Nonsense. Look at the history of most monopolies: they got that way due to deals with government bodies that prevented competition. See the Bell System, railroads in the 19th century, municipal cable franchises, etc. There are cases of monopolies achieved through purely technological means: for years Alcoa had a monopoly on the only cost-effective means of producing aluminum, but even then they were kept in check because manufacturers could often substitute other materials.

The creative destruction of capitalism makes it hard for even giant players to stay on top. Remember 15 years ago, when Microsoft was king? For years now, Apple has made more from iPhones alone than Microsoft makes from everything. 50 years ago people worried that GM and US Steel would grow too big.

Finally, regulation has downsides, and is often used by big players to squelch small ones. See regulatory capture.

I always love it when defenders of Cuba portray the US boycott as a negative for Cuba. Have you forgotten that you are the one claiming that capitalism exploits people, and that communism is more efficient and fair? So what if we're not exploiting Cuba with our evil capitalist free trade? That should be a good thing for them, according to leftist economic theory, and allow them to become richer, right? But the fact is, in the 1950s, Cuba had the highest per capita income in Latin America. Now it has the lowest. If you want to blame that on the fact that we aren't practicing capitalism with Cuba, go right ahead!

As for their supposedly wonderful health care and education systems, according to what? Cuban government statistics? LOL.

Don't worry about that. The "unibodies" of MacBooks (both Pro and Air) are CNC machined out of solid billets of aluminum. They are quite robust, despite their thickness.

Where I complain about excessive thinness is in cellphones. I wish Apple would stop making iPhones thinner, and just use any extra space for the battery.

That should be "Avoided Tax." There's a crucial legal difference between evading taxes (which means breaking the law to avoid paying) and avoiding taxes (which means any legal means to avoid paying).

Oh right, I'm "morally bankrupt " because I don't take people seriously when they froth at the mouth and throw terms like "fascist" and "racist" and "sexist" at anyone they disagree with. On the other hand, I'm not an Anonymous Coward making absurd and unsubstantiated charges. Anyone who reads just the linked interviews should be able to see that you don't know what you're talking about. I doubt if anyone who knows R.U. thinks he's any of those things. I don't know what your problem is, but in this discussion you're just a troll. If you don't like transhumanism, fine, lots of people don't. There's even a section of the book called "Criticisms of Transhumanism," which is online here. I doubt you can cite anything in the book that any sane person would call "fascist" or "racist" or "sexist."

AFAIK this is completely untrue. R.U. is an acquaintance of mine, I've read some of his work, and this is simply false. He actually leans to the left. Of course, any editor who covers wide-ranging topics is going to mention and even publish people they don't entirely agree with. That's how magazine publishing and "encyclopedias" work. But you are spewing bullshit when you say he's an "ardent supporter" of any of that. [Citation needed], dude.

Maybe it's just me, but whenever I hear anyone or anything called "fascist," sexist," and "racist" all at once, I think it tells me more about the person using those words than it does about whatever they are talking about.

Wow, that's quite a rant, dude.

OK, I just read the two linked interviews, and I'm just not seeing this. At all. Neither of the authors seem to be cheerleading for evil and dehumanization. They both seem to be fairly positive about transhumanism, but mention flaws and potential downsides. I am acquainted with R.U., and he's not at all a "technocrat," and that comes through in those two interviews.

That doesn't look like it was the point of the book. It looks like an overview of the field, not a how-to guide.

I don't think that's fair. According to Amazon, the book covers 90+ topics in 288 pages. I don't see how they could be in-depth about any of them.

The Cosmism entry is on page 52.

Note that due to patent royalties, Microsoft already makes $5-$15 from every Android device. That adds up to more than they make from Windows Phone.

A MacBook Air would make a great snow shovel. Have you seen the front edge? You could slice cheese with it.

The Heritage Foundation proposal did include an individual mandate, but that's like saying your bedroom ceiling is based on the Sistine Chapel because they both are covered in paint. The Heritage proposal was for minimal, catastrophic insurance, what used to be called "major medical." That's the sort of insurance people used to be able to buy for maybe $50/month. But the ACA larded everything up with countless mandates (birth control, etc.), so that even minimal insurance is now expensive. And then, in one of many ironies, deductibles are now so high that many people avoid going to the doctor. Remember when the ACA was needed to ban "junk insurance policies," which were defined as policies with high deductibles? Down the memory hole!

I said years ago, before this monstrosity came online, that it would not work as claimed, and in fact might never work. I believe that prediction still holds. They've stopped talking about the problems with the backend, but AFAIK they have not yet fixed them, and are still doing things manually or with estimates. It will also be interesting this tax season, when millions of people find that their tax bill is higher than they thought it would be, thanks to the ACA.