I actually wasn't thinking about their crash, I was more about their dealings with the energy crisis in California. Which I'm mostly sure was technically legal.
Governments or corporations, I really don't see the fundamental difference.
Name the small government that killed 20 million people?
Hmmmm, well Burma was pretty powerless to help it's people when disaster struck. And how many people died making the railroads across America? That's hardly any government, short of the company store.
Name that world-changing inventions that came from... government...?
Uhhhh, the Internet. NASA did a bunch of cool things. That whole nuclear thing. But maybe you just wanted, you know, totalitarian governments. Oh look, Russians.
In case you're wondering about being modded into oblivion, it's cause you're simply wrong. When playing chess, I am not "off". I'm thinking critically. It's not the job I'm paid to do, but it's not "vegging out". It's similar to how, when a salt miner comes home after work and pumps iron for whatever reason, it's not considered to be a lazy activity.
But yeah, minecraft is strangely addicting. Have you checked out Runecraft yet?
1) It from Anon.
2) It starts with "Move over (insert old product)"
3) A direct neural interfaces is the holy grail of computer input. There have been a lot of stories about it. This is not DNI. This is nowhere close. This is a small step, an important step. But the hype that surrounds these sort of stories is just appalling. And it's detrimental too. You jade the populace to scientific advancement and deliver them false hope.
Seriously, stop with the hype. I know it's exciting to live in the future, but try to temper it down when posting articles on Slashdot.
Why there needs to be a lot of strategy in a game for it to be enjoyable?
It doesn't need to have strategy to be fun, but having some form of critical thinking helps exercise your brain and has some redeeming qualities. Otherwise you're just vegging out.
There are the drooling masses of brain dead zombies who just want another shot of happy-juice and then there are the few who go out and do awesome things. You're free to choose which group you join.
It's a fallacy. Follow that path long enough and you'll consider the conservatives to be extinct.
And it's NOT "more government" vs. "less government", it honestly does matter WHAT the government does. We could get a very small government of ol' boys who control all of the economy with a whim and flick of their pen, or we could get a large bureaucratic government of endless paper-pushers that can't get anything done. Which is "more" and which is "less"? And regardless of of that, I'd call both a very bad idea.
And don't forget the vacuum. You take away or lessen government and you're only creating a void that something else will fill. True anarchy has an extremely short shelf-life. But usually it's some corporation that would take over. The perfect example being the deregulation of the power industry, and the rise and fall of Enron.
Huh, well you can consider conservatism well and cured since, oh, Regan took over.
Indeed, in that regard, the most FISCALLY conservative president since then would probably be Clinton.
Your threat assessment and purposed safeguards are out of date and lacking
1) A widespread "serious" virus issue probably isn't going to come in email MIME content. The days of that are over.
2) I vaguely understand the need to conserve the wireless spectrum during an emergency when everyone is trying to call everyone. But the wired backend is going to get nuked in those scenarios as well. Do you really think that telcom companies are keeping the infrastructure "emergency ready"? (they're not)
2a) So what about people trying to google "how do I set a broken bone?" or the medic with the droid app that finds the nearest pint of B negative.
3) Why advertising? Why not porn, WoW servers, webcomics, Usenet, fast-food ordering, or twitter? There's a real life balancing force involved with emergencies of the scale you're talking about (that scale being that non-vital internet services being shutdown would actually help), it's called people in an emergency zone logging off of WoW for a little while. Plus, if you stop an ad from showing up on a page served in SanFran to someone in Seattle, while a nuclear holocaust is happening in NY, you haven't actually helped anyone.
4) The same way that the power grid is occasionally tested? And that's a pretty good analogy. TV is for media broadcast, while the Internet is for so much more.
So you ideas are bad and you should feel bad. Even these super-high level day dream ideas. If you got ever so slightly more down to earth and actually tried to implement some of these ideas, and started to ask the important "how" question, your ideas would turn into ludicrously bad ideas.
Well sorry, that's also not technically true. More people voted for Gore in the 2000 election. Let me repeat that: Al "Inventor of the Internet" Gore won the popular vote. More people voted for him then Bush. Too bad that it doesn't mean jack shit because Bush won the electoral collage. Wheee, politics...
