They have to be seriously bright kids to be able to post things completely anonymously, hiding all their tracks. The scenario you speak of is just the modern equivalent of writing insults on the locker, cutting up the saddle on the bike etc.
Nothing new here, please move along.
You've never been in a modern junior high computer class, have you? One kid figures out how to use proxy servers to get around the computer lab's blocking software, word on how to do it gets passed around, and you have every kid that wants to learn using proxies and contributing to the group's knowledge.
It's difficult to be anonymous to the police. It doesn't take much to set up a Hotmail address to block an individual from finding out who you are.
Try tracing someone based on a comment they made in a blog. How far do you get? Do you think Gmail, an ISP, or a blog is going to reveal information about a poster to anyone who asks?
If you're getting bullied online by anonymous people and taking it seriously, then your parents messed up big time somewhere along the way. I grew up with the internet, and was constantly harassed by anonymous idiots. I just knew better than to take them seriously, since they are SOME IDIOT ON THE INTERNET!!!!!1!!1!!!!lim(x->0)[sin(x)/x].
I'm getting really sick and tired of parents trying to use the legal system to protect their kids. The idea is that the legal system protects kids from things they don't understand. I'm pretty sure that the average child understands that some anonymous person on the internet cannot harm them and that they are probably just some other stupid kid.
I wish parents would start actually raising their kids. My parents did a great job, and it was their first time. A completely anonymous bully isn't the kind most children are concerned with. The worst kind is the group of bullies who know the child, but are hiding behind anonymity. The kind who issue veiled threats and constant insults outside of school. The kind who understand what this particular child is afraid of, who their friends are, and where they are most vulnerable.
You have absolutely no idea how scary it is to be unable to even face your tormentors, because you don't know who they are. What is a child supposed to do about that? And just as importantly, what is a parent supposed to do about that? The police can't help, since there's no actual assault. The school can't help, because they don't know who to punish.
Until you've seen how it occurs, you have no idea how bad the situation can be. Comparing it to Internet flaming is insulting to the victims and the parents.
Removing anonymity is obviously not the solution, but someone needs to come up with something.
The problem with this particular webpage trying to disprove astrology is that is uses pseudoscience to do it. There's no attempt to use the scientific method to analyze the claims. Just conjecture and insults. The author should be ashamed.
A few quotes from the page:
"Surprise! Astrologers' claims are not consistent. They're not even internally consistent."
Much of predictive science is not. Look at weather prediction or climate change models. You can only analyze one model at a time.
"If there is an effect, and it's real, it can be measured. That's pretty much by definition."
Again, that's incorrect. Before measurements of gravity could be made, gravity still had an effect. Just because something cannot be measured does not mean it has no effect.
"Study after study has shown that claims and predictions made by astrologers have no merit."
Plenty of links to critiques on astrology, but not any actual studies. Why not?
Anyways, I believe astrology is bunk, but seriously, if you're going to ridicule the ridiculous, don't wear a clown suit while doing it.
Maybe it's just me, but these "Study finds x could decrease your risk of y by z%" news stories seem to be getting a little out of hand. "The team tracked the death rates for all causes and (surprise!) found some correlation in the statistics". What's next? Study finds people who paint their walls white decrease their risk of brain cancer by 20%? Seems like they'll publish anything just to publish something.
I mean, if this is all it takes to have a career in research then maybe I picked the wrong field. I'd be happy to run some statistics through a data miner for a university salery and grant money. Studies are done all the time. The only ones that get press coverage are the ones that find a correlation that might be interesting to the public. If, like many of other various studies completed, they found no correlation, or it was not of interest to the public, there would be no press coverage. That's why you don't hear about studies that do not lead to correlation.
Besides that, why are you attacking someone else's curiosity? It's an interesting result, and maybe further study can find out why the result came out as it did. Maybe they eventually find something out of this that increases length of life. Probably not, but plenty of scientific breakthroughs came from the question "Why did I get that result?"
