You mean he went http://www.fas.org/nuke/intro/nuke/design.htm> and the FBI busted down his windows!!??!?! Jesus. Take the paranoia level down a few notches. The FBI is not waiting outside your window waiting for you to glance at porn or say something mean about Bush so they can crash through your window. Further, if the guy did anything illegal, it was probably run a warez FTP server.
If you really want to take paranoia all the way, even if there are honeypot documents on the web, you can probably safely assume that you are not going to be able to google for them. Further, even if such a honeypot existed, if your average American stumbled into it, it would at worst result in a quick security check on your name, at which point they would realize you are a stupid pasty kid in the basement with about as much capacity to build a nuclear bomb as my dog.
No, if you want to get in trouble using someone else's open WiFi connection, throw up a warez FTP, or even just download a pile of copywrited music.
The analogy is a stupid one. I have a wireless laptop. When ever I turn it on, it automatically connects to the WiFi of the guy upstairs. In fact, I generally have four wide open connections blasting through my apartment at any one moment. In order for me to not connect to his connection, I need to go through and disconnect from his network each time I boot up. His connection is wide open. It would be one thing if I had to hack into his network and steal a password, but if you are blasting a signal without even the most basic of encryption, it is safe to assume that you don't care who uses it. Hell, it doesn't have to be some super secret Slashdot elite encryption. Putting even the most basic of passwords up would be more then enough to signal that you are not leaving the connection open for the use of others.
If the guy using the connection did something destructive with the connection, I could understand the fuss. If he was just browsing the web over a wide open connection, I fail to see the issue.
The much better analogy is if you had the ability to broadcast over a short distance with radio waves and the guy down stairs picked up your radio. Is he supposed to assume that the crap you are spewing into the spectrum is private? Keep your damn broadcasting in your own house or put the most basic encryption up. If you have a WiFi network, signal your intentions or don't be surprised when people misunderstand them. If you can plug in your wireless router, you have more then enough technical expertise to figure out how to set up a password. In fact, most instruction manuals have you set up a password as part of the installation.
This is not a case of 'leaving the door open'. This is a case of blasting your WiFi network into public space without even the most basic attempts to defend it and having people pick it up. People won't come into your house to sit on your couch, but they might sit on your couch if you leave it outside on the sidewalk.
I agree with parent. What is next? Is some ass hole going to suggest that we are going to build a flying machine humans can use better then what nature has built in birds? This is just stupid. Humans can't fly and will never beat out evolution. The suggestion that humans could some how improve upon a few million years of trial and error is just totally inane. Next they will tell us they have thinkin'-gadets that can beat a chess master at chest./scaracsim
Simply put, never is a very long time. If you think humans have found the best and only way to do intelligence via evolution, well that is pretty fucking naive. The human mind is a product of trial and error working with a very limited materials and a very limited testing method. Not that I am implying I am ungrateful for my evolved mind, but I am not so full of myself to think that an intelligence that is working deliberately to build intelligence using materials never used in nature will be utterly incapable of beating the original.
Nature has done a lot of stuff that humans have not been able to reproduce - yet. However, there are many things that came about from millions of years of evolution that humans have handily superseded. I would take tank, or even a lightly armed marine, to over the best of what nature has to offer in terms of predatory adaptations. I would take the Hubble telescope over nature's best adapted eyes. I would rather fly a jet half way around the world then use nature's best adaptations to traveling. To think that humans will not out do evolution in terms of creating intelligence in the face of all the other things humans have handily beat evolution in, is simply too naïve for words.
You are entirely misunderstanding Kurtzweil if you think him a militant or a fascist. Kurtzweil talks about inevitability. Humans advance knowledge. Nothing short of some sort of anti-technology fascism is going to halt humans from advancing knowledge. Certain societies might choose to abstain in fear of a 'trans human' era, but unless those societies are willing to wipe out societies that choose not to abstain, there is an inevitability to Kurtzweil's line of reasoning.
Kurtzweil's line of reasoning is simple. As we amass more knowledge, the speed at which we amass knowledge grows greater. Further, he says we will come to a time when we build something that can begin to produce its own knowledge, and that this thing will create a singularity. That is to say that once we have machines that can amass knowledge and improve on themselves with that knowledge, technology will explode so rapidly compared to today that you can't even begin to comprehend life in this post singularity world. Such a technological singularity could appear so quickly that it might be that no one knows it happened until after the fact.
A lot of futurists believe all of the above. They argue against a human centric world as seen in most sci-fi. The idea of a crew of a few thousand running a ship as seen in Star Trek is silly to them because they argue AI will one day be able to do it better. I personally tend to agree.
What might be rankling you is Kurtzweil's take on whether or not having humanity eclipsed is a bad thing. Kurtzweil argues that humanity's eclipse is all but inevitable, but not necessarily a bad thing. People tend to take a dim view at having one's species wiped out, or at least rendered inconsequential. Kurtzweil argues that perhaps this eclipsing won't be such a bad thing. While having humans wiped out might be one possibility, a Garden of Eden created by appreciative creations might be another, as could the possibility of merging/joining with said creations.
A Garden of Eden to play in for as long as I desire or transcending to a higher plane of existence doesn't sound all that bad in my eyes.
Kurtzweil isn't a militant technologist. He is an optimist. Could you argue his optimism is naive? Sure. I personally take it as a welcome change. We have a morbid view of the future some times, especially in a future where humans have been eclipsed. It seems like everyone argues for a Terminator/Matrix style future where it has to be man Vs machine. Kurtzweil just offers up a little optimism that the future might not be all that bad and that it might be man with machine, or man carrying on merrily while machine goes off and does whatever.
There are two things you are apparently missing. First, people pay for useful advertisement. The more ineffective the advertisement, the less people are willing to pay. This is why the Wall Street Journal can charge more money then your local newspaper. So, if you were dilute the value of google's clicks, you just end up forcing them to charge less. The more worthless clicks they get, the less people are willing to pay.
Further, you VASTLY over estimate how much effect you can have on google's profits. Currently there are 277 MILLION shares of google out there. Each share is worth just under $300. How many shares do you own? Lets pretend that each click is worth a million dollars. That is right, one click and a million dollars appears in googles account. Lets also pretend that 100% of that profit is given directly to the investors. Before you make a SINGLE dollar, you will need to perform 277 clicks... and that is charging a million dollars per click.
Now, if the cost per click is 10 dollars, and you don't reap 100% profit, there are 277 million shares to dilute that profit... do I really need to do the math to show you what a stupid idea this is? Just go work at McDonalds, you will make far more money then you would sitting at home clicking on google ads.
You get no argument from me that a mouse is entirely impractical for anything other then a desktop. That isn't really my point though. My point is that the input they have now sucks. I can live without a mouse, I just want something that is at least comperable.
What is this magical interface device you can use while sitting at your couch yet still retain great control? Eh, if I knew the answer I would already be rich.
With HDTV soon to become the dominant TV platform the "advantage" of gaming PC's (graphic-wise at least) will dissapear
Console makers are just stupid, that is the reason why they have yet to completely oust PCs (not to say PCs have not taken a beating). The death blow for PCs will be when someone realizes that the reason why most PC gamers continue to use PCs is because of a $10 dollar piece of equipment. The only reason why I still have PC for gaming is because of the mouse. Consoles have a TERRIBLE input device. Granted, you can specially tailor games for it so that it is less painful, but face it, when it comes to fast and/or precise movements, the mouse thoroughly trounces the control pad.
