As someone that follows politics very closely I can state with near 100% confidence that 99% of the US population doesn't have the slightest clue what's in the bill, how it affects them, the amount of work it took to get it through all of the hurdles set up by both parties, and how much is left to be done. At best, these people can regurgitate the common, biased talking points from their favorite flavor of media, however, none of these factions are remotely interested in explaining what is in the bill. I especially like the constant calls from right wing politicians, who have been trying every procedural trick in the book to not contribute to the bill for the past year, suddenly want to scrap the bill and start over, as if they don't know that such an act would quite literally stop any medical reform in its tracks for the next decade. Unfortunately, such tactics work well on the uninformed that do not understand how the US political system works, so it gets the right a few extra brownie points which they hope to cash in come November.

Those few that are familiar with the bill understand that it is a good first step on a very long road that will likely span the next few decades. Is it a perfect spring breeze, filled with love and hope and freshly baked apple pie? Certainly not. It is closer to a dirty gutter, with political deals and potentially risky loop-holes and a novel worth of legal speech; but even a dirty gutter is better than the knee deep sewer the US was in before it passed, so it's a step in the right direction.

According to most sources I could find on the topic the average ER cost in the US is in the range from $1000 to $2000 a visit (These numbers are before insurance. Post insurance you would pay $300-$600) for problems that do no require a hospital stay. This is the cost of obtaining the service of a single ER trained doctor for a problem that could probably be addressed by a your family doctor. As soon as your problems require tests, analysis, hospital stays, and god forbid, complex medical procedures the cost can rise to the tune of $5000 a day and more.

By contrast, a normal visit to a family doctor costs in the range from $150 to $300 per visit (Again, before insurance), which covers the actual consultation, and possibly a follow on test. Again, the cost grows if you need more specialized tests, but significantly slower than it would in the ER.

Incidentally, if consistent, bi-annual visits (Once for a physical, and once to address a problem) to the doctor can prevent a single basic ER visit every 3 years, you come out ahead financially. By contrast, if such doctors visits can prevent even one major hospitalization you will be well ahead for the rest of your life. As such, saying that preventative care is more expensive is simply not factually accurate, as the numbers most certainly do not agree with you.

It is statements like this, trolling or not, that have people convinced that health care reform is a huge socialist takeover. If it is trolling, keep it to tech/entertainment, at least it's funny to see people riled up there; Politics already has plenty of trolling from the mainstream. If on the other hand you really believe what you said, then I would seriously suggest you look up the numbers in a bit more detail before making unfounded statements.

The problems in Canada all stem from just one key area. The sprawling bureaucracy second to none in the world. Somewhere, at some point, some sub-committee to a sub-committee in charge of helping the team tasked with creating the process that is used to determine the eligibility criteria for immigration decided that the poor need more help becoming Canadian citizens.

The system in the article seems to require that you know all of your friends first, so it would be about as useful as a newsgroup or forum. It's an interesting concept, but the proposed implementation would be a step back in internet social evolution.

Social networks do exactly what their name suggests; aggregate your social interaction into a single location. This is actually quite a useful service for most people, as it saves them the hassle of keeping track of all of this information themselves. It also keeps all of their friends updated, which is easier than calling everyone up to update them on events they may (or may not) care about. Further, social networks provide useful services based on the information they collect and index; Facebook friend suggestions are a perfect example, while the global search feature is another. These type of features would simply not work (Or at least not nearly as efficiently) on a distributed platform such as the one being proposed. As such, I'm going to go on an even further limb than the GP, and say that not only do most people not care, they would also be against such a service, as it would defeat the usefulness of a social network.

There are of course privacy concerns, but such is the price you pay for using resources (servers, processing time, development time) of a third party. Often they will simply index everything they know about you, and use that data to sell you ads, while some may have more nefarious goals. That is just more reasons to be extra vigilant about the info you give out online. The solution is simple, and has been discussed at length. If you don't want someone to know what you're doing online either don't do it, or learn enough about the internets to cover your tracks.

In summary, this is a push by the older generation, stuck in the traditions of their age, assuming they still understand the values and morals of the modern internet society. Unfortunately for them, the younger privacy conscious individuals have already adapted to the nature of the existing system, and would simply be inconvenienced by having to convince all of their friends to switch. Of course, those that do not care/understand anything about privacy would not only skip the proposed system out of principle, but would also find it burdensome and un-intuitive.

For full disclosure. I am in fact Russian, and as such am quite familiar with what you mean. I do think Russia is at, or at least near the bottom of the slope, but I as I mentioned, there is some light. However, Russia is inherently tied to the stability of the Chinese and the European markets, which are in turn very closely tied to the US. Right now everyone is going through hard times, and if even one of these markets is screwed, than the others would follow like dominoes.