Now call me crazy on this one: Don't send SWAT teams based on a FUCKING PHONE CALL. Why would any law enforcement arm be so dumb as to send an army to a house based on a phone call. You would think the cops would be wise as to think maybe not everyonw who calls is honest. In an emergency situation, the police have to get as much control as quickly as possible. They don't have time to set up surveillance. Sending one cop to the front door, or even in the neighborhood to check, is just plain a bad idea.
If the bad guys can entrench, the cop is killed, bad guys know SWAT is coming, and they dig in harder.
If the bad guys cannot entrench, they kill the cop (or not), and sneak out with a hostage.
If there is no crisis, it's a very bad day for the homeowners, it's a very bad day for the SWAT, and yes, there is a slim chance someone is going to slip up and shoot.
If it was my house, I would hope SWAT or a cop wouldn't knock, and possibly get a shotgun blast through the door in payment. I would hope they'd tear the door off the hinges and either gas the place or swarm it. I'd trust them over an intruder any day.
Third, salary, salary, salary, and benefits (particularly insurance and family coverage). Move 'em if you have to. We've even bought houses outright for our programming team members. You can't expect to hire a superstar by treating them like a drone. One thing I would add to that. If you're willing to offer a high salary to someone who is a "superstar", advertise it. I only apply for jobs that clearly list their expected range of pay, because I don't want to waste my time or the employers if they're offering something below what I want/feel I deserve.
That's also why I like good recruiting agencies. The good ones ask up front what the salary for the position is.
For someone who is good at what they do, hiding the salary is like a slap in the face. It's like saying "you'll take what I give you, because you're desperate enough to go through 2 interviews to even get that information."
If you advertise a high salary, you're going to get apps from good, mediocre, and poor applicants. If you don't advertise a salary, you're going to get the poor and desperate mediocre applicants. That's not who you want working for you.
If you want to talk about having unmanned, remote control vehicles, some of which require little more than occasional supervisory control most of the time, I'm with you. We have them already, and more are in development all over the world. Expect to see lots more of them come about in the near future. As alluded to, this will be the robot arms race.
Yup. Pulling a number out my ass, say training and paying the death insurance for a US soldier costs $100,000. If you can get a remote controlled robot below or at that cost, it becomes economically and politically wise to assign, say, one remote controlled robot per soldier on a combat mission and a few extra robots to replace the ones that get killed off. If a bot gets killed, a soldier takes over one of the extras, joins up, and continues the mission.
It saves money, it saves lives, and an auto-aiming armored robot could probably do alot more than a fleshy human.
That said, good luck getting the US military to get the cost of a pencil under $100,000.
No, let's hope it isn't. I'm not saying I think wikileaks should be shut down. I'm saying that I loathe the notion that what it takes to get it back up is "muscle". I hope the wikileaks suppression order is rescinded because of sound legal arguments.
You must be new here.
Not to slashdot, but to THIS PLANET. Here, we follow the Golden Rule: he who has the gold, rules. The US Constitution, the Magna Carta, all those other lovely documents all over the world were written with one purpose in mind - to give you the illusion of freedom while your collar remains firmly around your neck and chained to the grindstone so you can generate more wealth for the people that actually matter. The Gatses and Ellisons and Hiltons and Trumps own and rule the world, and if you believe otherwise you've bought into the illusion they want you to keep.
What freedom is it you are lacking?
Look at what happens around the world, compared to the US. Our political dissidents are not assassinated, or disappeared. We can speak out, clearly and loudly against the government. We can purchase and train with weapons. We aren't forced to pray to God, Allah, or The Flying Spaghetti Monster. You can apply for any job you want, and not be worried the government will blackball you and prevent it. The government doesn't tell me who to marry, where to live, or how much I should be making. I can start my own business. If I do a good job with it, I can make alot of money. I can even move to another country, if the other country is OK with it.
Are there abuses? Absolutely. Gitmo, the No Fly List, and many other things are not as they should be. But we can see how to improve it. In many places around the world, the government is so messed up, there's no place to start. We can improve our government without revolution.
Personal freedom in the US is almost at the maximum reasonable limit. Sure, I have to pay taxes, but I understand why. I can't incite violence, but I agree with that, too. I cannot thing of a single, fundamental freedom we don't have in practice.
