| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Clad in Sky
l33t
Joined: 04 May 2007
Posts: 657
Location: Germany
|
 Posted: Fri Nov 30, 2012 4:01 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
How about that:
The government makes a law that makes it obligatory to recycle electronics. Ah, wait. I said the evil G-word.
_________________
Kali Ma
Now it's autumn of the aeons
Dance with your sword
Now it's time for the harvest |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
pjp
Administrator
Joined: 16 Apr 2002
Posts: 16033
Location: Colorado
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 30, 2012 4:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I only have a problem with government that is too large. For example, I'd like to try a 10-15% fixed rate on which government was allowed to function. Live within your means.
_________________
lolgov. 'cause where we're going, you don't have civil liberties.
In Loving Memory
1787 - 2008 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
energyman76b
Advocate
Joined: 26 Mar 2003
Posts: 2022
Location: Germany
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 30, 2012 4:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Clad in Sky wrote: | | True. I considered getting a new CPU. Couldn't find one for AM2+ socket, though. And that's AMD, who're changing less often compared to Intel. |
hm? I thought you could plug am3 cpus in am2+ boards?
_________________
| AidanJT wrote: |
Libertardian denial of reality is wholly unimpressive and unconvincing, and simply serves to demonstrate what a bunch of delusional fools they all are.
|
Satan's got perfectly toned abs and rocks a c-cup. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ichbinsisyphos
Guru
Joined: 08 Dec 2006
Posts: 547
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 30, 2012 4:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
How would that work? You can only buy motherboards with the CPU already soldered unto it? Only motherboard/CPU combinations from the CPU manufacturer?
Not being able to upgrade the CPU on the same motherboard is not what I am going to miss, but when I buy both I'd like to have some choice. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dmitchell
Veteran
Joined: 17 May 2003
Posts: 1154
Location: Austin, Texas
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 30, 2012 4:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| pjp wrote: | | Simply amazing. If that's what goes along with Government-without-government Anarchy, then you lost me as a possible supporter. |
You can keep writing things like "Wow" and "Amazing" and "Simply amazing," but you should know that I can't discern what your objections are from reading "Simply amazing." Can't you tell me what it is you object to?
Suppose you were expecting a massive natural disaster where you live, and you anticipated shortages of many crucial goods. What would you do? You would stockpile: food, water, medicine, batteries, clothing, and so on. But of course everyone would attempt to do so, and this would put tremendous upward pressure on prices. An anticipated future shortage raises present prices. This would of course attract more supply to your area, but more to the point you would become extremely frugal and careful not to waste. For example if you only drank half the water in your cup, you would save the other half rather than throw it out. That's because water is now scare instead of plentiful.
Yet this reasoning doesn't require a natural disaster: the same reasoning applies regardless of the precise cause of the anticipated future shortage. So I'm arguing that if silicon and computing power are expected to become scarce, then prices will rise to reflect the new reality, and people will no longer have a "disposable consumption" attitude, because consumption has become expensive.
Now can you tell me where I'm going wrong rather than just saying "Wow"?
_________________
Your argument is invalid. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Clad in Sky
l33t
Joined: 04 May 2007
Posts: 657
Location: Germany
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 01, 2012 7:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
| energyman76b wrote: | | Clad in Sky wrote: | | True. I considered getting a new CPU. Couldn't find one for AM2+ socket, though. And that's AMD, who're changing less often compared to Intel. |
hm? I thought you could plug am3 cpus in am2+ boards? |
Ah... wasn't quite sure about that. Good point.
| ichbinsysiphos wrote: |
Not being able to upgrade the CPU on the same motherboard is not what I am going to miss, but when I buy both I'd like to have some choice.
|
Good point.
| dmitchell wrote: |
You would stockpile: food, water, medicine, batteries, clothing, and so on. But of course everyone would attempt to do so, and this would put tremendous upward pressure on prices. An anticipated future shortage raises present prices. This would of course attract more supply to your area, but more to the point you would become extremely frugal and careful not to waste.
...
Yet this reasoning doesn't require a natural disaster: the same reasoning applies regardless of the precise cause of the anticipated future shortage. So I'm arguing that if silicon and computing power are expected to become scarce, then prices will rise to reflect the new reality, and people will no longer have a "disposable consumption" attitude, because consumption has become expensive.
|
I'm always surprised that this "demand-price-dogma" is treated as if it were a universal law. But ok, from observation it seems like it is, if not universal, global. Anyway, the reasoning to buy up stuff (or rather, as entrepreneurs do, buy options on stuff) to create a virtual scarcity so that people would consume less seems flawed. It would certainly make consumption more expensive, so perhaps less people would waste stuff. But perhaps it would also make manufacturers wander off to even less developed countries and exploit the people there or produce lower quality goods that are cheaper but also won't be functional after a comparatively short time, so waste would increase.