As for the western world, it's well past due for a major paradigm shift, which are wont to happen every few hundred years. As you pointed out, the current system has simply lived its course, though I disagree that the western world thinks itself strong and virile. Most educated people know that it can't hold out much longer. The brainwashed masses are what need to change, and yes, the wolves are closing in. Quite fast I might add.

Very well said, though I stick to my outlandish exaggerations :). A few points I disagree on if we are being serious though. While the Tea Party is a very minor section of US politics, their poll numbers are surprisingly high. Incidentally, when you remove the ultra vocal chapters there are actually some pretty good traditional Conservative ideas buried deep in there. The problem, I think, is that the ultra vocal branches are the ones most likely to field candidates in some of the deep red states, and the majority of that public will just vote blindly without realizing who exactly they are voting for. Then, as we have recently seen, even a single senator can create problems in that house. On the other hand, this could work out well for getting a bit of fresh blood into the system, either by splitting the vote, or by getting Tea Party candidates into office. Anything that breaks a dynasty is to be commended.

Regarding for my stance on bank reform, I should clarify that I mean bank reform that would actually include meaningful change to the system. Of course that would require much more government involvement in banks; an issue for much of the older generation in the south, who had it hammered into their heads that government regulation is the very essence of Communism. As such, while people are certainly for regulations, the only things I could see passing the public arena (Especially after the spin doctors are done with it) are a weak slap on the wrists that would in my view almost ensure another major crisis within one or two decades. If we get to that point, I certainly hope that the current generation will have much to say about the matter.

As long as the public supports the legislators that so obviously oppose these reforms, they are effectively against reforms, even if they may approve of them in principle. Perhaps if move younger voters came out in Republican bastions things may be different, but I hold to my statement that a sizable portion would simply not support reforms to the level that needs to happen.

Similarly when it comes to basic health care, I should mention that I consider preventative care to be a basic right in a nation at the forefront of health research. Obviously I am not suggesting that you would need to treat everyone like a millionaire, but everyone should have access to a general doctor when they need one, without any unreasonable delay, or unreasonable out of pocket cost. A public option is really the only reasonable way to accomplish this at a reasonable cost (Along with significant reduction in red tape for medical facilities). The thing they are trying to pass in lieu of that will most likely result in one company, or a small conglomerate of companies monopolizing the national market, netting somewhat reduced premiums, and very high profits for the entities involved. I'm not sure how the tax credits will work, but those tax credits do not change the fact that there would still be a very significant movement of money from the public to corporations. Again, this would not survive more than a few decades, but those decades would not be too pleasant.

I will admit that I added in the high speed rail thing as a literary device more than anything else. It seemed like a good way to tie the conversation to the topic without getting too political (Too late now?). In fact I'm not too familiar with the debate, since it is a bit more local than I care to delve as I don't even live in the country. Based on what you said, I do hope it will be built eventually. The sooner the better, as it would certainly help by getting some people working, but again, for me the jobless rate is just a statistic, and the rail topic is a black box.

Finally, about being screwed. I see it like this: The upcoming election will most likely decide the course of the next decade or two. If the Republican strategy of "No! No! No! No! No! No!" works, and worse, becomes the norm, then we will have a very painful couple of decades waiting for the current generation of politicians to lose enough power to allow our generation to make some changes (filibuster reform being high on that list). In that time we would probably see sprawling global changes as the myriad of political systems connected to the US try to survive. If, on the other hand something changes to bring some logic back into politics we may dodge the bullet, and be set on creating a more modern form of government centered around openness and all the other things Obama likes to preach. The cost you mentioned would still be there, but the US is a pretty powerful nation, it can swallow the cost as long as it has a viable long term strategy. It has certainly done so before.

The US is most certainly ready for a bit of progressivism, people just need to accept that these things come in cycles, and when the cycle ticks there is a price to pay for the changes. All that remains is to see whether the people will realize this in time, or will the system be stretched beyond the breaking point. Either way, fun times will be had by all.

And yes, perhaps I do glance at the news every once in a while :)

Why of course Mr. AC. There is more available should you chose to read it, both from me, and countless actual specialists in the area, which is where I get my information. I do so wish that what I said was in fact hyperbole, it would let me sleep a lot better at night. Unfortunately anyone that follows US and World news these days will agree with much of my post, and that is what makes me so uncomfortable.