Open Source is better for the world-at-large. Make no mistake about it. **The world-at-large is more productive for getting software for free.** They can spend the money they would have spent on software on other things.
But how could you think that this is better for *programmers*? I *always* ask this of my fellow IT professionals and they *always* respond with some vague argument about how participating in Open Source projects will get you "recognized"...Well, in the sarcastic wrods of Homer Simpson "Look at me: I'm making people _happy_".
It's better for business, it's better for society, but you're right, I don't think it's really "better" for a programmer working for an hourly wage or a salary. Without OSS, there would be less supply (in terms of software variety or ability), creating a higher price for those who could supply it. I consider it more of a "volunteering" effort than anything else. When I do OSS, I'm giving something to the world that it can, hopefully, use.
In the end, just like any other volunteer work... bad for the pocketbook, good for the soul.
I welcome an answer to this from anyone who knows - My children are still young enough that I don't bother to filter at all at home yet (computer use is done while sitting immediately next to me - I am the filter). I know that sites come and go all the time. How efficient is the PICS system at keeping up and properly flagging new content? PICS is implemented by the site, so as long as the site voluntarily, and accurately, uses it, you get instant results. Not every porn (and no hate) sites do, so I would recommend taking the extra step of using blocking software if you are concerned. I can't give a recommendation since I haven't used any up until now.
Obviously, eventually every child will accidentally (and sometimes not accidentally) run into a site you don't want them to see, but more prevention makes it fewer and farther between.
If your child goes to school yet and has 'Net access there, ask them what type of blocking mechanisms they use. Many schools STILL do not use any, which is reprehensible, IMHO.
Does anyone really use that though? PICS has been in IE since version 4 and it seems that I'm the only one who's ever noticed it. Porn sites, at least legitimate ones, absolutely use PICS. It's one of the few ways they can partially protect themselves from various "delinquency of a minor" claims, among other similar laws. It shows they are serious about preventing children from accessing porn, since it gives parents, schools, etc an easy an effective way of blocking pornographic content.
Of course, some less reputable sites don't use it, but these are the sites that would refuse voluntary entry into a.XXX domain system, anyways.
When my wife was in high school, she did a study for a class. She went around and asked the girls she knew if they had been spanked or otherwise physically disciplined when they broke the rules growing up. Those who had, the majority of them were the well-adjusted, decent girls. The rest fit many negative stereotypes...
I'm sure others will do most of the work here, but I just wanted to point out the Wikipedia article on spanking, specifically the "Controversy" section. Note the lack of citation for most of the pro-spanking POV.
Also note the various medical and psychological organizations opposed to spanking. From a medical and psychological standpoint, spanking is pretty clearly harmful by consensus.
*WHO* decides what "must" go in.xxx. We may be straying a bit off-topic here but, IMHO, there's no reason to force anything onto the.xxx domain. Just make it available so that "legitimate" pornographers can opt-in. Then, those who are offended by such content can filter it easily and ignore it. And, it would be easier for concerned parties to focus on sites that remain on the.com side that are acting irresponsibly (failure to do age verification / illegal content / etc.) Filtering is easy to do now using the PICS system. PICS has many different categories you can filter sites on, from violence to sexually explicit. Why should there be a TLD for porn, and not one for violence, hate speech, or any of a dozen other potentially offensive aspects of speech? The.XXX TLD is a too small band aid to an already solved problem.
Arthur C. Clarke, however, argued that CIVILIZATION, however, could not evolve in an aquatic environment, for the simple reason that you cannot have fire underwater. His interesting theory claims that fire, and our control of fire - has been a driving force in our technology. First the fire we would use for slash and burn agriculture - which while being devastating for the environment over the long term gave many short term advantages to the primitive farmer. Fire to make steam is what drove the industrial revolution. And that same power is still in use today, though we get our "fire" in the form of Uranium, or by burning fossil fuels. Then there is the "fire" from the sky - electricity. Harnessing this particular "fire" would be pretty tricky underwater.
I always thought that was a pretty uncreative comment from such a create fellow. If you eliminate the need to breathe (artificially) underwater, it's pretty easy to come up with a basic concept of civilization.
