History has shown that business (plus some timing components) and not pure technology is what turns prototypes into reality. In case there are alternatives competing for exactly the same place in the ecosystem, as in nature, only one will survive – and probably not the best from a technology point of view. So far, so good.
But, what if there is no alternative product and a technical solution is killed because it can change the ecosystem, the walled garden? The motivation for asking myself this is a documentary I recently saw and do recommend:
Who Killed the Electric Car?
Don’t ask me where to get it, try your favorite content delivery system.
It hurts to see how good technology enabled by tons of men/day efforts and brilliant ideas can be frozen due to sound business models. Curiously, the electric car is gaining momentum again with the global warming issues and the energy crisis.
I was thinking about similar documentaries that could be done in the computer and network industry, beginning with the historical IBM, OSI, EU vs USA standards battles up to recent high definition video formats (there are always leassons to learn). Of course there are always fair technology wars. Did NAT kill IPv6? If it can be considered dead… We could also me more kind and think of new a new title like “Who pushed XYZ forward?”.
Talking about good content, free and legal available in the network of networks, I can only recommend you to look at the TED conference 20 minutes talks. Wy pick of today:
-
Barry Schwartz: The paradox of choice (video)
-
Helen Fisher tells us why we love, cheat | Video on TED.com
-
Jill Bolte Taylor’s powerful stroke of insight | Video on TED.com
Only your brainless morons beleieve that the EV-1 was a car anyone would have bought when it appeared on the road. There is also the mystery as to why this film claims that GM killed the electric car (it was actually already dead, killed by the Model T Ford in 1906), when both honda and Toyota also built electrics at the same time and killed their programs as well. Chris Paine is one of the world’s great liars and con men. He has failed to mention that the car
in question cost $80,000, coudn’t travel more than 90 miles without another 8 hour recharge, was slow as hell when the temperature dropped below 50 dregrees (why do you think they only leased these little gems in Southern california and Arizona?) ., and carried all of two people, but no luggage. The EV-1 was anything but a viable alternative technology, with a $25,000 battery pack that lasted around 5 years, making this, not the cheap transportation claimed by Paine’s crockumentary, but the most expensive car, per mile, on the planet – far costlier than the largest Hummer ever made. Only morons and gullible jerks believe the lies in this film. If you think you know what you’re talking about , then start by trying to refute the facts presented above. Otherwise, quit defrauding the public with your lies.
Fortunately, you creatures will have an opportunity to but next year the Mitsubishi ImEV, at a cost of $40,000, with a battery pack that will cost $19,000 and last about 5 years
(if you’re lucky). It will travel almost 100 miles, and carry twice as many people as the EV-1. In every conceivable way it is supeior to the EV-1. I desperately hope your lying ass buys one of these. THEN you MAY finally get it thru your thick head that these cars don’t work without a practical battery. You’ll be stuck with one of these cars that you have tried to stick other with. Ha, ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha
Thank you for your insights and nice words on my zero brain capacity.
I am sure you can also share with as if it true that the oil industry has bought lost of patents related to batteries and other electric car enablers….
I do not care who really killed the electric car, if it was technology itself ,the business model or conspiracy… in fact, one of my point is to understand what is behind the success or failure of a product or technology, and the true is in reality far more complex than we think.
I won research more on the specific case of the electric car, but I must confess I am concerned about documentaries (branded by Sony Classic Movies – http://www.sonyclassics.com/whokilledtheelectriccar/electric.html) or any form of media that intentionally lies…..
For what is worth, a quick google returns some links to follow:
http://www.ev1.org/
http://declineusa.wordpress.com/2008/05/18/who-killed-the-electric-car-sonypictures-documentary-2006/
-> This blog post with another insightful pseudo-commenter
http://www.autobloggreen.com/2007/01/09/detroit-auto-show-autobloggreen-qanda-with-dave-barthmuss/
Correct me if I am wrong, but isn’t IPv6 actually going to make NAT obsolete and not the other way around?
I mean, There will always be someone who will be interested by any particular reason on being behind a NAT, but even despite that, they will be using IPv6…
Perhaps I misunderstood the sentence.
You are completely right, with IPv6 deployed there would be no need for NAT from an address space point of view.
My point is that the through the massive adoption of NAT, the IPv4 space is being able to survive and the incentives for IPv6 adoption have been reduced.
For instance, some operators (e.g., mobile carriers) have all their user clients behind NATs and require thus fewer public IP addresses.
Moreover, NAT provides inherent security and facilitates network address renumbering. Of course, it breaks the e2e and causes some protocols (e.g., VoIP) to rely on workarounds (e.g., ICE).
Even with IPv6 we will have NATs and other middleboxes in the network.
I appreciate your comment and hope you have now understood my point!