Seriously, I would give up my PC in a heartbeat for a console if they could just offer an non-shitty input device. I AM a gamer. The idea of a machine dedicated to gaming is music to my ears. Now, they just need to spend less time working on making better graphics and frigging find a half way decent input device.
There is a simple test I am going to use that will help me decide when to buy a next gen console. The day a console player can play a PC player online in a FPS and not get brutally raped will be the day I switch. As it is, console makers wisely keep their online services separate from PCs. If they were to ever let the two meet online, I imagine console players would quickly realize what a shitty input device they are using as they go completely manhandled. The thought of a console player even attempting to compete with a PC player in a FPS is laughable at best.
Screw graphics, screw big name titles, just give me a decent input device standard with the console and I am sold.
"The problem with MMOGs is that casual players cannot compete with those who dedicate a significant portion of every day to playing."
"The problem with MMOGs is that casual players cannot compete with those who dedicate a significant portion of every day to playing."
I completely disagree. I don't play video games that much these days. I am too damned busy. That said, drop me into a game of Counter Strike, UT2004, or any FPS and bodies will fly. Just the other day I picked up CS Source after a few months of not touching it and promptly killed my way into first.
There are two things that prevent a n00b from killing a high level character in these games. The first is skill. If you don't know how to operate the controls, you don't stand a chance. It the same in an FPS. Drop someone who has never played a FPS into CS, and they will be dead very quickly.
The second thing that prevents a n00b from competing is levels. A level 1 could be a god when it comes to skill, and he will still get trounced by a retarded 3 year old with a level 50 character. THIS is the problem with MMORPGs today. The games are built to give a double bonus to people who play endlessly. Not only do they have the advantage of more practice, but the game is weighted such that regardless of your skill, you couldn't harm them even if they were sleeping at the keyboard.
How do you get around this? Simple. You go back to the 'true' vision of MMORPGs. I don't know about you, but before MMORPGs came out I didn't sit around and fantasize about a game where you wander from place to place killing utterly brain dead static NPCs for l00t and exp. The vision in my head was having a character in a living and breathing world, not running on a tedious leveling treadmill. I never would have imagined a game where someone armed with a frigging sword would be utterly unable to kill someone else who was taking not active defense.
Make an MMORPG that eliminates advancing levels and skills in a living and breathing world. Make weapons and armor balanced such that there is no weapon or armor that is the ultimate. Hell, make the difference between the best armor and the shittiest armor marginal. Now, and this is REALLY the key point to make this entire thing work, make gameplay that does NOT revolve around everyone wandering off to 'spawns' or 'camps' or 'instances' to kill NPCs for l00t and exp.
Making a living world where undead are slowly approaching your home city and you make desperate raids to thin their numbers as they approach... and by approach, I don't have static spawns that advance every patch day. I mean have them physically walk closer. If you raid them, have them send up an alert such that you need to run like hell before they muster a force large enough to crush you. If they get close to the city, have the city get put under siege. If it isn't defended, have the city destroyed.
Just make the frigging world interesting in it of itself. If the only way you can bribe people to stick around in your miserable game world is by feeding them exp and l00t, chances are your game world is static, dead, and dreadfully boring. Would you stick around in any of the MMORPG game worlds if suddenly you couldn't collect another drop of exp or l00t? Hell no. That should be a big flashing sign what these games are about and how primitive they are. Someone needs to grow some balls and try something new. There is nothing about online worlds that have to make them so that only crack addicts can enjoy them, it is just the current crop of shitty MMORPGs that run on that model.
Your single individual clicks are not going to make even a small blip on their income. Hell, every single google stock holder could click away and it wouldn't register. You are much better off to just get a job.
Finally, even if you could have an impact on google's profits, the only thing you will do is reduce the how much they can sell ad space for. People click ads all the time and don't buy anything. If the number of dollars recieved per click drops because of fradulent clicks, they will just be willing to pay less for google adds. So, the best you can hope for is to tarnish google's reputation and drop the cost of their ads.
One thing I am a little confused about is why hydrogen? My understanding was that the stuff you throw into your car offers much more bang for the volume. While it is nice that this UAV is, uh, eco friendly, why did they go with hydrogen instead of a petrochemical? I figure there must be some advantage (better power to weight ratio?), but I don't see it. Hydrogen packs less of a punch then petrochemicals and requires a sturdy and much heavier tank to hold. So why hydrogen?
Perhaps you missed the part when I mentioned that I want a game that redefines the genera and offers core gameplay that does not revolve around leveling up. Guild Wars is no genera breaker. The game is about mindlessly killing NPCs in a relatively dead world brought occasionally to the bare bones of life with scripted events. How many dungeon crawls can you go on before you want to start tearing out your hair?
Guild Wars is great in that it refined the genera and found a spiffy pricing scheme. However, the game still boils down to spending hours plowing a path through stupid NPCs for ph4t l00t and exp.
MMORPGs are piling on with the "ME TOO!" gameplay. Someone just needs to grow a pair and offer a truly living and breathing world that ISNT focused on slaughtering NPCs for l00t and exp. I am not against killing things. I don't want to play a puzzle game. I am against game play that revolves around killing shit to get levels and exp. Half Life 2 found pretty compelling reasons to kill things without offering up l00t or exp, why do MMORPGs find it so damn hard to do the same? Just make a game where your gameplay is actually FUN, not 'work' you have to do to get bigger and stronger.
Like I said, I have the greatest respect for Rockstar. They have proven they are completely willing to aim for epic, totally destroy preconceived notions of a 'genera', and deliver. Rockstar putting its footprint on the world of MMORPGs can only be a good thing. Hopefully they will crush the current flaming pile of shit that accounts for the current unoriginal crop of MMORPGs / Everquest clones.
If APB is just another MMORPG with the setting swapped out, it will suck. Period. The problem with MMOPRGs is NOT the lack of original settings. The problem is they fail to have even mildly creative gameplay. You couldn't pay me enough to play another leveling treadmill game. I tried EQ, AC, DAoC, WoW, and MO. Thanks, I am full now. You can take your shitty level treadmill and shove it, m'kay?
APB has the potential to explode because it has the potential to take the stupid 'leveling up' gameplay and do away with it. If this game is worth a damn it won't have epic raids - or if they are epic, they will be epic in that you got 40 of your bodies to go thrash the shit out of the some other gang, not because you spent 9 hours fighting your way into a dungeon and killing an NPC with 6 billion HP for ph4t l00t.
I rarely say this, these days when it comes to MMORPGs, but I actually have a little faith. I have had a number of gaming fantasies since I first unwrapped Doom. After seeing the original GTA (the 2d one), I had a gaming fantasy about a game where I could run amok in a completely open 3d city, stealing cars, shooting people, or stopping at every single red light. GTA3 came pretty fucking close to fulfilling all of those fantasies. If they can fulfill my fantasy for an MMORPG that isn't about leveling and has shit to do other then mindlessly kill NPCs for ph4t l00t, well, I will bow before their awesome power.