Algae farms wouldn't be hard to manage with the most basic of technology. Power could be generated from currents turning water wheels. Heat based power sources could also work, such as sea floor hot spots or something using the differential between the warm sea surface and the cool sea bottom. Hard metals might be all but unworkable, but fabric and bone could be made easily with plant and animal life. That would then allow a relatively firm fabric based cage/pen for herding animals. Transportation obviously wouldn't be in the form of a locomotive, but perhaps a system of rapid current tunnels could be worked out. Or maybe the harnessing of larger sea animals.
I don't know enough to determine the rest, but I think the rudimentary civilization is there; tool use, farming/herding instead of hunting/gathering, and the basics of transportation.
And if the death of someone I loved was reported on Slashdot, "who gives a fuck" would be an entirely appropriate tag.
If it was my family, I would have no problem with someone not caring. I would have a problem with someone going out of their way to enter a tag telling me how much they don't care. What kind of person thinks "I really want these people to know how much I don't care about their pain?" That's pretty disgusting.
Last year Roger Ebert responded to Clive Barker's comments on Ebert not considering video games art...
Of course, Ebert never defines "high art." If he did, I'm sure it would be something along the lines of "I know it when I see it." His main point is that "high art" cannot be interactive. I would argue high art is something that touches you emotionally more than most other non-personal experiences. That seems to be in-line with what Barker is saying.
By that definition, for me, games are more artistic in general than any other "art". Pretty much any game on my top 20 list would be worthy of being high art.
wait what? so let me get this straight. you have a disease where you have slight tremors, so they give you some meds that make you flop around like a fish on shore? that makes a whole lot of sense...
You aren't listening. Slight tremors is one symptom of the disease. The others are much, much worse. Given the choice between shaking more and being completely unable to move, Fox chooses to take the medicine with the chance of increased tremors so that he can move his body.
The idea of working on something for a few weeks or months then getting payed for the remainder of your life seems kind of odd to me.
I disagree. There is, speaking generally of creative works, a very high chance long term you will be paid nothing. There is also a very small chance long term you will make alot of money.
Everyone seems to focus on superstar musicians or writers when they think of royalties and copyright. They are the extreme on the bell curve.
Think of what happens for an average writer or musician. He creates a creative work, and somehow manages to sell a little bit of it continuously for the rest of his life (through royalties, direct selling, whatever). The money trickles in, and if he manages to make enough creative works that he can sell, eventually he can make a living at it with a trickle from each successful work, and begins to write full time.
Removing long term royalties would make this next to impossible for writers. Most writers would have to continue working at least part time jobs while getting a trickle of income from their newest works. That is not in the interest of the public at large, when the artist could be creating mildly successful works of creativity full time.
14 years is much too short. 95 years is generally much too long. It should be set up in terms of the author's life, plus a small bit of time past that (5 years, maybe), so the elderly can successfully be published. That would provide incentives for artists to produce a lifetime of work while limiting the chance that creative works will be lost in time.
it is assumed that the University should help protect students from the consequences of their (potentially) illegal actions
So according to you, Universities should hand over lists of their students to anyone on demand? How about banks - I'd like to know how much is in your account. If you have too much money then you must have earned it illegally. Hey maybe I should have a look at your medical records too while I'm at it. Our studies show a positive correlation between piracy and type 2 diabetes...
This is not "anyone on demand." To reverse your straw man, should businesses be allowed to break all the laws they want?
There was a legal request for these names, under enforcement by the court, and the University was still refusing. The University should not break the law to protect the accused. If there was a legal request made for my bank account information or medical records, I would expect the bank or medical officials to release my information. Why should they break the law to protect me? Corporations should not be able to pick and choose which laws to obey and which to ignore.
Yup... that kinda changes things. It's a shame they can't seperate their legit protesting from their ass backwards attacks. Just calling the protest group something different would help. It's not even like they could have turned over a new leaf so to speak... the article was written just a few weeks ago.
I very much doubt that Scientology is going to go broke defending itself against a bunch of teenage forum trash...
