But which, ultimately, will either a) connect to one of these backbones, or b) simply amount to much, as you can access what's in the backpack, and nothing else.
Or, if thousands and thousands of these pop up, and form their own network, then a few, who can afford better equipment, better locations, and keep the things up well, become defacto 'backbones' or 'primary nodes' or whatever you want to call them, and you're right back where you started.
I'll point out that the only reason I own a PS2 is for the Japanese RPGs that won't, in the forseeable future, wind up on anything which doesn't have a Sony label on it;.hack, Final Fantasy (Crystal Chronicles being the exception that proves the rule) and so on.
Oh, and for all the PSOne Japanese RPGs; other Final Fantasys, Xenogears, Star Ocean, Valkyrie Profile, Legend of Dragoon, and so on.
You're claiming that trans-oceanic return trips were 'thousands of years old' technology, when these people thought for sure that they were going to fall off the edge of the flat world?
Colonization of the New World wasn't about finding natives to slaughter; that was just an added bonus. It was about finding more land, new things, and, depending on who you're talking to, either extending the social order, or escaping from it.
But, when you get right down to it, why colonize Mars? Because we can. That which does not grow, dies.
But the problem there is that if you have a channel that is, say, 100 dollars per month to provide, and you have one hundred subscribers, each can pay one dollar to have it available.
If, however, you offer a-la carte, and only ten people actually want it, they either have to pay ten dollars per month, or simply not have the option.
One one hand, this is capatalism; if their product isn't good enough to sell, then fuck it. On the other hand, this is reality; some services need to be 'forced' into unprofitable areas; electricity/phone service to rural areas, for example.
Are the three alternate versions of the Discovery Channel worth forcing everybody to chip in for? Well, there's the debate.
In this case, I'd be referring to the 'she' in your example; if she feels nothing in return, has nothing to give in return, she's not going to love the fellow in question.
If you're watching a television show, and the TV show consists of an actor/actress of the appropriate gender looking right at you and saying 'I love you,' you're not going to be able to love her back, as you can't give of yourself to her. You can hate her, lust after her, be happy for her, cry for her, all sorts of things, but loving her would be very difficult.
The main component of love is that *you* are giving, not that the person you want to love needs to give; this is the problem.
Wright's solution is both practical and might survive a publisher's funding challenge. Nothing pulls people together emotionally like adversity.
I hate to say it, but...Darmok and Gilad at Tenagra.
The problem with 'love' is that, of all the human emotions, it's probably the most personalized. The average member of a given society is going to have an idea of what's heroic, what's scary, what's frightening, what's injust, and so on. Love, however, is differnet for everybody.
That and the fact that love is one of the few emotions that requires interactivity. You can invoke amusement, anger, lust, contentment, joy, all sorts of emotions, in a passive viewer. Love, however, requires as much giving as receiving.
This makes Will's idea especially interesting; it has all the elements to produce infatuation, certainly. What might make an interesting extention is that, if you're playing with somebody, and one of you gets killed, you can't play with that person again....
But the issue here is that human society tends to consolidate, not to fragment.
There was an earlier/. story about 'what if Microsoft never existed?' The answer, of course, is that some other company would have occupied the same space.
You pick any industry at all, and chances are that when the industry started up, there were tons of competing factions, and eventually, it consolidated down to a few. The auto industry is a prime example; in the early 1900s, there were hundreds of different manufacturers in America. Now, there's, what, three? Four?
People move towards a centralized authority. When they break away from central authority, they wind up creating a new central authority. The new replaces the old, it doesn't subvert it, supplant it, or destroy it. I can spout all sorts of cliches; the abused child grows up to be an abuser, it only takes thirty years for a liberal to become a conservative, whatever.
If the Internet breaks into 'walled communities,' then a central authority winds up springing up to manage the trust relationships between them; either directly, or indirectly, by a few 'peer to peer' nodes becoming the most trusted, and therefore, by default, becoming the 'master' nodes.
The other problem, of course, is that a decentralized system can be gobbled up, piecemeal, by a foreign centralized one. People moving to the (inter)national ISPs, away from local mom&pops, for example, because the big ones can offer better deals, economy of scale, whatever.