Rising prices also can make less profitable resource deposits more profitable (as happened for example with oil - before the prices were up, no one really bothered with oil sands. Now Canada is extracting oil from them) which will lead to the destruction of yet intact nature.
It could, of course, also lead to more scrap metal, electronics etc. being recycled or to the realization of the space lift and mining on asteroids etc.
_________________
Kali Ma
Now it's autumn of the aeons
Dance with your sword
Now it's time for the harvest |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pjp
Administrator
Joined: 16 Apr 2002
Posts: 16033
Location: Colorado
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 02, 2012 4:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
| dmitchell wrote: | | You can keep writing things like "Wow" and "Amazing" and "Simply amazing," but you should know that I can't discern what your objections are from reading "Simply amazing." Can't you tell me what it is you object to? |
Think of Spock saying "fascinating." I find your described approach to resource stewardship demonstrative of what is wrong with check and balance mechanism. Trust but verify is accurate in probably most situations.
| dmitchell wrote: | So I'm arguing that if silicon and computing power are expected to become scarce, then prices will rise to reflect the new reality, and people will no longer have a "disposable consumption" attitude, because consumption has become expensive.
Now can you tell me where I'm going wrong rather than just saying "Wow"? |
I wasn't trying to explain where you were going wrong. But given a finite resource, it is egregiously irresponsible to waste resources for no better reason than because you can. I'm sure you'll disagree, which is why I only bothered to show my amazement.
_________________
lolgov. 'cause where we're going, you don't have civil liberties.
In Loving Memory
1787 - 2008 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BoneKracker
Veteran
Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Posts: 1499
Location: U.S.A.
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 02, 2012 4:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
It's time for computer prices to really plunge. With obviation of moving parts, rapidly developing nano-technologies, and diversification of device forms (which should multiply economies of scale), what we know of as "computers" are likely to be come nearly "disposable" within a decade or two. Increased miniaturization and synthesis of components will drastically reduce material requirements.
Think of portable calculators, electronic watches, and basic cell phones. You can get them all in blister-paks for about $20 now. I predict that the basic price point for a desktop will drop to $300 by the end of this coming year, and sub-$100 computers will be the norm by 2015.
Guys like us who tinker with PCs will be a thing of the past, like the radio and small-engine hobbyists of the early 20th century, or will evolve into some more network-centric equivalent.
_________________
Oldthinkers unbellyfeel INGSOC.
-- Headline of a document on Winston Smith's terminal in his cubicle at the Ministry of Truth, seen briefly in the background in one scene of the movie rendition of Nineteen Eighty-Four. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pjp
Administrator
Joined: 16 Apr 2002
Posts: 16033
Location: Colorado
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 02, 2012 5:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
I'm still waiting to see the interface which can replace a reasonable sized monitor. A phablet is not it. A tablet is not it. I seriously doubt a pair of Nexus Oakleys will do it (lack of input).
The main problem I see is each hermetically sealed vertical garden. Most people really don't want to be limited to a single option.
_________________
lolgov. 'cause where we're going, you don't have civil liberties.
In Loving Memory
1787 - 2008 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BoneKracker
Veteran
Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Posts: 1499
Location: U.S.A.
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 02, 2012 6:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
Big displays will continue to be needed. I think they'll be shared devices, though.
Users will keep data on the "cloud", and access it using multiple devices, migrating in usage behaviors away from being 'desktop-centric' toward being more "mobile-centric' and network-centric. We'll probably continue to have multiple personal devices, and one is likely to serve many of the functions of our present "desktop" becoming the user's tool of choice and primary computer, with others for specialized purposes.
I visualize a tablet-like computer which, when a user is near one, can use a large display conveniently via a high-bandwidth wireless protocol (akin to Bluetooth, NFC or "wireless USB"). Desks will be equipped with large displays, as will other likely locations (coffee tables, kiosks, various work locations). This will vary, though. For many, that primary device will be something else: a smartphone perhaps, or even an in-vehicle system.
When you're not at one of those work or entertainment-oriented locations, your portable device has its own small display for quck-and-dirty use. The ability to switch from small-screen to large-screen mode will be a key feature of user environments (we're already seeing people like Microsoft figure this out).
That reality will also be a necessary feature of the GUI presented by applications: present a powerfully-equipped large-screen interface which assumes the user has a keyboard, or present an alternative "mobile" interface which assumes they're using a touch-screen, stylus, or voice-actuated interface (we're also already seeing this, with websites presenting a "desktop" or "mobile" version).
If some new kind of visualization technology emerges, that could change this. For example, some kind of goggles, retinal projection, or direct neural interface technology would allow the miniaturization to proceed all the way to a vanishing point, where the "computer" is effectively gone (miniaturized or leveraged to the net), and all that is left, effectively, is the means of interacting with it.
