Yes, it is ALWAYS better to err on the side of privacy. Federal Government should police corporations and organizations, and deal with foreign relations. State and/or local govornments should deal with just about everything else. The only time the federal govornment should be CAPABLE of interfering with state govornment is if the privacy or liberty of citizens are in jeopardy, and then only in the capacity of slapping the state government in question back in line. This was really the intent of our founding fathers in the first place.
I find it particularly funny that creationists are bashed mercilessly on Slashdot for their blind faith, while Slashbots act in very much the same manner when it comes to Windows versus Linux.
You bring up a great point. Let me tell you why this happens. Slashdot, for the most part, is the IT community, and, for the most part, composed of highly intelligent people who actually do read studies and question things.
Here's an anecdote to show what's really going on: Imagine some scientist writes up a study, and concludes that Everest is the tallest mountain on Earth. He or she will be battered by other scientists, who know that Everest is merely the tallest mountain on land, and that there are a great number of taller mountains along the ocean floors.
The IT community, much of which composes Slashdot, knows from experience that in nearly every server situation Microsoft products are the poorest choice. Sometimes it's because of security concerns, other times it's because of potential vendor lock, or performance issues, etc., but there's always a better choice than windows for servers. Now, there are areas where MS Windows kicks butt, such as some forms of multimedia development (Flash, Director)...Okay, well, that's all that comes to mind. My point is, trying to sell "Microsoft is better" FUD to the IT community is like trying to sell Everest as the tallest mountain to the geological community. They just know better.
And aside from personal views on creationism, let's look at the arguements. Every Intelligent Design arguement I've seen is based on classic con-artist tactics. As is most religious dogma. A Slashdotter, by now, should be able to smell bullshit a mile away, and they can. The reason ID get attacked so fiercely is exactly that. ID people make intelligent people want to scream, "Dumbass! You've been sold a half-baked con! Don't spread that shit around, you might infect others."
And as a final thought, this is Slashdot. You will get flamed, whether you are right or wrong. If you want to have a serious conversation on a given topic, this is not the place.
Of course Windows server software outsells Linux server software. The Linux distributions bundle all the server software you could ever need, whereas with Windows, you better be ready to decide which arm and leg you can live without, because you're paying for each one separately. Unless you manage to retain enough sanity to use open source software such as Apache. But then, you wouldn't be stupid enough to use Windows in a server environment.
Remember, friends don't let friends use Windows in a server capacity. As a desktop machine, maybe. But never, ever for a server.
If I were an ubergeek, which everyone who works for Google, by
definition, is, I'd be thinking:
0. Buy up all the dark fiber I can
1. Build an extremely powerful network based on IPv6, with serious
incentives for everyone to use it. (Blindingly fast network,
hassle-free VOIP, whatever)
2. ???
3. Profit!
Look at it this way. They already have the fiber. They are working on
the processing power. All they are really waiting for is a way to
handle the switching without converting the signal from light to
electical back to light. Since slowing
down the speed of light has been accomplished, this is not
far down the road.
Once that becomes reality, they will already be in the
position to take advantage of it and will pounce. It seems to me they
are positioning themselves to take over the internet, or rather make it
obsolete.
Why so many? Building a new internetrequires it. My
bet is, this will get rolled out in a smaller scale as some third-world
country to help industrialize them, while the press is still crooning,
it will be rolled out in the U.S., and everyone will jump on it because
it's been in the press as a modern marvel, and suddenly Google will
control all things digital.
Smell that freshly baked propaganda frosted with a heaping helping of hype. Mmmmm. Seriously. Vista is going to flop, mainly because XP can already do what people need their computers to do. No reason to upgrade. So beyond the initial rush of people keeping up with the Jones', it'll peter out pretty quickly. Then Microsoft will blitz every media source even harder and attack linux some more. Frankly, this sucks. I would rather have a root canal than have Vista ever get released. Just do it quietly, please.
What, were they not expecting a good, healthy slashdotting? I mean, after going public with something as nerdlicious as new icons? All cheap shots aside, the one icon I saw looks pretty clean.
