There is absolutely no defense for Japanese immigration policies. I visited Japan five years ago. While I was there I went to a bar with some Japanese men that I was working with. A woman came over to wait our table, took our orders, and left. All the men at the table with me immediately noted that she was not Japanese (I couldn't tell). Later on, I asked the woman about it and she explained that she was the granddaughter (or might have great grand daughter, forget) of a Korean laborer that was snatched up from Korea almost centaury ago. She is still not considered a citizen.
I am sorry, but that is just fucked up. France has more liberal immigration laws.
Maybe I am just an asshole American, but I think the world would be a hell of a lot better place if people would open up the borders a little and absorb a little culture. Cultural xenophobia, especially when rooted in ancient history, is just destructive. It blows my mind that Japan, Korean, and China all loath each other over what happened half a centaury ago. Hating someone's grandchildren for what someone else's grandfather did is just insane. Japan needs to come to terms with what happened in the same way Germany did, and the rest of Asia needs to simply let it go and stop letting their policies of today be dictated by the genocidal urges of a Japanese society and political system that has been thoroughly crushed for a good half centaury.
Anything that would make all life on Earth die would kill anyone on Mars too. Earth is full of water, oxygen, and tons of minerals. Even if the atmosphere was to turn toxic tomorrow, you simply can't get rid of all of that oxygen and water over night. If survival after some disaster is the reason to move to Mars, I suggest building self-sufficient underwater cities first. Not only would said city be swimming in H2O (ha ha, pun), but if you got sick of living inside you could just jump in a sub, take it to the surface, and go on vacation on the mainland.
The only reason to push off of earth is for resources and the more intangible benefits of having a new frontier to move out into. There is a lot to be said about having a frontier to move to. Even to this day people push west in the United States all the time for a change of pace. In my opinion, I think that a lot of these people going to California go more for the psychological benefit of 'going west' to the 'frontier' then for any practical reason. People pile up on the west coast because there is no where else left to go. If tomorrow there was a magical technology that made getting into space cheap and easy, I would be an arm and a leg, California would have more space ports then the rest of the US combined and people would pile on and blast off to the new frontier.
When people say they want humans in space, I don't think they have much in the way of practical reasons. Even when there are practical reasons, I think the true reason that drives them is not the practical reasons they give. I think mostly we want to go to space because it is there, it is empty, and we want to fill it up. Call it human nature. We are a species that migrates and moves. Something deeply instinctual in us that tells us to fragment and move on is probably going nuts in nationalistic societies that focus on unity. Humans and to fragment and throw themselves to the wind. Only powerful forces like nationalism makes it possible for us to overcome our urge to fragment and stake out for greener pastures (even if they don't exist)
There comes a time when you need to put paranoia aside in favor of helping people now. If you have a polymer particle that is diluted first into the human blood system to such low levels that it doesn't harm the human, then dilute it again the sewage system, then again into the ocean, then again into rain, then again into a lake, then through the water purification system, then finally into your tap water, and of those few that make it in, only the ones functionalized with something harmful need to be worried about... well, let's just say I am not terribly worried. Any time you experiment with some new chemical you are taking a risk that it is going to have effects that you can't see today. Could you potentially do the research to show that it will not have negative effects long into the future? Probably. Is it worth the millions or billions of dollars it will cost and the lives that will be lost by delaying the drug more then the FDA already does? Hell no.
Science involves risk. It involves risk to the scientist, to the first adopters, and to the public at large. There is a certain level of risk you need to accept or else you will bring science to a grinding hault. Not only does exessive risk prevention work result in lost money to conduct such studies, but it results in lost time and man power. Studying the decay rates and running water cycle models is time and manpower that is lost somewhere else.
I am not saying that risks should be ignored. I am not even against a cautious approach to new chemicals and technology. There however is a line that needs to be drawn where you accept risk, move on, and deal with the consiquences as they come. Simulating the water cycle and trying to combine a nanoparticle with everything it could run into nature to see if it could be potentially dangerous is a waste of time and resources.
Sure, this might make you feel uncomfortable, but guess what will make you feel even more uncomfortable? Having your body bombarded by potentially levels of radiation so high that it is potentially fatal.
There are so many ways to improve upon killing humans. Is one more way really worth worrying about? So someone has found a better way to diliver a chemical payload into a human cell. Certainly I bet someone can figure out how to make said payload lethal. Who cares though? We already have chemical and viruses sitting around that can kill within seconds. It is like worrying that some nation went from owning 5000 to 10,000 nuclear weapons, or worrying about getting shot 100 times rather then 50. If genocide is your goal, the tools are already avaliable.
I personally am excited at the prospect of a new treatments like the one outlined. Dead is dead. You can throw HF in my face or you can throw your nano-poisonin my face. Either way, the outcome is the same. On the other hand, nanomedicen is not chemo. Chemo has the potential to be almost as bad as the cancer. If a nanomedicen can kill cancer and do less harm to my body, I am all for it, paranoia be damned.
Perhaps I am crazy, but last time I checked well over 2/3 of the earth's surface was completely untouched. Further, that untouched area can be extended in either direction for at least a mile (if not more). Room is not a problem for humans and never will. Hell, even surface area is not an issue. Even if surface area was an issue, given sufficent power, we are more then capable to farming underground.
Personally, if I had the choice between living on a hostile planet with an unbreathable atmosphere or floating blissfully above or below the ocean with more air then I could ever possibly breath right above me, I would take the planet with abundent water, air, and a climate suitable for humans.
Further, even if we were insane enough to decide to move the population off planet instead of just filling in the unimaginable volume of our very own planet, the real issue would be moving that many people, not getting them there in one piece. If the population is 6 billion strong and grows at 1% per year, you would need to move over a million people a week off the planet just to keep zero population growth.
The paper said that attempts to input words in Chinese such as "democracy" prompted an error message from the site: "This item contains forbidden speech. Please delete the forbidden speech from this item." Other phrases banned included the Chinese for "demonstration," "democratic movement" and "Taiwan independence."
I personally think that this is an awesome compromise. Blatently reporting to a user that they are being censored is probably the most damning thing they could possibly do. Chinese censorship gets by because most of the time the people don't know that it is happening. They know that they are censored, but the when and where is what is in question. So, is it right that MSN is dealing with that government? No, but at least it is doing some less then subtle poking at it by blatently telling people they are being censored and writing articles about it.
There is an ideal world, and then there is a real world. In the ideal world, you can come to work with green hair a foot long bone going through your nose and no one will care. The real world, especially if you have to work with customers at all, you just can't allow such things.
The simple fact of the matter is that if you need to at some point come in contact with 90 year old woman, you can't have piercing and tattoos because you are very likely to scare her senseless. If you need to adovcate for someone and they are entrusting you with a large sum of money or their very lives, you need to convince them that you are trust worthy, dependable, and will not ruin them just to show off your individual flare. Hell, if I had to higher a laywer to defend me and he came to trail dressed like a biker, I would fire him without a second thought. To hell with his right to self expression, I need someone who is not going to anger an old conservative.
There are jobs out there when you can go to work looking like a leather pin cushin. If you decide to modify yourself in that manner, then you better realize that you have cut down on the number of places that will let you work for them. It is your choice of course.