But, over the shorter term (i.e., over the next 5 to 10 years), I anticipate most people moving to sub-$100 tablet-like computers that you use for a year and then throw away, but can use with a big screen when you want to. So, if you can figure out who is going to successfully produce the wireless technology for graphics that will become the standard, buy stock.
_________________
Oldthinkers unbellyfeel INGSOC.
-- Headline of a document on Winston Smith's terminal in his cubicle at the Ministry of Truth, seen briefly in the background in one scene of the movie rendition of Nineteen Eighty-Four. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
energyman76b
Advocate
Joined: 26 Mar 2003
Posts: 2022
Location: Germany
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 02, 2012 11:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
| BoneKracker wrote: | It's time for computer prices to really plunge. With obviation of moving parts, rapidly developing nano-technologies, and diversification of device forms (which should multiply economies of scale), what we know of as "computers" are likely to be come nearly "disposable" within a decade or two. Increased miniaturization and synthesis of components will drastically reduce material requirements.
Think of portable calculators, electronic watches, and basic cell phones. You can get them all in blister-paks for about $20 now. I predict that the basic price point for a desktop will drop to $300 by the end of this coming year, and sub-$100 computers will be the norm by 2015.
Guys like us who tinker with PCs will be a thing of the past, like the radio and small-engine hobbyists of the early 20th century, or will evolve into some more network-centric equivalent. |
I disagree. Intel's move will kill the mobo industry. So there will be intel - and nobody else. All the development from that sector gone. Intel in a position to dictate prices will, at the end increase prices and slash development. At the end, we, the customers, will see rising prices.
Besides, a basic price point for desktops is 350€ at the moment. So I don't see any improvement if it comes with Intel cementing its quasi-monopoly for all eternity.
_________________
| AidanJT wrote: |
Libertardian denial of reality is wholly unimpressive and unconvincing, and simply serves to demonstrate what a bunch of delusional fools they all are.
|
Satan's got perfectly toned abs and rocks a c-cup. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pjp
Administrator
Joined: 16 Apr 2002
Posts: 16033
Location: Colorado
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 02, 2012 4:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| BoneKracker wrote: | Big displays will continue to be needed. I think they'll be shared devices, though.
[...]
So, if you can figure out who is going to successfully produce the wireless technology for graphics that will become the standard, buy stock. |
I pretty much agree with all of that. Which MS device(s) allow you to switch between small & large displays? I've not perceived this yet. "People like MS" Who are the others?
I think goggles are going to be the next major evolution. They'll be able to replace the need to switch between most displays (initially perhaps not for graphically intensive functions). The phone will be the local node. Without Flavor Flav sized screens, phones will go back in the appropriate direction for size, and become less noticeable.
I suspect the wireless technology will be an open standard that won't specifically generate profit. Unless the market changes and we see more fragmentation. Apple with their own, Google with theirs, and MS with yet another. If something like the scenarios we've described actually arrives, it'll probably be Apple able to integrate it most successfully, with everyone else not quite getting it to work as well.
_________________
lolgov. 'cause where we're going, you don't have civil liberties.
In Loving Memory
1787 - 2008 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dmitchell
Veteran
Joined: 17 May 2003
Posts: 1154
Location: Austin, Texas
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 02, 2012 6:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| pjp wrote: | | I wasn't trying to explain where you were going wrong. But given a finite resource, it is egregiously irresponsible to waste resources for no better reason than because you can. I'm sure you'll disagree, which is why I only bothered to show my amazement. |
No one wastes for no better reason than he can; people waste because taking additional measures to conserve is uneconomical.
_________________
Your argument is invalid. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
energyman76b
Advocate
Joined: 26 Mar 2003
Posts: 2022
Location: Germany
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 02, 2012 7:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| dmitchell wrote: | | pjp wrote: | | I wasn't trying to explain where you were going wrong. But given a finite resource, it is egregiously irresponsible to waste resources for no better reason than because you can. I'm sure you'll disagree, which is why I only bothered to show my amazement. |
No one wastes for no better reason than he can; people waste because taking additional measures to conserve is uneconomical. |
wrong and wrong
_________________
| AidanJT wrote: |
Libertardian denial of reality is wholly unimpressive and unconvincing, and simply serves to demonstrate what a bunch of delusional fools they all are.
|
Satan's got perfectly toned abs and rocks a c-cup. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
notageek
Tux's lil' helper
Joined: 05 Jun 2008
Posts: 81
Location: Bangalore, India
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 02, 2012 7:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Why is he wrong?
_________________
What looks like a cat, flies like a bat, brays like a donkey, and plays like a monkey? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
energyman76b
Advocate
Joined: 26 Mar 2003
Posts: 2022
Location: Germany
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 02, 2012 7:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| notageek wrote: | | Why is he wrong? |
people waste stuff all the time. Just because they can (from Bugatti drivers to people who don't turn off the lights, to those who just dump their garbage somewhere or celebrities drinking champagne from cans). And they don't do it because not to waste is uneconomical, but because to be 'cool'. 'Hey look. I know that I am a nature destroying asshole. But I am too cool to care. Look at me!'