Granted, America seems to have forgotten that it's own roots are in armed rebellion, but still, I think referring to it as 'subversive' is a bit grandiose.
That and it would be pretty difficult to 'fake' an Internet connection. People are going to notice that their IM is registering as offline, they can't pop their mail, and how many random websites can you convincingly fake?
There's an old con where you dress up like a security guard, tape a sign over a night deposit slot at a bank, and stand there for a few hours, taking deposits. Sure, in theory, you could do the electronic equivalent now.
The motivation is essentially subversive but what other uses are there for a device like this?"
What's so subversive about putting an AP in your backpack? Oooh, you're sharing out whatever TCP/IP services happen to be running on your laptop. Great, you can be rooted on the go!
There is a great big hairy issue over that particular case because some state attorney generals are not sure it is legal to use some answering machines, specifically the tape type because it "makes a PERMANENT recording without notifying the person leaving the message". I don't see the difference with digital, but I'm not a lawyer, I'm honest, ethical, a member of the human race, etc..
With a digital, you can't pop out the tape, label it, and file it away.
Define 'intuitive.' I've heard it said that the only intuitive interface is the nipple; I'll point out that some babies can't even figure that out, and need to be manually fed.
Yes, it would be. However, as the parent says, you don't look for valid keys, you look for assigned keys.
If there's 20 million possible valid keys, but you've only made 500,000 CDs, presumably you know what CD keys you've put on those 500,000 CDs. So those are the keys you accept. Somebody comes in with a key outside of those 500,000, and they're obviously using a keygen of some sort.
Then either a) the company supplies you with a piece of such equipment, and notes in it's offical rules that it's allowable, or b) hires somebody to be on-site at all times.
Slashdot Mirror
But which, ultimately, will either a) connect to one of these backbones, or b) simply amount to much, as you can access what's in the backpack, and nothing else.
Or, if thousands and thousands of these pop up, and form their own network, then a few, who can afford better equipment, better locations, and keep the things up well, become defacto 'backbones' or 'primary nodes' or whatever you want to call them, and you're right back where you started.
Might have answered, in part, at least, your own question there, boyo.
I'll point out that the only reason I own a PS2 is for the Japanese RPGs that won't, in the forseeable future, wind up on anything which doesn't have a Sony label on it; .hack, Final Fantasy (Crystal Chronicles being the exception that proves the rule) and so on.
Oh, and for all the PSOne Japanese RPGs; other Final Fantasys, Xenogears, Star Ocean, Valkyrie Profile, Legend of Dragoon, and so on.
I loves my Xbox, yes I do.
Nah, they'll just offer a bundle.
You're claiming that trans-oceanic return trips were 'thousands of years old' technology, when these people thought for sure that they were going to fall off the edge of the flat world?
Colonization of the New World wasn't about finding natives to slaughter; that was just an added bonus. It was about finding more land, new things, and, depending on who you're talking to, either extending the social order, or escaping from it.
But, when you get right down to it, why colonize Mars? Because we can. That which does not grow, dies.
Replace the word 'Mars,' in your post, with 'The New World,' and you'll have conversations that took place several hundred years ago.
All of the reasons they came up with are still valid.
But the problem there is that if you have a channel that is, say, 100 dollars per month to provide, and you have one hundred subscribers, each can pay one dollar to have it available.
If, however, you offer a-la carte, and only ten people actually want it, they either have to pay ten dollars per month, or simply not have the option.
One one hand, this is capatalism; if their product isn't good enough to sell, then fuck it. On the other hand, this is reality; some services need to be 'forced' into unprofitable areas; electricity/phone service to rural areas, for example.
Are the three alternate versions of the Discovery Channel worth forcing everybody to chip in for? Well, there's the debate.
I don't think you understand.
In this case, I'd be referring to the 'she' in your example; if she feels nothing in return, has nothing to give in return, she's not going to love the fellow in question.
If you're watching a television show, and the TV show consists of an actor/actress of the appropriate gender looking right at you and saying 'I love you,' you're not going to be able to love her back, as you can't give of yourself to her. You can hate her, lust after her, be happy for her, cry for her, all sorts of things, but loving her would be very difficult.
The main component of love is that *you* are giving, not that the person you want to love needs to give; this is the problem.
