The technical problem around renewables are not insurmountable either.

Because "digging deeper" poses no substantial technological problems.

I'd say solving our economic need for oil far outstrips billions of dollars.

Yes, because apparently technologies don't get developed from inefficient proof of principle prototypes through to efficient production units, but either spring forth fully developed or not at all.

Nuclear is certainly a good stop gate, but unless we come up with cheap fusion, fission has all sorts of problems; everything from finding fissile materials to getting rid of them.

With a network of solar satellites, night, day and weather wouldn't mean much at all.

First off, thank you for your considered response; that's getting pretty rare around here... ;-)

Actually, Apple is almost never the "first" to employ a new technology or adopt a new standard. They actually shy away a bit from the "bleeding edge" (while still maintaining a cachet of "innovative" and "ahead of the curve").

What they are masters at is waiting until a technology/standard/product niche is getting popular (e.g., WiFi, Music Players, Small-form-factor Desktops, Netbooks, Smartphones) and then "re-imagining it" with a distinctive flair and usability-level that is consistently far above the pack.

Often, these improvements come with a "fit and finish" factor that is often mistaken for "Fashion for Fashion's sake" (Apple Watch notwithstanding. They freely admit to it being a "fashion accessory"); but actually just looks that way because the competition so often ignores the aesthetic appeal of good industrial design (how many creaky brittle plastic laptops have we all suffered?), or which have some bizarro Asian idea of "fashionable"? (Not picking on Asian product design; but it is just "different" from what most "Westerners" think looks "classy")...

But make no mistake: Along with the "classy" industrial design is real, solid product engineering, both hardware and software. And that is what seems to escape so many in the Slashdot crowd, who seem to almost universally seem to place price over value (and who seem to, at the same time, incredibly value the cost of their time at zero).

I get my "tinkering"-Jones satisfied by being an embedded developer; my computer is a tool, like my oscilloscope, various meters and my Zircon-encrusted tweezers, and I want my tools to "just work".

And in my nearly four decades as a professional embedded developer (software and hardware), Apple products deliver on that promise far more consistently (nothing's perfect!), both in and out of the lab, than what my non-Apple-oriented friends and colleagues seem to experience (which looks a lot like "suffering" to me).

And that, my friend, is the very height of "geek-chic"; at least to me.

Why, the unchallengeable phantasmic aura of his bias.

Christ, there are enough real examples of police brutality against minorities without having to resort to one that appears so dubious.

Only by those who have no fucking idea what they're talking about.

I see the book price in the provided Amazon link as US$ 48.10 for the Paperback version.
Everyone sees the same price ?

Slashdot has given us a Amazon link - let's investigate if we get a lower or higher price when accesing the link from Slashdot as compared to other ways.

"We've come to take your liver..."

From what I have seen pass the "Editors" at Slashdot, I wouldn't bet on either clauses of your statement being true.

This is a Tech-Blog; not the Wall Street Journal, nor the New York Times. If you're looking for examples of erudite journalism, you've come to the wrong genre.

But I thought the meme on Slashdot was that Apple makes "obscenely high" profits on their products; so which is it?

1. Apple is being disingenuous because they won't be making any profits to give away?

2. Apple is evil because they make "high" profits?

Can't have it both ways.

What you say has a ring of truth to it, but from what I've read in the car magazines auto ownership is certainly stagnant, and the growth saw in the past is gone, and car companies seem to not know what to do to get demand back. They've tried the idea of a car being a lifestyle, and that didn't seem to do much especially. Now they are trying to go the entertainment route, putting everything and the kitchen sink into the center console. I highly doubt that's going to do much. Basically car makers are victims of their own success. They've saturated the market, cars are quite reliable now with minimal maintenance, and they are perceived as commodity items (albeit expensive ones). I think your arguments are likely to hold for some time yet, but the article's arguments are likely to hold more sway in the long term. The number of teenagers getting a drivinglicense is steadily declining from 30 years ago. Now arguably one huge factor in this is that they depend on others to drive them (parents or friends), but as they become adults they are likely to take their car apathy with them into the next generation. To them cars are just tools. They aren't lifestyle items anymore or fashion accessories. Just tools. When these kids who aren't car crazy begin to vote they might start voting for better public transportation, autonomous cars, etc.

I have an old T-mobile Galaxy II (989) that supposedly has gorilla glass on the screen. I've dropped it numerous times and it's never once broken or shattered, and it's now an ancient phone by internet standards. Yet I've seen countless iphones with broken glass. Perhaps the more flimsy, plasticy Android phones actually have an advantage here by flexing instead of shattering? Or is there some other reason this is an Apple problem?

this is really really important: anyone wishing to make a difference in the world really REALLY needs to read the book written by Professor Yunus, the joint winner of the 2006 Nobel Peace Price, "Creating a World Without Poverty".

in his book, Professor Yunus describes how he naively studied Economics because he believed that he would be able to change his country's financial situation through studying first world economies. after graduation he set out just after one of the worst natural disasters his country had experienced and realised how completely pointless his studies had been. however he did not give up, and set out to work out what the problem actually was.

he learned that the poor are first and foremost incredibly resourceful... mostly because they have to. he also learned that many of them are, because there are no enforceable usury laws, permanently kept in debt to money-lenders. this shocked him so badly that once he freed an entire village from debt just from the small change in his wallet: something like $USD 15 was all it took to pay off a decade of usury.

what he discovered is that the gratitude of these people when freed from their former situation is immeasurable. the Grameen Bank doesn't have lawyers or debt collectors. the people that they lend money to are so GRATEFUL that they work non-stop to turn their lives around and pay off their loan. in fact, the repayment success rate is around NINETY EIGHT percent. it's so high that the *GRAMEEN BANK* considers it to be THEIR FAULT if one of their customers is ever in default. by contrast in the western world the default rate is 88%. i'll repeat that again in case it's not clear: only TWELVE PERCENT of creditors in the western world pay their debts on time, every time, and in full.

but the main reason why anyone wishing to help the emerging markets and the third world should read his book is because he patiently, with all the knowledge from his economics background, outlines why NGOs, Charity and the "Corporate Social Responsibility" clauses of standard profit-maximising Capitalist Corporations are all worse than doomed but are guaranteed to be ineffective at best and invariably seriously damaging and counter-productive.

right at the start of his book he outlines a surprising offer by Danone to work with him (follow his advice) to actually be effective. it was Professor Yunus's first experience of having been "under the microscope" of people with both big resources and heart. in other words the team at Danone were huge fans of what Yunus was trying to achieve: when he explained to them the financial structure that was needed, they listened, and they did it. they did not go in with a charity, or with donations: they set up a "non-loss, non-dividend" business, selling *locally-produced* yoghurt that happened to have the nutritients that the local population happened (by a not-coincidence) to be chronically deficient in.

the yohurt was sold not at a loss but at an affordable financially sustainable price because the focus was on remaining *stable*, not on exploitation through maximisation of profits: the focus was on allowing people to feel proud of what they achieved, and to take responsibility for their own wealth. they were EMPOWERED through the enormous generous resources of Danone's, but it was a successful venture because they LISTENED to what Professor Yunus had to say.