Now, a better analogy for most of the books they want, which are out of print, is: Hand-me-downs. Say my oldest child has grown out of his clothing. What happens to the clothes? They sit unused. Then the next child grows to fit them. Does the oldest get to say no? Hell no. Those clothes are of no use to him any longer. It is in the public interest to recycle them. If that means the next oldest gets them, and gets use out of them, so be it. If that means we use them as rags to wash the family car, so be it.
These publishers should not have the legal right to retain copyright on works they no longer actively publish. They've made their money and outgrown the work. Let the next whippersnapper figure out a new way to make a buck off of them. Or release them to Public Domain, so we can wash the family car with them.
I might agree with you on books that are still in print. However, for books that are no longer being printed, a socially responsible publisher would release the publication into public domain when it has run it's commercial course. I particularly loved the publisher who said it was not the pubisher's responibility to police their copyrights. "We don't know if we published it or not, but we sure don't want you to be able to use it!" Wow. If you don't know whether it's yours, then you are not generating revenue on it any longer. Put it, then, where it truly belongs: in the hands of the public. There are so many useful things that could be done with it! But since you aren't generating money with it, and don't ever intend to, GIVE IT TO THE PUBLIC! Unfortunately, Congress has mangled and bungled copyright law to the point that this doesn't happen automatically anymore, and never will. So the onus is on the publisher and/or author to earn a little karma and give back to the public. Do it!
When I use IE, it's a matter of days or hours before I have extra toolbars taking up real estate on my browser. If I leave them alone, It's only a matter of a couple of weeks before I have less than two inches of actual browser window left.
Now, Firefox, on the other hand, does not have this problem. I've seen ONE thing add itself to my firefox browser without my putting it there. Since 2002. That makes Firefox the more pleasant experience, IMHO. Ok, so there are a few a**holes who program thier websites to only work with IE or maybe the now no longer developed Mozilla,(Yahoo Lauch/Music, I'm talking about you!), but there are relatively few. Most businesses "get it" that if they don't develop for Firefox they lose potential clients. So I'll stick with Firefox until it becomes unpleasant, thank you very much.
I've been wondering if there is ever going to be something that is a competitor, that's opensource. So far, I've not even seen a poorly done substitute. There's things you can do with Flash and/or Director that can't be duplicated by anything else out there, open source or not. Of course, the same things could be done, just not in a way that would be remotely competitive, both in the time it takes to create, or the amount of programming skills it requires. Which seems crazy. I mean, all in all, it would be no bigger a project than OpenOffice or Scribus or GIMP. Create a GUI, write a backend that translates what happens on the GUI into C or C++, then pump it through GCC and output an.exe or linux executable. It wouldn't be easy, but it wouldn't be much harder than, say, gutting Netscape's code and making Mozilla. It's a big hole in multimedia creation on linux. I mean, I can make 3D models on linux, but nothing that compares to a Flash movie. At least, not in the same amount of time.
There is no way whatsoever that licensing under the BSD is worse than the GPL, unless of course the real reason you want to give away code is not to help others, but rather to benifit yourself.
I think Open Source is about the benefit of all mankind. The point is, GPL'd code continues to benefit all mankind perpetually, even after the next guy adds to it. The BSD license does not. Therfore, with the BSD license, freedom can die. With the GPL, freedom is eternal. I'll take the eternal freedom, thank you. It's the difference between good, and Good(TM).
Could writting solid code be that hard for adobe????
I can't really knock adobe completely. Indesign and Photoshop can't be beat. (Though, Scribus is damn nice and serves admirably. The GIMP's good, but it's no Photshop replacement, not for a pro.)OTOH, just about everything else they have seems to have been coded by monkeys. And of course, now they have *cough*wisely*cough* purchased Macromedia, who didn't have a good program to shake a stick at.
I think the talent pool is there, from the Adobe camp and the exMacromedia camp, but for most of their stuff, they'd have to say, "Scrap all the old code. Just take what lessons we've learned and start fresh." And they are never going to do that.
