Holy crap. Fuck you, non-editors.
Basically the fact that it allows for dynamic JIT compilation is exactly what people don't want the bad guys to be doing; potentially that turns a small bug into a complete take-over-the-machine exploit.
I'm afraid I was taking all that for granted in my original comment, which instead was about potential reasons why they might not have done something different as people are suggesting in hindsight.
Please keep reading past just the first five words of my original post and then try again.
A. Probably not. I'll bet that cave men burned coal or bitumen when they could find it.
B. Hydro power is not "green" at all. Most dams are small ecological disasters.
I said grubbing it and burning it.
If you were trying to make any kind of demonstration of reading comprehension, that wasn't it.
Make all the apples-to-monster-trucks comparisons you want
And you can make all the false choice assertions you want. It doesn't mean that we can't work to pull ourselves out of the dark ages and stop burning dirt and spewing its byproducts into the air.
if you, personally, aren't limiting your own electricity use, not only are you not serious about the environment, you don't have a leg to stand on when it comes to telling other people how they should be getting their power.
I have been limiting my use. So it looks like I'm justified in telling you that you ought to be working towards getting a better source of power, not just spouting off about the status quo being inevitable.
If you want to volunteer to go back to the dark ages yourself, go right ahead.
Grubbing dirt out of the ground and burning it is a "dark ages" thing.
On the bright side, my math indicates that 8e13 paper chads would take up about 20 thousand cubic meters of space. That would probably be enough free fuel to heat your home for a lifetime.
Neither, 8" floppies would be the way to go.
Hard sectored or soft sectored?
It would be best to decide up front before putting in the order for 80 million disks.
Yes, I can come up with a thousand free market answers. And yes, that pretty much answers your question.
Would you buy a vehicle from any company whatsoever if you knew that parts were difficult to acquire? A manufacturer can play a game with parts availability only if they don't plan to stay in business.
Maybe we should go back to renting our phones from ATT as well.
Just think how much you could save for yourself if you could keep 67% of your Federal income tax - and all your SSI/FICA payments - over the course of working 35-40 years... And that savings would survive to your estate/inheritors, not just disappear like SSI does, once you die.
Only if one of the financial crises that happens every couple of decades doesn't wipe you out.
The main problems are:
A: Most people don't save money without being forced.
B: Most people don't know how to invest.
C: Even if you know how to invest, you can still lose your shirt.
D: Irrespective of the above intractable problems, saving money and investments means nothing more than shifting bit patterns on some hard drives. It doesn't in any way solve the problem of supporting an millions of idle and ailing retirees over ever-expanding lifetimes. Any saved "assets" will get devalued in the markets to reflect that reality.
So your scenario does not do anything at all to address the problem of what to do with retirees in the real world, other than let a good fraction of them die in a gutter.
If the government is going to force me to spend money, I'd just as soon have them handle it directly, instead of making me hand it over to be skimmed by profiteering middlemen. (Who will probably eventually need to be bailed out with taxpayer money anyway).
For retirement, the government has a needed roll in setting standards for "safety net" investment choices, and in insuring people actually do save, but they don't need to handle the money.
Yeah, that would be better handled by outfits like AIG and Lehman Brothers.
Charity is great, and we should all be compassionate, and again the government has a needed role in setting standards, but they don't need to handle the money.
Just imagine how much junk mail it would take to raise enough charity funds to replace every government assistance program. The USPS would be profitable again after only a few days!