Some interesting points. Europe is quite certainly in a lot of trouble, due in no small part to Russia, or more specifically the former Soviet Union nations. I am curious whether their system can work in any sort of long term. At least they try to mix things up a bit more than the US, so a few points for that. A few of the EU nations seem to be aware of the troubles brewing, and we shall see if they can respond in time, or if they will fall into the same traps that are strangling the US.

For Russia the issue is that they have already fallen so far that it is hard to imagine them going down much further. Even now they are significantly worse off than the US. The one thing going for them is that they have had a very strong leader in charge for a while. If the leadership can get the country back on track, and then loosen the reigns there may be hope. Otherwise we may just see the past century play itself out again.

So yes, Europe and Russia are pretty damn screwed too, though I will admit that there are still a few glimmers of hope across the pond.

Looking at China, I don't see how that system could survive. The old revolutionary leaders are getting to the age where they might start dying off any day now, and if the power games that will inevitably follow do not rip the country to shreds I will be very amazed.

I really know next to nothing about India, so I'll trust your judgement there.

Most interesting is that the fate of these regions is inevitably linked to the fate of the US. If that system collapses then all hell will break loose. If it survives, then I'm sure they will survive too, and prosper in the end.

And for the US, I'll grant that it's not completely hopeless. That said, changes need to start happening soon, and they need start happening fast. Worst that could happen now is the health care bill getting defeated. In that case we will likely see the Democrats lose any semblance of respect in the eyes of the voters, followed by a return to the good, new Republican values that created the crisis in the first place (Oh what I wouldn't do to see traditional Republican values back in place). At that point I'm pretty sure even God would shrug and get the popcorn.

So despite the tone of my original message you are correct, the US is not in as much trouble as some other regions of the world. In fact, they have a very good chance of getting out of the hole created by the antiquated systems. However, that needs swift and decisive action, which is exactly what the US system is designed to prevent. I am holding out in the hope that Obama can get his act and his party together. If not... Well, I'll be with that God fellow reaching for the popcorn, since there's won't be many places in the world with viable alternatives.

Sorry to say, your economy has already gone down the tubes, spent some time in the sewer, and is now resisting any attempt to scrub it clean by any means necessary. You have a sizable population against bank reform, even more against providing basic health care, insane unemployment, an entity composed of a slew of political parties too busy trying to resolve internal conflicts to notice the huge problems, and another political party so spoiled by a decade of near absolute power and focused on the short term that they do not see the huge wall as the nation hurls towards it like... Well... A train on high speed rail. Something that, as you pointed out, is also being resisted tooth and nail.

So no, the US is not in trouble. Unless something major changes pretty soon, the US is totally and completely screwed

Watching it on the TV?

And yes, there are ads, but ads do not result in reduced profits, so it is free financially. Or you might have TiVo, in which case it's not any different from watching torrents in the first place.

Microsoft sets the prices at an arbitrary level that it feels will result in the biggest profits. They understand perfectly well that if they were to say, increase the price by 50% then a lot less people would buy it, regardless if they downloaded it or not. However, if they were to drop it by 50% then though they may have more paying customers they would net less money. So no, piracy has little to nothing to do with the price of Windows. This is all the magic of the supply and demand curve.

Next, I will grant that some of the people that pirate windows would have bought it had piracy been impossible, but consider this: what about the people that pirated the new windows, liked it, and told their normal friends to get it. Normal friends that know about as much about torrents as Joe Average knows about quantum mechanics. Taking away piracy would result in a net loss of advertisement, and from that, profit.

In all, I would say that for Microsoft, windows piracy has a neutral direct economic effect, and a positive overall economic effect by allowing them to claim greater market penetration, and therefore charge more for the associated services like driver signing. They can also bump up the prices of developer tools, since using said tools on a well established system is worth more than using those tools on a system barely anyone uses.

Finally, I am not entirely sure what point you are trying to make with AC2. Ubisoft wasted what must have been a good chunk of resources to develop a DRM that was supposed to stop piracy in its tracks, and it was cracked within a day. This sounds to me like a horrible business decision more than anything else. Did the pirates walk into the Ubisoft HQ, and force them to implement that DRM system? Certainly not. Would they have gotten more money had they skipped the DRM system? Possibly. Did Ubisoft actually consider the benefits of having this new DRM system of theirs? Most certainly not. Let bad decisions rest at the feet of those who made them.

Pretty sure that god fellow trolls on 4chan for kicks. Could you really blame him for trolling an entire NATION?

You stand to lose much more by using multiple chips instead of multiple cores. As we get faster and faster clocks, the distance a signal can travel in a clock cycle gets smaller and smaller. Even with modern technology trying to access something off chip is likely to cost you hundreds of cycles. As such, you want to minimize the amount of off chip communication that needs to happen.

