I wish those student lawyers the best. The RIAA typically gets the best justice money can buy. If they can win this suit, they'll have long careers ahead of them.
Well then, label our American democratic project a hypocracy and let's get on with it.
I'm not willing to be so cynical. I believe in the enlightened ideals upon which this country was built. I believe in the virtuous nature of a democratic-style government. I believe in the goodness of my fellow man, and in our capacity to come together and strive for something greater. Fundamentally, I believe in our ability to own our government, and make it work for us.
And I also believe we have a lot of work to do to get there.
The frontline battle is to get people to believe, to eschew a cynicism that does nothing but maintain the power of the status quo, and feel the sense of empowerment that our founding fathers intended us to have as citizens. To stop looking to government for answers and quick-fixes, but instead to participate in government to help seek common understanding and reach a social consensus on how to deal with harsh realities. To get people to believe that all races, genders, and generations are capable of this participation, and yet, recognizing that this is a skill, to mentor and train those who would seek further involvement.
I realize this is a utopian vision, to a great extent, and as such, I don't necessarily have my sights focused on an endpoint. Rather, this ongoing process of self-improvement, or the potential for this process, is what makes America great. We are a people that founded itself in the pursuit of something greater, and while our demise has often been proclaimed, wave after wave of generation has risen up to renew this pursuit. My vision is not for the endpoint, the realization of some grand society, but simply that this process that forms the strength of country not die out completely! And oh, how some in power would love to see this end...
To quote one of my favorite movies - I find your lack of faith disturbing. I understand cynicism, I see how people become frustrated with government, but I believe there's a better way.
Is Mr. Obama taking applications for speechwriters?:)
I'm going to guess that we have a fundamental disagreement on what constitutes the best interests of national security.
I would imagine that a great many of those items classified as "matters of national security" are items that would damage the bureaucratic class, and would more or less do no harm to the security of the American people. Or, perhaps this abuse, if it exists, actually harms the people, by failing to show us what government truly is, and by keeping us ignorant and placated. After all, the bureaucratic class is damaged only by our indignation at its existence, no?
The specifications of advanced military technological research (i.e. the Manhatten Project), and the identities of covert operatives are the only two things off the top of my head that justify being classified. Note that this does NOT include the amounts spent on or general focus of military research, nor the purpose and spending on covert operations. I want to know what my government is doing, even in these areas, ESPECIALLY in these areas, because it is here that the greatest potential for abuse lies, in my opinion.
When a corporation operates with this kind of lack of transparency, it's called Enron. Why do accept this kind of behavior from our government?
Each American citizen has an investment in government, predicated on that whole "By the people" schtick that a few goofballs advanced. Why can't we see that a bunch of bureaucrats are causing this investment to depreciate more rapidly than the dollar?
Could be. If you look at the brain from an evolutionary standpoint, it's an organ that serves as an information-processing device meant to ensure survival of the physical body. As most of the dangers to our existence come from natural forces, it seems intuitive that longer-term mental projects focused on an understanding of the world in an attempt to mitigate these dangers more effectively. Indeed, the whole of human history is filled with the rise and fall of these projects. Religion, at least initially and in its most organic form, is an attempt to save existence from the clutches of death. Religion loses its focus, and we see the rise of science as a better means of understanding dangers. Science, at least initially and in its most organic form, is an attempt to save physical existence from the dilemmas it faces.
Perhaps we live in a world where the scientific project is losing its focus, and some sort of project that would protect mental existence must become the new paradigm. Whatever the case, I think the mental breakdowns that you talk about aren't the result of an overclocked mind, but rather of a mind that is ahead of its time, that is searching, stumbling about, for a paradigm to rest in, but which it can not find. The mental breakdowns the great thinkers suffer should warn us of this need, of the insufficiency of science on its own.
As much of a genius as we regard Fischer, or Newton, or any other great thinker, perhaps even they were reaching for something beyond even them, and we should forgive their stumblings, and instead look towards that for which they may have been reaching, consciously or subconsciously...
When a mind possessed of analytic capacities such as Fischer's turns those powers on the world, the result is inevitability some kind of psychosis. The world simply requires a more synthetic approach. While the content of Fischer's diatribes is certainly controversial, let's be wise enough to see they likely stem from the fact that he was a man trapped in his mind, unable to escape the analytical powers of his mind and live more holistically in the world. Even if the content of his politics had changed, it wouldn't change the fact that they were based in a mental misappropriation of the world.