Personally, I would suggest keeping work and the rest of your life seperate. The place where I work there is no dress code and most people work in a T-shirt and jeans. That said, no one has green hair or a metal spike through their mouth. I meet the informal dress code that says anything that is reasonable goes. On the weekend I might dye my hair blue with temporary dye, put it into spikes, drink enough to get black out drunk, and go to a punk rock show. The important thing is that on Monday morning the dye is totally washed out, I have recovered from my hangover, and I don't mention to anyone at work what I did over the weekend in great detail. Your personal time is your own. When you are not at work, it isn't personal time. If you don't want to be judged negativly, then just keep the two seperate.
Work is something you do for 8 hours each day on the weekend. Anything outside of those 8 hours is a-okay so long as it doesn't follow you back to work the next day. Just use common sense. If you want tattoos, get them in a place that you can cover. If you want green hair, get a wig. If you want piercings, get fake ones that don't pierce. If you want to wear leather, wear it when you are not at work. In a perfect world you wouldn't need to, but this is not a perfect world. Right or wrong, you can scare that old woman whose computer needs fixing to death just by how you look, despite the fact that most other people your age might not bat an eyelash.
People need to keep in perspective the use of said nanomaterial. If someone was to make a carbon nanotube spoon, I would be worried. If someone is going to make some memory based of carbon nanotubes and stuff it into my computer, I wouldn't bat an eye. Also at issue is the word 'nanotechnology'. Nanotechnology in it of itself is no more or less dagnerous then anything else. Protesting 'nanotechnology' is like protesting 'animals' because some of them are poisonus.
Personally, I don't see the issue. We already have a system in place to deal with new chemicals. New chemicals are created every single day and used. Nanotechnology products are just another new chemical. There is a pile of laws and regulations already in place to deal with these discoveries. This isn't like applying IP laws to the digital world where you are talking about some new shift in thinking. We are just talking about new chemicals. This is a problem we have been dealing with for hundreds of years. Just because we have found a cool technological word for it doesn't mean it is time to bust out the hippies.
Almost all nations have laws on the books that make piracy legal. I would say it is a safe bet that Indonisia also has these laws. Without them you face the prospect of trade sanctions and companies simply refusing to work in your nation. The real issue is not laws on the book. Nearly everyone has them. The issue is enforcement. Whenever the US and Europe deal with third world nations in trade pacts, almost without exception they haggle over enforcement of IP. I would say it is a safe bet that Indonesia is violating its own laws by using pirated copies of Windows.
Now, as to why they would bother to enforce such laws? The biggest reason is likely support and trade standing. Snide comments aside, it is nice to be able to call up Microsoft and get support if you are having problems. Probably the bigger issue is that they want to enforce piracy laws. If they enforce piracy laws better they will get better perks in trade packages. When they walk into a trade deal and it is known that the government is pirating software, well it just looks ugly. If you can't enforce an IP law among your own government works, people are going to be skeptical about your ability to do it in the population at large.
My point? Most nations have rules on the book that protect IP. The real issue is whether or not they enforce it. So, Indonesia can choose not to enforce the law, but they are breaking their own law. As far as international trade is concerned, it is probably in there best interest to pay the paltry some and pay lip service to their own laws to get perks on future trade deals.
Apparently we are arguing the same thing. I have read all the reviews. I see a refined traditional MMORPG. You read the reviews and see a refined traditional MMORPG. The difference between you and me, is that I see another game obsessed with tactical combat and levels as squandering the potential of dragging together a few thousand people into an online world.
Think of your wet dream game far into the future with full VR suits. Is it a game where you log in, go to a dungeon, and hunt down NPCs for experience and loot? If it is, great. The future is here for you. You have just described the fundamental gameplay of every single MMORPG with the possible exception of UO.
I on the other hand picture a living and breathing game world where you don't arbitrarily go out and hunt things down for l00t and experience. Maybe you do go and hunt things down, but it isn't in some static dungeon. Maybe a horde of undead move in and slowly work their way torwards your home city. Instead of respawning they kill and convert other NPCs on their way towards your city to join the army. If you kill one, it doesn't respawn. When you launch a raid, you actually launch a true raid. You sneak into one of their camps, kill a few, then run like hell before they mount gather the forces to crush you. When they get to the city walls, they lay siege. If the people of the city fail to defend the city, it gets burned to the ground and the army moves on bigger and more powerful. Hell, it might very well end up where in this little fantasy game you can actually loose. The game world might be entirely overrun with undead and all pockets of resistance are crushed, and the game gets reset.
My point? These games are dead static dungeons. Even the most dynamic MMORPGs to date could barely be called dynamic, and they sure as hell couldn't be called living and breathing worlds. The story lines are pathetic and preplanned. The ability of players to actually shape the world is limited to creating a story that involves a bunch of high levels fighting into a zone and killing a boss monster.
MMORPGs need to grow up and grow some balls. The Diablo gameplay is getting boring. Someone needs to make an effort to break out of this mold, not recast it with improvements. HJ by all accounts is traditional MMORPG with cool new features. The key word is 'features'. Nothing fundamental has changed.
So, yes, HJ might very well be the best MMORPG ever created. It might be the most fun one out there, but with the current crop of gutless MMORPGs, that isn't saying much.
I hate to burst your bubble, but as a long time MUD player I know the record. I want to see Gemstone 3 with graphics roughly about as badly as I want to see someone make a sequal to Everquest... oh... shit.
Maybe you and I were playing different games here, but I am pretty damned sure that their MUDs had the same hack and slash game play as nearly every other MUD out there. MUDs were not the holy grail of gaming. There were some great ones that turned the boring hack and slash crap on its head. ArmageddonMUD and Harshlands come to mind. Gemstone doesn't. The only thing that made their MUDs special was the fact that they got them on AOL instead of forcing people to go through Telnet, as a result, they had a massive (compartivly) population. That is the only thing that made those MUDs unique.
"What they're trying to do is take everything that's made their MUD's successful..."
Everything that made their MUD's successful? You mean they putting it on AOL?
"...and incorporate that into a MMORPG along with some never before seen stuff."
So they are going to incorporated their generic hack and slash MUD gameplay and some never before seen "stuff" (whatever "stuff" might mean) to make the most kick ass MMORPG ever. Right. Out of the block they have not bothered to show how they are going to do more interesting in terms of gameplay then the generic crap already out there. Infact, in the interview they go ahead and tell how they are going to have all that shitty generic gameplay but BETTER! Great.
MMORPG are going through terrible stagnation. We have the ability hool up a few thousand people into the same massive world, and what has been done with this power? We make friggin' glorified Diablo clones. Someone poke me a developer grows a pair and tries something innovative and original.
HJ has not expressed some great new concept that is going to set it apart from all the other MMORPGs not because they are good company and don't want to hype. They have not done it because they don't have it. They will merrily tell you about the generic crap and promise it will be better (see interview), but they are certainly not holding back some great grand new style of gameplay that will set it apart from everyone else. Will there be features they unveil? Absolutely. Will some of those features maybe even be seen for the first time in HJ? I don't doubt it. Is this going to be some revolution in gameplay? Hell no. Simtronics is out to cash in. They are not aiming for a nitch market or taking a bigger risk then they already have.
I could certainly be wrong, but I sure as hell wont waste my time getting excited about a game that has offered nothing more then the promise of generic MMORPG gameplay further refined and their name. The fan boys can drool in anticipation before they see any proof that this game has any substance. I'll just be a crotchety old bastard and smugly wait to say I told you so.
...when someone figures out what that R stands for in RPG.
