It won't happen because the internet is pretty much _the_ best medium. The odds aren't good for someone developing a better medium for information transport than the internet. Or what the $bad_word should be wrong with the internet? You can avoid censorship, can encrypt your messages, can rather easily find things... oh, wait, well, if the government decides that censorship must be absolute and that encryption is illegal, then we'll have another medium. Intranet, anyone? (Excluding idiot-accreting holes like YouTube. Reading comments on such pages isn't a wise thing to do.)
Is this actually news? Definitely not. It's a rather well-known fact that our brains "optimize" what we see. As with the photo of that man on Mars, it tries to identify what we see as something we know. Optical illusions such as this one are another example. First, we see a woman because a face is something that is easier to identify than a 2-dimensional musician (also, it's something we see more often). Observing it longer may cause one to see both at the same time.
Also, in Soviet Russia, optical illusions see you differently!
Christianity is thus not the "inspiration" for modern human rights, but the very opposite. That's not entirely true. Not that I'd like to promote any form of religion, but often religions at least restrain themselves by placing things we like to call "human rights" into their holy texts, e.g. the Bible or the Qur'an. Religions surely didn't place them into their texts to be nice, it's more likely that they were added to gain more followers because rights weren't such a common thing if we look back in history. Of course, the people who have invented religions were smart; otherwise, they would have gone for fewer followers via promises (afterlife) in exchange for their physical body. (They could've also gone the way of Scientology, but money wasn't their target.) And because more followers equal more people that may persuade others to join that religion, they restrained themselves and have given their followers rights.
As far as I know, the US almost always used their wars to decrease the privacy of its citizens; so, well, that includes this "War on Terror" although "terror" can't be fought. It's in your brain, not out there in the world, hiding in some Arabian mountains. Terror exists because you accept that there are so called terrorists, who, after the US-governmental-definition, are a bunch of bad guys who can only be fought by reducing everyone's privacy and bombing. From my point of view, the US-governmental-definition is as good as living in Orwell's 1984. A true terrorist, if one exists in reality, is someone you fear. Not only because he endangers your life, but your civil rights as well (radical ideologies). What is done to prevent these "terrorists" from harming people? Reducing your civil rights. Isn't that funny? They take the one thing from you which the "terrorists" also want. (Excluding your life because that's "only" for their cause.) Why not just call yourself a terrorist government? Oh, well that would be too obvious, wouldn't it?
That Large Hydrogen Cloud is actually the Large Hadron Collider. Just look at the characters! If you change some characters here and there, munch some characters up and then write it again, you get "Large Hadron Collider"!
As seen in other stories, our editors are obviously doing other things than checking if stories are actually dupes. But at least they've got a fine excuse: They still have not received their caffeine infusions due to their high level of social activity during Christmas.
Slashdot Mirror
It won't happen because the internet is pretty much _the_ best medium. The odds aren't good for someone developing a better medium for information transport than the internet. Or what the $bad_word should be wrong with the internet? You can avoid censorship, can encrypt your messages, can rather easily find things ... oh, wait, well, if the government decides that censorship must be absolute and that encryption is illegal, then we'll have another medium. Intranet, anyone? (Excluding idiot-accreting holes like YouTube. Reading comments on such pages isn't a wise thing to do.)
Also, in Soviet Russia, optical illusions see you differently!
As far as I know, the US almost always used their wars to decrease the privacy of its citizens; so, well, that includes this "War on Terror" although "terror" can't be fought. It's in your brain, not out there in the world, hiding in some Arabian mountains. Terror exists because you accept that there are so called terrorists, who, after the US-governmental-definition, are a bunch of bad guys who can only be fought by reducing everyone's privacy and bombing. From my point of view, the US-governmental-definition is as good as living in Orwell's 1984. A true terrorist, if one exists in reality, is someone you fear. Not only because he endangers your life, but your civil rights as well (radical ideologies). What is done to prevent these "terrorists" from harming people? Reducing your civil rights. Isn't that funny? They take the one thing from you which the "terrorists" also want. (Excluding your life because that's "only" for their cause.) Why not just call yourself a terrorist government? Oh, well that would be too obvious, wouldn't it?
That Large Hydrogen Cloud is actually the Large Hadron Collider. Just look at the characters! If you change some characters here and there, munch some characters up and then write it again, you get "Large Hadron Collider"!
As seen in other stories, our editors are obviously doing other things than checking if stories are actually dupes. But at least they've got a fine excuse: They still have not received their caffeine infusions due to their high level of social activity during Christmas.