Whoa there! At least these people are active enough to protest on the streets, rather than sit behind a computer. Why the hate and ridicule? "Teenage forum trash?" Where does that come from? At least they're doing something they believe in, and getting the press coverage they need to get their protest across to a wider audience. 99% of the U.S. population sit on their asses and would never think of protesting anything, myself included.
Problem #1: There is always someone judging which band/group/artists get into the system, and who gets left out.
Problem #2: Whoever collects the money has an automatic monopoly. No competition means the monopoly can take a bigger cut of the profits.
Problem #3: This creates a problem for new or up-and-coming groups. They often get their exposure by offering their music, or samples of it, for free. Fewer people will hear them when the cost is the same as more established groups.
I'm not the GP poster, but... I've got one and I use it.
Yeah, I'm a douchebag. So what. I don't give a shit, I just like my peace and quiet. I like to be able to have a relaxing dinner without The Game flickering in the background, and I'll happily be labeled a douchebag by Random Internet Guy. I'm not sure where you've asked, but I've tried asking. Usually doesn't work "Oh, the manager won't let us turn it off." "Oh, just want to catch the scores, I'll turn it off in a bit [sic]." "I think somebody's watching it.[sic]"...
There's a simple solution. If you hate going to restaurants with T.V.'s, then stop going to restaurants with T.V.'s. Or sit somewhere you can't see one. Most restaurants would be happy to accommodate, if they can. Some people go to restaurants with T.V.'s intentionally so they can watch sports or whatever in the background. Why should they have to put up with you when you can just go somewhere else? It's not your restaurant. You aren't the dictator of your local Chili's.
(And if I get banned for life from a restaurant for turning off their TV, that's fine too. That's a win-win situation.)
Then why the hell are you going there in the first place, if you don't want to be there?
critics is just a shorthand for "Insurance Companies" right?
It is relevant to anyone in a shared risk situation that it does not increase quality of care. Why should I or anyone else pay (through increased insurance premiums) for something that is extremely expensive, and not proven to do squat more than the more traditional methods of treatment? It's hopeful that improved care may come out of this, but using this technology right now for more than research is premature.
There's other things I would like to see my insurance dollars go to first, such as preventative care for obesity, decreasing the number of claim denials, and improved mental health care coverage.
Slashdot Mirror
They have to be seriously bright kids to be able to post things completely anonymously, hiding all their tracks. The scenario you speak of is just the modern equivalent of writing insults on the locker, cutting up the saddle on the bike etc.
Nothing new here, please move along.
You've never been in a modern junior high computer class, have you? One kid figures out how to use proxy servers to get around the computer lab's blocking software, word on how to do it gets passed around, and you have every kid that wants to learn using proxies and contributing to the group's knowledge.It's difficult to be anonymous to the police. It doesn't take much to set up a Hotmail address to block an individual from finding out who you are.
Try tracing someone based on a comment they made in a blog. How far do you get? Do you think Gmail, an ISP, or a blog is going to reveal information about a poster to anyone who asks?
You have absolutely no idea how scary it is to be unable to even face your tormentors, because you don't know who they are. What is a child supposed to do about that? And just as importantly, what is a parent supposed to do about that? The police can't help, since there's no actual assault. The school can't help, because they don't know who to punish.
Until you've seen how it occurs, you have no idea how bad the situation can be. Comparing it to Internet flaming is insulting to the victims and the parents.
Removing anonymity is obviously not the solution, but someone needs to come up with something.
The problem with this particular webpage trying to disprove astrology is that is uses pseudoscience to do it. There's no attempt to use the scientific method to analyze the claims. Just conjecture and insults. The author should be ashamed.
A few quotes from the page:
"Surprise! Astrologers' claims are not consistent. They're not even internally consistent."
Much of predictive science is not. Look at weather prediction or climate change models. You can only analyze one model at a time.
"If there is an effect, and it's real, it can be measured. That's pretty much by definition."
Again, that's incorrect. Before measurements of gravity could be made, gravity still had an effect. Just because something cannot be measured does not mean it has no effect.
"Study after study has shown that claims and predictions made by astrologers have no merit."
Plenty of links to critiques on astrology, but not any actual studies. Why not?
