"When will China emerge as a military threat to the U.S.? In most respects the answer is: not anytime soon -- China doesn't even contemplate a time it might challenge America directly. But one significant threat already exists: cyberwar. Attacks -- not just from China but from Russia and elsewhere -- on America's electronic networks cost millions of dollars and could in the extreme cause the collapse of financial life, the halt of most manufacturing systems, and the evaporation of all the data and knowledge stored on the Internet."

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/03/cyber-warriors/7917/

Your comment is not so helpful unless you explain the difference. They sound like synonyms to me.

No, but they do have an "inside" for snow to pile up in. And that's probably worse since the place where the snow rests in this case (the bottom of the shield) would be higher up than in the other case (the top of the shield below it).

Check out the bio-mimicry database: http://asknature.org/

Here's the really interesting TED talk where the founder introduces it, and describes some examples of nature's engineering at work: http://www.ted.com/talks/janine_benyus_biomimicry_in_action.html

If you don't like a company crippling a product, what are the alternatives?

Well, one alternative is that the company couple sell different physical products with the different capabilities. Of course, that would increase costs, so both the crippled and uncrippled versions would cost more.

Or, the company could only sell uncrippled hardware. Now, what price would they sell it for? They certainly can't sell it for the lower price of a crippled product, because they'd lose money. So now you've lost the choice between a lower-price/lower-featured product, and a higher-price/higher-featured product. In other words, richer people win, poorer people lose.

So we should recognize that there's a benefit to being able to sell different sets of features to different consumers. More people get what they want at a price they can afford.

I hope this doesn't come across as cynical, because it's not meant to be. But one very reasonable strategy is to work hard at your regular job, and donate money to charitable causes.

I've often thought about how to put my software engineering skills to good use, and that's the best I've been able to come up with. If you can't find a great outlet to directly put your skills to use at a charitable organization, this is a pretty reasonable proxy. It lets you do what you do best, for the people that find it most helpful (i.e. a company that's willing to pay you for it), rather than having to shoehorn your skills where there may not be a great match.

If there's an volunteer opportunity that's actually a good fit, that's obviously a good mechanism (and probably more psychically rewarding). But if not, I think this is an efficient alternative.

This is guilt and arrogance. "I have so much, I am so smart, let me device a plan to improve capitalism."

Rich people who want to help the poor are arrogant? I guess they should just stay home, drink their champagne, and keep quiet?

Note to Bill, its been tried at least twice in the past 100 years and they were called communism and socialism. The only change for the poor in those systems is there is more of them.

Your logic is iron-clad. The fact that 2 systems have failed obviously means that no other system could possibly work. Our current form of capitalism is the best system possible. No other system is worth even considering.

To paraphrase Churchill: "It has been said that capitalism is the worst form of economy except all the others that have been tried."

We have decades more experience with capitalism and its effects on the world's poor than we used to. Is it blasphemy to try to improve on things? I'm actually pretty skeptical of his proposal until I hear more details... but I think it's great to consider it, rather than try to close my ears to it like you do.