If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#141
|
|||
|
|||
On Fri, 11 Jun 2004 04:18:15 GMT, "tony"
wrote: "David Schwartz" wrote in message ... "tony" wrote in message y.com... Actually, I was saying that a non-for-profit (or akin to) would have moved us along faster and more appropriately. For-profits don't innovate (they can't) unless pressured. Free, inspired, creative minds OTOH do that naturally. But you won't find much of that in Behemoth. All the brain power in Behemoth goes into how to make things proprietary. If profit were not the primary motive, focus would be on building the right thing instead. But I've said this enough times now, so let's just drop it. For profits do whatever they think makes them the most profit. You either have to argue that they're too stupid to figure out what would make profit or argue that would they 'should' be doing isn't profitable. The pressure that forces for-profit companies to innovate is that their rewards are based upon how much profit they make. The problem with that theory is that innovation can't be forced. So in the long spans of time without any lightbulbs going off, they just milk the cash cow, and introduce "new and improved" at the most profitable rate, and make things proprietary to lock into their brand etc. The tricks are numerous. But that's what you get with a crappy money-based system. Argh. So why are you embarrassed to tell us what your non-money based system is called and how it works. Since I do not see anything else and you did not answer previously, I'll ask again: is it Shariah, or Scientology?... or some other cult? As for innovation, the PC industry has been a principal driving force of one of the most innovative periods in human existence and for establishing freely available (i.e. subscription-based == near-free $$) industry, non-proprietary, standards. It's also my belief that the PC+communications (read Internet for the latter if you like) was one of the main factors in the fall of oppressive governments and the liberation of millions of people... a work still in progress. The "lightbulbs" are going off all the time - in a free system there's bound to be a few hiccups... long-term solutions are not always obvious so you'll get short-term burps, reversals and redirections. Competition will sometimes provoke such diversions but when it does, there's often an alternative product which err, was the cause of the detour in the first place. OK, I'm all catharted now I think. You're all something but nobody can figure out what it is. Rgds, George Macdonald "Just because they're paranoid doesn't mean you're not psychotic" - Who, me?? |
#142
|
|||
|
|||
George Macdonald wrote:
On Fri, 11 Jun 2004 04:18:15 GMT, "tony" wrote: "David Schwartz" wrote in message ... "tony" wrote in message y.com... Actually, I was saying that a non-for-profit (or akin to) would have moved us along faster and more appropriately. For-profits don't innovate (they can't) unless pressured. Free, inspired, creative minds OTOH do that naturally. But you won't find much of that in Behemoth. All the brain power in Behemoth goes into how to make things proprietary. If profit were not the primary motive, focus would be on building the right thing instead. But I've said this enough times now, so let's just drop it. For profits do whatever they think makes them the most profit. You either have to argue that they're too stupid to figure out what would make profit or argue that would they 'should' be doing isn't profitable. The pressure that forces for-profit companies to innovate is that their rewards are based upon how much profit they make. The problem with that theory is that innovation can't be forced. So in the long spans of time without any lightbulbs going off, they just milk the cash cow, and introduce "new and improved" at the most profitable rate, and make things proprietary to lock into their brand etc. The tricks are numerous. But that's what you get with a crappy money-based system. Argh. So why are you embarrassed to tell us what your non-money based system is called and how it works. Since I do not see anything else and you did not answer previously, I'll ask again: is it Shariah, or Scientology?... or some other cult? ^money = ^Scientology ;modus tolens ;-) As for innovation, the PC industry has been a principal driving force of one of the most innovative periods in human existence and for establishing freely available (i.e. subscription-based == near-free $$) industry, non-proprietary, standards. It's also my belief that the PC+communications (read Internet for the latter if you like) was one of the main factors in the fall of oppressive governments and the liberation of millions of people... a work still in progress. I wonder what "tony" has in mind as an example of a more innovative, faster-paced industry than the computer industry. Of course evil money has nothing to do with that. The "lightbulbs" are going off all the time - in a free system there's bound to be a few hiccups... long-term solutions are not always obvious so you'll get short-term burps, reversals and redirections. ....because all the answers aren't spelled out in the stars, we mere mortals will make mistakes finding our way to true inner peace, and a kick-ass processor. ;-) Competition will sometimes provoke such diversions but when it does, there's often an alternative product which err, was the cause of the detour in the first place. OK, I'm all catharted now I think. You're all something but nobody can figure out what it is. But it sure is fun trying to kick whatever "it is" out of him. ;-) -- Keith |
#143
|
|||
|
|||
K Williams wrote:
snip Evolution is *far* more powerful than revolution. There was a period (pre-end-of-history, of course) where the revolutionary approach of the US aerospace industry was compared unfavorably to the more evolutionary approach of the Soviet aerospace industry. US entries to high-stakes military aircraft design competitions started with a blank piece of paper and ended by promising the world. Fighter aircraft were evolving to a level of cost and complexity where military planners began to joke about an Air Force with one fighter. The Soviets didn't have the money for that sort of foolishness, and they did tend to get a great deal done with smaller resources. I'll leave it for afficionados of aerial combat to argue over which cockpit they would rather have occupied in a confrontation. Then there is the tale of Tadashi Sasaki at Sharp, or how Japan missed the big one: quote Most of the engineers suggested an incremental increase in the overall functionality of the calculators by taking advantage of the increasing scale of integration to continue to put more on each chip. Sasaki rejected this idea as simply the kind of conservative thinking that is ingrained by the Japanese university system--to make incremental extensions rather than technological leaps. snip Sasaki made his decision on the future research direction in a customary Japanese way, on the basis of the majority opinion, which he later acknowledged to be a mistake. He did arrange for the company's shops to experiment with a program he called Components on Silicon, but the major thrust of research was along the lines of the majority opinion, without any particular effort to build a complete central processing unit on a chip. /quote Sasaki took his requirement and his ideas for a calculator chip to Intel, and the result was the 4004. The quote is from IEEE Annals of the History of Computing, Vol. 19, No. 3, 1997, "The Intel 4004 Microprocessor: What Constituted Invention?" by William Aspray. RM |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Gigabyte GA-8IDML with mobile CPU? | Cuzman | Overclocking | 1 | December 8th 04 08:20 PM |
Intel vs. AMD: Best bang for buck, at the moment | Dave C. | Homebuilt PC's | 40 | September 27th 04 07:19 AM |
Intel follows the margin | Robert Myers | General | 142 | June 13th 04 07:17 PM |
About Intel Celeron, Intel Centrino, Intel Pentium Mobile and Intel Pentium | Chusqui22 | Intel | 4 | January 5th 04 11:34 PM |
Intel developers helping out with Linux AMD64 | Yousuf Khan | Intel | 0 | December 17th 03 08:41 PM |