I'm sorry, but this doesn't sound even a little bit innovative. Perhaps I am a slow reader, but where in that entire article did it mention a new idea that isn't just a refinement of an old one? As far as I can see, this is just World of Warcraft part 2. Great, so they have refined the boring MMORPG formula a little more and have made that same shitty gameplay more refined. If you strip down the cosmetics, the game is same boring shit that we have dealt with since Everquest. It is a leveling / group semi-turn based combat game. Yawn.
You know that cool part in that cyberpunk book when they are playing that RPG on their computer? Yeah... just wake me up when we get there. Or, at the very least, wake me up when someone grows enough balls to and break the mold a little.
As far as MMORPGs are concerned, we are living in the world of Wolfenstien 3D. One guy got it right, now roughly a thousand other companies have pig piled on with their own game set in different settings with marginally improving graphics and marginally refined game play. What the gutless MMORPG makers seem to not realize is that I am waiting four player Doom death match.
Wake me up when an MMORPG makers grows a spine. Until then, someone else can sit around and count the failures.
You completely missed my point. Yes, if everyone does this consumerism will be dead tomorrow. Shitty companies in capitalism are beast that feed off your money, and the second everyone stops feeding the beast, it dies. My goal isn't to kill these companies. My goal is to not give a shit.
You see, the component you are perhaps missing is that you need to GIVE your money to a shitty company in order for it to get it. YOU can avoid consumerism easily. Don't buy shit. It really is that easy. You are not talking about avoiding consumerism, you are talking about trying to kill it, which is entirely missing the point.
Stop worrying about trying to save the masses through legislation to some how 'fix' society. Fuck society. If everyone else wants to line up to get into their Virgin Megastore, let the dumb mother fuckers get themselves off.
To me, it is win win for everyone. The dumb masses get the stupid shit that makes them happy. The corporations get their money for providing that happiness. I go read a book not giving a shit that the dumb masses are throwing their money at corporations. If there is any dumb sucker in the entire mess, it is the fool that bitches endlessly about how evil the corporations are, and then goes ahead consumes their products with enthusiasm and glee.
In fact, if there is anyone in this mess that sounds like a real asshole, it is the guy who consumes all he can, all the while bitching that it should be free. For fucks sake, JUST STOP CONSUMING.
Actually, I don't care. I don't care if they sit there, consuming to their hearts content, all the while bitching that the entity feeding them their precious things (regardless if it is music, clothing, or software) is putting rules on their consumption that they don't like. Do you know why I don't care? Because I am at home, drinking a cheap beer, reading a book.
There are two very large differences between the Korean War round 2, and Vietnam. The biggest being that there is no way to 'loose' such a war. What is the worst that could happen? North Korea holds off the invasion and has every last piece of infrastructure burned down?
The big difference is that there is no where for North Korean to go. Charging across the border into South Korea would be insane. Not only would they have to go over the most heavily defended border in the world, fight the South Koreans which easily rank in the top 5 of best militaries who are backed up by the number one in military might, they would have to pick their way through a very hostile indigenous population very much willing to fight to the end rather then be ruled over by the North. North Korea doesn't want a fight with the US. The best the North could ever hope for is that they devastate South Korea with WMDs and artillery and that after the US is done nuking their asses for using chemical weapons, the US doesn't feel the number of lives lost in the invasion of the radioactive cesspool that would remain would be worth it.
The closest to victory North Korea can get is the collapse of its central government and devastation to rival South Korea, while letting the US gets off having just expended a sick amount of explosives on what little there is to blow up. Maybe if they really felt ambitious they could manage to nuke L.A. and have their nation turned glass by the retaliatory nuclear strike.
I think the big difference between North Korea and Iraq is that the US went in with a screwed up neo-con belief that they could make the place better. Anything that would provoke the US into attacking North Korea (and thus damning Seoul) would be done out of sheer rage, and be done with absolutely no regard to civilian life or thoughts about rebuilding the nations. Having the US thrash your nation with its full power, totally indifferent to collateral damage, is really not going to be pretty.
Why in the hell do you people watch this shit if you are so offended by the manner in which they practice their business? I just personally don't get it. I AM offended by the MPAA and the RIAA. What have I done? I have not bought (or pirated) a DvD or a song years. The last thing I bought was on E-music back when they had a flat rate no DRM mp3 service. The second they changed their service I stopped paying.
People spend so much time complaining, but very little time backing up their complaints with actions. Apparently, bitching about consumerism is about as far as people are willing to go. It personally drives me nuts, because consumer is so simple to battle. You can live a consumer free life, even in American, with a minimal amount of effort. In fact, I would say that it is EASIER to live a consumer free life then it is to be a consumer. It is real simple. Ready?
Don't buy stuff.
You would be amazed at how much happiness you can squeeze out of life when you decide not to give a shit about that latest Hollywood crapfest, or, in the very least, stick to Netflixs to see it. Clothing is cheap and plentiful when you are not obsessed over the label. Hell, even a car is a simple matter when the only thing you are looking for is an AC/heat (if you live in a climate that needs it) and reliability. $5,000 is more then enough to get a used car that runs. No, you will not look cool with your 1990 Honda Accord, but who the hell cares?
I personally love capitalism and consumer culture and hope we never get rid of it. Why? Because it is voluntary and easily avoided. I don't eat at McDonalds, I don't buy DvDs, I don't buy music, I don't watch MTV, and most of my furniture is so cheap it borders on free (and some of it was). To the companies that have a business model that I approve of like Netflixs, Trader Joes (extremely cheap supermarket), and my local coffee shop, I give money. To the companies/groups that I disagree with, like the MPAA, RIAA, and McDonalds, I give nothing to.
If consumer culture is bothering you, grow a spine and stop giving them money. If consumer culture still bothers you even after you have stopped giving them money, trying not giving a shit about the dumb masses and find some like minded friends.
The bigger issue is the principle of the thing. Yes, this time it is to stop kids from buying things they probably shouldn't. That said, what part of the first amendment is confusing. Of all the fucking articles of the constitution, I thought the first one was the easiest one to understand and the easiest to follow. Yet some how it has gotten thoroughly mangled over the years. Sure, the US isn't going to be China any time in the near future, but the direction things are heading is unnerving. There is a pile of legal loop holes and exceptions to the first amendment that makes the civil libertarian in me bristle.
To me, I see two options.
1) Let relatively worthless law that is already voluntarily enforced get passed and really is a minimal barrier to a kid getting a hold of a game that is extremely unlikely to do any real damage.
2) Or strike this mother fucker down and make it crystal clear that the first amendment applies to all forms of speech and you can't ignore it when you don't feel like it.
This law is not going to save any lives. No one is going to die because some kid played the same sort of games I played when I was a kid. Further, it isn't going to stop parents from buying this games for their kids, or kids pirating them. What it WILL do is set a precedent that it is okay to flout the first amendment so long as it is for the good of fill in some group here.
No offense, but the first amendment is much more important then paying the fucking cops waste their time acting as baby sitters. Personally, I would rather have the cops chasing down rapist and murders, rather then pissing away my tax dollars doing a parents job and stepping on the first amendment while they are at it. I personally hope that this gets struck down in every single court all the way up to the supreme court, where it can be struck down as an example for all.
Re:An excellent collection of data:
on
Cubicle Privacy
·
· Score: 1
"Managers often become totally illogical when discussing the possibility that people work from home, because they try to hide their fear of losing control over their workers."
