Re: OT Hot paper

[Harry Binswanger hb@xxxxxxxx]

Patricia wrote:
> This perfectly reasonable example leaves one important factor out
> of the equation: Moore's law. That makes "planned obsolescence" not,
> perhaps, the precise term wanted. It's more like structural obsolescence.
> If both manufacturer and consumer know that something better, faster, more
> powerful can be made and sold for less in a year of so (or less), what
> incentive is there for the manufacturer to make, or the consumer to want,
> something that will last?
To be sure, the progress of technology leaves us all breathless and behind.
After all, what are we doing on this list?!


Harry Binswanger
hb@xxxxxxxx