It is a shame few other gaming companies have even an once of the guts that Rockstar has. I don't want the evolutionary boring crap Blizzard shits out. I am glad they are the masters of taking an established genera and refining it, but I want a company that boldly tries new things. There are plenty of spineless companies like Blizzards out there producing more of the same. The Rockstar's are few and far in between. Hell, even to this day no one has had the guts to try and imitate GTA with anything more then half hearted lobtimized imitations.
Okay, you get your x-box with a keyboard, I'll take my duel core PC with 1gb graphics card and a MOUSE. We will play the FPS of your choice. Saying you would be pwn3d is putting it lightly... and mine would look better.
Thumbsticks make terrible control devices for FPSs. Put anyone mildly skilled with a mouse against someone mildly skilled with a thumbstick and it won't even be a contest. To me, playing with a thumb stick gives me flashbacks of FPS on the computer back when you could only use a keyboard and no mouse. It sucks, to say the least.
Personally, none of these consoles excite me. People are absolutely right when they say a dedicated consol has the potential to make a better game platform. Standard parts, dedicated processing to the game, mass market appeal... this are all good things. There is still one thing that makes me keep my computer and not bother buying a consol until its price is next to nothing; the shitty input devices. That consol controller is great for playing Mario or driving a car in GTA, but it is close to worthless compared to a mouse when fine and/or quick movements are required. FPS demand both fine AND quick movements with the control device.
If the next gen platforms really want to impress me, they will not revolutionize graphics, storage space, or anything of that nature. They will revolutionize their input devices. I don't want a novel input device (like the Donkey Kong drums). I want useful input devices. Namely, I want an input device that is at least the equal of a mouse. Until consoles get that, I have only a marginal interest in them.
Personally, I dream of the day when I can play X-box live users in a FPS with my PC. The unimaginable pwn4g3 that I could unleash on those poor little X-box bastards... Sadly, I imagine it will never happen. I doubt any console makers would let PC users have their way with the console users, as it would make the massive deficiencies in control scheme of consoles painfully clear.
Cable companies, even in areas where there is only one, absolutely do not have a monopoly. If you want cable stations, but not the cable company, buy a Dish. There are at least a dozen dish providers these days (if not more). There is also Netflixs, Blockbuster, or you can just buy a DvD if you don't mind changing what types of programs you get a little (and even then, most TV shows have DvDs). Finally, if you are willing to broaden even a little more and just want entertainment... well, that thing you are staring at right now is doing a good job at keeping your eyes off the TV right now. PCs have eaten into TV like nothing else.
Whatever the case, cable companies have a natural monopoly on laying cables. If those cables were the only way into your house, I would agree there is a natural monopoly. Seeing as how there a dozen other ways to get the exact same content, I think it is safe to say that they have no more of a monopoly then Pepsi has. Sure, only Pepsi sells Pepsi... but you could always by a Coke or a Root Beer instead. Narrow your definition of a product enough and every company has a 'monopoly' on their specific product and brand name. What really is important is the broader view. If you want HBO, NBC, Comedy Channel, or broadband, are there other options beside cable? Absolutely.
I would swallow the monopoly argument if they actually had one. In many places there might only be one cable company (two in my town though). If you decide you don't want to deal with the cable company, you might be shit out of luck as far as cable goes. However, cable is just a medium. A cable is no good to anyone, it is what comes through the cable that is important. When it comes to what comes through the cable, there is no monopoly. You have tons of choice - the most obvious being dish services. You also have some competing options in that general type of entertainment, namely DvDs from Blockbuster or Netflicks. PCs also compete with the TV for eyeballs (very effectively I might add).
It is like Pepsi. Pepsi has a monopoly on selling Pepsi. If Pepsi is what you crave, you can only get it from Pepsi. However, you can also get something similar to Pepsi by buying a Coke. If caffeine is what you are after then you can also buy coffee, tea, espresso, or Jolt gum (I love that stuff). If you narrow your view enough every company has a 'monopoly'. It really is the bigger picture that matters though. When it comes to feeding specifically cable programming entertainment, you have a lot of options due to dishes. If you broaden 'cable programming' to 'visual media', then your options explode. If your cable company is giving you a hard time, just ditch the bastard. There are plenty of alternatives.
We need more energy today because there are more things I want. Outside it is about 90 F. 50 years ago I would have flop down naked on my bed and sweat myself to sleep. Instead, I have a nice wall mounted AC to blast cold air at my bed. 50 years ago I would be listening to a little radio or reading a book. Not that I still don't enjoy the later activity, but I also like my computer, which currently sounds like a jet engine as the fans on it are trying desperately to keep it cool despite the horrid temperature of my apartment (AC is only in my bedroom). I drive to work which is roughly 30 miles away - an almost unspeakable distance to travel every day a 100 years ago. I got an MRI a couple years ago when I had a pain in my side. I have a flushing toilet. I have a cell phone, a laptop, a printer, a dishwasher, a washing machine, and a dryer.
Every single one of these things takes energy. Now, if you really think it is our duty to live without those things, let me point you to your nearest third world nation where you can spend the rest of your life not consuming more and more energy. The simple fact of the matter is that as time moves forward, so will technology. If you want to reap the rewards of that technological progression, you will need to consume energy.
Could we simply just stop and say enough is enough? Perhaps you could, but most people won't. In the same way your parents or grand parents gave up washing clothes by hand for the convince of it and now you would likely never give up the convince, so to will you accept technology and raise children who will refuse to give it up... and that is to say nothing of the BILLIONS of people in this world that don't even have what you have, see what you do, and demand the same thing. If you want to talk about an environmental disaster in the making, picture 5 billion other people in this world that don't have the same standard of living as you who will not be content remain have nots.
Technology is the only answer. 6+ billion people living like Americans, or even Europeans can not be sustained. Those people WILL rise. We can either have clean technology to meet their energy needs when they get here, or watched the number of dirty energy producing plants in this world rise exponentially. Personally, I would rather see us working towards technological solutions to meet the demands that will come, rather then watch as 5 billion people go through another messy industrial revolution.
I think this is just the nature of many far out there environmentalist groups. They loath technology and technological solutions. They are utterly obsessed with extrapolating the present to the future. "At our current rate" is their favorite phrase. If these people were in charge we would never have had an industrial revolution, or, as soon as we noticed how ugly the industrial revolution was, they would have advocated halting progression and changing society such that the status quo was sustainable.
The simple fact of the matter is that humans, especially in this day and age, are driven forward to solve their problems with technology. You build a technology, use it, find its flaws, then fix the flaws. So, yes, solar power is fine, as is wind power. What they utterly ignore these technologies are expensive, ugly in terms of resource usage, limited in application, and completely unsustainable for our energy needs without some sort of interference in our social lives. This is completely unrealistic. You are not going to convince a European, and certainly never convince an American that what they really need to do is slow or reduce their energy consumption to the extremes required AND eat the additional costs in taxes and economic productivity required to meet sustainable environmental goals with the technology we have. It is like advocating that the cure for war is for people to just for people to stop getting mad at each other. That certainly might be a cure, but it isn't going to happen in any of our life times.
