerstone of US nuclear reactor design and development) there is enough U238 in storage-- as waste-- that we would could provide the energy needs for the US for several hundred years.
So, to answer one question, there's plenty of fuel. This is just the tip of the iceberg, as far as I'm concerned. This technology has been known for 30 years. There are bound to be technological leaps and bounds in the science of nuclear energy, but collectively we're afraid to try. As evidence of our collective fear, I point to the, IMO, over-zealous regulation/legislation, which makes it impossibly expensive to investigate making nuclear power *more* safe (I believe that it's safer/healthier than coal now).
Okay, having said that... there is a problem with our ability to improve our nuclear technology. That problem is the last 30 years-- where nothing was done in the field (due to FUD). In those 30 years the leading minds have forgottem and gotten old and sometimes have left the US in favor of work in more reasonable countries. In essence, I'm not sure that we have the expertise any longer. It will be expensive and difficult to get the US nuclear programs working again. I only guess that the UK is the same.
Is it worth it for the US, or any country? Yes. I think so. However, you've got an oil industry crony in the W.H. and trillions of lobby dollars spent by US energy corps and, according to many, the old KGB and other foreign govs, which have instilled a real fear about nuclear energy (according to the stories the old USSR didn't want us to develop *infinite* energy to feed our economy).
There is currently an initiative to build what they call the Gen 4 reactor. There has been some discussion as to which design to try. 'Pebble Bed' was discussed, but there are cooling issues to overcome (I can't speak intelligently on that... I wrote the software which tracked the nuclear waste-- IANANE). El Presidente seems enamored with hydrogen reactors, last I heard. My bets on whether we actually do it are placed on 'no.' The current project is woefully under-funded and crazily mis-managed.
Regarding waste... I know a bit about what is stored as waste... Mainly, it's PPE (personal protective equipment-- rubber gloves and the like) and junk. Anytime something even remotely (and I mean REMOTELY) connected with nuclear fuel, or waste, or contamination is discarded it becomes waste. The VAST majority (99%) of waste isn't nasty. Quite a lot can be permanently disposed of in a safe manner, but people start to freak out (FUD again). The other 1% can be stored until we figure out a cost-effective manner to send it to the sun. Right now, we store it all, and that contributes to more FUD.
I probably sound a bit like a fanboy... maybe I am. There IS an energy crisis. Renewables are nowhere near (at least as far as I know) ready to produce the amount of energy that nuclear does/can; it has been operationally tested worldwide.
Solving the political problems... That's another matter.
We naturally select for addictive personality. In fact, I'd say that another word, more positively connotative, is 'driven.' The Chinese are a pretty driven people, and have naturally selected this trait (they aren't alone in this). Now, since information is at their fingertips, they're addicted to it.
I'm not saying that it shouldn't be treated. I'm saying the opposite, in fact. What I am hoping to add to the discussion is the idea that all addictions are *probably* genetic. Certain ethnicities have been shown to have a propensity toward certain addictions (native americans to alcoholism for example).
You know that consumerism? That burning desire to be super-successful? It's natural (as in nature vs. nurture) addictive personality. You are more likely (albeit slightly) to have an addiction to drugs, alcohol, power, adrenaline, sex, etc. than your parents. We even embrace that as 'rebeliousness.'
If I'm right, then this has dire consequences for society over the (really) long term.
I guess I only get to do this once (I won't be a noob after this). I finally decided that I'd had enough of the M$onopoly and DRM. So, I went out and looked at the different distributions of Linux. To be fair, I installed Mandrake (several years ago), but never really used it. So, after a bit of research, I decided on Suse 10.0. Why? Well, I like the idea of the Reiser FS, and I like free. OpenSuse seemed like a good fit. I also didn't want something terribly complex (I'm a noob, and I'd like to switch the whole family-- who are even more noob than I am). I'm a bit disappointed, honestly. Here's my review.