Even winning the popular vote, Gore only got 48.5% of those who voted, and the turnout wasn't anywhere near 100%. So no matter how you count, you can't say that most of America voted for Gore or Bush.
I'm sorry, but where exactly does the rage part come in? There's a lot of work to do, people get lazy, skip it, and submit things without properly checking everything they should. That's laziness, apathy, or simply being bad at their job. If there was any rage, I imagine that things would be smashed and people would drop kick printers, possibly to rap music.
Wait a second, this isn't some lame attempt to have a "road rage" analogy in an office environment is it? That's just a sad attempt at crafting buzz-words, and you should feel bad for it.
Yeah, they're set for life, but their kids, their kids' friends, their friends, their friends' kids, and their friends' kids' friends can all get on the dole. And while their career is set for life, their own bank accounts can grow.
the fact that we've realized there are other, better ways of getting what you want besides war.
No, I don't think so. Indeed, a lot of war-mongers seem to be forgetting this lesson. The US invaded and occupied Iraq after all.
In support of couchslug's post, I'd point out that irrational actors usually aren't so great at running a nation. The people that would strap one to their back and run into the enemy territory aren't the people who have access to nukes. The people who do hold the button have a lot more to live for then the guerrilla fighter hiding in caves.
Annoyances of the article's quality and purpose aside, there is the fact that computers, technology, and "New Things"(tm) are often viewed with untrust, fear, and outright contempt from the various demographics. The older, conservative, stick-in-the muds sort who don't like change. Kind of like the ill-will those on the far right show towards academia and intellectuals. It's a social trend that I hardly ever see, but when it does rear it's ugly head I'm always shocked and saddened.
One part of me wants to smack them upside the head and yell at them to put down their buggy whips. But that would be wrong. Another parts is glad that they're "missing out" on the awesomeness of the future. But that's also kinda wrong of me. So usually I just end up being befuddled and move on with my life as far away from them as I can. Technophobic Luddites.
Lines of code is a rough measurement for the amount of work you put into a project. There are coefficients for which language you use, and some minor adjustment for coding policy.
But more importantly, it's a measurement of FAILURE. The more work you put into a project to get it done, the worse you are as a programmer.
"Precious snowflake" is racist?
And while I kinda get the contrasting of the printer/inventor/dirty-old-man to the general, I'll have you know that Washington was perfect and I'll not hear otherwise.
Safe, sure, but safe from what?
Living in a padded room his entire life is ultimately going to put him in risk when he gets out of the house and his college room has, GASP, sharp corners! So how do you prepare him for such a life? Well at some point you take off the kid gloves, tell him not to fling himself into the furniture, and let him stub his toe until he stops doing it. It'll hurt, he'll cry, but he'll get better. Teach him to deal with progressing levels of risk throughout his life. Eventually he'll be an adult and can manage on his own.
Now, in the story, there was a mild risk of injury, and probably very little risk of death, but maybe you meant safe from death. That's totally understandable. You can't learn from death. But realize that simply being in a car, on the road, has a risk of death. Probably the riskiest thing the average person does in their life. At some point you simply have to accept that life comes with risk.
We have to weight the potential gains against the risk of loss and make decisions from there. But do it quick, otherwise that guys gonna careen into that intersection.
Which is my biggest problem with insurance companies. Too often they're in the business of saying "no" rather then doing their job of spreading out the cost of risky actions. There are incentives to keep people healthy and safe, but it's cheaper to hire lawyers apparently.
Yeah, a sibling shot you down, but I'd like to explain that space isn't that "cold". Sure, it's absolutely cold, but with no atmosphere there is no convection, so you only lose heat at the rate you radiate it, which isn't that bad. So astronauts on the moon or in deep space freezing to death isn't that big of a concern.
See space activity suit for more learnitude.
Also, it's not free energy. That's solar heat. Perhaps I'm being nitpicky here, but the term "free energy" was placed next to Unobtanium.
Up. You'd still have to look up to see the earth when standing around on the moon. They may all be moonbats up there, but they don't walk around on their hands.
Slashdot Mirror
Just because people want it, it doesn't mean its good.
Governments or corporations, I really don't see the fundamental difference.