Of course, there will still be the need for knives and guns for tool use and huting, and personal arms for policing. But if everyone disarmed simultaneously, we wouldn't need dedicated war equipment such as attack aircraft, aircraft carriers, tanks, nuclear missles, etc.
I can make a pretty devastating bomb with the household chemicals I've got sitting under my kitchen sink(though, i might need higher quantities.) I can forge a sword without too much more than what I have in my garage. If people want to wage war, the only way to stop them is a lobotomy. Humans is capable of devising weaponry from practically nothing.
Now, if you want to end wars, distribute the world's wealth in such a way that it becomes exponentially more difficult to accumulate large amounts of it. Also, the various religions must be reconciled back to one vision. Both are effectively impossible, as far as I can see, but do those two things, and war will be a thing of the past.
While I agree with most of what you said, allow me to throw some nuggets out there.
Not to pick on your bread and butter, but: History is important. Arguably extremely important. However, I have yet to ever see a history textbook used that was adequate to the task. The most important aspects of history are being totally ignored, often on purpose. Classroom history is mostly about memorizing dates and names. Boring. Useless, unless you manage to get on Jeapardy. What is important about history never seems to make it to the classrooms, and that is WHY. Why did the Union and Confederate armies seem to always be moving side by side? Why do battles seem to always take place at the same time of day? Why do we know the exact minute a battle started? History isn't about "what," it's about "why." If you want to fix history classes particularly, throw your textbooks into a pile and set them on fire. Then start teaching about why things happened the way they did. Write textbooks that encourage rampant discussion of why. It's the only way history is interesting, and the only reason it is important. I could care less if my kids can recite a list of all the Presidents. I do care that they know that almost every President who was assassinated was a non-Freemason, and that the person who replaced the assassinated President was invariably a Freemason. THAT is the kind of thing that is important. One can logically conclude that the presidents who were assassinated were killed because they refused to join a (at the time) secret society. Those are the kinds of facts kids need to discuss. Not the birthdate and date of death of George Washington.
Now, language is where the most immediate improvement could happen. I advocate Esperanto in schools. All arguements of making the world a better place aside, one year of learning Esperanto is worth FOUR YEARS of learning any national language. That's fact, do the research if you don't believe it. The reasons for that are multiple. It's very regular compared to national languages which makes it easier to learn (Four times easier, according to studies.) But the benifits are much greater than that. There is no quicker, easier, and more efficient way of exposing kids to the fact that there is life beyond our borders than introducing them to the Esperanto culture. I won't go on about that, but I will tell you I've made a huge understatement. And because the ratio of effort to reward is so high, kids will be far more likely to learn more languages past Esperanto, and grasp them more quickly.
Maybe my inner Libertarian is showing, but public schools are an abomination. Basically they are prisons where our children are forcefed conformity and drained of creativity and entreprenurial instincts. Proof of that lies in counting self-made millionaires in the last century and seeing how many of them completed or even attended public school.
I dare anyone to look up how many homeschooled children score perfect scores on the SAT's compared to those children in public schools. It's so staggering, they don't release those statistics willingly, you have to dig. It's several orders of magnitude. So if you REALLY want the best education for your child, don't put them in public school at all.
Right on. Every time Balmer opens his mouth poison oozes out. I've long since stopped reading anything he says. The same goes for the rest of the corporate zoo that is Microsoft. As far as the engineers that work there, from what I've heard there are some clueful people there. The problem is, they've been listening to that litany of corporate B.S. so long they have been brainwashed into thinking it's true. And who's at fault there? Of course, the engineers themselves, because they let their wallets rule their minds. So while I do believe all of them are at fault, 99.9% of the fault lies with the suits.
It seems to me that it equates more properly to climbing a telephone pole and hijacking someone's line to make a phonecall. I don't think that falls under theft, although it isn't legal either.
Agreed. Take your ball and go home, then.