Lets not remember the man for his faults, which boil down to misapplied genius if not true biological mental illness. Instead, let's remember the man for the great intellect that he possessed, and let his later political endeavors serve as reminder to us all of what can happen when we analyze the world from too great a distance instead of simply living inside of it.
Vivere in pace, Mr. Fischer, wherever your soul now resides.
Why do companies insist on applying this double-standard to the usage of technology?
Consider the example of the book, something that has been around for the greater part of recorded history. Academics and researchers use books frequently, often making photocopies to extract passages of particular interest. The argument applied here would basically equate libraries with dens of piracy, mandating that a researcher by a new copy of a book every time they write a paper. Nevermind the fact that I might want to rip a whole CD to my iPod, maybe I only want to rip the one song I bought the CD for, and ditch the other eleven pieces of crap you tried to pass off as a full album.
The technological resistance to technology and information distribution that we face today seems unparalleled, with one exception - the printing press stirred the same issues, and brought radical change to a major social institution. When are the music industries going to realize that they WILL adapt, or die, and that maybe their strategies should reflect this fact?
Oh well, at least I can take comfort. The RIAA - the Real Impediment to Advancement Association - lost the battle before they even began to fight.
At this risk of begging for a -1 Troll mod, I really, REALLY hope this doesn't happen. The rich and powerful enjoy their property, and if you think you're going to give that up because the "rabble" beneath them has de facto lost faith in the concept of property, you're sadly mistaken.
Rather, this sounds like an argument for pushing people into conformity, while they are robbed behind your backs. Convince people that property doesn't exist, and it becomes easy to take it away from them. While the masses will be content with a minimum level of existence - but don't you dare strive for more! - the few will still enjoy the excesses in life. The abolition of property will occur only at the level of appearance, but to sate the greed of those with power, will continue to exist behind the scenes. (Think Al Gore and his power-hungry estates...)
If society moves in the direction you sense, it will imply a step back towards the Dark Ages, and a return to a feudalistic society. Of course, if the great mass simply desires serfdom...
Socialism, FYI, is a poor, poor application of Marxism. My take on Marx is that he believes in and advances the idea that individuals to be the direct owners of their creative forces, i.e. labor. Marxism, in a sense, is a fundamental SUPPORTER of property rights - you own your work, and no one else can or should exploit that! Every management salary that gets paid is, in a sense, benefiting in part from the productive labor beneath them. To simplify, a worker may give $100,000 of annual value to a company, but they actually receive $50,000 in pay, while his manager gains some benefit, as does the owner/stockholders.
In order for such a structure to exist, it does become apparent that the idea of a company most be rethought, that private ownership is in some sense anathema to Marx, because the idea of an owner that takes no benefit for himself makes no sense. Ownership at the level of the worker would imply some sort of management by election, a sort of executiveless entity that makes decisions through the majority will of the collective. Again, though, in a sense this is the same spirit that gave birth to America, and this concept simply means the democratization of the corporate world. However, the concept of property remains intact in that people own their labor, and the results of that labor. In fact, the concept of property might be brought into further clarity and focus if thought of this way. The change is a move from the idea of property as the apprehension of an external physical object, to the idea of property as an externality with its source found within the forces of the productive individual. Property as external object would still exist, but would be intrinsically tied to the individual. I would argue this is as relevant to physical things as it is to information.
That's the problem with American consumerism, really. It's not that we consume too much. It's that we've created this schism between property and self, instead of having an integrated view where property extends from my personal productivity and is an extension of myself. But then, I come back full circle, because I think the richest and most successful do have this viewpoint. Information does pose a problem, in that information is incredibly difficult to exploit when information can be transfered as easily as it can today. But consider - I have a piece of information on nuclear engineering because I found it on Google OR I have a piece of information because I studied nuclear physics for many years, became intimately familiar with the rules and laws that govern the field, and understand that information in an almost epiphanal quasi-enlightenment. The value of information is determined by the holder. And THAT moves towards what is for some a very uncomfortable alliance between knowledge and a Marxist view of labor/property...
No-one is forcing them to create an open standard that will allow other software to interact with MS Office documents, but they are. Shouldn't they get credit for that?
When they actually do that, get back to me, and I will give them credit. An open standard, OOXML is not. That's my real gripe.
Yeah, I probably could be more of an Apple troll... OMG iPhone!!!1!