....
of course, as soon as I am benevolent world dictator this will have a sudden end. Also new impulses for the crematory industry).
_________________
| AidanJT wrote: |
Libertardian denial of reality is wholly unimpressive and unconvincing, and simply serves to demonstrate what a bunch of delusional fools they all are.
|
Satan's got perfectly toned abs and rocks a c-cup. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pjp
Administrator
Joined: 16 Apr 2002
Posts: 16033
Location: Colorado
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 03, 2012 3:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
| dmitchell wrote: | | No one wastes for no better reason than he can |
I agree completely that people waste because they can. I disagree that it should be acceptable. The tip of your nose / why should I have to pay a higher price due to needless waste. Exactly, I shouldn't.
_________________
lolgov. 'cause where we're going, you don't have civil liberties.
In Loving Memory
1787 - 2008 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
aidanjt
Veteran
Joined: 20 Feb 2005
Posts: 1101
Location: Rep. of Ireland
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 03, 2012 4:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
| dmitchell wrote: | | No one wastes for no better reason than he can; people waste because taking additional measures to conserve is uneconomical. |
Is it uneconomical to walk over to a light switch and turn off a light you're not using? Or the same for a power hungry appliance like a TV? Or ordering/serving sensible portions of food? People waste all the time, contrary to their own best economic interests, even. It's just laziness and complete obliviousness of the consequences of their actions, or inaction in this case.
_________________
| juniper wrote: | | you experience political reality dilation when travelling at american political speeds. it's in einstein's formulas. it's not their fault. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Clad in Sky
l33t
Joined: 04 May 2007
Posts: 657
Location: Germany
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 03, 2012 9:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
I want to live where dmitchell lives. The world seem to be a better place there. People act rationally all the time, you don't need a government, just a free market that solves all problems. I'm intrigued by the concept of wasting because not wasting would be uneconomical. It means in essence, that they're not wasting at all.
Where does this Utopia lie?
_________________
Kali Ma
Now it's autumn of the aeons
Dance with your sword
Now it's time for the harvest |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
notageek
Tux's lil' helper
Joined: 05 Jun 2008
Posts: 81
Location: Bangalore, India
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 03, 2012 9:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Clad in Sky wrote: | | Where does this Utopia lie? |
I think you know where this is.
Sorry, couldn't resist.
_________________
What looks like a cat, flies like a bat, brays like a donkey, and plays like a monkey? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Clad in Sky
l33t
Joined: 04 May 2007
Posts: 657
Location: Germany
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 03, 2012 9:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
Indeed. My Greek is strong.
_________________
Kali Ma
Now it's autumn of the aeons
Dance with your sword
Now it's time for the harvest |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dE_logics
Advocate
Joined: 02 Jan 2009
Posts: 2008
Location: $TERM
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 03, 2012 10:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
As of the current time, it's unlikely a user will 'upgrade' her powerful i3 with an i7....
With this step, their products will be cheaper.
Also gaming doesn't need powerful processors.
_________________
Buy from companies supporting opensource -- IBM, Dell, HP, Hitachi, Google etc...
Disfavor companies supporting only Win -- Logitech, Epson, Adobe, Autodesk, Pioneer, Kingston, WD, Yahoo, MSI, XFX
My blog |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pjp
Administrator
Joined: 16 Apr 2002
Posts: 16033
Location: Colorado
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 03, 2012 1:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Clad in Sky wrote: | | I want to live where dmitchell lives. The world seem to be a better place there. People act rationally all the time, you don't need a government, just a free market that solves all problems. |
I wish it worked that way, but I see no evidence that it would. Which is why I'm a Trust but Verify Libertarian. We need something which ensures responsible behavior. This should, for the most part, be one of the very few roles of government.
_________________
lolgov. 'cause where we're going, you don't have civil liberties.
In Loving Memory
1787 - 2008 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tylerwylie
Guru
Joined: 19 Sep 2004
Posts: 455
Location: /US/Illinois/Champaign
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 03, 2012 2:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| pjp wrote: | | Which is why I'm a Trust but Verify Libertarian. |
lol
_________________
"Government is to society, what rape is to lovemaking" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dmitchell
Veteran
Joined: 17 May 2003
Posts: 1154
Location: Austin, Texas
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 03, 2012 4:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Buying luxury items isn't waste. At least not in the sense the term is being used here.
Let me go meta for a moment and say it might be helpful to pin down what exactly is meant by waste. Because when I start thinking about specific examples of waste, it seems pretty subjective.
_________________
Your argument is invalid. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
Off the Wall