A very similar thing to Moore's Law is happening in broadcast, too. It's cheap as hell now to produce indie films with good special effects. Maybe not so much one person could do it, but an acting troupe could. And now it's cheap as hell to deliver it, via the internet. People are already doing shorts, animated and otherwise, like crazy. Now, license it so that it can be displayed in it's entirety anywhere as long as they keep the commercial in with it, and bingo. You've got a business model, if your show gets popular enough. Or you can do it for the fun of it, Wayne's World style.
The point is, the paradigm for quality shows is set to change. Let it. The same thing that is happening with Open Source should be happening in every corner of the intellectual property contraption. Maybe with some new players on the field, we can see innovation again that isn't wizbang-ier special effects.
Yep, that's pretty epidemic. It's like that here in the U.S. as well. For instance, here in my state, I think the claim is 5.5%, but in large cities and small towns alike, nearly half the people you meet are unemployed, and barely scraping through by taking a welfare check and any odd job that comes their way, or underemployed, making far, far less than a person can reasonably live on here.
Basically they don't want to admit to the world that they are failing, so they fudge the numbers. Here it's done by only counting those people actively looking for jobs, who are not on welfare. Well, that pretty much cuts out 90% of the unemployed. So if you see 5.5% you should probably move the decimal place to the right one: 55%.
The problem here is with our education system, among other things. Our education system, at all levels (especially college), teaches people how to successfully work for "The Man," instead of teaching people how to successfully work for themselves. As a result, everyone is afraid to try to start up small businesses. Small businesses are the backbone of any healthy economy. When you start seeing less of them, when you see them failing all around you, that's a sure sign of trouble. High unemployment follows closely on it's heels.
And while I'm at it, stop f*ing shopping at Walmart! You are killing small business, and you are cutting your own throat. It may be a few bucks cheaper at the register, but its long term effects are MUCH more expensive. Don't f*ing shop there anymore! [/soapbox]
I agree. I am constantly puzzled by this argument. On one hand you've got radicals who say God created everything and how could you blaspheme against creation? On the other, you have radicals who say evolution is the only answer for it and everything can be explained by evolution.
Science and religion are not enemies. They coexist just fine, if you take out the radicals. Science and religion are like the wings of a bird. A bird cannot fly with one wing. Neither can mankind go any further until science and religion are reconciled.
I can't get too excited about anyone trying to prove or debunk the Bible. It's been mis-translated badly. The errors begin with the second word in Genesis: it should read "In THIS beginning..."(emphasis mine).
Nor do I worry too much about Evolutionists and their theories. There are just too many strange things that cannot be explained by evolution alone. Such theories completely ignore the spiritual aspects of life, like how a man can walk across hot coals without burning his feet.
Slashdot Mirror
So, this just means it's 1983. 1984 is still coming.
And of course: Living cells as computers? Once again Life imitates Star Trek.
Sounds like somebody's "Waaah" meter is pegged out. Go cash that Microsoft check and shut up, Otto.
Yes, it is ALWAYS better to err on the side of privacy. Federal Government should police corporations and organizations, and deal with foreign relations. State and/or local govornments should deal with just about everything else. The only time the federal govornment should be CAPABLE of interfering with state govornment is if the privacy or liberty of citizens are in jeopardy, and then only in the capacity of slapping the state government in question back in line. This was really the intent of our founding fathers in the first place.
Here's an anecdote to show what's really going on: Imagine some scientist writes up a study, and concludes that Everest is the tallest mountain on Earth. He or she will be battered by other scientists, who know that Everest is merely the tallest mountain on land, and that there are a great number of taller mountains along the ocean floors.
The IT community, much of which composes Slashdot, knows from experience that in nearly every server situation Microsoft products are the poorest choice. Sometimes it's because of security concerns, other times it's because of potential vendor lock, or performance issues, etc., but there's always a better choice than windows for servers. Now, there are areas where MS Windows kicks butt, such as some forms of multimedia development (Flash, Director)...Okay, well, that's all that comes to mind. My point is, trying to sell "Microsoft is better" FUD to the IT community is like trying to sell Everest as the tallest mountain to the geological community. They just know better. And aside from personal views on creationism, let's look at the arguements. Every Intelligent Design arguement I've seen is based on classic con-artist tactics. As is most religious dogma. A Slashdotter, by now, should be able to smell bullshit a mile away, and they can. The reason ID get attacked so fiercely is exactly that. ID people make intelligent people want to scream, "Dumbass! You've been sold a half-baked con! Don't spread that shit around, you might infect others."
