How exactly are they crybabies? This is an absolutely expected outcome where property rules are really unclear. Even the "wild west" during the goldrush had a much more solid legal framework of mining and property claims than we currently have in outer space. And there, you not infrequently saw all sorts of secrecy with respect to where people were mining, and filing claims until the last possible legal moment.

We don't have to (and shouldn't) turn space into an anarchocapitalist free-for-all (though that would probably be preferable to a totalitarian regime that worked us all to death as indentured servants in asteroid mines) but we need to have a better legal regime that benefits those, including smaller nations, that discover something (and can exploit it in a reasonable timeframe).

"with my VIC-20". Yeah me too.

[For more, see Brian Bagnall's "Commodore: The Early Years" or "The Story of Commodore: A Company on the Edge"].

Interestingly, Commodore significantly outsold Apple for quite a while in that early 1980's era. But Apple had the Steve Jobs Reality Distortion Field/great marketing working for them, and Commodore had some of the best hardware engineering and worst management imaginable.

The really funny thing is that Commodore owned the 6502, which most of its competitors used, so it had a pretty good idea about both MOS' [the company not the process] and MOS-licensee volumes. And they still did a pretty bad job of trumpeting their own successes in North America especially.

That said, I had a VIC, and no question the Apple ][+ was what I wanted for a time (never said I too wasn't susceptible to Jobs!). But $300 vs $2000, I could see why my parents weren't going to go down that road.

I would speculate that there was a lot more software for the PET/VIC, but that the article could well be correct that there was more commercial software for the Apple 2. Wikipedia airily suggests (with no great sourcing) 300 cartridges for the VIC and 500 [commercial] cassettes. "Free" programs you could type in on the Vic were absolutely legion and available even in the grocery store impulse purchase magazine rack.

Interesting times.

Thank you, I was unaware of these efforts. +1 informative if I could.

The spirit of this idea is bang on. Let's stay away from the IRS "seizing" more than it needs to, and let's avoid having the IRS getting into the streaming business. But absolutely, the material should become public domain (or copyright ceded to the Crown/Library of Congress etc. as applicable by country).

Sadly, depending on the country, preserving these things may well be piracy, but you're right, it definitely should not be.

Very fair point made by both of you -- icthus and Rhipf -- and obviously nothing from HP that fit my specs was available for me to buy (supply chain issues, hence my nod to Brother's distribution channels) or I'd have done that comparison. (Ditty Lexmark).

Depressing though. Did we really hit peak mechanical build quality in the 1990s? Some of that can be explained by the Japanese bubble economy -- consider the million mile 1st gen Lexus cars, and the 25-year-old Honda Accords (in Ontario, rust capital of North America!). But surely not all.

(NB- yes, newer cars are better in many respects -- better active and passive safety features, self diagnosis, mileage, much better automatic/CVT transmissions. But longevity and general mechanical excellence?)

Sad not to be readily able to buy a printer that can reliably print non-crooked labels in 2022.

Brother printers have great features for the money and are relatively clean to install and use. Excellent point on Linux. They also seem to have good distribution in North America at least. But "great" build quality?

I was astonished at how flimsy my new (2022) Brother printer was compared to my ~20 year old HP (from back when HPs were good). Poorly fitting parts, a lot of slop in mechanism movement. Unsurprisingly, labels all print crooked.

If you need a quick cheap laser printer with impressive features for SOHO use, Brother is great. But I think you get what you pay for, and if you think they have "great" build quality, I shudder at what competitors you must have suffered through using in the past.

I agree with you on the necessity of Jobs (though without Woz there would have been no Apple I) for Apple to exist. But on Commodore I think you're quite mistaken. Remember that MOS ran into a buzzsaw of litigation from Motorola and wound up being bought out by Commodore in 1976. While Jobs offered the Apple I to Commodore (wouldn't that have been an odd reality), Chuck Peddle of MOS/Commodore persuaded Jack Tramiel to instead go for what became the Commodore Pet in 1976.

Certainly absent a Jobs/Apple, the Pet, the VIC, and the C64 would all have existed. Commodore would have owned the North American educational market far longer without the existence of the Apple II. Commodore Europe would have been even stronger (recall Commodore Germany outsold IBM in the PC compatible market). Competitive pressures from TI and Atari would likely have forced Commodore's hand on something very much like the Amiga, as happened in our time.

Likely one of Tandy, Commodore, TI, or Atari would have survived and prospered in the computing space (Better UX, Not a PC) that Apple wound up dominating. From a technical perspective, with the first multimedia machine, Commodore and Amiga would have been a pretty good bet. Failing Commodore, I'd probably have speculated Atari with GEM.