Anyways, I believe astrology is bunk, but seriously, if you're going to ridicule the ridiculous, don't wear a clown suit while doing it.
I mean, if this is all it takes to have a career in research then maybe I picked the wrong field. I'd be happy to run some statistics through a data miner for a university salery and grant money. Studies are done all the time. The only ones that get press coverage are the ones that find a correlation that might be interesting to the public. If, like many of other various studies completed, they found no correlation, or it was not of interest to the public, there would be no press coverage. That's why you don't hear about studies that do not lead to correlation.
Besides that, why are you attacking someone else's curiosity? It's an interesting result, and maybe further study can find out why the result came out as it did. Maybe they eventually find something out of this that increases length of life. Probably not, but plenty of scientific breakthroughs came from the question "Why did I get that result?"
If the bad guys can entrench, the cop is killed, bad guys know SWAT is coming, and they dig in harder.
If the bad guys cannot entrench, they kill the cop (or not), and sneak out with a hostage.
If there is no crisis, it's a very bad day for the homeowners, it's a very bad day for the SWAT, and yes, there is a slim chance someone is going to slip up and shoot.
If it was my house, I would hope SWAT or a cop wouldn't knock, and possibly get a shotgun blast through the door in payment. I would hope they'd tear the door off the hinges and either gas the place or swarm it. I'd trust them over an intruder any day.
That's also why I like good recruiting agencies. The good ones ask up front what the salary for the position is.
For someone who is good at what they do, hiding the salary is like a slap in the face. It's like saying "you'll take what I give you, because you're desperate enough to go through 2 interviews to even get that information."
If you advertise a high salary, you're going to get apps from good, mediocre, and poor applicants. If you don't advertise a salary, you're going to get the poor and desperate mediocre applicants. That's not who you want working for you.
Yup. Pulling a number out my ass, say training and paying the death insurance for a US soldier costs $100,000. If you can get a remote controlled robot below or at that cost, it becomes economically and politically wise to assign, say, one remote controlled robot per soldier on a combat mission and a few extra robots to replace the ones that get killed off. If a bot gets killed, a soldier takes over one of the extras, joins up, and continues the mission.
It saves money, it saves lives, and an auto-aiming armored robot could probably do alot more than a fleshy human.
That said, good luck getting the US military to get the cost of a pencil under $100,000.
You must be new here.
Not to slashdot, but to THIS PLANET. Here, we follow the Golden Rule: he who has the gold, rules. The US Constitution, the Magna Carta, all those other lovely documents all over the world were written with one purpose in mind - to give you the illusion of freedom while your collar remains firmly around your neck and chained to the grindstone so you can generate more wealth for the people that actually matter. The Gatses and Ellisons and Hiltons and Trumps own and rule the world, and if you believe otherwise you've bought into the illusion they want you to keep.
What freedom is it you are lacking?
Look at what happens around the world, compared to the US. Our political dissidents are not assassinated, or disappeared. We can speak out, clearly and loudly against the government. We can purchase and train with weapons. We aren't forced to pray to God, Allah, or The Flying Spaghetti Monster. You can apply for any job you want, and not be worried the government will blackball you and prevent it. The government doesn't tell me who to marry, where to live, or how much I should be making. I can start my own business. If I do a good job with it, I can make alot of money. I can even move to another country, if the other country is OK with it.
Are there abuses? Absolutely. Gitmo, the No Fly List, and many other things are not as they should be. But we can see how to improve it. In many places around the world, the government is so messed up, there's no place to start. We can improve our government without revolution.
Personal freedom in the US is almost at the maximum reasonable limit. Sure, I have to pay taxes, but I understand why. I can't incite violence, but I agree with that, too. I cannot thing of a single, fundamental freedom we don't have in practice.
But how could you think that this is better for *programmers*? I *always* ask this of my fellow IT professionals and they *always* respond with some vague argument about how participating in Open Source projects will get you "recognized"...Well, in the sarcastic wrods of Homer Simpson "Look at me: I'm making people _happy_".
