__/ [ [censored] ] on Sunday 03 September 2006 06:24 \__
> Rex Ballard wrote: Yes he did.
>
> Nobody needs new software except the vendors. Just the same as Ford
> dealers need new Mustangs every year. A forced cycle is the best way to
> keep an ecomony flowing, whether for parts, accessories or whole and
> completely new products in the inventory.
>
> A service economy can function with any equipment useful to it, and
> furthermore can devalue (depreciate) it by a formula to decrease tax
> burden until it becomes fully owned and may either be sold or disposed
> of as worn out or obsolete.
>
> A dealer must have flow, or he cannot survive, he is not viable and
> becomes defunct or changes his focus.
>
> You must strike a balance between the two however, or there will be a
> collapse.
>
> That is as much as I gather from watching telecourses on late night
> public TV though.
This boils down to fundamentals of economics. A society that thrives in waste
is a hard-working society. Innovation stems from space, from leisure time.
You can continue to produce a million Mustangs a year (production line) or
you endulge yourself in the attempt to /improve/ it, without RoI agendas in
mind.
Google has found quick and tremendous success not by disposing of old tools
and being overly wasteful (albeit the datacentres consume a lot of
electricity). In a recent job interview, I was told that in Google
encourages ideas that come from within, not from above (eq. production-line
supervisor). If people fail to see this, they will continue to live in
so-called 'middle ages' where the citizen is a hard-working peon. Suit
yourself and let others suit themselves. And while the two can co-exist
side-by-side, you /already/ see the OSS paradign winning over. People's
desire is not to punch keyboards in a cubicle, merely reinventing the wheel.
Neither will people desire to create and dispose. Earth cannot handle so
much waste. It has a limited energy capacity, as well as capacity to
accomodate garbage. Go-get-her money approach is destoring our planet (and
culture) at the expense of all that surrounds us. Many would argue that if
the world lasts one's leifetime, then it's acceptable. But have a look at
how the second- and third-world nations are alreadyt reacting to gross
goobalisation, monopolisation, and exploitation that concealed owing to
ignorance and miseducation (partly made possible with monetary entry
barriers that OLPC is intended to shatter).
Roy
|
|
