Based on actual history, you speak quite a bit of truth. However, it's not *only* created through government intrusion.

When a company is so successful that it can "get it" and "do it" for less... when a company offers something over an infrastructure that is so expensive and offering a product/service on a huge, national scale is the bar that has been set... That company will be so incredibly entrenched that it will never be rooted out by a startup. Ever.

It's the reason 100% free market capitalism can't work on it's own. It needs a little help from the big G, sometimes.

I totally agree the government effed up in the past and basically made AT&T a monopoly. They also continue to eff up in many ways, but without *some* government regulation, you'd STILL be stuck with AT&T anyway. In fact, their actual goal was to be *the* only telecommunications provider back in the early 1900s as they gobbled up the little companies in buyouts. AT&T would have been able to do it too, even without the government's help. I have no reason to believe AT&T or any other company in that position would feel any differently about the Internet.

Consider NPR a private organization with a (very small) government subsidy. Does everything with a subsidy automatically become public domain?

I think the GP was making the point that some 'evils' are greater than others.

Obviously though, if you want to choose the greatest evil, always go for the option with Cthulhu.

To be fair, MojoRilla's argument was it's one of the "best smartphones out there", not the highest quality and certainly not the most reliable.

The iPhone has managed to put itself in the hands of many people who've never had a very nice phone, so I think the iPhone is far better quality than a large portion of its user base is used to and comparable to other phones in its class.

For what it is worth, I believe Apple's selling points are in this order: Features, quality, price (the last two are very close, for better or worse). On the flip side, I feel many computer manufacturers are price first, features second, quality third. But of course, most companies have 'cheap' and 'expensive' lines of computers, so that varies. One thing I can say though, is Apple support is far superior to any support you'll get from another computer manufacturer these days.

As much sense as that makes and as true as it may be, those who exploit will always be one step ahead of those who patch the exploits.

Har har har....

It's imaginary anyway. If we all pretend it doesn't dilute the economy, it won't. :-)

... and you must be one of those "right wing wackos" that think eliminating spending will force everything to fix itself.

Clinging to ANY political ideology to 'fix' social issues is shortsighted and damaging. The "right" is just as bad as the "left" in many respects. Oddly, even the extremely different view points between both often come full circle.

Example: You verbally chastised the GP for being a left-wing nut because he says problems can be solved with money. What would the right-wing nut solution be? The "free market" doesn't work without money, you know...

Ironically, I think left-wing nut ideals could much more likely be sustained without money... much more so than right-wing nut ideals (eg. communism vs. laissez-faire capitalism). In fact, the very idea that money fixes everyone's problems is deeply ingrained into conservatism because that's what any free (or remotely free) market depends on.

I believe this is very close NASA's budget, if that bears relation.

Since you hate left-winger nutters: ... or better yet, let's lower taxes on everyone's goods (especially companies) and sell more, generating economic prosperity through more private spending. Then, when the government has less money to work with, we'll cut funding to programs that actually regulate those goods and leave that up to the private companies who would never, ever, ever think of giving people hazardous or shoddy goods to turn a quick buck. Right? Of course I'm right. :-)

That's always the question isn't it. I bet "they" would come up with something, like the idea of lotting off, mining and advertising on the moon for profit. It's not feasible now, but eventually, it will be economical. The long-term payoff is very probable with a large enough investment now. Just imagine "Coca-Cola" branded on the face of the moon. ;-)

The "resources" we need go well beyond iron, nickel and rock. :-)

I'm not sure I agree with all of this 'desperation' anyway. We still have *plenty* of resources to work with, IMO. What is it that we're out of that has everyone so scared? It isn't like we are going to run out of food, water or spaces to live in next 20 years or such.

Maybe by 2100 we'll have some problems, but that gives us plenty of time to work on our local and extra-planetary affairs. I mean, I'm sure we'll come up with plenty of better ways to rape the planet by then and squeeze every last bit material and energy we can from it before it implodes in the coming years. ;-)

Although the GP may not realize that they use the same kernels (Even if there are some artificial limitations for lesser versions), I think it is fair to accept the very idea of using XP/Vista *Home* signifies Infoworld's failure to produce a meaningful analysis.

However, Infoworld did in fact use XP Professional and Vista Ultimate, so there isn't much of a discussion to be had. :-(

They didn't use XP and Vista Home editions in this test. It was XP Professional and Vista Ultimate.

I find human DEanimation is much easier. Perhaps you should start with that and see where it leads.

For example:
"Surreal" Vegetarian Spider Found -- A First

"Vegetarian Spider" results: 118
"Omnivore Spider" results: 2 (both unrelated)

Are they vegetarian? Absolutely not. But it sounds good.

... aaaand ATI has done the same thing at least a couple of times.

The question is probably more easily answered if asked, "Who *doesn't* cheat?". http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/video/display/20030526040035.html

It is NO surprise that a study finds Alzheimer's related to lack of sleep. I'm sure almost any study done for nearly any negative ailment could be linked to sleep deprivation in the exact, same way.

That doesn't *have* to necessarily be true.

It could make sense that insects would evolve out of this oleic acid immunity behavior, but at what cost? Would ants no longer carry their dead? Would roaches no longer avoid disease stricken roaches? Etc...

In a way though, you've contradicted yourself. To summarize, you said through natural selection, insects will evolve around avoiding oleic acids because their survival depends on it. Your argument afterward is that diseases that will spread on a massive scale as a result which I'm thinking would have a far worse result.

How would natural selection be able to allow this immunity of "stinky" oleic acid if it results in the death of those insects that require it? Or more broadly, why would evolution develop a particular trait which allows the thriving success of a species at the nearly imminent cost of its survival? I'm sure there are examples, but mathematically speaking, it would be like sacrificing your Bishop to take a Pawn. *does not compute*

Sure, not being able to feed on our crops will further limit the size of insect populations, but the species will survive. I'm sure there would be exceptions and those exceptions will be met with another form of insecticide or repellent and so on.. as has been done for many centuries.

So, in short, I'm sure the absolute *survival* of many insect species does not *depend* on our crops. It's a big planet and not insects need to stick to a strict diet of corn, soybeans etc... Sure, the population may have to be reduced, but so is the "S" curve of life.