Just speculatin', my friend. My observation (as I'm sitting here looking at a very stylized but average-performing Sony flat-screen monitor) is that Sony's products across the board emphasize a certain futurist aesthetic, and they rely on that to drive their products as much as the actual usefulness of the thing. Sony wants Apple's cool factor, but they can't quite get the actual implementation right. Some of Sony's products are better than others. In my opinion, they banked on this appeal to drive the PS3 as much as anything, and people are choosing function (availibility of games on the Xbox360, fun games on the Wii) over form (the PS3 is so cool! It's potential is unlimited!) in droves.
I'm a PS3 owner, by the way. I hope they succeed in driving strong sales through the holiday season - I don't want to see my small slice of investment go for nothing. I would be very excited if Apple jumped into the milleu, though. I think it's a logical extension of some of their other technologies. I doubt it will ever happen, personally.
By the way, did I mention iPhone? I have to go drool now...
I'm not holding my breath. But with convergence being the latest buzzword in the industry, and as gaming devices and media continue to meld, it does seem to make a certain bit of sense. Who would have thought before the Xbox that Microsoft would become a major console player? As I recall, that decision was greeted with its fair share of derision and skepticism. And really, why did Microsoft get into the market? I think they saw this convergence coming, and wanted to make sure that they were a player. Apple might be smart to through their hat into the ring, especially with EA coming on board as an OS X developer...
iTV = PS3 minus the games. That formula reduces to iTV = PS3.
I suppose MS and the weird friend both deserve to be on at least one watchlist...
On the other hand, can you blame him? At the risk of sounding a little weird myself, is it just me, or did India become a little, um, top-heavy over summer vacation?
The last time I looked at the OOXML spec, it was the most non-spec spec document I had ever seen. It was chock full of references to Microsoft's proprietary legacy code, failing to provide the details that would really allow for an open implementation. The only thing Microsoft opened up was letting developers know exactly what functionality they weren't being allowed to properly use. If this spec had been passed, it would have been an open invitation for more anti-spec specs down the road.
Meanwhile, is it really a coincidence that with the advent of applications like OpenOffice, Office 2007 featured a complete revamp of the Office UI? Methinks not...
Microsoft is the functional equivalent of that guy at the bar that can pick up just about any women he pleases, but is cursed with commitment issues that keep anything meaningful from developing. Bring something real to the table, billg.
Sony = style, but no content
Microsoft = content, but no style
Apple = the perfect fusion of style and content
Personally, I'm holding back my hard earned dollars until the iGame comes to market...
We do file synchronization of all our network files, and encourage users to store business-critical information on the network, with offline access if the user wants/needs to work from home. Additionally, we've created a group policy that remaps the user's My Documents folder to a network path, so this information is backed up as a part of our server backup procedures.
Additionally, our engineers store their code in subversion, so any local copies of code are (in theory) stored on our server as well.
This seems to cover most scenarios adequately. In about 2 years of working for this company, I've never had a major catastrophe where a user was not able to recover important files due to a lack of local machine backup.
My girlfriend has a very diverse set of genes. She has genes for going out, genes for lounging around the house. She often asks me if her genes make her look fat. Well, I certainly know she has some "fat" genes, but I always lie and tell her that her genes make her look fantastic!
Of course, supporting this habit can be expensive. That's why every once in a while, I let her wear my genes, in a pinch. My genes are generally suited for function over form, but she enjoys them nonetheless! Sometimes, after experiencing the comfort of my genes, she swears she never going to look for new genes ever again! But I know better - her gene shopping impulses are FAR too strong...
Heaven forbid our youth finds out that the world isn't nearly as bad a place as our fear-mongering overlords paint it to be.
I for one welcome... Ah crap, I'm too afraid to finish...
Slashdot Mirror
I wish those student lawyers the best. The RIAA typically gets the best justice money can buy. If they can win this suit, they'll have long careers ahead of them.
Good point. I suppose government can use the same twisted logic it has applied to copyright to the venue of national secrecy, sadly.
Well then, label our American democratic project a hypocracy and let's get on with it.
:)
I'm not willing to be so cynical. I believe in the enlightened ideals upon which this country was built. I believe in the virtuous nature of a democratic-style government. I believe in the goodness of my fellow man, and in our capacity to come together and strive for something greater. Fundamentally, I believe in our ability to own our government, and make it work for us.
And I also believe we have a lot of work to do to get there.