I have two physical disks in the home PC and I'd emptied out space on the second disk awhile back and had installed FC4. However, when I rebooted, I went directly into Windows XP. I never really solved that issue (which I assume was with GRUB) because I didn't really want FC4 anyway.
I figured that I could simply install Suse over the top of the partitions, etc. and, hopefully, could fix the boot issue. I was already beyond the understanding of the typical PC user. So, this really may not be fair, but the Suse installation was quite painful.
Why? I'll explain. I popped in the CD1 and rebooted. The installation started fine. Okay, a particularly ugly screen asks which language; same (really) ugly screen asks me to accept a license; same (hideously) ugly screen asks about a timezone. Then it hits... I can't honestly remember what the responses were like the first time through, but by the fourth time, I was pretty frustrated with the amount of time that it was taking to 'analyze' the software configuration-- over which I had not yet had any control.
The partitioning was screwed up, but I expected that. This partitioning issue was the real reason that I went through the process several times. Part of it IS my fault, but part of it is Suse's. First time through, it wants to resize the Windows partition, I say 'no', let's use the partitions that I already have setup for Linux... It bombs. It can't deal with that because it wants the partition to be (physically?) at the 'end' of the disk-- WTF?
Okay, reboot into XP and move all the data off the end partition. I note, with some interest, that I am able to see the Linux stuff out there. This is something that I didn't expect. So, I decided that I'd wack all the partitions and make them one, big, unpartitioned space at the end of the drive. Moved all the stuff off and created a new partition at the 'front' of the drive. Moved everything there. Rebooted and started the install again. Damn thing didn't recognize hdb (I tried several times). All that space... worthless. The installation wants to resize the Windows partition... Damn!
Reboot into XP and create a new, big NTFS partition on the (hdb) second drive, and move everything out there. Now, I have an empty space on the primary drive, which is probably better, but I've now spent several hours moving files and watching Suse analyze the software configuration. Reboot into the install. Everything seems to be going okay. Bam!
Unable to mount the Windows partitions (I think it was trying to set 'mount points'... I can't be sure (noob)). Interestingly, it had recognized the hdb this time. Some (other) wierd thing happens and I hang! WTF!?
Reboot into the install... smooth sailing... recognizes and is able to mount the windows partitions... loading the software... CD3 won't read (tried several times)... that's odd.
Take CD3 and put it in wife's computer. It reads. I put it back in. It reads and the install continues... wow... that was close.
By this point, Windows TCO is looking better and better. I'm frustrated.
Finally, I get it installed. Now the moment of truth... the reboot. If the Grub issue wasn't resolved, Linux is still not for me-- I've had it. The issue was resolved, though, and I now have a dual boot Suse and XP machine! Moved some data, cleaned some stuff off of windows, and went to bed.
So,
I was not trying to be over-critical, and I'm with you whole-heartedly on "frustration with the death of a thousand cuts..." I was just calling your attention to the fact that you are standing in line to get your next cut... I also venture a guess that your skills are not useless (and wouldn't be in Alabama), and your key quality (teachability, if that's a word) is evident and valuable-- anywhere... No need to go to BFE (and work at Walmart) to find a cheaper house than that. There are major metro areas with cheaper homes.
I normally don't post unless I feel pretty strongly. In this case, I really feel pretty strongly for you. I've been there-- though not exactly, nor in as tough a position. It sucks.
You've started a couple interesting discussions. First, if you like your job, then spending 10-12 hours there should be enjoyable. If you don't enjoy it... why spend that much time? I can tell by the resentment in your post that you don't like your job.
I understand your plight, and I don't want to preach, but maybe you should live somewhere else. I don't really know where you live, but 600k is a lot for a house.