Name the small government that killed 20 million people?
Hmmmm, well Burma was pretty powerless to help it's people when disaster struck. And how many people died making the railroads across America? That's hardly any government, short of the company store.
Name that world-changing inventions that came from ... government ...?
Uhhhh, the Internet. NASA did a bunch of cool things. That whole nuclear thing. But maybe you just wanted, you know, totalitarian governments. Oh look, Russians.
How's it compare to Dungeon Crawl? Or good 'ol vanilla Nethack?
In case you're wondering about being modded into oblivion, it's cause you're simply wrong. When playing chess, I am not "off". I'm thinking critically. It's not the job I'm paid to do, but it's not "vegging out". It's similar to how, when a salt miner comes home after work and pumps iron for whatever reason, it's not considered to be a lazy activity.
But yeah, minecraft is strangely addicting. Have you checked out Runecraft yet?
So does crack cocaine.
1) It from Anon.
2) It starts with "Move over (insert old product)"
3) A direct neural interfaces is the holy grail of computer input. There have been a lot of stories about it. This is not DNI. This is nowhere close. This is a small step, an important step. But the hype that surrounds these sort of stories is just appalling. And it's detrimental too. You jade the populace to scientific advancement and deliver them false hope.
Seriously, stop with the hype. I know it's exciting to live in the future, but try to temper it down when posting articles on Slashdot.
Congratulations, you've discovered casual gaming.
That poor bastard.
Why there needs to be a lot of strategy in a game for it to be enjoyable?
It doesn't need to have strategy to be fun, but having some form of critical thinking helps exercise your brain and has some redeeming qualities. Otherwise you're just vegging out.
There are the drooling masses of brain dead zombies who just want another shot of happy-juice and then there are the few who go out and do awesome things. You're free to choose which group you join.
It's a fallacy. Follow that path long enough and you'll consider the conservatives to be extinct.
And it's NOT "more government" vs. "less government", it honestly does matter WHAT the government does. We could get a very small government of ol' boys who control all of the economy with a whim and flick of their pen, or we could get a large bureaucratic government of endless paper-pushers that can't get anything done. Which is "more" and which is "less"? And regardless of of that, I'd call both a very bad idea.
And don't forget the vacuum. You take away or lessen government and you're only creating a void that something else will fill. True anarchy has an extremely short shelf-life. But usually it's some corporation that would take over. The perfect example being the deregulation of the power industry, and the rise and fall of Enron.
It's not so much a gene so much as a form of brain damage.
Huh, well you can consider conservatism well and cured since, oh, Regan took over.
Indeed, in that regard, the most FISCALLY conservative president since then would probably be Clinton.
This just in!
199.99997% of Americans think all articles are useless!
More at eleven!
Your threat assessment and purposed safeguards are out of date and lacking
1) A widespread "serious" virus issue probably isn't going to come in email MIME content. The days of that are over.
2) I vaguely understand the need to conserve the wireless spectrum during an emergency when everyone is trying to call everyone. But the wired backend is going to get nuked in those scenarios as well. Do you really think that telcom companies are keeping the infrastructure "emergency ready"? (they're not)
2a) So what about people trying to google "how do I set a broken bone?" or the medic with the droid app that finds the nearest pint of B negative.
3) Why advertising? Why not porn, WoW servers, webcomics, Usenet, fast-food ordering, or twitter? There's a real life balancing force involved with emergencies of the scale you're talking about (that scale being that non-vital internet services being shutdown would actually help), it's called people in an emergency zone logging off of WoW for a little while. Plus, if you stop an ad from showing up on a page served in SanFran to someone in Seattle, while a nuclear holocaust is happening in NY, you haven't actually helped anyone.
4) The same way that the power grid is occasionally tested? And that's a pretty good analogy. TV is for media broadcast, while the Internet is for so much more.
So you ideas are bad and you should feel bad. Even these super-high level day dream ideas. If you got ever so slightly more down to earth and actually tried to implement some of these ideas, and started to ask the important "how" question, your ideas would turn into ludicrously bad ideas.