Well, that IS the manager's job... to keep control over the team. They are responsible for the screw ups of the team. The biggest issue with the cutting everyone free is when you want to get a group of people together and really go over something in detail. Speaking as someone who has had to work with people across the country, it is a pain in the ass, even with all of today's communication technology.
So yes, I am sympathetic to ass hole managers who won't give an inch, but in the same breath, I have sympathy for the manager that needs to keep together a team when one or two guys can only be contacted via phone or with planning and pile of time wasted in setup. There is a lot to be said about the ease of being able to walk over to a guy cubical and have casual chat or bounce a few questions off of them. For the sake of everyone else in the team, it is nice to have everyone where you can get to them.
"...I was pointing the finger more to illogical fundamentalists wherever they may be....Illogical religious fanatics should never be in a position of power, no matter how many or how few there are. Make them heel to logic and punish them if they won't listen and do bad. That was my main point."
Since World War II, the US has been run by fanatics. Really, I mean it. The difference is less in the US, and more in the rest of the world. Before, the world had a boogie man in the USSR. When the US acted as fanatics against the USSR, no one really minded.
Think about it for a moment. What did the US do doing the cold war? It threatened to destroy the world to keep it from the communist. During the Cuban missile crises, the US told the USSR point blank that it was willing to enter a nuclear war where both nations (and sizable chunk of the rest of the world) would be destroyed over the symbolic threat of nuclear missiles in Cuba. To this day Americans consider that the finest point of JFKs (the president at the time) career. Looking back on a day when you almost vaporized the world with reverence is a little disturbing to most. The US poured lives and money into Korean and Vietnam even though neither place offered any sort of economic value. The US spent massive portions of its GNP maintaining a military and weapons so that they could defend Europe and, if worst came to worst, assure mutual destruction of their enemy.
Now, the world is very changed place. There is not some monolithic force of Armageddon there to scare the piss out of everyone. The world is changed, but the thing that has not changed is the US. The US is still just as nuts as it always has been.
It is like going to war and fighting shoulder to shoulder with another greater soldier who always charges the machine gun nests and is always eager to fight, defend, and attack the enemy. While you are fighting shoulder to shoulder, you think he is a greater guy and a great warrior to have on your side. Hell, you might even look up to the nut job. Well, the war is over now. That great friend who always seemed to be there guarding your ass hasn't changed though. He is still seeking out enemies and charges face first dangerous situations. He isn't an asset any more, he is more of a nut case. It isn't that he just became a nut case, it is more that being a nut case is not terribly useful in times of peace.
The US is very similar. If anything American fanaticism has probably taken a backslide from the old Soviet days. The difference is that the world is a different place. The US still wants a bloody pit fight with anything that isn't a democracy, and 9/11 just drove them more nuts. Arab fundamentalist are not going to take over Europe. There is no life or death struggle. The Taliban, as horrible as it was, would never be able to attain any technology that could rival the US or Europe if for no other reason that it was so culturally backwards as to make science impossible. Despite this, the US jumped all over them and Iraq with the same glee as fighting Soviets. The US beat up their governments with the hope that they could make new governments in the image of American and prove to everyone that American way is still the best way.
My point? My point is not that what the US is doing is right or wise. It probably isn't. My point is it isn't really the US that has changed. The US is the same old crazy nation of fanatics who are utterly convinced that their way is right. It is the same nation that if the Soviets were to appear tomorrow they would gleefully turn the world into a radioactive waste pit before giving an inch. The difference is that without the Big Evil Threat of the USSR to scare everyone, everyone now realizes just now nuts the Americans are.
"Please. You can't fix social problems with technological solutions."
"Please. You can't fix social problems with technological solutions."
Are you joking? I don't even know where to start. Let's start with this. You are at a computer somewhere in the world. If semiconductors were to vanish tomorrow, wherever you are, your government would collapse, the balance of power in the world would be thoroughly shaken from head to foot, and millions, if not billions of people would die within a year.
Take the same number of people in New York, drop then in a forest the same size as New York, and watch how quickly society implodes upon itself without the technological infrastructure to support it.
Clearly, technology is doing something. Technology and society are so tightly tied together that you can't untangle one from the other without destroying something.
I know some times when we bang things out on the keyboard they sound really insightful and intelligent, but some times we need to respect the preview button, read what we read, and decide if it really is insightful, or a load of thoughtless crap.
She is a comedian. If you really want to get into the nitty gritty sterotypes and some of the focus of her jokes, she is an Asian-American comedian. Her old stuff is great laughs for everyone. Culture clash jokes with her parents are funny, and the sterotyping of Asian-Americans can be side splitting. If you are an Asian-American (bonus points if you are a woman too, you will pretty much find it impossible to not laugh....all of that said, she now sucks. Right before the elections she came around to my town (Boston). I shelled out my entertainment budget for the month on a pair of tickets and a drink at the club ($15 - no, not worth it, even if I kept the glass). I was treated to a political rally. I wanted to claw my ears out. It wasn't funny. There are so many ways you can make fun of Bush's inability to speak or his last name before you are driven nuts. I was pretty sure I shelled out my money to see comedy, and instead I got a campaign speech by a comedian. I am not a terribly conservative guy either. I have a feeling the flamboyantly gay group of guys at our table were not Republicans in disguise either, and they too seemed to be struggling to get out a few chuckles.
So, I figure that maybe she was just worked up by the whole presidency and forgot that she was a comedian, so I give it another chance. I rent her new comedy DvD. Dear god, put a gun in your mouth and pull the trigger. It turns up that she WAS worked up by the presidency. Unfortunately, the bad Bush jokes were much better then the stuff that was pushed aside. Sufficient to say, the DvD was awful, and even fans who desperately wanted to like it couldn't.
All that said, pick up her old stuff. Good fun and plenty of laughs.
First, there are no oil companies left in the world that are not state run. There are only energy companies. Energy companies buy and sell energy. They don't really care where it comes from. In fact, as far as energy companies are concerned, oil is a pain in the ass with far too much politics attached. If an energy haf fussion power in their hands, they would merrily use it to reap in as much profit as possible.
Second: Most energy comes from coal. Oil is an easily replacable source of energy. Namely, coal is where most nations get their power. Coal is without a doubt cheaper and very abundent. The world is not going to hit an energy crunch because they can't make enough energy. The real issue is that coal is dirty... hence the move towards things like solar, wind power, and maybe even one day fussion. Energy is not the problem. It is making energy that doesn't dump toxic crap into the sky that is the problem.
Third: I don't know why you think the US is anti-science. Sure, the US has its crazies and fundementalist whackos, but any places where you gather 200+ million plus people tends to find some crazies that crawl out of the wood work. Anticdotal evidence aside, the US is still takes in the largest number of foriegn students to study science and technology in the world simply because the US has some of the best schools for it in the world. In fact, when it comes to technophilia, I would say US easily ranks in the top 5, falling behind only to Japan a crazy North European nation or two where it is so damn cold and dark year round they don't have anything else to do but play with their cell phones (I am kidding... kind of).
Claiming that the nation that is the home to Intel, Microsoft, Mac, the dot com boom (love them or hate them) is technophobic should set off a few alarm bells. My larger point is that before you bite down on a sterotype and take it as truth, think for a few moments about it. Anyone can find anticdotal evidence within a society to prove any point. Looking at a society at large requires more then a few anticdotes.
