Seriously, I agree with all but the Android part. Back in 2010 Nokia was the biggest phone maker in the world, both in smart and dumbphones. They had the distribution network, the manufacturing capabilities and the brand name to keep that position. With Android they could have stayed in this position, possibly losing a bit of it or gained a bit more depending on their implementation and quality, but they would still have had a fighting chance to be the top dog.

Why the hell has Samsung gone from a bit player to a giant with Android while we should think that Nokia couldn't even keep their dominating position with the same system? It just doesn't compute. Of course Nokia should have seen the lights 5-6 years ago and either dedicated themselves to Meego/maemo or they should have jumped ship and gone with Android. But they would still have a be in a position if they had gone with Android instead of Windows close to 2 years ago. Of course they could still have fucked up, but saying they couldn't have competed with Android just makes no sense at all.

Sony has been acting seriously consumer hostile for at least a couple of decades. I personally stopped buying their products after I bought an "MP3" player that would only play ATRAC, not MP3. Event though they have had some good tech, I consequently don't even look at their products. Most tech savy people i know feel the same way and we nerds have a lot of sway when it comes to influencing other people buying tech.

Sony need a total change of leadership, so they can start focusing on selling customers things they need instead of screwing their customers. Or maybe its best they just go down in flames. For me they are nothing but an annoyance everytime they come up in the news with some new pathetic scheme.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but the combustion engine still only has about 20% efficiency.

ICE

Just some quick numbers here showing piracy on the iphone is not a huge problem:

-About 10% of all iphones and ipod touch are jailbroken.
-This study says 60% of apps on jailbroken phones are pirated
-The same study says out of these apps, 34% of installed instances are pirated

Ok, here we are talking different numbers, and we shouldnt really compare or multiply but we do anyway:
10% have the ability, 60% of apps can be pirated, 34% instances of these apps are pirated - 0.10*0.60*0,34 = 0.0204 = 2.04% of apps are pirated

Many point of error here, but for gods sake, stop crying wolf about iphone piracy!

I have had an iPhone for about 2 years now, and I am still happy with my hacked / jailbroken 1st gen phone. I am what, amongst my friends, can be considered a computer geek. I can fix computers and code quite a bit, I have hacked my iPhone several times (upgrading from os 1-2-3) and I have no problem pirating games. Still, I have never pirated anything on the iPhone. And yes, I have pirated PC games.

The app store is just too easy and affordable. I buy about 2-4 apps, totalling about $5, per month. This is about equivalent to half a pint of beer here in Norway. I feel I get good value, I compensate developers and I dont get the hassle of hacking. And yes, I consider any kind of manually moving files on my computer and syncing with iTunes a hassle compared to clicking on the app twice on appstore.

I have about 20 friends with iPhone. Out of them about 1 has Cydia installed and maybe a couple would consider pirating. For most people the iPhone represents ease of use, and they dont wanna hack and figure out stuff. I see people all over with the iPhone, and the majority is not the hacking type. Of course it matters what age group and income level we are at, but I still think only a minor percentage of iPhone owners even have Cydia installed. The only number I have seen for is that less than 10% of all iPhones are even jailbroken.

So my point: From this personal annecdotal experience, I claim with confidence that at most 5-10 percent of the Apple iPhone owners have ever pirated an iPhone app. The numbers can be discussed, but the major part of the app market buy their apps.

Then the specific cases can be evaluated. Why is this app pirated so much? Does it appeal to geeks, has it been marketed better in the "pirating" community? Does the pirates download and use / try more sw because its "free"? Are people that upload highscores more likely to be geeks that have hacked iPhones? Are disproportionally more people who have hacked phones living in countries with lower GDP because the iPhone hasnt been sold there before, and they are therefore less likely to pay for apps because they have less money? These and many more are interesting questions, but I still believe that most potential users of iPhone apps does not even consider pirating.

The main market for computers are not for gaming PCs. By far the major part of the PC market is for "typewriting", net browsing and email. Any old P4 computer can satisfy these needs easily. Whenever somebody want a "gaming PC", 9 times as many people would be satisfied with an older, functional PC (talking worldwide, not the western world). If there are older PCs to be recycled for cheaper, there will be less production of new PCs.

This is also why the major PC manufacturers are so eager for good recycling programs.

Link to article

What you say is true, but there are different efficiencies is how the fuel is burned. The most efficient gas generators have 60% efficiency.

Maybe if you read up a bit on this (http://www.stanford.edu/group/greendorm/participate/cee124/TeslaReading.pdf), you will understand that there is a big difference. The article linked explains how a real life example well-to-wheel efficiency of an electric car is more than twice that of the most fuel efficient gasoline car.

Like I said, there will be some variation in what kind of biomass used, but the main difference is in the use of the electrical motor, and yes, in combination with more efficient burning.

Like the author says, ""The internal combustion engine just isn't very efficient, especially when compared to electric vehicles".

It is, of course, hard to know exactly what is happening here, since bioelectricity is not defined very clearly.

Wow, they say have have made a study into what mostly everybody knows:
The electrical motor is vastly more efficient than the internal combustion engine.

Electrical motors have an efficiency of about 80%+, while ICM has an efficiency of about 20-30%.

This is one of several reasons why the electric car is more environmentally friendly that the gasoline car. Whether you use ethanol or gas doesnt really affect this, but ethanol is seen as better because it is renewable and reduces co2 emissions.

This seems, from my reading, to be the gist of the story. What is not very clear is if using other forms of biomass can provide significantly more electricity per acre than corn+ that is used for ethanol. While this might be, the main advantace they talk about is just the fact that the electrical motor is more efficient than tha ICM.

The problem with this debate is that it requires people to look at the issue from outside of the system we have today. This is hard to do without the ideas maturing over time, especially because we have been from childhood taught that "IP" laws are necessary to create innovation/art.

I have not read the book (I would like to), but here are a few general point I have about the issue after reading the comments:

-"IP" laws are not inherent rights in society. Rather they are laws that goes agaist the basic foundations of western society - freedom and capitalism (IP laws restrict both freedom of expression and free competition).
-"IP" laws are in place because some people think the benefits of the incentive they create are larger than the damage the restrictions represents.
-"IP" laws are not there for the sake of the "creators", but for the benefit of society. It is believed the incentives creates positive value for society.
-Our progress and culture are based on information sharing and "copying". All ideas, music, art and inventions are based on what we have learned in our life and what other people have made before us.
-Without this sharing of information there would be virtually no innovation or advanced culture.
-Claiming "ownership of an idea" is a matter of definition. Trying to restrict others from adapting the idea is absurd, since a plethora of other peoples ideas have certainly been used to form it.

The important aspect here is for people to see that there is a definitive cost to restricting information. Whether or not the cost is worth the benefit could be debated, but assuming it is necessary without understanding the negatives is ignorant. I would advice the people that try to parrot the old propaganda "IP laws are necessary for there to be innovation" to read the book before they comment.