The frontline battle is to get people to believe, to eschew a cynicism that does nothing but maintain the power of the status quo, and feel the sense of empowerment that our founding fathers intended us to have as citizens. To stop looking to government for answers and quick-fixes, but instead to participate in government to help seek common understanding and reach a social consensus on how to deal with harsh realities. To get people to believe that all races, genders, and generations are capable of this participation, and yet, recognizing that this is a skill, to mentor and train those who would seek further involvement.
I realize this is a utopian vision, to a great extent, and as such, I don't necessarily have my sights focused on an endpoint. Rather, this ongoing process of self-improvement, or the potential for this process, is what makes America great. We are a people that founded itself in the pursuit of something greater, and while our demise has often been proclaimed, wave after wave of generation has risen up to renew this pursuit. My vision is not for the endpoint, the realization of some grand society, but simply that this process that forms the strength of country not die out completely! And oh, how some in power would love to see this end...
To quote one of my favorite movies - I find your lack of faith disturbing. I understand cynicism, I see how people become frustrated with government, but I believe there's a better way.
Is Mr. Obama taking applications for speechwriters?
I'm going to guess that we have a fundamental disagreement on what constitutes the best interests of national security.
I would imagine that a great many of those items classified as "matters of national security" are items that would damage the bureaucratic class, and would more or less do no harm to the security of the American people. Or, perhaps this abuse, if it exists, actually harms the people, by failing to show us what government truly is, and by keeping us ignorant and placated. After all, the bureaucratic class is damaged only by our indignation at its existence, no?
The specifications of advanced military technological research (i.e. the Manhatten Project), and the identities of covert operatives are the only two things off the top of my head that justify being classified. Note that this does NOT include the amounts spent on or general focus of military research, nor the purpose and spending on covert operations. I want to know what my government is doing, even in these areas, ESPECIALLY in these areas, because it is here that the greatest potential for abuse lies, in my opinion.
When a corporation operates with this kind of lack of transparency, it's called Enron. Why do accept this kind of behavior from our government?
Each American citizen has an investment in government, predicated on that whole "By the people" schtick that a few goofballs advanced. Why can't we see that a bunch of bureaucrats are causing this investment to depreciate more rapidly than the dollar?
Indeed. Or the way I look at it:
If you choose to view the world as ordered, your life will be chaotic. So goes the scientist.
If you choose to yourself as ordered, the world will be chaotic. So goes the monk.
If you view the world as logical, you will be insane. If you view yourself as logical, then insanity is the only rational approach.
Of course, this is using a quite liberal definition of what it means to be insane...
Um, I think the point is that two articles/topics are related?
Ah, the irony of being flagged a troll for celebrating a triumph of science, albeit in a humorous way, in a thread mourning the decline of US science.
I'm not trying to be a troll here, but if the original post makes me a troll, pour it on. I'm off to go shed a small tear now, seriously.
Could be. If you look at the brain from an evolutionary standpoint, it's an organ that serves as an information-processing device meant to ensure survival of the physical body. As most of the dangers to our existence come from natural forces, it seems intuitive that longer-term mental projects focused on an understanding of the world in an attempt to mitigate these dangers more effectively. Indeed, the whole of human history is filled with the rise and fall of these projects. Religion, at least initially and in its most organic form, is an attempt to save existence from the clutches of death. Religion loses its focus, and we see the rise of science as a better means of understanding dangers. Science, at least initially and in its most organic form, is an attempt to save physical existence from the dilemmas it faces.
Perhaps we live in a world where the scientific project is losing its focus, and some sort of project that would protect mental existence must become the new paradigm. Whatever the case, I think the mental breakdowns that you talk about aren't the result of an overclocked mind, but rather of a mind that is ahead of its time, that is searching, stumbling about, for a paradigm to rest in, but which it can not find. The mental breakdowns the great thinkers suffer should warn us of this need, of the insufficiency of science on its own.
As much of a genius as we regard Fischer, or Newton, or any other great thinker, perhaps even they were reaching for something beyond even them, and we should forgive their stumblings, and instead look towards that for which they may have been reaching, consciously or subconsciously...
...a creationist museum in Texas is closing
Mod US science +1!
Sung to the tune of "Chocolate Rain" by Tay Zonday
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EwTZ2xpQwpA
(If you don't know, now you know)
VBA
So many people writing code in vain
VBA
Debugging apps is really quite a pain
VBA
Microsoft says it will not support
VBA
To C#, functionality we'll port
VBA
No rhyme or reason to deploy this mess
VBA
A seasoned coder really could care less
VBA
Slashdot will flame Microsoft either way
VBA
Now I'm confused why it is here to stay
I just got off the phone with a Mr. Romano - apparently, Everybody Loves Raytracing!