Brian Bagnall's "Commodore: A Company on the Edge" is a worthwhile read for those interested in pondering what might have been.

Can you please tell me what you mean by "subsidizing the fossil fuel industries"?

Serious question, as this is something I've oft heard as a sound bite, but never heard defined. (FWIW I think even in a stipulated absence of near term catastrophic anthropogenic global warming, continuing to burn fossil fuels seems extremely dangerous and wasteful as an open-ended dangerous experiment with our atmosphere).

If you mean reduced tax rates, that's a kind of a sketchy bit of reasoning on your part since it assumes all profit and wealth belong to the government.

If you mean actual cash flowing from the government in excess of tax revenues received (say both over a rolling 10 year period), then yeah that'd clearly be a subsidy.

What are the subsidies -- in say the US or Canada -- that you would like eliminated? (My best guess would be so-called "exploration" tax credits, but even then are they actually subsidies by any rational definition? If so, fine, let's eliminate them).

Thanks
-Holmwood

It's wonderful that you aren't bothered by WTN (wind turbine noise) (n=1). The reality appears to be more complex. In a sound Health Canada study (search Health Canada Wind Turbine Noise and Health Study) they concluded that there was no direct correlation between lower ( 45dBA of noise) levels of WTN and objectively measured sleep and health, but that WTN did directly proportionately increase self-reported annoyance throughout the community, and that had objectively measurable statistically significant effects on health (e.g. higher blood pressure, hair cortisol, etc.)

Note that this study was unable to examine effects for higher levels of noise due to low numbers. Critics suggest, not unreasonably, that this is a flaw.

Some people, particularly perhaps those on the autism spectrum, are considerably more troubled by noise than others. Given that measurements were consistent throughout communities in a reasonably large dataset, this suggests that the problem is likely real, even if largely psychological.

Interestingly, reduced effects (though not eliminated) were reported for those who received compensation (e.g. rent) for the wind farm's presence.

And this suggests a simple solution: for changes in the local environment (in this case, power generation such as nuclear, hydro (spillways), or wind), offer compensation that corresponds to the diminished value of surrounding properties. Doesn't matter if the windphobes or nuclearphobes are irrational; there is real diminished value that can be measured. So compensate owners (and renters!) and let them make their own choices. This would usually be trivial compared to litigation fees in US (or even Canadian) courts.

First, yes, does this tech scale? No strong indication of that in TFA, and the analysis of a small ICE engine's requirements upthread are a useful start. Possibly most useful for spacecraft.

Meh, I'll bite.

The idea that we aren't at a scale to affect nature is passing strange. Anti-colonialists can ask after the passenger pigeon which once darkened the skies of North America. Anti-communists can ask after the Aral Sea, one of the worst environmental disasters of modern history thanks to Soviet arrogance, mismanagement, and environmental predation. And anti-capitalists/anti-industrialists can ask after a great many things. All of these were accidental and oft incidental at the time.

Now if your argument is either that we're still a Kardashev Type 0 civilization, or that we can't significantly hold off the next (overdue) ice age with our current socio-technical capabilities, sure and very probably respectively. But that's not what you stated. It was that "human actions are simply not at the scale to affect nature".

Heck you're a giant pessimist! Leaving entirely aside the 2bn-odd Jews/Christians/Muslims who believe in stewardship of -- and therefore the ability to affect -- the earth (Bereishit - Genesis, and Quran 7:56), countless atheist (and not a few religious) SF fans have rationally believed in terraforming as a possibility for well over half a century. They may all be wrong, but atm, I'd bet on terraforming as being feasible. Or Elon Musk is going to be very sad.

-Holmwood

No!

The NVIDIA shield is not some subsidized Chromecast or SmartTV or FireTV. You pay $200-$300 for a good one of these devices.

These are people who have deliberately paid a premium for unsubsidized hardware that doesn't need to be connected to a BigTech account for non-BigTech direct functions. And until now it never featured this kind of space-occupying advertising.

At the very least many users not unreasonably believe there was an implicit contract that they would not be the product.

And the ads are quite negative in functionality, taking up ~40% of users' screen space as users try and select something.

This is a surrender that makes us all products.