I hate to say it, but...Darmok and Gilad at Tenagra.
The problem with 'love' is that, of all the human emotions, it's probably the most personalized. The average member of a given society is going to have an idea of what's heroic, what's scary, what's frightening, what's injust, and so on. Love, however, is differnet for everybody.
That and the fact that love is one of the few emotions that requires interactivity. You can invoke amusement, anger, lust, contentment, joy, all sorts of emotions, in a passive viewer. Love, however, requires as much giving as receiving.
This makes Will's idea especially interesting; it has all the elements to produce infatuation, certainly. What might make an interesting extention is that, if you're playing with somebody, and one of you gets killed, you can't play with that person again....
What Would Dell Claim?
But the issue here is that human society tends to consolidate, not to fragment.
There was an earlier /. story about 'what if Microsoft never existed?' The answer, of course, is that some other company would have occupied the same space.
You pick any industry at all, and chances are that when the industry started up, there were tons of competing factions, and eventually, it consolidated down to a few. The auto industry is a prime example; in the early 1900s, there were hundreds of different manufacturers in America. Now, there's, what, three? Four?
People move towards a centralized authority. When they break away from central authority, they wind up creating a new central authority. The new replaces the old, it doesn't subvert it, supplant it, or destroy it. I can spout all sorts of cliches; the abused child grows up to be an abuser, it only takes thirty years for a liberal to become a conservative, whatever.
If the Internet breaks into 'walled communities,' then a central authority winds up springing up to manage the trust relationships between them; either directly, or indirectly, by a few 'peer to peer' nodes becoming the most trusted, and therefore, by default, becoming the 'master' nodes.
The other problem, of course, is that a decentralized system can be gobbled up, piecemeal, by a foreign centralized one. People moving to the (inter)national ISPs, away from local mom&pops, for example, because the big ones can offer better deals, economy of scale, whatever.
That's not subversive; that's criminal.
Granted, America seems to have forgotten that it's own roots are in armed rebellion, but still, I think referring to it as 'subversive' is a bit grandiose.
That and it would be pretty difficult to 'fake' an Internet connection. People are going to notice that their IM is registering as offline, they can't pop their mail, and how many random websites can you convincingly fake?
There's an old con where you dress up like a security guard, tape a sign over a night deposit slot at a bank, and stand there for a few hours, taking deposits. Sure, in theory, you could do the electronic equivalent now.
What's so subversive about putting an AP in your backpack? Oooh, you're sharing out whatever TCP/IP services happen to be running on your laptop. Great, you can be rooted on the go!
Don't forget, it's 'subversive.' Yes, you too can destabilize government and society by carting around a fucking access point.
Playing an Atari 2600 game over .11b is one thing....
Aureal says that people don't really care about that sort of thing, unfortunately.
With a digital, you can't pop out the tape, label it, and file it away.
So which large company is backing OO.org?
Define 'intuitive.' I've heard it said that the only intuitive interface is the nipple; I'll point out that some babies can't even figure that out, and need to be manually fed.
Yes, it would be. However, as the parent says, you don't look for valid keys, you look for assigned keys.
If there's 20 million possible valid keys, but you've only made 500,000 CDs, presumably you know what CD keys you've put on those 500,000 CDs. So those are the keys you accept. Somebody comes in with a key outside of those 500,000, and they're obviously using a keygen of some sort.
Spoilers ahoy:
Of course you land close; you've already been to them all before.
Hell, in England, a fag refers to a cigarette.
There's a joke about this in Good Omens, when the brit has the opportunity (vastly simplifying here) to ask an American soldier for a fag.
"What do you do with fags?" inquires the soldier. "Why, we burn them." "RIGHT ON!" says the soldier; he'd always heard these Brits were rather soft.
Never filled out a timesheet or punched a clock, eh?
Then either a) the company supplies you with a piece of such equipment, and notes in it's offical rules that it's allowable, or b) hires somebody to be on-site at all times.
I'm confused; you want to be reachable all the time, even though it sucks the life force out of you?
This guy needs to a) be carrying a company paid-for (not a company reimbursed) blackberry or cell, and b) not routing stuff to his personal equipment.
Company won't spring? Get it in writing, and if something goes down after hours, oh well.