When a mind possessed of analytic capacities such as Fischer's turns those powers on the world, the result is inevitability some kind of psychosis. The world simply requires a more synthetic approach. While the content of Fischer's diatribes is certainly controversial, let's be wise enough to see they likely stem from the fact that he was a man trapped in his mind, unable to escape the analytical powers of his mind and live more holistically in the world. Even if the content of his politics had changed, it wouldn't change the fact that they were based in a mental misappropriation of the world.
Lets not remember the man for his faults, which boil down to misapplied genius if not true biological mental illness. Instead, let's remember the man for the great intellect that he possessed, and let his later political endeavors serve as reminder to us all of what can happen when we analyze the world from too great a distance instead of simply living inside of it.
Vivere in pace, Mr. Fischer, wherever your soul now resides.
Why do companies insist on applying this double-standard to the usage of technology? Consider the example of the book, something that has been around for the greater part of recorded history. Academics and researchers use books frequently, often making photocopies to extract passages of particular interest. The argument applied here would basically equate libraries with dens of piracy, mandating that a researcher by a new copy of a book every time they write a paper. Nevermind the fact that I might want to rip a whole CD to my iPod, maybe I only want to rip the one song I bought the CD for, and ditch the other eleven pieces of crap you tried to pass off as a full album.
The technological resistance to technology and information distribution that we face today seems unparalleled, with one exception - the printing press stirred the same issues, and brought radical change to a major social institution. When are the music industries going to realize that they WILL adapt, or die, and that maybe their strategies should reflect this fact?
Oh well, at least I can take comfort. The RIAA - the Real Impediment to Advancement Association - lost the battle before they even began to fight.
At this risk of begging for a -1 Troll mod, I really, REALLY hope this doesn't happen. The rich and powerful enjoy their property, and if you think you're going to give that up because the "rabble" beneath them has de facto lost faith in the concept of property, you're sadly mistaken.
Rather, this sounds like an argument for pushing people into conformity, while they are robbed behind your backs. Convince people that property doesn't exist, and it becomes easy to take it away from them. While the masses will be content with a minimum level of existence - but don't you dare strive for more! - the few will still enjoy the excesses in life. The abolition of property will occur only at the level of appearance, but to sate the greed of those with power, will continue to exist behind the scenes. (Think Al Gore and his power-hungry estates...)
If society moves in the direction you sense, it will imply a step back towards the Dark Ages, and a return to a feudalistic society. Of course, if the great mass simply desires serfdom...
Socialism, FYI, is a poor, poor application of Marxism. My take on Marx is that he believes in and advances the idea that individuals to be the direct owners of their creative forces, i.e. labor. Marxism, in a sense, is a fundamental SUPPORTER of property rights - you own your work, and no one else can or should exploit that! Every management salary that gets paid is, in a sense, benefiting in part from the productive labor beneath them. To simplify, a worker may give $100,000 of annual value to a company, but they actually receive $50,000 in pay, while his manager gains some benefit, as does the owner/stockholders.
In order for such a structure to exist, it does become apparent that the idea of a company most be rethought, that private ownership is in some sense anathema to Marx, because the idea of an owner that takes no benefit for himself makes no sense. Ownership at the level of the worker would imply some sort of management by election, a sort of executiveless entity that makes decisions through the majority will of the collective. Again, though, in a sense this is the same spirit that gave birth to America, and this concept simply means the democratization of the corporate world. However, the concept of property remains intact in that people own their labor, and the results of that labor. In fact, the concept of property might be brought into further clarity and focus if thought of this way. The change is a move from the idea of property as the apprehension of an external physical object, to the idea of property as an externality with its source found within the forces of the productive individual. Property as external object would still exist, but would be intrinsically tied to the individual. I would argue this is as relevant to physical things as it is to information.
That's the problem with American consumerism, really. It's not that we consume too much. It's that we've created this schism between property and self, instead of having an integrated view where property extends from my personal productivity and is an extension of myself. But then, I come back full circle, because I think the richest and most successful do have this viewpoint. Information does pose a problem, in that information is incredibly difficult to exploit when information can be transfered as easily as it can today. But consider - I have a piece of information on nuclear engineering because I found it on Google OR I have a piece of information because I studied nuclear physics for many years, became intimately familiar with the rules and laws that govern the field, and understand that information in an almost epiphanal quasi-enlightenment. The value of information is determined by the holder. And THAT moves towards what is for some a very uncomfortable alliance between knowledge and a Marxist view of labor/property...