Slashdot Mirror
There is absolutely no defense for Japanese immigration policies. I visited Japan five years ago. While I was there I went to a bar with some Japanese men that I was working with. A woman came over to wait our table, took our orders, and left. All the men at the table with me immediately noted that she was not Japanese (I couldn't tell). Later on, I asked the woman about it and she explained that she was the granddaughter (or might have great grand daughter, forget) of a Korean laborer that was snatched up from Korea almost centaury ago. She is still not considered a citizen.
I am sorry, but that is just fucked up. France has more liberal immigration laws.
Maybe I am just an asshole American, but I think the world would be a hell of a lot better place if people would open up the borders a little and absorb a little culture. Cultural xenophobia, especially when rooted in ancient history, is just destructive. It blows my mind that Japan, Korean, and China all loath each other over what happened half a centaury ago. Hating someone's grandchildren for what someone else's grandfather did is just insane. Japan needs to come to terms with what happened in the same way Germany did, and the rest of Asia needs to simply let it go and stop letting their policies of today be dictated by the genocidal urges of a Japanese society and political system that has been thoroughly crushed for a good half centaury.
Anything that would make all life on Earth die would kill anyone on Mars too. Earth is full of water, oxygen, and tons of minerals. Even if the atmosphere was to turn toxic tomorrow, you simply can't get rid of all of that oxygen and water over night. If survival after some disaster is the reason to move to Mars, I suggest building self-sufficient underwater cities first. Not only would said city be swimming in H2O (ha ha, pun), but if you got sick of living inside you could just jump in a sub, take it to the surface, and go on vacation on the mainland.
The only reason to push off of earth is for resources and the more intangible benefits of having a new frontier to move out into. There is a lot to be said about having a frontier to move to. Even to this day people push west in the United States all the time for a change of pace. In my opinion, I think that a lot of these people going to California go more for the psychological benefit of 'going west' to the 'frontier' then for any practical reason. People pile up on the west coast because there is no where else left to go. If tomorrow there was a magical technology that made getting into space cheap and easy, I would be an arm and a leg, California would have more space ports then the rest of the US combined and people would pile on and blast off to the new frontier.
When people say they want humans in space, I don't think they have much in the way of practical reasons. Even when there are practical reasons, I think the true reason that drives them is not the practical reasons they give. I think mostly we want to go to space because it is there, it is empty, and we want to fill it up. Call it human nature. We are a species that migrates and moves. Something deeply instinctual in us that tells us to fragment and move on is probably going nuts in nationalistic societies that focus on unity. Humans and to fragment and throw themselves to the wind. Only powerful forces like nationalism makes it possible for us to overcome our urge to fragment and stake out for greener pastures (even if they don't exist)
There comes a time when you need to put paranoia aside in favor of helping people now. If you have a polymer particle that is diluted first into the human blood system to such low levels that it doesn't harm the human, then dilute it again the sewage system, then again into the ocean, then again into rain, then again into a lake, then through the water purification system, then finally into your tap water, and of those few that make it in, only the ones functionalized with something harmful need to be worried about... well, let's just say I am not terribly worried. Any time you experiment with some new chemical you are taking a risk that it is going to have effects that you can't see today. Could you potentially do the research to show that it will not have negative effects long into the future? Probably. Is it worth the millions or billions of dollars it will cost and the lives that will be lost by delaying the drug more then the FDA already does? Hell no.
Science involves risk. It involves risk to the scientist, to the first adopters, and to the public at large. There is a certain level of risk you need to accept or else you will bring science to a grinding hault. Not only does exessive risk prevention work result in lost money to conduct such studies, but it results in lost time and man power. Studying the decay rates and running water cycle models is time and manpower that is lost somewhere else.
I am not saying that risks should be ignored. I am not even against a cautious approach to new chemicals and technology. There however is a line that needs to be drawn where you accept risk, move on, and deal with the consiquences as they come. Simulating the water cycle and trying to combine a nanoparticle with everything it could run into nature to see if it could be potentially dangerous is a waste of time and resources.
Sure, this might make you feel uncomfortable, but guess what will make you feel even more uncomfortable? Having your body bombarded by potentially levels of radiation so high that it is potentially fatal.
There are so many ways to improve upon killing humans. Is one more way really worth worrying about? So someone has found a better way to diliver a chemical payload into a human cell. Certainly I bet someone can figure out how to make said payload lethal. Who cares though? We already have chemical and viruses sitting around that can kill within seconds. It is like worrying that some nation went from owning 5000 to 10,000 nuclear weapons, or worrying about getting shot 100 times rather then 50. If genocide is your goal, the tools are already avaliable.
I personally am excited at the prospect of a new treatments like the one outlined. Dead is dead. You can throw HF in my face or you can throw your nano-poisonin my face. Either way, the outcome is the same. On the other hand, nanomedicen is not chemo. Chemo has the potential to be almost as bad as the cancer. If a nanomedicen can kill cancer and do less harm to my body, I am all for it, paranoia be damned.
Perhaps I am crazy, but last time I checked well over 2/3 of the earth's surface was completely untouched. Further, that untouched area can be extended in either direction for at least a mile (if not more). Room is not a problem for humans and never will. Hell, even surface area is not an issue. Even if surface area was an issue, given sufficent power, we are more then capable to farming underground.
Personally, if I had the choice between living on a hostile planet with an unbreathable atmosphere or floating blissfully above or below the ocean with more air then I could ever possibly breath right above me, I would take the planet with abundent water, air, and a climate suitable for humans.
Further, even if we were insane enough to decide to move the population off planet instead of just filling in the unimaginable volume of our very own planet, the real issue would be moving that many people, not getting them there in one piece. If the population is 6 billion strong and grows at 1% per year, you would need to move over a million people a week off the planet just to keep zero population growth.
From http://www.toptechnews.com/story.xhtml?story_id=36 318/
The paper said that attempts to input words in Chinese such as "democracy" prompted an error message from the site: "This item contains forbidden speech. Please delete the forbidden speech from this item." Other phrases banned included the Chinese for "demonstration," "democratic movement" and "Taiwan independence."
I personally think that this is an awesome compromise. Blatently reporting to a user that they are being censored is probably the most damning thing they could possibly do. Chinese censorship gets by because most of the time the people don't know that it is happening. They know that they are censored, but the when and where is what is in question. So, is it right that MSN is dealing with that government? No, but at least it is doing some less then subtle poking at it by blatently telling people they are being censored and writing articles about it.
There is an ideal world, and then there is a real world. In the ideal world, you can come to work with green hair a foot long bone going through your nose and no one will care. The real world, especially if you have to work with customers at all, you just can't allow such things.
The simple fact of the matter is that if you need to at some point come in contact with 90 year old woman, you can't have piercing and tattoos because you are very likely to scare her senseless. If you need to adovcate for someone and they are entrusting you with a large sum of money or their very lives, you need to convince them that you are trust worthy, dependable, and will not ruin them just to show off your individual flare. Hell, if I had to higher a laywer to defend me and he came to trail dressed like a biker, I would fire him without a second thought. To hell with his right to self expression, I need someone who is not going to anger an old conservative.
There are jobs out there when you can go to work looking like a leather pin cushin. If you decide to modify yourself in that manner, then you better realize that you have cut down on the number of places that will let you work for them. It is your choice of course.