What we need is a technology that can produce massive amounts of clean energy without any ugly waste products. Fusion is one of those technologies. It is worth pumping some money into it if in 50 years it means the world will have more cheap energy then it knows what to do with.
We have 6 billion people on this planet that all want power, cars, and a basic standard of living. We have a billion or so that live in relative luxury to the rest and utterly refuse to lower their standard of living, if for no other reason then the economic destruction they would suffering for doing so. This will NEVER be a sustainable state of affairs. The only way out is for the billion haves to figure out a way to keep what they have without being so destructive to the environment, and develop it for the have nots who make the environmental destruction of the haves look like pocket change. The three billion or so people sitting in between China, India, Pakistan, and Indonesia who currently have nothing are not going to stay that way forever, and a few solar cells are NOT going to meet their needs. Either we have a technology waiting for them when they rise out of poverty or the environment pays the price.
There certainly IS a human impact of some sort. The hard part is pulling apart how much of it is made by humans, and how much of it is made by other things. The most we really know for sure about global warming is that we are pumping up gases that cause global warming. It doesn't seem like a large logical leap to assume that if you are pumping up stuff known to cause global warming, you are a contributing factor. Anything outside of that and you enter the much more shaky territory of climate models. We really don't have great climate models at this point. Even if there was a climate model that is dead on, we really are not going to be sure it is dead on until some time has passed and we can test it.
So, saying that there is a debate around global warming is absolutely true. If you don't think there is a debate as to how much temperatures are going to rise and how much of that humans are causing, you are deluding yourself. The point of the article is that no matter what the ratio of human to not human effects is, if we really want to keep static temperatures, this is a way to do it.
"Any American company providing these kinds of services to an oppressive regime like Iran, China, North Korea, or what have you should have its corporate officers clapped in irons and dragged to The Hague."
So... can we drag the EU to the Hague for trying to sell lift their weapons sanctions on Europe too, or is this 'no dealing with dictators' rule only applied to American companies?
Face it, the entire world, including all of its democracies, have decided it wants to deal with these nations.
I completely agree with parent. In fact, I think I am going to go open up my blog RIGHT NOW and post a long winded rant about how the US is pretty much just like Iran, then mass mail to all the US senators. Then I think I will go to a chat room and advertise my awesome blog about how the us is JUST LIKE Iran. Man, it sucks living in the US.
I agree with parent. Can we really judge any nation right or wrong? Sure, Iran uses militia's and violence to hold onto its theocratic government, but maybe the people want to have violence used on them? Maybe if they could freely vote for whoever they wanted they would choose to vote in a dictator, and if that is the case, why bother even letting them vote if we already know the outcome? Hell, why are we also so mean to North Korea? Maybe the North Korean people want to starve by the millions and face the most inhuman political repression on the face of the planet?
If you use a relativistic argument of "maybe that is how they like it", then you can justify any atrocity. People to this day still risk life and limb to flee these places in the world. I don't even recall anyone risking life and limb to flee from the US, England, France, or Germany. I have no problem with some wiggle room in terms of what is acceptable. The US and France have fairly different economic and social systems, but there is a bare minimum of values common to both nations. I don't think either nations government has views that are radically out of line with that of the people in those nations. Are there disagreements within their respective nations? Sure. Are risking their lives to flee? No, they are using political solutions to keep everyone relatively happy. That is the bare minimum. You need a system where people can work out differences with politics. If your citizens are throwing themselves into cargo containers or floating across the ocean on pieces of drift wood, chances are you have not met this basic requirement.
Now, take nations like Iran, North Korean, and China. These are nations that need to have borders set up to keep people not only out, but in. That is generally a big flashing warning sign. Immigration happens. Hell, tons of Mexicans pile across the border to get into the US all the time. The differences is that it isn't the Mexican government that is trying to stop it. They are trying make it MORE legal to leave by working with the US. When a nation is preventing its citizens from leaving, something is deeply wrong.
So, should we be understanding of different cultures? Sure, and we are. France and Japan, and the US, no matter how alien to each other, will never suffer any serious disagreements or call the violent change of one another's governments. Different as these nations are, they all roughly represent our people and give their people avenues of political change should they be required. Is the problems the US and Europe has with Iran or North Korea come about just because of cultural differences? Hell no.
"Taiwan and mainland China are one in the same, as far as morality is concerned."
"Taiwan and mainland China are one in the same, as far as morality is concerned."
Did you read that before you posted it? Taiwan and China are not one in the same in anything other then how the UN has drawn their borders. That is like declaring Cuba and Mexico are the same. The two countries just barely even have diplomatic ties and just recently started let people travel between the two directly via Hong Kong. I should also point out obvious that Taiwan is a democracy. Taiwan has had a spotty past, but in this day and age their democracy is on par with South Korea's. That isn't to say they have a perfect democracy, but they absolutely meet the minimum requirements for a solid democracy by anyone's standards.
As far as punishing companies that work with China... people, really. The reason why companies work with China to build things like their fire walls is because we allow them to. Companies are mindless entities. If you set out rules, they will blindly follow them. Some times they break the rules, but for the most part, companies are just as law abiding (if not more so) then your average citizen. If we don't like the way that companies are operating, it is because of the rules (or lack of rules) that we have put in place.
Look, we choose our leaders. We have picked people that don't want to confront China. They want to assimilate China via trade. Is it a stupid method? Who knows, but it is the method the US, and the rest of the world for that matter, has chosen. The US didn't want another cold war, and Europe didn't exactly pick up the mantel of freedom and decide to go crusading via economic persuasion (Europe did try and sell China weapons though). If Europe, the US, and all of the other democracies of the world have chosen to not try and collapse the Chinese state... well, we reap what we sow.
Uh... if you don't like popular press, read alternative press. You clearly have an internet connection, you are complaining like an American, I am going to assume that you also live in America. Your internet is hence uncensored from home. Go read alternative news. Hell, that is what I do. I can't stand the crap that the mass media outlets shit forth... the simple alternative is to open up my browswer, hit a favorite button, and end up some place I like. Throw in a little pod casting and you can even get alternative news on your way to work.
I think you don't understand the ruling. Bittorrent is going to have zero problems. BT is used legally all of the time. BT can point to hundreds of companies that use the product for completely legal reasons. The only thing BT has to prove is that it was not intended to be used for piracy. It doesn't matter if it is used for piracy, so long as that is not its main objective. If anything that is used for piracy was illegal, you would have to throw out your computer.
It isn't a fcuking swear so long as you don't spell all of the letters in the god d@mn word right, you @ss hole.
Really people, if your goal is to spare people some fucking profanity, then just don't use that piece of shit word. I mean, for fucks sake, we know what it means, we think that word in our mother fucking heads, you didn't spare anyone. You just look like a fucking loser afraid to even type a curse.
While we are on the topic, I fucking hate those "too busy to fcuk" shirts. I know it is supposed to be a 'witty' way of saying 'too busy to fuck', but I generally see it as:
"I am a fucking tool. Look how I got suckered into smearing a corporations logo on my chest. This corporations logo makes me look bad ass right? It is kind of a naughty word. P.S. I am not getting without a doubt not getting laid. I am too busy busy to fuck because I am jerking off in the bathroom."