And as a final thought, this is Slashdot. You will get flamed, whether you are right or wrong. If you want to have a serious conversation on a given topic, this is not the place.
Of course Windows server software outsells Linux server software. The Linux distributions bundle all the server software you could ever need, whereas with Windows, you better be ready to decide which arm and leg you can live without, because you're paying for each one separately. Unless you manage to retain enough sanity to use open source software such as Apache. But then, you wouldn't be stupid enough to use Windows in a server environment.
Remember, friends don't let friends use Windows in a server capacity. As a desktop machine, maybe. But never, ever for a server.
If I were an ubergeek, which everyone who works for Google, by definition, is, I'd be thinking:
0. Buy up all the dark fiber I can
1. Build an extremely powerful network based on IPv6, with serious incentives for everyone to use it. (Blindingly fast network, hassle-free VOIP, whatever)
2. ???
3. Profit!
Look at it this way. They already have the fiber. They are working on the processing power. All they are really waiting for is a way to handle the switching without converting the signal from light to electical back to light. Since slowing down the speed of light has been accomplished, this is not far down the road. Once that becomes reality, they will already be in the position to take advantage of it and will pounce. It seems to me they are positioning themselves to take over the internet, or rather make it obsolete.
Why so many? Building a new internetrequires it. My bet is, this will get rolled out in a smaller scale as some third-world country to help industrialize them, while the press is still crooning, it will be rolled out in the U.S., and everyone will jump on it because it's been in the press as a modern marvel, and suddenly Google will control all things digital.
Smell that freshly baked propaganda frosted with a heaping helping of hype. Mmmmm.
Seriously. Vista is going to flop, mainly because XP can already do what people need their computers to do. No reason to upgrade. So beyond the initial rush of people keeping up with the Jones', it'll peter out pretty quickly. Then Microsoft will blitz every media source even harder and attack linux some more. Frankly, this sucks. I would rather have a root canal than have Vista ever get released. Just do it quietly, please.
What, were they not expecting a good, healthy slashdotting? I mean, after going public with something as nerdlicious as new icons?
All cheap shots aside, the one icon I saw looks pretty clean.
Now, a better analogy for most of the books they want, which are out of print, is: Hand-me-downs.
Say my oldest child has grown out of his clothing. What happens to the clothes? They sit unused. Then the next child grows to fit them. Does the oldest get to say no? Hell no. Those clothes are of no use to him any longer. It is in the public interest to recycle them. If that means the next oldest gets them, and gets use out of them, so be it. If that means we use them as rags to wash the family car, so be it. These publishers should not have the legal right to retain copyright on works they no longer actively publish. They've made their money and outgrown the work. Let the next whippersnapper figure out a new way to make a buck off of them. Or release them to Public Domain, so we can wash the family car with them.
I might agree with you on books that are still in print. However, for books that are no longer being printed, a socially responsible publisher would release the publication into public domain when it has run it's commercial course. I particularly loved the publisher who said it was not the pubisher's responibility to police their copyrights. "We don't know if we published it or not, but we sure don't want you to be able to use it!" Wow. If you don't know whether it's yours, then you are not generating revenue on it any longer. Put it, then, where it truly belongs: in the hands of the public. There are so many useful things that could be done with it! But since you aren't generating money with it, and don't ever intend to, GIVE IT TO THE PUBLIC! Unfortunately, Congress has mangled and bungled copyright law to the point that this doesn't happen automatically anymore, and never will. So the onus is on the publisher and/or author to earn a little karma and give back to the public. Do it!
When I use IE, it's a matter of days or hours before I have extra toolbars taking up real estate on my browser. If I leave them alone, It's only a matter of a couple of weeks before I have less than two inches of actual browser window left.
