I heard that there was an effort to let all messenger services access each other. I don't remember where I read it, it was probably on Slashdot, but they were developing an open protocal or something to use for most messengerr. The Hotmail, Yahoo, and other messengers were jumping on, but AOL wasn't. And, btw, I still don't forgive AOL for creating a movie based on their crappy stuff. Or charging my credit card for a year after I canceled their service.
It is not the belief in morals or other things that people dislike. It is the attempts by some people who believe that their morals and beliefs should be universal to regulate freedom that most people have a problem with. Why is making laws that restrict our basic rights so nessicery? Morals are not universal. Ugly people go to hell.
I have played SoF on my badass new box with a GeForce2 GTS chip, and I have to admit that the images from the game instilled in my subconcience an insatiable bloodlust. After going on a murderous rampage, probably induced by satanic subliminal messages flashed on the screens at random times, I found that the murder of humans was not enough. I needed the blood... of... animals! I tried to resist killing them outright, I went to the San Francisco Steak House and had a rare steak, but that was not enough. I decapitated my sisters hamster by biting off its head, and nibbled on that for a quarter hour. After that, I cruised the back roads of Texas, slamming into armadillos and cats frequently and licking the gore off the fender of my 1997 Suburban. If my comments make anyone go on a murderous rampage, please post a description of your actions. Also, check out this page: www.meatstinks.com.
Perhaps it would also be possible for BlueLinx to implant a chip in the heads of people that clap in movie theaters that makes them burst into flames in a non-disruptive manner.
In the article, the author seems to describe everything with analogies to plants and other natural objects. However, his criticism of technology seems to be directed to a more technically astute audience, not the newbies that such analogies are usually aimed at. To whom is this guy writing?
I am unfortunately not able to use linux as much as I would like. Most of my work is done on Winblows and Linux is a hobby for me; I am still in the early stages of enlightenment. A just got a custom system with an Athlon 800Mhz processor, and it will kick ass. I have vowed never to buy Intel becuase even in they no longer use the PSN, they still have set a precedent for such sneakiness
A tiny flaw should hardly hurt AMD, they have done a good job of catering to the consumer that cares about what goes on in his box. AMD allows more freedom in overclocking, doesn't include PSNs, and makes a better product.
If you don't like information, don't seek it
on
The Regulon
·
· Score: 3
This article repeats one point over and over again: Information will grow unchecked, and eventually overwhelm us.
However, the author's rant seems to be nonsensical. You cannot apply Darwin's theories to non-organic things. Information does not reproduce by itself, it does not compete with us for food, and it doesnt even take up that much space. I can go buy a 60 Gb hard drive, and I can fit an enormous amount of information in the physical space that a hamstar would take up. Guess what else? I can format the sucker if it gets too full. In the parlance of this article, this would be equivalent to dropping an A-bomb on aa rainforest ecosystem.
Data exists at our whim, we can do what we want with it. If you are feeling overloaded by it, turn off your computer.
Slashdot Mirror
I heard that there was an effort to let all messenger services access each other. I don't remember where I read it, it was probably on Slashdot, but they were developing an open protocal or something to use for most messengerr. The Hotmail, Yahoo, and other messengers were jumping on, but AOL wasn't. And, btw, I still don't forgive AOL for creating a movie based on their crappy stuff. Or charging my credit card for a year after I canceled their service.
It is not the belief in morals or other things that people dislike. It is the attempts by some people who believe that their morals and beliefs should be universal to regulate freedom that most people have a problem with. Why is making laws that restrict our basic rights so nessicery? Morals are not universal. Ugly people go to hell.
I have played SoF on my badass new box with a GeForce2 GTS chip, and I have to admit that the images from the game instilled in my subconcience an insatiable bloodlust. After going on a murderous rampage, probably induced by satanic subliminal messages flashed on the screens at random times, I found that the murder of humans was not enough. I needed the blood... of... animals! I tried to resist killing them outright, I went to the San Francisco Steak House and had a rare steak, but that was not enough. I decapitated my sisters hamster by biting off its head, and nibbled on that for a quarter hour. After that, I cruised the back roads of Texas, slamming into armadillos and cats frequently and licking the gore off the fender of my 1997 Suburban. If my comments make anyone go on a murderous rampage, please post a description of your actions. Also, check out this page: www.meatstinks.com.
Perhaps it would also be possible for BlueLinx to implant a chip in the heads of people that clap in movie theaters that makes them burst into flames in a non-disruptive manner.
In the article, the author seems to describe everything with analogies to plants and other natural objects. However, his criticism of technology seems to be directed to a more technically astute audience, not the newbies that such analogies are usually aimed at. To whom is this guy writing?
I am unfortunately not able to use linux as much as I would like. Most of my work is done on Winblows and Linux is a hobby for me; I am still in the early stages of enlightenment. A just got a custom system with an Athlon 800Mhz processor, and it will kick ass. I have vowed never to buy Intel becuase even in they no longer use the PSN, they still have set a precedent for such sneakiness
A tiny flaw should hardly hurt AMD, they have done a good job of catering to the consumer that cares about what goes on in his box. AMD allows more freedom in overclocking, doesn't include PSNs, and makes a better product.
This article repeats one point over and over again: Information will grow unchecked, and eventually overwhelm us.
However, the author's rant seems to be nonsensical. You cannot apply Darwin's theories to non-organic things. Information does not reproduce by itself, it does not compete with us for food, and it doesnt even take up that much space. I can go buy a 60 Gb hard drive, and I can fit an enormous amount of information in the physical space that a hamstar would take up. Guess what else? I can format the sucker if it gets too full. In the parlance of this article, this would be equivalent to dropping an A-bomb on aa rainforest ecosystem.
Data exists at our whim, we can do what we want with it. If you are feeling overloaded by it, turn off your computer.