Personally, I would suggest keeping work and the rest of your life seperate. The place where I work there is no dress code and most people work in a T-shirt and jeans. That said, no one has green hair or a metal spike through their mouth. I meet the informal dress code that says anything that is reasonable goes. On the weekend I might dye my hair blue with temporary dye, put it into spikes, drink enough to get black out drunk, and go to a punk rock show. The important thing is that on Monday morning the dye is totally washed out, I have recovered from my hangover, and I don't mention to anyone at work what I did over the weekend in great detail. Your personal time is your own. When you are not at work, it isn't personal time. If you don't want to be judged negativly, then just keep the two seperate.
Work is something you do for 8 hours each day on the weekend. Anything outside of those 8 hours is a-okay so long as it doesn't follow you back to work the next day. Just use common sense. If you want tattoos, get them in a place that you can cover. If you want green hair, get a wig. If you want piercings, get fake ones that don't pierce. If you want to wear leather, wear it when you are not at work. In a perfect world you wouldn't need to, but this is not a perfect world. Right or wrong, you can scare that old woman whose computer needs fixing to death just by how you look, despite the fact that most other people your age might not bat an eyelash.
People need to keep in perspective the use of said nanomaterial. If someone was to make a carbon nanotube spoon, I would be worried. If someone is going to make some memory based of carbon nanotubes and stuff it into my computer, I wouldn't bat an eye. Also at issue is the word 'nanotechnology'. Nanotechnology in it of itself is no more or less dagnerous then anything else. Protesting 'nanotechnology' is like protesting 'animals' because some of them are poisonus.
Personally, I don't see the issue. We already have a system in place to deal with new chemicals. New chemicals are created every single day and used. Nanotechnology products are just another new chemical. There is a pile of laws and regulations already in place to deal with these discoveries. This isn't like applying IP laws to the digital world where you are talking about some new shift in thinking. We are just talking about new chemicals. This is a problem we have been dealing with for hundreds of years. Just because we have found a cool technological word for it doesn't mean it is time to bust out the hippies.
Errr, that first line should say "that makes piracy illegal"
Almost all nations have laws on the books that make piracy legal. I would say it is a safe bet that Indonisia also has these laws. Without them you face the prospect of trade sanctions and companies simply refusing to work in your nation. The real issue is not laws on the book. Nearly everyone has them. The issue is enforcement. Whenever the US and Europe deal with third world nations in trade pacts, almost without exception they haggle over enforcement of IP. I would say it is a safe bet that Indonesia is violating its own laws by using pirated copies of Windows.
Now, as to why they would bother to enforce such laws? The biggest reason is likely support and trade standing. Snide comments aside, it is nice to be able to call up Microsoft and get support if you are having problems. Probably the bigger issue is that they want to enforce piracy laws. If they enforce piracy laws better they will get better perks in trade packages. When they walk into a trade deal and it is known that the government is pirating software, well it just looks ugly. If you can't enforce an IP law among your own government works, people are going to be skeptical about your ability to do it in the population at large.
My point? Most nations have rules on the book that protect IP. The real issue is whether or not they enforce it. So, Indonesia can choose not to enforce the law, but they are breaking their own law. As far as international trade is concerned, it is probably in there best interest to pay the paltry some and pay lip service to their own laws to get perks on future trade deals.
Apparently we are arguing the same thing. I have read all the reviews. I see a refined traditional MMORPG. You read the reviews and see a refined traditional MMORPG. The difference between you and me, is that I see another game obsessed with tactical combat and levels as squandering the potential of dragging together a few thousand people into an online world.
Think of your wet dream game far into the future with full VR suits. Is it a game where you log in, go to a dungeon, and hunt down NPCs for experience and loot? If it is, great. The future is here for you. You have just described the fundamental gameplay of every single MMORPG with the possible exception of UO.
I on the other hand picture a living and breathing game world where you don't arbitrarily go out and hunt things down for l00t and experience. Maybe you do go and hunt things down, but it isn't in some static dungeon. Maybe a horde of undead move in and slowly work their way torwards your home city. Instead of respawning they kill and convert other NPCs on their way towards your city to join the army. If you kill one, it doesn't respawn. When you launch a raid, you actually launch a true raid. You sneak into one of their camps, kill a few, then run like hell before they mount gather the forces to crush you. When they get to the city walls, they lay siege. If the people of the city fail to defend the city, it gets burned to the ground and the army moves on bigger and more powerful. Hell, it might very well end up where in this little fantasy game you can actually loose. The game world might be entirely overrun with undead and all pockets of resistance are crushed, and the game gets reset.
My point? These games are dead static dungeons. Even the most dynamic MMORPGs to date could barely be called dynamic, and they sure as hell couldn't be called living and breathing worlds. The story lines are pathetic and preplanned. The ability of players to actually shape the world is limited to creating a story that involves a bunch of high levels fighting into a zone and killing a boss monster.
MMORPGs need to grow up and grow some balls. The Diablo gameplay is getting boring. Someone needs to make an effort to break out of this mold, not recast it with improvements. HJ by all accounts is traditional MMORPG with cool new features. The key word is 'features'. Nothing fundamental has changed.
So, yes, HJ might very well be the best MMORPG ever created. It might be the most fun one out there, but with the current crop of gutless MMORPGs, that isn't saying much.
I hate to burst your bubble, but as a long time MUD player I know the record. I want to see Gemstone 3 with graphics roughly about as badly as I want to see someone make a sequal to Everquest... oh ... shit.
Maybe you and I were playing different games here, but I am pretty damned sure that their MUDs had the same hack and slash game play as nearly every other MUD out there. MUDs were not the holy grail of gaming. There were some great ones that turned the boring hack and slash crap on its head. ArmageddonMUD and Harshlands come to mind. Gemstone doesn't. The only thing that made their MUDs special was the fact that they got them on AOL instead of forcing people to go through Telnet, as a result, they had a massive (compartivly) population. That is the only thing that made those MUDs unique.
"What they're trying to do is take everything that's made their MUD's successful..."
Everything that made their MUD's successful? You mean they putting it on AOL?
"...and incorporate that into a MMORPG along with some never before seen stuff."
So they are going to incorporated their generic hack and slash MUD gameplay and some never before seen "stuff" (whatever "stuff" might mean) to make the most kick ass MMORPG ever. Right. Out of the block they have not bothered to show how they are going to do more interesting in terms of gameplay then the generic crap already out there. Infact, in the interview they go ahead and tell how they are going to have all that shitty generic gameplay but BETTER! Great.
MMORPG are going through terrible stagnation. We have the ability hool up a few thousand people into the same massive world, and what has been done with this power? We make friggin' glorified Diablo clones. Someone poke me a developer grows a pair and tries something innovative and original.
Look, normally I am against genocide, but if I found a pile of gungans on my planet... nuke the fuckers.
HJ has not expressed some great new concept that is going to set it apart from all the other MMORPGs not because they are good company and don't want to hype. They have not done it because they don't have it. They will merrily tell you about the generic crap and promise it will be better (see interview), but they are certainly not holding back some great grand new style of gameplay that will set it apart from everyone else. Will there be features they unveil? Absolutely. Will some of those features maybe even be seen for the first time in HJ? I don't doubt it. Is this going to be some revolution in gameplay? Hell no. Simtronics is out to cash in. They are not aiming for a nitch market or taking a bigger risk then they already have.
I could certainly be wrong, but I sure as hell wont waste my time getting excited about a game that has offered nothing more then the promise of generic MMORPG gameplay further refined and their name. The fan boys can drool in anticipation before they see any proof that this game has any substance. I'll just be a crotchety old bastard and smugly wait to say I told you so.