Not to be dragged down a rabbit-hole, but I am quite skeptical of the merits of HCQ in actual SARS-CoV-2 patients and at best neutral on Ivermectin. However to address your point:

Funny you should say that. In SARS-CoV-1 (also a dangerous coronavirus), Chloroquine (also anti-parasite drug) was found by a CDC researcher to be effective in preventing the spread of SARS-CoV-1 in cell culture, both as prophylaxis and therapeutic. Researchers for the CDC noted "the drug appears to interfere with terminal glycosylation of the cellular receptor, angiotensin-converting enzyme 2. This may negatively influence the virus-receptor binding and abrogate the infection"

I recognize that seeing drugs used to counter parasites as possible anti-virals seems impossible to you, just as seeing ulcers as caused by bacteria, or that anyone might be hostile to the use of leeches in medicine would have seemed impossible to earlier generations.

I will repeat: I am not making a case at all that because Chloroquine might have been effective in SARS-CoV1 cell cultures in a CDC lab in 2005 that HCQ or Ivermectin would be of any use in actual SARS-COV2 patients in 2021. I am simply pointing out that credible people have long observed interesting effects from a wider variety of drugs than you might think, and that your statement "There is no plausible explanation as to why this anti-parasite drug" seems at best to be remarkably poorly founded.

Vincent MJ, et al., Chloroquine is a potent inhibitor of SARS coronavirus infection and spread. Virol J. 2005 Aug 22;2:69. doi: 10.1186/1743-422X-2-69.

This is probably the wisest (and most bracing) thing I've seen on the internet, let alone Slashdot, in months. Not planning on concealed carry myself, since it's illegal in my country. But this is a very good piece of wisdom for those who can legally concealed carry.

No, Google gave me a useless, ineffective and thoroughly unpersuasive set of answers as I discussed. Bing and DuckDuckGo were on point and persuasive and gave me a wider range of arguments, not answers.

I see the problem. You are searching to be told what to think, and to have your existing thoughts reinforced. I am searching to refine my thinking and better understand the world. To test, challenge, and in the strict sense of the word to prove my beliefs and replace them when they fail.

I want to see a diversity of ideas, especially when I disagree with them. I want to see White Nationalism or even more laughably White Supremacy argued and debunked. You want to see them silenced. Fair enough, but you're risking being the Darth Vader to Obi-Wan Kenobi in that argument, and anything that deliberately casts White Nationalists or White Supremacists in the role of martyrs or heroes is to me an unacceptable outcome. You and I differ quite radically in that respect.

Had you bothered to actually read and digest what I posted, you might have found all that criticism. I agree, he has all sorts of disagreeable (as well as likely correct) things on his site. I appreciate the fact that you wrote, reflected very carefully, googled Ron Unz and responded very carefully to what I wrote in 6 minutes. You are clearly much faster than I with all that that entails.

But you are engaging in a classic ad-hominem attack. Run Unz's willingness to publish all sorts of disagreeable things has nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not his arguments on Hispanic crime (best displayed on unz review) are valid or not.

For Google to boost your (I am assuming you are American) President by silencing the most sensible hardened argument against a core thesis that got the man elected is... ironic.

If you think that is good, and an adherence to a narrow range of media that avoids thinking wrongly is good, bully for you. This explains a lot about where America is in 2020, and where we all are.

Regards,
-Holmwood

NB- I discuss Ron Unz below. I disagree with him on many things, and in mentioning his site I do not endorse the entirety of the contents. That should go without saying, but in this day and age... To his credit, Unz seems quite willing to publish people he strongly disagrees with if he finds their views of interest.

Now on to an example. This will be a long and slightly complex argument and analysis, so if that's not to your taste, kindly move on. Ironically this example likely helps a certain gentleman (whom Google does not seem to like) involved in American politics.

Suppose someone tells me that the US President is being somewhat alarmist about crimes committed by illegal immigrants and that high Hispanic crime is a myth. So I search for
myth hispanic crime

If I do this on duckduckgo (or bing) the very first (second on bing) result is Ron Unz writing in the Unz review. Great! This is topical, reasonably current (last 10 years) and looks to be a pretty persuasive statistically-driven analysis, pace Samuel Clemens. Even better, I find all sorts of links at unz.com to discussions Unz has had with people on the right on this matter. The discussions are rational; no one is being demonized or straw-manned. Unz prevails in his position.

I'll also on Bing get a late 90's abstract from a paper in Social Problems that weaselly says "these results cast doubt" (and makes a very plausible statistical assertion -- did the erudite Unz get his original argument from here?), but that's over 20 years ago now, and I can't actually see the analysis that proves the assertion unless I have a subscription. Interesting (and great if I'm an academic), but given the weasel wording in the abstract, the absence of the analysis and the reproducibility crisis, I don't find it dispositive in the same way that I'm inclined to find Unz. Duckduckgo doesn't surface this highly so that's a negative.