I saw an interesting talk-show with the guy who played Gandolph in LOTR-- he's British (may be a knight, too). The other American guests were bitching about paying too many taxes. Anyhow, he was saying that he doesn't mind paying taxes... "The more I make, the more I'm taxed," he said. He was saying that he likes the things that his taxes provide. It relates to another poster's point. The other poster was saying that "you don't like the way that they are spending your money." Fair enough. You should make a list of all the things that you like, which taxes provide.. Perhaps: Police, roads, libraries, schools, fire departments, hospitals, research and development, etc. Then you should boil those down to your core values: safety, convenience, etc.
Then you should look at all those things that you don't like about tax spending (welfare), and you should re-evaluate how those things effect you... For instance, welfare reduces crime (increases safety). So, you'd spend your mythical 'extra' 5 hours a day reloading guns and scared to leave your home. Not all programs will relate directly to your priorities. That's the beauty of your right to vote.
What's the solution? Give people like yourself the money to strike out on your own in business (or whatever) to create jobs. The more jobs, the more taxes can be spread across the base, the more you can invest in new business, ad insanity. In other words... tax the rich and give middle class tax cuts.
It's sad that you are that stressed and making 150k/year (I consider that upper class money). Like I mentioned, maybe you should move, if the houses aren't worth that much (time and or money) to you. You must realize that you are saying that you think those houses are worth that much, because you are buying them. I bet it's a quiet neighborhood... no one is ever home.
What ticks me off is that you are the reason that absolute $ items like cars are so damn expensive. Whether you live in CA or W.VA or ID a car costs (roughly) the same. It's much less expensive to you. A car isn't worth that much to me, but I have to pay it... I can't just move.
I'm with you... I've always thought that the reason that Apple went to Intel was not because of their processors, but because of their WiMax stuff and their low-power architecture (for laptops and small consumer electronic devices). I think WiMax, etc. will provide the capability to stream TV programming to a computer.
Well, we've seen that Apple can, indeed, integrate a computer with a screen, and the Mac mini (although I'm not sure how successful they've been with it) is evidence that they are going toward consumer electronics and away from what we call a general-purpose computer.
Those few factors (plus maybe a NAND HDD), and a trend toward IPTV provide you with a completely wireless (except the power cable) Stereo/TV/Internet/Video game appliance sitting/hanging from your wall.
Now enter iTunes. Apple expands and creates iTV and iMovies, and BANG... you're the 'digital hub' that Apple is striving for...
I think that it's possible for Apple to become a major player in the globalization of digital media. 'The Steve' is enough of an ego-maniac to try it, too.
Let's let history judge Steve Jobs the reason that Farenheit 451 came to pass. : )
Not sure that I agree with your theory...
In my neighborhood, there is a project called UTOPIA (www.utopianet.org). That project is a state sponsored infrastructure to provide fiber-optic network to everyone within its member cities. Qwest and Comcast don't like it much, because there are already providers of TV, VOIP, and data lining up to use the infrastructure. These providers simply use the infrastructure and pay the state for the use of it. This is pretty cool, IMHO, because the state will allow free competition on their network. Even I (yes, little old me) could start up a webmail/webhost system and become an ISP... Or, as a consumer, I won't need a phone line, and I won't need cable... Screw em all! They'll have to compete with other companies over service (rather than infrastucture). Basically, this removes the barriers to entry into many of the Internet related markets for these communities.
So, short story long... I don't really agree with your theory because there are (1) other alternatives and (2) because even though WIMAX/wifi or even BPL may provide 'last mile' service.. you're still going to have to pay a profit driven company to use their infrastructure.
Before I get flamed for suggesting that government is capable of maintaining the infrastructure in a cost-effective manner, let me say one thing. I work in IT for the state, and the people that I work with care about doing a good job. They are not inherently inefficient. In fact, there is a philosophy that everyone here works under that we want to do what we can in the most efficient manner possible. Our government is interested in capitalism (free market, profits, etc.) and is very conservative. I think that this network will be great for businesses and citizens in our area.
I see this as a de-facto utility, like water, sewer, etc. Our society has judged phone, TV and Internet service as such. IMHO