It's better for business, it's better for society, but you're right, I don't think it's really "better" for a programmer working for an hourly wage or a salary. Without OSS, there would be less supply (in terms of software variety or ability), creating a higher price for those who could supply it. I consider it more of a "volunteering" effort than anything else. When I do OSS, I'm giving something to the world that it can, hopefully, use.
In the end, just like any other volunteer work... bad for the pocketbook, good for the soul.
Obviously, eventually every child will accidentally (and sometimes not accidentally) run into a site you don't want them to see, but more prevention makes it fewer and farther between.
If your child goes to school yet and has 'Net access there, ask them what type of blocking mechanisms they use. Many schools STILL do not use any, which is reprehensible, IMHO.
Of course, some less reputable sites don't use it, but these are the sites that would refuse voluntary entry into a
I'm sure others will do most of the work here, but I just wanted to point out the Wikipedia article on spanking, specifically the "Controversy" section. Note the lack of citation for most of the pro-spanking POV.
Also note the various medical and psychological organizations opposed to spanking. From a medical and psychological standpoint, spanking is pretty clearly harmful by consensus.
Arthur C. Clarke, however, argued that CIVILIZATION, however, could not evolve in an aquatic environment, for the simple reason that you cannot have fire underwater. His interesting theory claims that fire, and our control of fire - has been a driving force in our technology. First the fire we would use for slash and burn agriculture - which while being devastating for the environment over the long term gave many short term advantages to the primitive farmer. Fire to make steam is what drove the industrial revolution. And that same power is still in use today, though we get our "fire" in the form of Uranium, or by burning fossil fuels. Then there is the "fire" from the sky - electricity. Harnessing this particular "fire" would be pretty tricky underwater.
I always thought that was a pretty uncreative comment from such a create fellow. If you eliminate the need to breathe (artificially) underwater, it's pretty easy to come up with a basic concept of civilization.
Algae farms wouldn't be hard to manage with the most basic of technology. Power could be generated from currents turning water wheels. Heat based power sources could also work, such as sea floor hot spots or something using the differential between the warm sea surface and the cool sea bottom. Hard metals might be all but unworkable, but fabric and bone could be made easily with plant and animal life. That would then allow a relatively firm fabric based cage/pen for herding animals. Transportation obviously wouldn't be in the form of a locomotive, but perhaps a system of rapid current tunnels could be worked out. Or maybe the harnessing of larger sea animals.
I don't know enough to determine the rest, but I think the rudimentary civilization is there; tool use, farming/herding instead of hunting/gathering, and the basics of transportation.
And if the death of someone I loved was reported on Slashdot, "who gives a fuck" would be an entirely appropriate tag.
If it was my family, I would have no problem with someone not caring. I would have a problem with someone going out of their way to enter a tag telling me how much they don't care. What kind of person thinks "I really want these people to know how much I don't care about their pain?" That's pretty disgusting.
Last year Roger Ebert responded to Clive Barker's comments on Ebert not considering video games art...
Of course, Ebert never defines "high art." If he did, I'm sure it would be something along the lines of "I know it when I see it." His main point is that "high art" cannot be interactive. I would argue high art is something that touches you emotionally more than most other non-personal experiences. That seems to be in-line with what Barker is saying.
By that definition, for me, games are more artistic in general than any other "art". Pretty much any game on my top 20 list would be worthy of being high art.
wait what? so let me get this straight. you have a disease where you have slight tremors, so they give you some meds that make you flop around like a fish on shore? that makes a whole lot of sense...
You aren't listening. Slight tremors is one symptom of the disease. The others are much, much worse. Given the choice between shaking more and being completely unable to move, Fox chooses to take the medicine with the chance of increased tremors so that he can move his body.
The idea of working on something for a few weeks or months then getting payed for the remainder of your life seems kind of odd to me.
I disagree. There is, speaking generally of creative works, a very high chance long term you will be paid nothing. There is also a very small chance long term you will make alot of money.
Everyone seems to focus on superstar musicians or writers when they think of royalties and copyright. They are the extreme on the bell curve.
Think of what happens for an average writer or musician. He creates a creative work, and somehow manages to sell a little bit of it continuously for the rest of his life (through royalties, direct selling, whatever). The money trickles in, and if he manages to make enough creative works that he can sell, eventually he can make a living at it with a trickle from each successful work, and begins to write full time.