Slashdot Mirror
You mean he went http://www.fas.org/nuke/intro/nuke/design.htm> and the FBI busted down his windows!!??!?! Jesus. Take the paranoia level down a few notches. The FBI is not waiting outside your window waiting for you to glance at porn or say something mean about Bush so they can crash through your window. Further, if the guy did anything illegal, it was probably run a warez FTP server.
If you really want to take paranoia all the way, even if there are honeypot documents on the web, you can probably safely assume that you are not going to be able to google for them. Further, even if such a honeypot existed, if your average American stumbled into it, it would at worst result in a quick security check on your name, at which point they would realize you are a stupid pasty kid in the basement with about as much capacity to build a nuclear bomb as my dog.
No, if you want to get in trouble using someone else's open WiFi connection, throw up a warez FTP, or even just download a pile of copywrited music.
The analogy is a stupid one. I have a wireless laptop. When ever I turn it on, it automatically connects to the WiFi of the guy upstairs. In fact, I generally have four wide open connections blasting through my apartment at any one moment. In order for me to not connect to his connection, I need to go through and disconnect from his network each time I boot up. His connection is wide open. It would be one thing if I had to hack into his network and steal a password, but if you are blasting a signal without even the most basic of encryption, it is safe to assume that you don't care who uses it. Hell, it doesn't have to be some super secret Slashdot elite encryption. Putting even the most basic of passwords up would be more then enough to signal that you are not leaving the connection open for the use of others.
If the guy using the connection did something destructive with the connection, I could understand the fuss. If he was just browsing the web over a wide open connection, I fail to see the issue.
The much better analogy is if you had the ability to broadcast over a short distance with radio waves and the guy down stairs picked up your radio. Is he supposed to assume that the crap you are spewing into the spectrum is private? Keep your damn broadcasting in your own house or put the most basic encryption up. If you have a WiFi network, signal your intentions or don't be surprised when people misunderstand them. If you can plug in your wireless router, you have more then enough technical expertise to figure out how to set up a password. In fact, most instruction manuals have you set up a password as part of the installation.
This is not a case of 'leaving the door open'. This is a case of blasting your WiFi network into public space without even the most basic attempts to defend it and having people pick it up. People won't come into your house to sit on your couch, but they might sit on your couch if you leave it outside on the sidewalk.
I agree with parent. What is next? Is some ass hole going to suggest that we are going to build a flying machine humans can use better then what nature has built in birds? This is just stupid. Humans can't fly and will never beat out evolution. The suggestion that humans could some how improve upon a few million years of trial and error is just totally inane. Next they will tell us they have thinkin'-gadets that can beat a chess master at chest. /scaracsim
Simply put, never is a very long time. If you think humans have found the best and only way to do intelligence via evolution, well that is pretty fucking naive. The human mind is a product of trial and error working with a very limited materials and a very limited testing method. Not that I am implying I am ungrateful for my evolved mind, but I am not so full of myself to think that an intelligence that is working deliberately to build intelligence using materials never used in nature will be utterly incapable of beating the original.
Nature has done a lot of stuff that humans have not been able to reproduce - yet. However, there are many things that came about from millions of years of evolution that humans have handily superseded. I would take tank, or even a lightly armed marine, to over the best of what nature has to offer in terms of predatory adaptations. I would take the Hubble telescope over nature's best adapted eyes. I would rather fly a jet half way around the world then use nature's best adaptations to traveling. To think that humans will not out do evolution in terms of creating intelligence in the face of all the other things humans have handily beat evolution in, is simply too naïve for words.
You are entirely misunderstanding Kurtzweil if you think him a militant or a fascist. Kurtzweil talks about inevitability. Humans advance knowledge. Nothing short of some sort of anti-technology fascism is going to halt humans from advancing knowledge. Certain societies might choose to abstain in fear of a 'trans human' era, but unless those societies are willing to wipe out societies that choose not to abstain, there is an inevitability to Kurtzweil's line of reasoning.
Kurtzweil's line of reasoning is simple. As we amass more knowledge, the speed at which we amass knowledge grows greater. Further, he says we will come to a time when we build something that can begin to produce its own knowledge, and that this thing will create a singularity. That is to say that once we have machines that can amass knowledge and improve on themselves with that knowledge, technology will explode so rapidly compared to today that you can't even begin to comprehend life in this post singularity world. Such a technological singularity could appear so quickly that it might be that no one knows it happened until after the fact.
A lot of futurists believe all of the above. They argue against a human centric world as seen in most sci-fi. The idea of a crew of a few thousand running a ship as seen in Star Trek is silly to them because they argue AI will one day be able to do it better. I personally tend to agree.
What might be rankling you is Kurtzweil's take on whether or not having humanity eclipsed is a bad thing. Kurtzweil argues that humanity's eclipse is all but inevitable, but not necessarily a bad thing. People tend to take a dim view at having one's species wiped out, or at least rendered inconsequential. Kurtzweil argues that perhaps this eclipsing won't be such a bad thing. While having humans wiped out might be one possibility, a Garden of Eden created by appreciative creations might be another, as could the possibility of merging/joining with said creations.
A Garden of Eden to play in for as long as I desire or transcending to a higher plane of existence doesn't sound all that bad in my eyes.
Kurtzweil isn't a militant technologist. He is an optimist. Could you argue his optimism is naive? Sure. I personally take it as a welcome change. We have a morbid view of the future some times, especially in a future where humans have been eclipsed. It seems like everyone argues for a Terminator/Matrix style future where it has to be man Vs machine. Kurtzweil just offers up a little optimism that the future might not be all that bad and that it might be man with machine, or man carrying on merrily while machine goes off and does whatever.
There are two things you are apparently missing. First, people pay for useful advertisement. The more ineffective the advertisement, the less people are willing to pay. This is why the Wall Street Journal can charge more money then your local newspaper. So, if you were dilute the value of google's clicks, you just end up forcing them to charge less. The more worthless clicks they get, the less people are willing to pay.
Further, you VASTLY over estimate how much effect you can have on google's profits. Currently there are 277 MILLION shares of google out there. Each share is worth just under $300. How many shares do you own? Lets pretend that each click is worth a million dollars. That is right, one click and a million dollars appears in googles account. Lets also pretend that 100% of that profit is given directly to the investors. Before you make a SINGLE dollar, you will need to perform 277 clicks... and that is charging a million dollars per click.
Now, if the cost per click is 10 dollars, and you don't reap 100% profit, there are 277 million shares to dilute that profit... do I really need to do the math to show you what a stupid idea this is? Just go work at McDonalds, you will make far more money then you would sitting at home clicking on google ads.
You get no argument from me that a mouse is entirely impractical for anything other then a desktop. That isn't really my point though. My point is that the input they have now sucks. I can live without a mouse, I just want something that is at least comperable.
What is this magical interface device you can use while sitting at your couch yet still retain great control? Eh, if I knew the answer I would already be rich.
With HDTV soon to become the dominant TV platform the "advantage" of gaming PC's (graphic-wise at least) will dissapear
Console makers are just stupid, that is the reason why they have yet to completely oust PCs (not to say PCs have not taken a beating). The death blow for PCs will be when someone realizes that the reason why most PC gamers continue to use PCs is because of a $10 dollar piece of equipment. The only reason why I still have PC for gaming is because of the mouse. Consoles have a TERRIBLE input device. Granted, you can specially tailor games for it so that it is less painful, but face it, when it comes to fast and/or precise movements, the mouse thoroughly trounces the control pad.