...when someone figures out what that R stands for in RPG.
I'm sorry, but this doesn't sound even a little bit innovative. Perhaps I am a slow reader, but where in that entire article did it mention a new idea that isn't just a refinement of an old one? As far as I can see, this is just World of Warcraft part 2. Great, so they have refined the boring MMORPG formula a little more and have made that same shitty gameplay more refined. If you strip down the cosmetics, the game is same boring shit that we have dealt with since Everquest. It is a leveling / group semi-turn based combat game. Yawn.
You know that cool part in that cyberpunk book when they are playing that RPG on their computer? Yeah... just wake me up when we get there. Or, at the very least, wake me up when someone grows enough balls to and break the mold a little.
As far as MMORPGs are concerned, we are living in the world of Wolfenstien 3D. One guy got it right, now roughly a thousand other companies have pig piled on with their own game set in different settings with marginally improving graphics and marginally refined game play. What the gutless MMORPG makers seem to not realize is that I am waiting four player Doom death match.
Wake me up when an MMORPG makers grows a spine. Until then, someone else can sit around and count the failures.
That should read, "Local man tell people that if they don't like TV, they should stop watching it."
You completely missed my point. Yes, if everyone does this consumerism will be dead tomorrow. Shitty companies in capitalism are beast that feed off your money, and the second everyone stops feeding the beast, it dies. My goal isn't to kill these companies. My goal is to not give a shit.
You see, the component you are perhaps missing is that you need to GIVE your money to a shitty company in order for it to get it. YOU can avoid consumerism easily. Don't buy shit. It really is that easy. You are not talking about avoiding consumerism, you are talking about trying to kill it, which is entirely missing the point.
Stop worrying about trying to save the masses through legislation to some how 'fix' society. Fuck society. If everyone else wants to line up to get into their Virgin Megastore, let the dumb mother fuckers get themselves off.
To me, it is win win for everyone. The dumb masses get the stupid shit that makes them happy. The corporations get their money for providing that happiness. I go read a book not giving a shit that the dumb masses are throwing their money at corporations. If there is any dumb sucker in the entire mess, it is the fool that bitches endlessly about how evil the corporations are, and then goes ahead consumes their products with enthusiasm and glee.
In fact, if there is anyone in this mess that sounds like a real asshole, it is the guy who consumes all he can, all the while bitching that it should be free. For fucks sake, JUST STOP CONSUMING.
Actually, I don't care. I don't care if they sit there, consuming to their hearts content, all the while bitching that the entity feeding them their precious things (regardless if it is music, clothing, or software) is putting rules on their consumption that they don't like. Do you know why I don't care? Because I am at home, drinking a cheap beer, reading a book.
There are two very large differences between the Korean War round 2, and Vietnam. The biggest being that there is no way to 'loose' such a war. What is the worst that could happen? North Korea holds off the invasion and has every last piece of infrastructure burned down?
The big difference is that there is no where for North Korean to go. Charging across the border into South Korea would be insane. Not only would they have to go over the most heavily defended border in the world, fight the South Koreans which easily rank in the top 5 of best militaries who are backed up by the number one in military might, they would have to pick their way through a very hostile indigenous population very much willing to fight to the end rather then be ruled over by the North. North Korea doesn't want a fight with the US. The best the North could ever hope for is that they devastate South Korea with WMDs and artillery and that after the US is done nuking their asses for using chemical weapons, the US doesn't feel the number of lives lost in the invasion of the radioactive cesspool that would remain would be worth it.
The closest to victory North Korea can get is the collapse of its central government and devastation to rival South Korea, while letting the US gets off having just expended a sick amount of explosives on what little there is to blow up. Maybe if they really felt ambitious they could manage to nuke L.A. and have their nation turned glass by the retaliatory nuclear strike.
I think the big difference between North Korea and Iraq is that the US went in with a screwed up neo-con belief that they could make the place better. Anything that would provoke the US into attacking North Korea (and thus damning Seoul) would be done out of sheer rage, and be done with absolutely no regard to civilian life or thoughts about rebuilding the nations. Having the US thrash your nation with its full power, totally indifferent to collateral damage, is really not going to be pretty.
Why in the hell do you people watch this shit if you are so offended by the manner in which they practice their business? I just personally don't get it. I AM offended by the MPAA and the RIAA. What have I done? I have not bought (or pirated) a DvD or a song years. The last thing I bought was on E-music back when they had a flat rate no DRM mp3 service. The second they changed their service I stopped paying.
People spend so much time complaining, but very little time backing up their complaints with actions. Apparently, bitching about consumerism is about as far as people are willing to go. It personally drives me nuts, because consumer is so simple to battle. You can live a consumer free life, even in American, with a minimal amount of effort. In fact, I would say that it is EASIER to live a consumer free life then it is to be a consumer. It is real simple. Ready?
Don't buy stuff.
You would be amazed at how much happiness you can squeeze out of life when you decide not to give a shit about that latest Hollywood crapfest, or, in the very least, stick to Netflixs to see it. Clothing is cheap and plentiful when you are not obsessed over the label. Hell, even a car is a simple matter when the only thing you are looking for is an AC/heat (if you live in a climate that needs it) and reliability. $5,000 is more then enough to get a used car that runs. No, you will not look cool with your 1990 Honda Accord, but who the hell cares?
I personally love capitalism and consumer culture and hope we never get rid of it. Why? Because it is voluntary and easily avoided. I don't eat at McDonalds, I don't buy DvDs, I don't buy music, I don't watch MTV, and most of my furniture is so cheap it borders on free (and some of it was). To the companies that have a business model that I approve of like Netflixs, Trader Joes (extremely cheap supermarket), and my local coffee shop, I give money. To the companies/groups that I disagree with, like the MPAA, RIAA, and McDonalds, I give nothing to.
If consumer culture is bothering you, grow a spine and stop giving them money. If consumer culture still bothers you even after you have stopped giving them money, trying not giving a shit about the dumb masses and find some like minded friends.
The bigger issue is the principle of the thing. Yes, this time it is to stop kids from buying things they probably shouldn't. That said, what part of the first amendment is confusing. Of all the fucking articles of the constitution, I thought the first one was the easiest one to understand and the easiest to follow. Yet some how it has gotten thoroughly mangled over the years. Sure, the US isn't going to be China any time in the near future, but the direction things are heading is unnerving. There is a pile of legal loop holes and exceptions to the first amendment that makes the civil libertarian in me bristle.
To me, I see two options.
1) Let relatively worthless law that is already voluntarily enforced get passed and really is a minimal barrier to a kid getting a hold of a game that is extremely unlikely to do any real damage.
2) Or strike this mother fucker down and make it crystal clear that the first amendment applies to all forms of speech and you can't ignore it when you don't feel like it.
This law is not going to save any lives. No one is going to die because some kid played the same sort of games I played when I was a kid. Further, it isn't going to stop parents from buying this games for their kids, or kids pirating them. What it WILL do is set a precedent that it is okay to flout the first amendment so long as it is for the good of fill in some group here.
No offense, but the first amendment is much more important then paying the fucking cops waste their time acting as baby sitters. Personally, I would rather have the cops chasing down rapist and murders, rather then pissing away my tax dollars doing a parents job and stepping on the first amendment while they are at it. I personally hope that this gets struck down in every single court all the way up to the supreme court, where it can be struck down as an example for all.
"Managers often become totally illogical when discussing the possibility that people work from home, because they try to hide their fear of losing control over their workers."