Now, Firefox, on the other hand, does not have this problem. I've seen ONE thing add itself to my firefox browser without my putting it there. Since 2002. That makes Firefox the more pleasant experience, IMHO. Ok, so there are a few a**holes who program thier websites to only work with IE or maybe the now no longer developed Mozilla,(Yahoo Lauch/Music, I'm talking about you!), but there are relatively few. Most businesses "get it" that if they don't develop for Firefox they lose potential clients. So I'll stick with Firefox until it becomes unpleasant, thank you very much.
I've been wondering if there is ever going to be something that is a competitor, that's opensource. So far, I've not even seen a poorly done substitute. There's things you can do with Flash and/or Director that can't be duplicated by anything else out there, open source or not. Of course, the same things could be done, just not in a way that would be remotely competitive, both in the time it takes to create, or the amount of programming skills it requires. Which seems crazy. I mean, all in all, it would be no bigger a project than OpenOffice or Scribus or GIMP. Create a GUI, write a backend that translates what happens on the GUI into C or C++, then pump it through GCC and output an .exe or linux executable. It wouldn't be easy, but it wouldn't be much harder than, say, gutting Netscape's code and making Mozilla. It's a big hole in multimedia creation on linux. I mean, I can make 3D models on linux, but nothing that compares to a Flash movie. At least, not in the same amount of time.
I think Open Source is about the benefit of all mankind. The point is, GPL'd code continues to benefit all mankind perpetually, even after the next guy adds to it. The BSD license does not. Therfore, with the BSD license, freedom can die. With the GPL, freedom is eternal. I'll take the eternal freedom, thank you. It's the difference between good, and Good(TM).
I can't really knock adobe completely. Indesign and Photoshop can't be beat. (Though, Scribus is damn nice and serves admirably. The GIMP's good, but it's no Photshop replacement, not for a pro.)OTOH, just about everything else they have seems to have been coded by monkeys. And of course, now they have *cough*wisely*cough* purchased Macromedia, who didn't have a good program to shake a stick at.
I think the talent pool is there, from the Adobe camp and the exMacromedia camp, but for most of their stuff, they'd have to say, "Scrap all the old code. Just take what lessons we've learned and start fresh." And they are never going to do that.
I can make a pretty devastating bomb with the household chemicals I've got sitting under my kitchen sink(though, i might need higher quantities.) I can forge a sword without too much more than what I have in my garage. If people want to wage war, the only way to stop them is a lobotomy. Humans is capable of devising weaponry from practically nothing.
Now, if you want to end wars, distribute the world's wealth in such a way that it becomes exponentially more difficult to accumulate large amounts of it. Also, the various religions must be reconciled back to one vision. Both are effectively impossible, as far as I can see, but do those two things, and war will be a thing of the past.
Not to pick on your bread and butter, but: History is important. Arguably extremely important. However, I have yet to ever see a history textbook used that was adequate to the task. The most important aspects of history are being totally ignored, often on purpose. Classroom history is mostly about memorizing dates and names. Boring. Useless, unless you manage to get on Jeapardy. What is important about history never seems to make it to the classrooms, and that is WHY. Why did the Union and Confederate armies seem to always be moving side by side? Why do battles seem to always take place at the same time of day? Why do we know the exact minute a battle started? History isn't about "what," it's about "why." If you want to fix history classes particularly, throw your textbooks into a pile and set them on fire. Then start teaching about why things happened the way they did. Write textbooks that encourage rampant discussion of why. It's the only way history is interesting, and the only reason it is important. I could care less if my kids can recite a list of all the Presidents. I do care that they know that almost every President who was assassinated was a non-Freemason, and that the person who replaced the assassinated President was invariably a Freemason. THAT is the kind of thing that is important. One can logically conclude that the presidents who were assassinated were killed because they refused to join a (at the time) secret society. Those are the kinds of facts kids need to discuss. Not the birthdate and date of death of George Washington.