Seriously, I would give up my PC in a heartbeat for a console if they could just offer an non-shitty input device. I AM a gamer. The idea of a machine dedicated to gaming is music to my ears. Now, they just need to spend less time working on making better graphics and frigging find a half way decent input device.
There is a simple test I am going to use that will help me decide when to buy a next gen console. The day a console player can play a PC player online in a FPS and not get brutally raped will be the day I switch. As it is, console makers wisely keep their online services separate from PCs. If they were to ever let the two meet online, I imagine console players would quickly realize what a shitty input device they are using as they go completely manhandled. The thought of a console player even attempting to compete with a PC player in a FPS is laughable at best.
Screw graphics, screw big name titles, just give me a decent input device standard with the console and I am sold.
"The problem with MMOGs is that casual players cannot compete with those who dedicate a significant portion of every day to playing."
"The problem with MMOGs is that casual players cannot compete with those who dedicate a significant portion of every day to playing."
I completely disagree. I don't play video games that much these days. I am too damned busy. That said, drop me into a game of Counter Strike, UT2004, or any FPS and bodies will fly. Just the other day I picked up CS Source after a few months of not touching it and promptly killed my way into first.
There are two things that prevent a n00b from killing a high level character in these games. The first is skill. If you don't know how to operate the controls, you don't stand a chance. It the same in an FPS. Drop someone who has never played a FPS into CS, and they will be dead very quickly.
The second thing that prevents a n00b from competing is levels. A level 1 could be a god when it comes to skill, and he will still get trounced by a retarded 3 year old with a level 50 character. THIS is the problem with MMORPGs today. The games are built to give a double bonus to people who play endlessly. Not only do they have the advantage of more practice, but the game is weighted such that regardless of your skill, you couldn't harm them even if they were sleeping at the keyboard.
How do you get around this? Simple. You go back to the 'true' vision of MMORPGs. I don't know about you, but before MMORPGs came out I didn't sit around and fantasize about a game where you wander from place to place killing utterly brain dead static NPCs for l00t and exp. The vision in my head was having a character in a living and breathing world, not running on a tedious leveling treadmill. I never would have imagined a game where someone armed with a frigging sword would be utterly unable to kill someone else who was taking not active defense.
Make an MMORPG that eliminates advancing levels and skills in a living and breathing world. Make weapons and armor balanced such that there is no weapon or armor that is the ultimate. Hell, make the difference between the best armor and the shittiest armor marginal. Now, and this is REALLY the key point to make this entire thing work, make gameplay that does NOT revolve around everyone wandering off to 'spawns' or 'camps' or 'instances' to kill NPCs for l00t and exp.
Making a living world where undead are slowly approaching your home city and you make desperate raids to thin their numbers as they approach... and by approach, I don't have static spawns that advance every patch day. I mean have them physically walk closer. If you raid them, have them send up an alert such that you need to run like hell before they muster a force large enough to crush you. If they get close to the city, have the city get put under siege. If it isn't defended, have the city destroyed.
Just make the frigging world interesting in it of itself. If the only way you can bribe people to stick around in your miserable game world is by feeding them exp and l00t, chances are your game world is static, dead, and dreadfully boring. Would you stick around in any of the MMORPG game worlds if suddenly you couldn't collect another drop of exp or l00t? Hell no. That should be a big flashing sign what these games are about and how primitive they are. Someone needs to grow some balls and try something new. There is nothing about online worlds that have to make them so that only crack addicts can enjoy them, it is just the current crop of shitty MMORPGs that run on that model.
Your single individual clicks are not going to make even a small blip on their income. Hell, every single google stock holder could click away and it wouldn't register. You are much better off to just get a job.
Finally, even if you could have an impact on google's profits, the only thing you will do is reduce the how much they can sell ad space for. People click ads all the time and don't buy anything. If the number of dollars recieved per click drops because of fradulent clicks, they will just be willing to pay less for google adds. So, the best you can hope for is to tarnish google's reputation and drop the cost of their ads.
This is supply and demand 101.
One thing I am a little confused about is why hydrogen? My understanding was that the stuff you throw into your car offers much more bang for the volume. While it is nice that this UAV is, uh, eco friendly, why did they go with hydrogen instead of a petrochemical? I figure there must be some advantage (better power to weight ratio?), but I don't see it. Hydrogen packs less of a punch then petrochemicals and requires a sturdy and much heavier tank to hold. So why hydrogen?
Perhaps you missed the part when I mentioned that I want a game that redefines the genera and offers core gameplay that does not revolve around leveling up. Guild Wars is no genera breaker. The game is about mindlessly killing NPCs in a relatively dead world brought occasionally to the bare bones of life with scripted events. How many dungeon crawls can you go on before you want to start tearing out your hair?
Guild Wars is great in that it refined the genera and found a spiffy pricing scheme. However, the game still boils down to spending hours plowing a path through stupid NPCs for ph4t l00t and exp.
MMORPGs are piling on with the "ME TOO!" gameplay. Someone just needs to grow a pair and offer a truly living and breathing world that ISNT focused on slaughtering NPCs for l00t and exp. I am not against killing things. I don't want to play a puzzle game. I am against game play that revolves around killing shit to get levels and exp. Half Life 2 found pretty compelling reasons to kill things without offering up l00t or exp, why do MMORPGs find it so damn hard to do the same? Just make a game where your gameplay is actually FUN, not 'work' you have to do to get bigger and stronger.
Like I said, I have the greatest respect for Rockstar. They have proven they are completely willing to aim for epic, totally destroy preconceived notions of a 'genera', and deliver. Rockstar putting its footprint on the world of MMORPGs can only be a good thing. Hopefully they will crush the current flaming pile of shit that accounts for the current unoriginal crop of MMORPGs / Everquest clones.
If APB is just another MMORPG with the setting swapped out, it will suck. Period. The problem with MMOPRGs is NOT the lack of original settings. The problem is they fail to have even mildly creative gameplay. You couldn't pay me enough to play another leveling treadmill game. I tried EQ, AC, DAoC, WoW, and MO. Thanks, I am full now. You can take your shitty level treadmill and shove it, m'kay?
APB has the potential to explode because it has the potential to take the stupid 'leveling up' gameplay and do away with it. If this game is worth a damn it won't have epic raids - or if they are epic, they will be epic in that you got 40 of your bodies to go thrash the shit out of the some other gang, not because you spent 9 hours fighting your way into a dungeon and killing an NPC with 6 billion HP for ph4t l00t.
I rarely say this, these days when it comes to MMORPGs, but I actually have a little faith. I have had a number of gaming fantasies since I first unwrapped Doom. After seeing the original GTA (the 2d one), I had a gaming fantasy about a game where I could run amok in a completely open 3d city, stealing cars, shooting people, or stopping at every single red light. GTA3 came pretty fucking close to fulfilling all of those fantasies. If they can fulfill my fantasy for an MMORPG that isn't about leveling and has shit to do other then mindlessly kill NPCs for ph4t l00t, well, I will bow before their awesome power.
