Basically, our manufacturing and technological world has become a moribund treadmill of innovation driven by consumer whimsy. In an effort to reinvigorate the stale metaphors of capitalism, environmentalism is being advanced as the reason why we might once again buy some new things: new cars, new light bulbs, new energy efficient gizmos in general. If only we could all become convinced that we really do need to buy some new things for this absolutely essential reason, the whole ponzi scheme of capitalism would be able to slouch along for another 20 or 30 years... but THEN WHAT? Colonize Mars and start the whole thing over again.

The problem with this whole topic is that it seems to imply that China is different that other countries... in particular that the US government doesn't do basically the same thing by different methods. The most egregious example is of course the bank bailout, where the US government gave US banks trillions of dollars to cover the losses they incurred in the course of their own freely chosen business activities. Another example would be how the US government continues to buy billions of dollars of airplanes from US companies (Boeing in particular) mostly as a way of keeping people employed and not because there is any real need. So, I would say that any reasonably objective person would say the US government still steers business too.

I work for a small company. A couple of years ago we had a guy in his late forties writing code for us. He was fired and they hired two guys in their 20's for less than he was getting paid. I doubt the quality of their work is as high. If you can live on the wages of a 25 year old, then go for it, but it's unlikely. The world is just crammed to the hilt with people who can code.

Good grief I was just joking in my original post above. Actually, the best way for the government to turn the internet into a revenue stream is to create a legal framework that makes EVERYONE a lawbreaker and then ticket or fine for infractions. It's the exact same thing with Speed Limits. You would think that the cost of gas and the fear of death would make everyone drive 55 MPH in america but in fact the government all but made every driver into a speeder so that they could capture the revenue from speeding tickets. Its a well they return to whenever they want to generate cash for themselves (i.e. the government). The internet too could be such a well but for it to succeed, the infractions have to be defined in such a way that everyone is guilty and the punishment is so minor that all it amounts to is paying a fine. And also it will only work if the government can watch everything that is passing through the intertubes, just like they do with watching traffic on highways.

I have the ATT code scanner on my phone. When you scan a code a dialogue box pops up and says "Do you want to visit...?" and it gives the actual URL. This article is like saying "malicious URLs can be hidden behind seemingly valid URLs by means of redirects so therefore you should be concerned about clicking on links on the internet."

Law Enforcement usually wins in these sorts of cases because if you are not a criminal, then you have nothing to be concerned about.

In that case, I don't think it really makes sense to let children play Angry Birds on battery with your critical safety device. The problem seems to be that people expect a critical safety device to be useful as a toy, phone, computer, car battery and who knows what else.... which is of course rather a lot to ask from a retail device that you are literally risking your life on hoping it functions correctly in critical situations.

I live in Chicago and the going rate for a movie is $12 per ticket... I wouldn't mind paying $12 but the last 10 movies I have seen in theaters have just been awful. Horrible Bosses, Killer Elite, The Spirit... etc etc... every time I see an ad on tv for a movie I think "Geez, that looks good" and then when I go see the movie I realize that the only good scenes were actually in the commercial already and the movie itself is just filler. Movies have become a combination of a Ponzi Scheme and a classic Bait and Switch. The Ponzi Scheme is based on the financing of movies: they raise tens of millions of dollars to produce a movie but the whole enterprise depends on building buzz to get more and more people to buy in and then ultimately nobody but the people at the top get profit. The Bait and Switch: all the movie company needs to do is make a product just barely enough like the film being advertised that people won't scream "This movie is NOTHING like the ads I saw for it" but then at the same time the movie company spends just the absolute minimum on actually making the product being advertised so that it really isn't what you thought you bought a ticket to see at all. In short, the reason I rarely go see movies at the theater anymore is that everytime I give it a try I just end up feeling like I got raped then mugged... and then there is always the actual possibility of getting raped and mugged because the other people at movie theaters in Chicago tend to be Neanderthals who show up ten minutes late, yell at the screen, and generally behave like they are in the stadium at a Bears game. Not worth $12 at ALL. I have a 52 inch tv at home and a nice couch so the DVD experience is pretty sweet by comparison..

Yes, but then the issue is that the device is only for people who need more than three hours at full operating capacity without access to any kind of powersource... and in reality that is not necessarily very many people... especially if you consider that a $100 device can compete with a $600 iPad for most people's needs. My laptop only gets about 4 hours on battery with dimmed screen and wifi and blue tooth off and I have never really found that to be a major limitation of its portability or usefulness.

You might as well open source it, which if it is extremely useful will bring other developers in and then you can walk away a hero, knowing that you contributed code and radically altered the course of history. When I was doing my graduate work, the university administration when to great lengths to point out that all of my work was in fact co-owned by the University. I would be surprised if the same wasn't true of you. If you release it into the open before anyone knows what you are doing, then it will get taken up by others and advanced before the university has any idea they ought to make a claim on it.

I can't really see going to the Library to get an ebook since you can just buy it online easily anyway. The point of the library used to be that the ordinary person in any given community didn't have access to very many books privately so the library made knowledge more accessible by keeping all kinds of books that anyone in the community might reasonably need: philosophy, encyclopedias, maps, science, etc etc. Building and stocking these libraries nationwide was a HUGE industry. Libraries in poor communities where people can't afford a kindle or nook or even just a laptop might still be operating as repositories for community information... but in the end the library will likely go the way of public wifi spots... its a great idea to give people access to information but if some gigantic corporation finds out that millions of people are getting something for nothing... well then it suddenly becomes a commodity that can be turned into a revenue stream. Cities are desperate to keep libraries open, so the big publishers and the New York Times have a captive audience. Librarians will pay because their readers demand it. Cities will pay because they want to keep libraries open. Maybe a wealthy philanthropist can do for E-Libraries what Andrew Carnegie did for physical libraries someday. The difference is that physical libraries had to buy millions of physical books over the course of decades whereas a e-libraries do not. They just buy the books people actually request.

We awl noe wot ure saeng no mader howe u spell it.

yum install skynet

Interesting summary but it would take literally years for an ordinary person to get to the point where they could use a computer in the way you describe, although I find myself longing for simpler desktops and using the command line more and more too.