I am now persuaded -- from the right no less -- that the President of the United States is actually inaccurate about something. Mirabile dictu.

The other sources tossed out on duckduckgo are interesting and useful in showing the breadth and range of the debate. The SPLC (infamous defamers of Maajid Nawaz) blames White Supremacists for being bad at statistics while being themselves deceptive, Jared Taylor's American Renaissance (White Nationalist? White Supremacist?) does the SPLC a solid by being a tad simplistic with, you guessed it, statistics. Then there's a bizarrely incompetent article that seems to indict the US President with the accusation that he lied about "hundreds of thousands" of immigrants in prison, when in fact 200,000 are in jails, but only 94,000 in prison. OK, yeah, very persuasive there.

It's rounded out by stuff from the Daily Caller and the New York Times.

All-in-all, duckduckgo has given me a really interesting range of resources that stray outside the traditional mainstream media but don't exclude it. Generally results that have aged out are not highly placed. Their failure to surface the Social Problems paper is a negative; at least Bing gets it.

Now suppose I look at Google. Google can be usefully, though possibly incorrectly, modeled as down-rating entire websites and publications that might offend the sensibilities of an illiberal woke 20-something American.

Take the case of Ron Unz, mentioned above. He's a fascinating character, a Hispanic who was fervently against bilingual education in the 90's, who also did great statistical work showing that Hispanics were no more likely than the general white population to engage in crime. (TL; DR no one was normalizing for age). Unsurprisingly he's against the demonization of immigrants, and seems to think White Nationalism is somewhere between counterproductively stupid and evil. Yet he cheerfully publishes white nationalists. And a acclaimed Vietnamese-American poet who happens to also be a Holocaust revisionist or denier. Suffice to say, there's a lot to be offended by, though a startlingly high quantity of erudite analysis on the Unz Review.

This Spring, Google decided to massively down-rate the Unz Review. Subjects it covers (some opinion, some more-or-less factual) simply disappear to the very bottom of the search index unless you include the term unz in your search. In other words, to find it, you first have to know about it which is a trifle tricky in searching for "unknown knowns". What likely triggered this was a bizarre column suggesting that the Coronavirus was an American bioweapon unleashed on China. I'm inclined to believe this is nonsense and that Mr. Unz would have to work very assiduously to persuade me otherwise. That doesn't alter my acceptance of his work on Hispanic crime, or his assertion that bilingual education risked harming poor American Hispanics. Or my appreciation in his publishing Linh Dinh's non-historical work, which I would never have discovered were it not for Mr. Unz.

So what does Google yield on the myth hispanic crime search?

You guessed it. Lots of safe corporate media and academic nonsense. Which ironically refer to Unz's article but don't actually lead anywhere useful. And, to Google's credit, like Bing, to the seemingly-cogent 1990's Social Problems paper.

The Atlantic (deadlinks to TAS's article by Ron Unz), Social Problems(good!), SPLC, a HACER (a Spanish site?) reprint, an academic(?) article that is jargon filled, and written so as to elicit citations without argument, ADL (an illogical analysis filled with unproven assertions), NY Times, WSJ, (neither really on point) and another jargon-filled abstract of academic paper which appears to be a rip off of the Social Problems original and Ron Unz.

Clearly Unz hasn't been completely unpersoned, but the currently useful source [as opposed to stale deadlinks] of the most intellectually rigorous recent debunking (from the right) of "Hispanics bad" is absent from Google.

The results also now torque well to the progressive end of the spectrum.

Note that the Daily Caller, and Taylor's Amren (a site not, as far as I am aware, responsible for a terrorist attack resulting in the shooting of a black man) are absent. At least they have interesting perspectives, as does the SPLC. The ADL (with little useful to say) is added, the SPLC remains, and we get a little more of Carlos Slim's blog, and the Murdochs' blog.

Now look. Maybe you believe that some combo of Big Tech, Fox News, MSNBC, CNN, the WSJ, the NY Times, and Disney are all going to tell you the truth, and that is all ye need to know. Perhaps you do believe that ruthless curation of the search space to ensure reliable views are promoted and all others eviscerated is a good thing. Fair enough.

However, not all of us believe this to be the case; worse, we believe that suppressing wrongthink -- especially when it is wrong -- will not solve any problem, but rather, exacerbate the situation.

Regards,
-Holmwood