Wiki says "The term is generally no longer used in mainstream writing as it is widely considered racist and many groups, including Survival International, have campaigned to stamp it out. The term continues to be used in everyday speech among older inhabitants of former colonial powers and by far right groups, particularly those with a white supremacist ideology."

Many (most?) US-icans from 2013 are unable to grow their own food, find clean drinking water, build tools and shelter, hunt, fight etc. Primitive is a judgment against the technology or skills required to survive in the world you inhabit on a daily basis. So if it is has racist undertones and is entirely non-descriptive / non-meaningful.. why use it?

Edit: In response to child comment (thanks), to make clear I was referring to the parent comment, not the article. It was the characterisation of 'superior technologies' and 'primitive' people I was responding to.

its not about karma. what is right resonates.

Good incentives are life really.. look at Maslow's hierarchy of needs. I believe most people work because they have to, but most people who work hard, work hard because they want to. The pay off is growth, progress, self-actualisation.

As an aside, this is why I question the whole gamification thing. The best games life-ify the game. Why would you want to remove meaning and complexity from work?

and my old man was forced to write right handed.. i am not sure what they called the method where the teacher would crack your knuckles with a yard stick if you messed up, but that is how he was taught. most perfect, effortless bloody handwriting of anyone i knew. with either hand.

learning can be painful. not learning might be worse.

I fully understand that this is case of little boys playing cops and robbers and making the rules up as they go.. but they are playing with real guns.

(i keep trying to find some way to contribute, but apparently i know less about everything that i know about than someone else.. so i just donate)

(but i totally agree with you)

but maybe this is a different thing conceptually i think i would call that a stamp or a seal ..sort of like a wax imprint of a key

i just happen to think this is the reason for its success

also for a while i used, and loved, zipcar in london and i guess i saw the possibilities..

i believe it is a matter of restructuring both risks and incentives to make the downstream match the upstream, as you say.. for example, with the saas approach, for say 5k a year, your 5k profit over 5 years per user (add 5k for R&D and 5k for a facelift) turns into 20k profit over 10 years.. and the user gets a guaranteed service - the user and manuf. interests align..

The bigger issue I think, in terms of turning around the current approach, is actually a cultural one in which a car is a personal 'fetish' object rather than the cumulative efforts of a supply chain bundled into a personal transport service.

1.major cost of delivering a big product with little or no involvement / feedback from customer. 2.customer gets to pay for only the useful life of the service

That is.. saas is a method for sharing risk and aligning usage goals. i am quite definitely not talking about any mandatory structure.

so.. not leasing.

saas style car-as-a-service.. or aaas for the yanks