Now, language is where the most immediate improvement could happen. I advocate Esperanto in schools. All arguements of making the world a better place aside, one year of learning Esperanto is worth FOUR YEARS of learning any national language. That's fact, do the research if you don't believe it. The reasons for that are multiple. It's very regular compared to national languages which makes it easier to learn (Four times easier, according to studies.) But the benifits are much greater than that. There is no quicker, easier, and more efficient way of exposing kids to the fact that there is life beyond our borders than introducing them to the Esperanto culture. I won't go on about that, but I will tell you I've made a huge understatement. And because the ratio of effort to reward is so high, kids will be far more likely to learn more languages past Esperanto, and grasp them more quickly.
Maybe my inner Libertarian is showing, but public schools are an abomination. Basically they are prisons where our children are forcefed conformity and drained of creativity and entreprenurial instincts. Proof of that lies in counting self-made millionaires in the last century and seeing how many of them completed or even attended public school.
I dare anyone to look up how many homeschooled children score perfect scores on the SAT's compared to those children in public schools. It's so staggering, they don't release those statistics willingly, you have to dig. It's several orders of magnitude. So if you REALLY want the best education for your child, don't put them in public school at all.
Right on. Every time Balmer opens his mouth poison oozes out. I've long since stopped reading anything he says. The same goes for the rest of the corporate zoo that is Microsoft. As far as the engineers that work there, from what I've heard there are some clueful people there. The problem is, they've been listening to that litany of corporate B.S. so long they have been brainwashed into thinking it's true. And who's at fault there? Of course, the engineers themselves, because they let their wallets rule their minds. So while I do believe all of them are at fault, 99.9% of the fault lies with the suits.
It seems to me that it equates more properly to climbing a telephone pole and hijacking someone's line to make a phonecall. I don't think that falls under theft, although it isn't legal either.
Now we can start playing R/C Pikmin.
Agreed. Take your ball and go home, then.
A very similar thing to Moore's Law is happening in broadcast, too. It's cheap as hell now to produce indie films with good special effects. Maybe not so much one person could do it, but an acting troupe could. And now it's cheap as hell to deliver it, via the internet. People are already doing shorts, animated and otherwise, like crazy. Now, license it so that it can be displayed in it's entirety anywhere as long as they keep the commercial in with it, and bingo. You've got a business model, if your show gets popular enough. Or you can do it for the fun of it, Wayne's World style.
The point is, the paradigm for quality shows is set to change. Let it. The same thing that is happening with Open Source should be happening in every corner of the intellectual property contraption. Maybe with some new players on the field, we can see innovation again that isn't wizbang-ier special effects.
Basically they don't want to admit to the world that they are failing, so they fudge the numbers. Here it's done by only counting those people actively looking for jobs, who are not on welfare. Well, that pretty much cuts out 90% of the unemployed. So if you see 5.5% you should probably move the decimal place to the right one: 55%.
The problem here is with our education system, among other things. Our education system, at all levels (especially college), teaches people how to successfully work for "The Man," instead of teaching people how to successfully work for themselves. As a result, everyone is afraid to try to start up small businesses. Small businesses are the backbone of any healthy economy. When you start seeing less of them, when you see them failing all around you, that's a sure sign of trouble. High unemployment follows closely on it's heels.
And while I'm at it, stop f*ing shopping at Walmart! You are killing small business, and you are cutting your own throat. It may be a few bucks cheaper at the register, but its long term effects are MUCH more expensive. Don't f*ing shop there anymore! [/soapbox]
They slap an "Imminent Domain" sticker on it and keep right on rolling.
Science and religion are not enemies. They coexist just fine, if you take out the radicals. Science and religion are like the wings of a bird. A bird cannot fly with one wing. Neither can mankind go any further until science and religion are reconciled.
I can't get too excited about anyone trying to prove or debunk the Bible. It's been mis-translated badly. The errors begin with the second word in Genesis: it should read "In THIS beginning..."(emphasis mine).
Nor do I worry too much about Evolutionists and their theories. There are just too many strange things that cannot be explained by evolution alone. Such theories completely ignore the spiritual aspects of life, like how a man can walk across hot coals without burning his feet.
One without the other is bunk.
You said exactly what needed to be said, yet you didn't put a name to it. Tsk, tsk.