Foster J Fezziwig III

IBM Drops Two Bombs on Microsoft

Yes, the open source stuff will catch up, but I question whether the problem of desktop instability is going to prove to be unique to microsoft. The problem, implied by Nikola's post, is that there is no end to the number of things people want to do with their desktop computer OS--they run all kinds of crazy stuff on it, often in combination, and in competition with each other. The hardware that runs it is variable, too.

Software works really well in a controlled environment. But the consumer desktop is chaos. It's always going to be a tough job.


On Dec 05 12:23 PM FreeRange wrote:

> You need to remember that Microsoft has been at office a lot longer
> than OpenOffice and the Linux marketplace. Open source will catch
> up - they have already come a very long way. The advances in the
> world in forcing open standards for documents will help continue
> to drive this trend.

Is the Nasdaq the New Dow?

Hmmm. It's all about the dividend, eh? Sure wish I had bought Microsoft in 85, in spite of no dividend. Would've got a whole lot more than "diddlysquat."

Obama's Green Obsession: More Harm Than Good?

>The upper limit for a windmill is about 59.3 per cent.

What does this have to do with "diseconomies of scale?" The percent efficiency of a power generation device don't have anything to do with economies of scale. The question is how production costs of the turbines come down as you scale up manufacture of them.

The point you seem to be missing is that the wind is free. Thus, it's not relevant that you can't capture all the energy that passes through the turbine, as long as you get a non-trivial percent. Sixty percent efficiency from a fuel that costs $0 per unit is a lot better than 90% efficiency of a resource that costs a dollar/unit. (It's sixty-six cents better, to be exact.) And that's where the cost of the turbine comes in.

The math for wind power work like this:
1) amortization of fixed cost of turbine & installation (the plant).
2) the wind (fuel) is free.
3) price of electricity sold (revenue).

if 3-(1+2) > 0, then you have some hope of a reasonable business. The peak theoretical efficiency of wind turbines is irrelevant if the actual efficiency is good enough to make money. In a good location, wind power is currently very close to being as cost effective as other fuels. As traditional fuels get more expensive over time, wind will undoubtedly become more attractive.

So I don't really see what all of the fuss is about.

Finally, your anecdote about Denmark makes absolutely no sense. If wind power is so dilute and inefficient, if it cannot possibly supply our needs, then how did Denmark so easily overshoot? Or does the next paragraph also apply to Denmark? If so, then you are suggesting that they didn't overbuild wind at all, but rather, they over-built gas-fired plants. But that doesn't make sense, either.

This article is a mess.

Should We Really Bail Out the Big Three Automakers with $73.20 Per Hour Labor?

Why is this being cast as a choice between union busting and exorbitant manufacturing salaries.

We all know (or should know) that unions have done immeasurable good for the country. But does that mean that everything they do is good? Does that mean there can be no imbalance on the other side?

Further, do you think Toyota is exploiting its workers? If yes, where are the calls for boycott? If no, how can Detroit be expected to compete in a market with such divergent labor costs?

These are the questions, not whether CEOs are overpaid a-holes. (The answer to this has been well-established already.)