So you admit that your tablet argument is nonsensical and now require that we broaden the spectrum?

No, they are the same product: personal computers, each intentionally designed to be deficient in some respects thereby requiring the the consumer to purchase both.

It's like shoes.  People have multiple pairs of shoes: one for the gym, maybe one for ballroom dancing, another for work, etc., etc..  If you wore the same shoes to the ballroom dance as you could to the gym, people would look at you funny.  They think it is normal and sane to have one set of shoes for the ballroom and another for the gym.  The paradigm in which they operate would judge someone insane if they were to wear their ballroom dancing shoes to the gym and vice versa.

But it is the paradigm they operate which is insane.  It is insane that there is the social requirement to have more than one pair of shoes.

Insane is a paradigm which requires people to have slightly different versions of the same item for slightly different situations, when in fact they could use one version of that item for all situations if only the item were designed properly.

Why don't manufacturers operate under such a paradigm?  Well, if only a shoemaker were to design and manufacture a shoe that would be perfectly suitable for the gym as well as the ballroom.  Wouldn't people buy it?  Why don't such shoes exist?

Well, it isn't in the interest of the shoemaker to make such shoes.  If he did, he'd have less business.  People would only buy one pair of shoes instead of two or three or more.  It is in the shoemaker's interest to design thousands of different kinds of shoes, each with its own special, unique characteristic that differentiates it ever so slightly.  You have shoes for each different sport.  Each function.  Consider the appropriateness or inappropriateness of different types of shoes that people wear in all the various situations in which people wear them.

Also, it is in the interest of the establishment to maintain the paradigm by their education system, mass media, culture, etc. so that they can retain power.  Thus is inculcated the idea that the current paradigm right, good, and SANE, even, when it clearly isn't, which anyone can perceive by direct, personal observation of their own circumstances.

Anyone can take a trip down to the dump and see right there in front of them the ridiculous amount of waste of resources that goes along with our current paradigm.

By the paradigm by which our civilization functions and has functioned, we are causing Earth's 6th mass extinction event.  Everyone knows it.  Doesn't seem to phase them.  That's insane. 

We observe the the extreme wealth inequalities, every time we go to the mall, see a doctor, order food a Mcdonalds, drive our cars.  Stop by a casino.  The wealth gap is all there plain as day.  You don't have to go to a third world country to see it.

And so are the various systemic problems that are never resolved readily apparent to everyone: crime, drug addiction, malnutrition, wars, etc.. 

The insanity of it all is all right there staring everyone in the face on a daily basis. 

And yet, if you recognize the insanity of the paradigm in which we operate and decide you only need one pair of shoes and wear sneakers to the ballroom, you're the one who is insane?  Really?

In fact, you are the sane one.  You are the one who sees the insanity of the paradigm which they operate. 

You are the one who is considered strange when you simply don't share the interest or motivation to own the next best and brightest gizmo?  Really?

No.  You are the sane one, because you see the insanity of the paradigm which would have us destroy our home planet just a little bit more for the sake of people owning an Iphone5 rather than an Iphone4 which they toss out in the trash.

You are the one who is considered strange because you are dissatisfied with establishment and the way things are in the world?

Really?

What is really insane is how the establishment perceives it is in its interest and our interest to affect the destruction of the world.  I mean, isn't it true that along with the destruction of the world the establishment is also going to be destroyed?

If that isn't insane, what is?

Because it is true that the item is deficient.  It is a result of the item not fulfilling the want or need well enough that requires there to be another similar item.

Sneakers squeak.  This is a deficiency when dancing in the ballroom, is it not?  You can't slide along the surface of the ballroom floor very well in your sneakers when you want to.  This is a deficiency of sneakers. 

If only they were to design a sneaker out there that would allow you to change the tread when you wanted to slide along a surface and when you wanted traction on that surface.

It is not in their interest to solve that deficiency of the item, because then we wouldn't need to buy both ballroom shoes and sneakers.  And they do sell both, you know.

You're backpedaling again.  Post 21.  "Please answer this," where I lay out the fact that what you're describing is not technologically possible right now, to which you replied "it's not about the tablet."

Now you're backpedaling on your backpedal... so again reaffirming the OP...

Which again brings me to say... answer post 12.  Without that answer, what you call "deficient" is simply the realities of technology.

More on past and our current mass extinction event:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KYWQXUiyBik

I shall second Mr. Beeblebrix

Civilization is sane

wait, what
Insane is Xeno?

But yeah, I don't think you need to keep this poll going...

*watches the entire video*

Wow, xeno!  I didn't realize you had so much in common with Mister Spock!  (Not even joking.  Even the video's suggested solution is Kemp 101)

Jacque Fresco = sane

our paradigm = insane

http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/the … video.html

http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/the … s?ref=card

Simply because I posted a source doesn't mean I agree with everything it presents as if it were gospel.  Why would you assume such?  Is it because when you perceive information or analysis from a source that you accept it as gospel without applying your own discernment and rational skepticism and thus you automatically assume that I and everyone else does so likewise?

What is presented in the film is on the right track, but my perspective of course differs from it in many regards. My perspective I do not hold to be completely accurate infallible; my perspective I see as a process of discovery, change, progression, evolving as I absorb more analysis and information from various sources.

As such, just because I do not believe a return to classical economics is necessarily part of the solution doesn't mean I don't consider a source which does present such.  Personally, I am more convinced that a resource-based economic system more akin to Jacque Fesco's Venus Project is a better alternative, although not 100% convinced.

I think that although one source might claim the tablet PC as beneficial, Jacques Fresco would disagree; he would probably see that the tablet PC and virtually all consumerism is derived through a paradigm by which the system of production and distribution itself results in the current, multiple, redundant forms of consumer products, with planned obsolescence or intentional deficiency built into such paradigm, which ultimately entails an unnecessary waste of resources - he would probably see that all production is a part of that paradigm, be it the tablet PC or anything else, and, currently, I would tend to agree with him.
   
The sources I have presented have commonalities among their differences, one of commonality being the insanity of the paradigm in which we operate, which I give as evidence of my sanity, in support of the premise of this thread being that if in fact the paradigm in which we operate is insane that it is thus probable that I am sane (or at least sane enough).

Let's be sane, Zarf, and try and stay on topic?

Quote me.

I won't read the rest of your post until you do and do so to successfully indicate my position that such and such source is 'equal' to my opinion, or until you admit the above statement is false.

Post 42.  Explained.in argument #1 of my post 46.  I explained that before you requested it!