No-one is forcing them to create an open standard that will allow other software to interact with MS Office documents, but they are. Shouldn't they get credit for that?
When they actually do that, get back to me, and I will give them credit. An open standard, OOXML is not. That's my real gripe.
Yeah, I probably could be more of an Apple troll... OMG iPhone!!!1!
Just speculatin', my friend. My observation (as I'm sitting here looking at a very stylized but average-performing Sony flat-screen monitor) is that Sony's products across the board emphasize a certain futurist aesthetic, and they rely on that to drive their products as much as the actual usefulness of the thing. Sony wants Apple's cool factor, but they can't quite get the actual implementation right. Some of Sony's products are better than others. In my opinion, they banked on this appeal to drive the PS3 as much as anything, and people are choosing function (availibility of games on the Xbox360, fun games on the Wii) over form (the PS3 is so cool! It's potential is unlimited!) in droves.
I'm a PS3 owner, by the way. I hope they succeed in driving strong sales through the holiday season - I don't want to see my small slice of investment go for nothing. I would be very excited if Apple jumped into the milleu, though. I think it's a logical extension of some of their other technologies. I doubt it will ever happen, personally.
By the way, did I mention iPhone? I have to go drool now...
I'm not holding my breath. But with convergence being the latest buzzword in the industry, and as gaming devices and media continue to meld, it does seem to make a certain bit of sense. Who would have thought before the Xbox that Microsoft would become a major console player? As I recall, that decision was greeted with its fair share of derision and skepticism. And really, why did Microsoft get into the market? I think they saw this convergence coming, and wanted to make sure that they were a player. Apple might be smart to through their hat into the ring, especially with EA coming on board as an OS X developer...
iTV = PS3 minus the games. That formula reduces to iTV = PS3.
I suppose MS and the weird friend both deserve to be on at least one watchlist...
/India for Playmate of the Year 2008
On the other hand, can you blame him? At the risk of sounding a little weird myself, is it just me, or did India become a little, um, top-heavy over summer vacation?
The last time I looked at the OOXML spec, it was the most non-spec spec document I had ever seen. It was chock full of references to Microsoft's proprietary legacy code, failing to provide the details that would really allow for an open implementation. The only thing Microsoft opened up was letting developers know exactly what functionality they weren't being allowed to properly use. If this spec had been passed, it would have been an open invitation for more anti-spec specs down the road. Meanwhile, is it really a coincidence that with the advent of applications like OpenOffice, Office 2007 featured a complete revamp of the Office UI? Methinks not... Microsoft is the functional equivalent of that guy at the bar that can pick up just about any women he pleases, but is cursed with commitment issues that keep anything meaningful from developing. Bring something real to the table, billg.
Sony = style, but no content Microsoft = content, but no style Apple = the perfect fusion of style and content Personally, I'm holding back my hard earned dollars until the iGame comes to market...
Is there a log in the hole in the bottom of the universe?
We do file synchronization of all our network files, and encourage users to store business-critical information on the network, with offline access if the user wants/needs to work from home. Additionally, we've created a group policy that remaps the user's My Documents folder to a network path, so this information is backed up as a part of our server backup procedures. Additionally, our engineers store their code in subversion, so any local copies of code are (in theory) stored on our server as well. This seems to cover most scenarios adequately. In about 2 years of working for this company, I've never had a major catastrophe where a user was not able to recover important files due to a lack of local machine backup.
My girlfriend has a very diverse set of genes. She has genes for going out, genes for lounging around the house. She often asks me if her genes make her look fat. Well, I certainly know she has some "fat" genes, but I always lie and tell her that her genes make her look fantastic! Of course, supporting this habit can be expensive. That's why every once in a while, I let her wear my genes, in a pinch. My genes are generally suited for function over form, but she enjoys them nonetheless! Sometimes, after experiencing the comfort of my genes, she swears she never going to look for new genes ever again! But I know better - her gene shopping impulses are FAR too strong...
Heaven forbid our youth finds out that the world isn't nearly as bad a place as our fear-mongering overlords paint it to be. I for one welcome... Ah crap, I'm too afraid to finish...