Well, that IS the manager's job... to keep control over the team. They are responsible for the screw ups of the team. The biggest issue with the cutting everyone free is when you want to get a group of people together and really go over something in detail. Speaking as someone who has had to work with people across the country, it is a pain in the ass, even with all of today's communication technology.
So yes, I am sympathetic to ass hole managers who won't give an inch, but in the same breath, I have sympathy for the manager that needs to keep together a team when one or two guys can only be contacted via phone or with planning and pile of time wasted in setup. There is a lot to be said about the ease of being able to walk over to a guy cubical and have casual chat or bounce a few questions off of them. For the sake of everyone else in the team, it is nice to have everyone where you can get to them.
"...I was pointing the finger more to illogical fundamentalists wherever they may be. ...Illogical religious fanatics should never be in a position of power, no matter how many or how few there are. Make them heel to logic and punish them if they won't listen and do bad. That was my main point."
Since World War II, the US has been run by fanatics. Really, I mean it. The difference is less in the US, and more in the rest of the world. Before, the world had a boogie man in the USSR. When the US acted as fanatics against the USSR, no one really minded.
Think about it for a moment. What did the US do doing the cold war? It threatened to destroy the world to keep it from the communist. During the Cuban missile crises, the US told the USSR point blank that it was willing to enter a nuclear war where both nations (and sizable chunk of the rest of the world) would be destroyed over the symbolic threat of nuclear missiles in Cuba. To this day Americans consider that the finest point of JFKs (the president at the time) career. Looking back on a day when you almost vaporized the world with reverence is a little disturbing to most. The US poured lives and money into Korean and Vietnam even though neither place offered any sort of economic value. The US spent massive portions of its GNP maintaining a military and weapons so that they could defend Europe and, if worst came to worst, assure mutual destruction of their enemy.
Now, the world is very changed place. There is not some monolithic force of Armageddon there to scare the piss out of everyone. The world is changed, but the thing that has not changed is the US. The US is still just as nuts as it always has been.
It is like going to war and fighting shoulder to shoulder with another greater soldier who always charges the machine gun nests and is always eager to fight, defend, and attack the enemy. While you are fighting shoulder to shoulder, you think he is a greater guy and a great warrior to have on your side. Hell, you might even look up to the nut job. Well, the war is over now. That great friend who always seemed to be there guarding your ass hasn't changed though. He is still seeking out enemies and charges face first dangerous situations. He isn't an asset any more, he is more of a nut case. It isn't that he just became a nut case, it is more that being a nut case is not terribly useful in times of peace.
The US is very similar. If anything American fanaticism has probably taken a backslide from the old Soviet days. The difference is that the world is a different place. The US still wants a bloody pit fight with anything that isn't a democracy, and 9/11 just drove them more nuts. Arab fundamentalist are not going to take over Europe. There is no life or death struggle. The Taliban, as horrible as it was, would never be able to attain any technology that could rival the US or Europe if for no other reason that it was so culturally backwards as to make science impossible. Despite this, the US jumped all over them and Iraq with the same glee as fighting Soviets. The US beat up their governments with the hope that they could make new governments in the image of American and prove to everyone that American way is still the best way.
My point? My point is not that what the US is doing is right or wise. It probably isn't. My point is it isn't really the US that has changed. The US is the same old crazy nation of fanatics who are utterly convinced that their way is right. It is the same nation that if the Soviets were to appear tomorrow they would gleefully turn the world into a radioactive waste pit before giving an inch. The difference is that without the Big Evil Threat of the USSR to scare everyone, everyone now realizes just now nuts the Americans are.
"Please. You can't fix social problems with technological solutions."
"Please. You can't fix social problems with technological solutions."
Are you joking? I don't even know where to start. Let's start with this. You are at a computer somewhere in the world. If semiconductors were to vanish tomorrow, wherever you are, your government would collapse, the balance of power in the world would be thoroughly shaken from head to foot, and millions, if not billions of people would die within a year.
Take the same number of people in New York, drop then in a forest the same size as New York, and watch how quickly society implodes upon itself without the technological infrastructure to support it.
Clearly, technology is doing something. Technology and society are so tightly tied together that you can't untangle one from the other without destroying something.
I know some times when we bang things out on the keyboard they sound really insightful and intelligent, but some times we need to respect the preview button, read what we read, and decide if it really is insightful, or a load of thoughtless crap.
She is a comedian. If you really want to get into the nitty gritty sterotypes and some of the focus of her jokes, she is an Asian-American comedian. Her old stuff is great laughs for everyone. Culture clash jokes with her parents are funny, and the sterotyping of Asian-Americans can be side splitting. If you are an Asian-American (bonus points if you are a woman too, you will pretty much find it impossible to not laugh. ...all of that said, she now sucks. Right before the elections she came around to my town (Boston). I shelled out my entertainment budget for the month on a pair of tickets and a drink at the club ($15 - no, not worth it, even if I kept the glass). I was treated to a political rally. I wanted to claw my ears out. It wasn't funny. There are so many ways you can make fun of Bush's inability to speak or his last name before you are driven nuts. I was pretty sure I shelled out my money to see comedy, and instead I got a campaign speech by a comedian. I am not a terribly conservative guy either. I have a feeling the flamboyantly gay group of guys at our table were not Republicans in disguise either, and they too seemed to be struggling to get out a few chuckles.
So, I figure that maybe she was just worked up by the whole presidency and forgot that she was a comedian, so I give it another chance. I rent her new comedy DvD. Dear god, put a gun in your mouth and pull the trigger. It turns up that she WAS worked up by the presidency. Unfortunately, the bad Bush jokes were much better then the stuff that was pushed aside. Sufficient to say, the DvD was awful, and even fans who desperately wanted to like it couldn't.
All that said, pick up her old stuff. Good fun and plenty of laughs.
Three points:
First, there are no oil companies left in the world that are not state run. There are only energy companies. Energy companies buy and sell energy. They don't really care where it comes from. In fact, as far as energy companies are concerned, oil is a pain in the ass with far too much politics attached. If an energy haf fussion power in their hands, they would merrily use it to reap in as much profit as possible.
Second: Most energy comes from coal. Oil is an easily replacable source of energy. Namely, coal is where most nations get their power. Coal is without a doubt cheaper and very abundent. The world is not going to hit an energy crunch because they can't make enough energy. The real issue is that coal is dirty... hence the move towards things like solar, wind power, and maybe even one day fussion. Energy is not the problem. It is making energy that doesn't dump toxic crap into the sky that is the problem.
Third: I don't know why you think the US is anti-science. Sure, the US has its crazies and fundementalist whackos, but any places where you gather 200+ million plus people tends to find some crazies that crawl out of the wood work. Anticdotal evidence aside, the US is still takes in the largest number of foriegn students to study science and technology in the world simply because the US has some of the best schools for it in the world. In fact, when it comes to technophilia, I would say US easily ranks in the top 5, falling behind only to Japan a crazy North European nation or two where it is so damn cold and dark year round they don't have anything else to do but play with their cell phones (I am kidding... kind of).
Claiming that the nation that is the home to Intel, Microsoft, Mac, the dot com boom (love them or hate them) is technophobic should set off a few alarm bells. My larger point is that before you bite down on a sterotype and take it as truth, think for a few moments about it. Anyone can find anticdotal evidence within a society to prove any point. Looking at a society at large requires more then a few anticdotes.