It is a shame few other gaming companies have even an once of the guts that Rockstar has. I don't want the evolutionary boring crap Blizzard shits out. I am glad they are the masters of taking an established genera and refining it, but I want a company that boldly tries new things. There are plenty of spineless companies like Blizzards out there producing more of the same. The Rockstar's are few and far in between. Hell, even to this day no one has had the guts to try and imitate GTA with anything more then half hearted lobtimized imitations.
Rockstar, you pw4n my w0rld.
Okay, you get your x-box with a keyboard, I'll take my duel core PC with 1gb graphics card and a MOUSE. We will play the FPS of your choice. Saying you would be pwn3d is putting it lightly... and mine would look better.
Thumbsticks make terrible control devices for FPSs. Put anyone mildly skilled with a mouse against someone mildly skilled with a thumbstick and it won't even be a contest. To me, playing with a thumb stick gives me flashbacks of FPS on the computer back when you could only use a keyboard and no mouse. It sucks, to say the least.
Personally, none of these consoles excite me. People are absolutely right when they say a dedicated consol has the potential to make a better game platform. Standard parts, dedicated processing to the game, mass market appeal... this are all good things. There is still one thing that makes me keep my computer and not bother buying a consol until its price is next to nothing; the shitty input devices. That consol controller is great for playing Mario or driving a car in GTA, but it is close to worthless compared to a mouse when fine and/or quick movements are required. FPS demand both fine AND quick movements with the control device.
If the next gen platforms really want to impress me, they will not revolutionize graphics, storage space, or anything of that nature. They will revolutionize their input devices. I don't want a novel input device (like the Donkey Kong drums). I want useful input devices. Namely, I want an input device that is at least the equal of a mouse. Until consoles get that, I have only a marginal interest in them.
Personally, I dream of the day when I can play X-box live users in a FPS with my PC. The unimaginable pwn4g3 that I could unleash on those poor little X-box bastards... Sadly, I imagine it will never happen. I doubt any console makers would let PC users have their way with the console users, as it would make the massive deficiencies in control scheme of consoles painfully clear.
Cable companies, even in areas where there is only one, absolutely do not have a monopoly. If you want cable stations, but not the cable company, buy a Dish. There are at least a dozen dish providers these days (if not more). There is also Netflixs, Blockbuster, or you can just buy a DvD if you don't mind changing what types of programs you get a little (and even then, most TV shows have DvDs). Finally, if you are willing to broaden even a little more and just want entertainment... well, that thing you are staring at right now is doing a good job at keeping your eyes off the TV right now. PCs have eaten into TV like nothing else.
Whatever the case, cable companies have a natural monopoly on laying cables. If those cables were the only way into your house, I would agree there is a natural monopoly. Seeing as how there a dozen other ways to get the exact same content, I think it is safe to say that they have no more of a monopoly then Pepsi has. Sure, only Pepsi sells Pepsi... but you could always by a Coke or a Root Beer instead. Narrow your definition of a product enough and every company has a 'monopoly' on their specific product and brand name. What really is important is the broader view. If you want HBO, NBC, Comedy Channel, or broadband, are there other options beside cable? Absolutely.
I would swallow the monopoly argument if they actually had one. In many places there might only be one cable company (two in my town though). If you decide you don't want to deal with the cable company, you might be shit out of luck as far as cable goes. However, cable is just a medium. A cable is no good to anyone, it is what comes through the cable that is important. When it comes to what comes through the cable, there is no monopoly. You have tons of choice - the most obvious being dish services. You also have some competing options in that general type of entertainment, namely DvDs from Blockbuster or Netflicks. PCs also compete with the TV for eyeballs (very effectively I might add).
It is like Pepsi. Pepsi has a monopoly on selling Pepsi. If Pepsi is what you crave, you can only get it from Pepsi. However, you can also get something similar to Pepsi by buying a Coke. If caffeine is what you are after then you can also buy coffee, tea, espresso, or Jolt gum (I love that stuff). If you narrow your view enough every company has a 'monopoly'. It really is the bigger picture that matters though. When it comes to feeding specifically cable programming entertainment, you have a lot of options due to dishes. If you broaden 'cable programming' to 'visual media', then your options explode. If your cable company is giving you a hard time, just ditch the bastard. There are plenty of alternatives.
We need more energy today because there are more things I want. Outside it is about 90 F. 50 years ago I would have flop down naked on my bed and sweat myself to sleep. Instead, I have a nice wall mounted AC to blast cold air at my bed. 50 years ago I would be listening to a little radio or reading a book. Not that I still don't enjoy the later activity, but I also like my computer, which currently sounds like a jet engine as the fans on it are trying desperately to keep it cool despite the horrid temperature of my apartment (AC is only in my bedroom). I drive to work which is roughly 30 miles away - an almost unspeakable distance to travel every day a 100 years ago. I got an MRI a couple years ago when I had a pain in my side. I have a flushing toilet. I have a cell phone, a laptop, a printer, a dishwasher, a washing machine, and a dryer.
Every single one of these things takes energy. Now, if you really think it is our duty to live without those things, let me point you to your nearest third world nation where you can spend the rest of your life not consuming more and more energy. The simple fact of the matter is that as time moves forward, so will technology. If you want to reap the rewards of that technological progression, you will need to consume energy.
Could we simply just stop and say enough is enough? Perhaps you could, but most people won't. In the same way your parents or grand parents gave up washing clothes by hand for the convince of it and now you would likely never give up the convince, so to will you accept technology and raise children who will refuse to give it up... and that is to say nothing of the BILLIONS of people in this world that don't even have what you have, see what you do, and demand the same thing. If you want to talk about an environmental disaster in the making, picture 5 billion other people in this world that don't have the same standard of living as you who will not be content remain have nots.
Technology is the only answer. 6+ billion people living like Americans, or even Europeans can not be sustained. Those people WILL rise. We can either have clean technology to meet their energy needs when they get here, or watched the number of dirty energy producing plants in this world rise exponentially. Personally, I would rather see us working towards technological solutions to meet the demands that will come, rather then watch as 5 billion people go through another messy industrial revolution.
I think this is just the nature of many far out there environmentalist groups. They loath technology and technological solutions. They are utterly obsessed with extrapolating the present to the future. "At our current rate" is their favorite phrase. If these people were in charge we would never have had an industrial revolution, or, as soon as we noticed how ugly the industrial revolution was, they would have advocated halting progression and changing society such that the status quo was sustainable.
The simple fact of the matter is that humans, especially in this day and age, are driven forward to solve their problems with technology. You build a technology, use it, find its flaws, then fix the flaws. So, yes, solar power is fine, as is wind power. What they utterly ignore these technologies are expensive, ugly in terms of resource usage, limited in application, and completely unsustainable for our energy needs without some sort of interference in our social lives. This is completely unrealistic. You are not going to convince a European, and certainly never convince an American that what they really need to do is slow or reduce their energy consumption to the extremes required AND eat the additional costs in taxes and economic productivity required to meet sustainable environmental goals with the technology we have. It is like advocating that the cure for war is for people to just for people to stop getting mad at each other. That certainly might be a cure, but it isn't going to happen in any of our life times.