I think you hit the nail with the different module types, though I would implement it a bit differently. First, the motherboard system is likely to become a thing of the past in the next few years. There was already an article on here recently showing off a pluggable module system, which allows for standalone computational modules, which can then connect to other similar modules in a grid system. When you need more power, you could just go to the store, get a new module, and swap out or plug it into your existing system. The actual modules would be similar to what you described, though a bit more organized. For example: it would make no sense to have pure GPU modules since they would still need a CPU to manage them, but nothing would stop you from having a module with 1 generic CPU and 127 vector GPUs tailored for the rendering customers, or a 128 generic CPU for the servers, or even a 32 generic/48 vector/48 fp unit for the standard market.

Best of all, these same modules could be used for IO, extension cards and whatever else have you.

Your post is based on several assumptions that make no sense to me as a student of human nature, and an engineer.

1. 1080p is current technology. Even if we assume we will not have hologram visual output within the near future, there will still be some new technology that the powers that be will sell to the masses. It may be an incremental improvement, but it will still be enough to drive the markets.
1a. As long as it's new and shiny, there will always be someone to buy it.
2. Consoles use GPUs and CPUs the same as PCs do. There is a longer update cycle in place, but whenever each cycle ticks they adopt all the new technology that has been developed during the lifetime of a console. As such, it makes sense for the console makers to encourage such development.
3. Intel would have to shut down all of their operations to let nVidia claim the workstation market. Like it or not, Intel still makes pretty hefty CPUs, owns the workstation market, and has more disposable cash, and a bigger engineering staff than any other chip maker. The embedded market has even more competition for its crown, so I will not go there. The supercomputer market, while good for satisfying the nerd bragging rights quota, is not know for being an amazing source of profit.
4. The AMD vs Intel battle for the mid-range market is actually something I can see coming to pass. I would not be too surprised if this market gets a third player as the line between computation devices becomes blurred.
5. ARM is not the only company in the world that can make a low power chips. Worst case, ARM has a few years of dominance before the other guys catch up. Also, as the article pointed out, integrated CPU/GPU has several obvious advantages over discrete CPU + discrete GPU.

In all, while I am not ready to make my own predictions, yours could use a bit more analysis and tweaking.

Sure, yours is a valid desire, but the execution of this desire is where it breaks down. Consider the following: How much time and money was spent to generate this system? How much time will be spent breaking it? How much money would it REALLY get you? What will the server maintenance cost? How big will the PR shit-storm be when Joe Average cannot play this game because his internet connection went bust for a few hours, and he decided to complain to his friend, Nelson Reporter?

In my opinion, you can see that perhaps a few of the younger kids will have to convince their parents to get the game. The parents that agree will indeed be extra income, but I doubt they would be a particularly big market segment. Many more mature PC gamers would either have bought it anyway, regardless of the protection system, or would have pirated the game just to try it, but would never buy it, netting you next to zero extra profit. Other mature PC gamers will avoid it out of disdain for the DRM system, resulting in a net loss that may even surpass the gain from the young teen crowd. Finally, the hardcore pirates will just find another game to play. There is not exactly a shortage these days. Maybe they'll just get a modded 360, and play it there. Finally, the mid-level pirates will just wait until the game is in the bargain bin, barely covering the cost of production, and getting you little if any profit. This is not even taking into account the free advertisement you are sacrificing in terms of players that would play a pirated game, then hype it up for their less tech savvy friends.

In my model is even remotely correct, you are likely to get maybe several tens of thousands extra customers. For a game that has already seen millions in sales this sounds to be like an utter waste of resources. Resources that could have been better spent on more QA/Optimization/Content. Best of all, when the system gets cracked eventually, you will just be left with an egg on your face with little to show for it.

Finally, for the actual protection scheme in the article, the workaround seems trivial. You must send your save game data to a remote server somewhere to be stored, the access it from there once you wish to load. First, you will need to defeat the encryption schema in the existing system, which should not be too hard, since you simply need to get the raw data pre-encryption. There will likely be a few packet types to perform further checking, which you will need to reverse engineer; an unfortunate, but harsh truth, and likely the most time consuming step of the process. Next, create a local server that will intercept requests to the remote server, including saving, and then allow it to read back the saves. If you want to get extra fancy, you could build that right into the program, and replace the calls to network functions with calls to these new functions.

This would doubtlessly be more work than a traditional crack, but since it is still a software solution, I would not expect much longer than an extra month or two.