Removing long term royalties would make this next to impossible for writers. Most writers would have to continue working at least part time jobs while getting a trickle of income from their newest works. That is not in the interest of the public at large, when the artist could be creating mildly successful works of creativity full time.
14 years is much too short. 95 years is generally much too long. It should be set up in terms of the author's life, plus a small bit of time past that (5 years, maybe), so the elderly can successfully be published. That would provide incentives for artists to produce a lifetime of work while limiting the chance that creative works will be lost in time.
So according to you, Universities should hand over lists of their students to anyone on demand? How about banks - I'd like to know how much is in your account. If you have too much money then you must have earned it illegally. Hey maybe I should have a look at your medical records too while I'm at it. Our studies show a positive correlation between piracy and type 2 diabetes...
This is not "anyone on demand." To reverse your straw man, should businesses be allowed to break all the laws they want?
There was a legal request for these names, under enforcement by the court, and the University was still refusing. The University should not break the law to protect the accused. If there was a legal request made for my bank account information or medical records, I would expect the bank or medical officials to release my information. Why should they break the law to protect me? Corporations should not be able to pick and choose which laws to obey and which to ignore.
Yup... that kinda changes things. It's a shame they can't seperate their legit protesting from their ass backwards attacks. Just calling the protest group something different would help. It's not even like they could have turned over a new leaf so to speak... the article was written just a few weeks ago.
Thanks for the info.
I very much doubt that Scientology is going to go broke defending itself against a bunch of teenage forum trash...
Whoa there! At least these people are active enough to protest on the streets, rather than sit behind a computer. Why the hate and ridicule? "Teenage forum trash?" Where does that come from? At least they're doing something they believe in, and getting the press coverage they need to get their protest across to a wider audience. 99% of the U.S. population sit on their asses and would never think of protesting anything, myself included.
Problem #1: There is always someone judging which band/group/artists get into the system, and who gets left out.
Problem #2: Whoever collects the money has an automatic monopoly. No competition means the monopoly can take a bigger cut of the profits.
Problem #3: This creates a problem for new or up-and-coming groups. They often get their exposure by offering their music, or samples of it, for free. Fewer people will hear them when the cost is the same as more established groups.
I'm not the GP poster, but... I've got one and I use it.
Yeah, I'm a douchebag. So what. I don't give a shit, I just like my peace and quiet. I like to be able to have a relaxing dinner without The Game flickering in the background, and I'll happily be labeled a douchebag by Random Internet Guy. I'm not sure where you've asked, but I've tried asking. Usually doesn't work "Oh, the manager won't let us turn it off." "Oh, just want to catch the scores, I'll turn it off in a bit [sic]." "I think somebody's watching it.[sic]"...
There's a simple solution. If you hate going to restaurants with T.V.'s, then stop going to restaurants with T.V.'s. Or sit somewhere you can't see one. Most restaurants would be happy to accommodate, if they can. Some people go to restaurants with T.V.'s intentionally so they can watch sports or whatever in the background. Why should they have to put up with you when you can just go somewhere else? It's not your restaurant. You aren't the dictator of your local Chili's.
(And if I get banned for life from a restaurant for turning off their TV, that's fine too. That's a win-win situation.)
Then why the hell are you going there in the first place, if you don't want to be there?
critics is just a shorthand for "Insurance Companies" right?
It is relevant to anyone in a shared risk situation that it does not increase quality of care. Why should I or anyone else pay (through increased insurance premiums) for something that is extremely expensive, and not proven to do squat more than the more traditional methods of treatment? It's hopeful that improved care may come out of this, but using this technology right now for more than research is premature.
There's other things I would like to see my insurance dollars go to first, such as preventative care for obesity, decreasing the number of claim denials, and improved mental health care coverage.
I bet the terrestrial stations are starting to wish they stood strong with their net radio associates when there was still time. Whoops! Too late!
Now that the RIAA has net radio by the balls, they can use the net radio fee structure to force terrestrial radio into equally horrific payment terms.