What we need is a technology that can produce massive amounts of clean energy without any ugly waste products. Fusion is one of those technologies. It is worth pumping some money into it if in 50 years it means the world will have more cheap energy then it knows what to do with.
We have 6 billion people on this planet that all want power, cars, and a basic standard of living. We have a billion or so that live in relative luxury to the rest and utterly refuse to lower their standard of living, if for no other reason then the economic destruction they would suffering for doing so. This will NEVER be a sustainable state of affairs. The only way out is for the billion haves to figure out a way to keep what they have without being so destructive to the environment, and develop it for the have nots who make the environmental destruction of the haves look like pocket change. The three billion or so people sitting in between China, India, Pakistan, and Indonesia who currently have nothing are not going to stay that way forever, and a few solar cells are NOT going to meet their needs. Either we have a technology waiting for them when they rise out of poverty or the environment pays the price.
There certainly IS a human impact of some sort. The hard part is pulling apart how much of it is made by humans, and how much of it is made by other things. The most we really know for sure about global warming is that we are pumping up gases that cause global warming. It doesn't seem like a large logical leap to assume that if you are pumping up stuff known to cause global warming, you are a contributing factor. Anything outside of that and you enter the much more shaky territory of climate models. We really don't have great climate models at this point. Even if there was a climate model that is dead on, we really are not going to be sure it is dead on until some time has passed and we can test it.
So, saying that there is a debate around global warming is absolutely true. If you don't think there is a debate as to how much temperatures are going to rise and how much of that humans are causing, you are deluding yourself. The point of the article is that no matter what the ratio of human to not human effects is, if we really want to keep static temperatures, this is a way to do it.
"Any American company providing these kinds of services to an oppressive regime like Iran, China, North Korea, or what have you should have its corporate officers clapped in irons and dragged to The Hague."
So... can we drag the EU to the Hague for trying to sell lift their weapons sanctions on Europe too, or is this 'no dealing with dictators' rule only applied to American companies?
Face it, the entire world, including all of its democracies, have decided it wants to deal with these nations.
I completely agree with parent. In fact, I think I am going to go open up my blog RIGHT NOW and post a long winded rant about how the US is pretty much just like Iran, then mass mail to all the US senators. Then I think I will go to a chat room and advertise my awesome blog about how the us is JUST LIKE Iran. Man, it sucks living in the US.
I agree with parent. Can we really judge any nation right or wrong? Sure, Iran uses militia's and violence to hold onto its theocratic government, but maybe the people want to have violence used on them? Maybe if they could freely vote for whoever they wanted they would choose to vote in a dictator, and if that is the case, why bother even letting them vote if we already know the outcome? Hell, why are we also so mean to North Korea? Maybe the North Korean people want to starve by the millions and face the most inhuman political repression on the face of the planet?
If you use a relativistic argument of "maybe that is how they like it", then you can justify any atrocity. People to this day still risk life and limb to flee these places in the world. I don't even recall anyone risking life and limb to flee from the US, England, France, or Germany. I have no problem with some wiggle room in terms of what is acceptable. The US and France have fairly different economic and social systems, but there is a bare minimum of values common to both nations. I don't think either nations government has views that are radically out of line with that of the people in those nations. Are there disagreements within their respective nations? Sure. Are risking their lives to flee? No, they are using political solutions to keep everyone relatively happy. That is the bare minimum. You need a system where people can work out differences with politics. If your citizens are throwing themselves into cargo containers or floating across the ocean on pieces of drift wood, chances are you have not met this basic requirement.
Now, take nations like Iran, North Korean, and China. These are nations that need to have borders set up to keep people not only out, but in. That is generally a big flashing warning sign. Immigration happens. Hell, tons of Mexicans pile across the border to get into the US all the time. The differences is that it isn't the Mexican government that is trying to stop it. They are trying make it MORE legal to leave by working with the US. When a nation is preventing its citizens from leaving, something is deeply wrong.
So, should we be understanding of different cultures? Sure, and we are. France and Japan, and the US, no matter how alien to each other, will never suffer any serious disagreements or call the violent change of one another's governments. Different as these nations are, they all roughly represent our people and give their people avenues of political change should they be required. Is the problems the US and Europe has with Iran or North Korea come about just because of cultural differences? Hell no.
"Taiwan and mainland China are one in the same, as far as morality is concerned."
"Taiwan and mainland China are one in the same, as far as morality is concerned."
Did you read that before you posted it? Taiwan and China are not one in the same in anything other then how the UN has drawn their borders. That is like declaring Cuba and Mexico are the same. The two countries just barely even have diplomatic ties and just recently started let people travel between the two directly via Hong Kong. I should also point out obvious that Taiwan is a democracy. Taiwan has had a spotty past, but in this day and age their democracy is on par with South Korea's. That isn't to say they have a perfect democracy, but they absolutely meet the minimum requirements for a solid democracy by anyone's standards.
As far as punishing companies that work with China... people, really. The reason why companies work with China to build things like their fire walls is because we allow them to. Companies are mindless entities. If you set out rules, they will blindly follow them. Some times they break the rules, but for the most part, companies are just as law abiding (if not more so) then your average citizen. If we don't like the way that companies are operating, it is because of the rules (or lack of rules) that we have put in place.
Look, we choose our leaders. We have picked people that don't want to confront China. They want to assimilate China via trade. Is it a stupid method? Who knows, but it is the method the US, and the rest of the world for that matter, has chosen. The US didn't want another cold war, and Europe didn't exactly pick up the mantel of freedom and decide to go crusading via economic persuasion (Europe did try and sell China weapons though). If Europe, the US, and all of the other democracies of the world have chosen to not try and collapse the Chinese state... well, we reap what we sow.
Uh... if you don't like popular press, read alternative press. You clearly have an internet connection, you are complaining like an American, I am going to assume that you also live in America. Your internet is hence uncensored from home. Go read alternative news. Hell, that is what I do. I can't stand the crap that the mass media outlets shit forth... the simple alternative is to open up my browswer, hit a favorite button, and end up some place I like. Throw in a little pod casting and you can even get alternative news on your way to work.
I think you don't understand the ruling. Bittorrent is going to have zero problems. BT is used legally all of the time. BT can point to hundreds of companies that use the product for completely legal reasons. The only thing BT has to prove is that it was not intended to be used for piracy. It doesn't matter if it is used for piracy, so long as that is not its main objective. If anything that is used for piracy was illegal, you would have to throw out your computer.
It isn't a fcuking swear so long as you don't spell all of the letters in the god d@mn word right, you @ss hole.
Really people, if your goal is to spare people some fucking profanity, then just don't use that piece of shit word. I mean, for fucks sake, we know what it means, we think that word in our mother fucking heads, you didn't spare anyone. You just look like a fucking loser afraid to even type a curse.
While we are on the topic, I fucking hate those "too busy to fcuk" shirts. I know it is supposed to be a 'witty' way of saying 'too busy to fuck', but I generally see it as:
"I am a fucking tool. Look how I got suckered into smearing a corporations logo on my chest. This corporations logo makes me look bad ass right? It is kind of a naughty word. P.S. I am not getting without a doubt not getting laid. I am too busy busy to fuck because I am jerking off in the bathroom."