Well sorry, that's also not technically true. More people voted for Gore in the 2000 election. Let me repeat that: Al "Inventor of the Internet" Gore won the popular vote. More people voted for him then Bush. Too bad that it doesn't mean jack shit because Bush won the electoral collage. Wheee, politics...
Even winning the popular vote, Gore only got 48.5% of those who voted, and the turnout wasn't anywhere near 100%. So no matter how you count, you can't say that most of America voted for Gore or Bush.
I'm sorry, but where exactly does the rage part come in? There's a lot of work to do, people get lazy, skip it, and submit things without properly checking everything they should. That's laziness, apathy, or simply being bad at their job. If there was any rage, I imagine that things would be smashed and people would drop kick printers, possibly to rap music.
Wait a second, this isn't some lame attempt to have a "road rage" analogy in an office environment is it? That's just a sad attempt at crafting buzz-words, and you should feel bad for it.
Yeah, they're set for life, but their kids, their kids' friends, their friends, their friends' kids, and their friends' kids' friends can all get on the dole. And while their career is set for life, their own bank accounts can grow.
the fact that we've realized there are other, better ways of getting what you want besides war.
No, I don't think so. Indeed, a lot of war-mongers seem to be forgetting this lesson. The US invaded and occupied Iraq after all.
In support of couchslug's post, I'd point out that irrational actors usually aren't so great at running a nation. The people that would strap one to their back and run into the enemy territory aren't the people who have access to nukes. The people who do hold the button have a lot more to live for then the guerrilla fighter hiding in caves.
Annoyances of the article's quality and purpose aside, there is the fact that computers, technology, and "New Things"(tm) are often viewed with untrust, fear, and outright contempt from the various demographics. The older, conservative, stick-in-the muds sort who don't like change. Kind of like the ill-will those on the far right show towards academia and intellectuals. It's a social trend that I hardly ever see, but when it does rear it's ugly head I'm always shocked and saddened.
One part of me wants to smack them upside the head and yell at them to put down their buggy whips. But that would be wrong. Another parts is glad that they're "missing out" on the awesomeness of the future. But that's also kinda wrong of me. So usually I just end up being befuddled and move on with my life as far away from them as I can. Technophobic Luddites.
Lines of code is a rough measurement for the amount of work you put into a project. There are coefficients for which language you use, and some minor adjustment for coding policy.
But more importantly, it's a measurement of FAILURE. The more work you put into a project to get it done, the worse you are as a programmer.
"Precious snowflake" is racist?
And while I kinda get the contrasting of the printer/inventor/dirty-old-man to the general, I'll have you know that Washington was perfect and I'll not hear otherwise.
Safe, sure, but safe from what?
Living in a padded room his entire life is ultimately going to put him in risk when he gets out of the house and his college room has, GASP, sharp corners! So how do you prepare him for such a life? Well at some point you take off the kid gloves, tell him not to fling himself into the furniture, and let him stub his toe until he stops doing it. It'll hurt, he'll cry, but he'll get better. Teach him to deal with progressing levels of risk throughout his life. Eventually he'll be an adult and can manage on his own.
Now, in the story, there was a mild risk of injury, and probably very little risk of death, but maybe you meant safe from death. That's totally understandable. You can't learn from death. But realize that simply being in a car, on the road, has a risk of death. Probably the riskiest thing the average person does in their life. At some point you simply have to accept that life comes with risk.
We have to weight the potential gains against the risk of loss and make decisions from there. But do it quick, otherwise that guys gonna careen into that intersection.
Which is my biggest problem with insurance companies. Too often they're in the business of saying "no" rather then doing their job of spreading out the cost of risky actions. There are incentives to keep people healthy and safe, but it's cheaper to hire lawyers apparently.
Yeah, a sibling shot you down, but I'd like to explain that space isn't that "cold". Sure, it's absolutely cold, but with no atmosphere there is no convection, so you only lose heat at the rate you radiate it, which isn't that bad. So astronauts on the moon or in deep space freezing to death isn't that big of a concern.
See space activity suit for more learnitude.
Also, it's not free energy. That's solar heat. Perhaps I'm being nitpicky here, but the term "free energy" was placed next to Unobtanium.
Up. You'd still have to look up to see the earth when standing around on the moon. They may all be moonbats up there, but they don't walk around on their hands.