I don't have their catalog anymore, but looking over my archived installers, they had at least Descent I & II, Fallout 1 & 2, Ghost Master, Master of Magic, Psychonauts, and many others. If I'd had more money, or if I'd known they were closing, I'm sure I'd have bought more, especially given how cheap they were.
I've used them a couple times in the past; its' a nice site. I forget where I heard about them, but it was either an indie games site, or while I was searching for abandonware. I might even possibly have seen a banner ad, but yeah, I haven't seen much that really shouted that they were there.
On the plus side, the games I bought from them probably won't die, unlike some others.
Meanwhile, in the real world, people actually want the source of all their information to be fast.
Not really. People generally want the source of information to be fast enough.
Once upon a time, a 486 was "fast enough". If an operation was going to take a few minutes, take a walk, grab a notebook and paper, do something else interesting or constructive. It'll be done "soon enough".
I mean, I get your point. However, for me and lots of others, render time is obliterated by slow connections. Until every page fully fetches AND renders faster than you can perceive, "fast enough" doesn't mean much more than "what we're used to" plus or minus for innovation.
One person is ambitious, starts a software company, hires many people, makes software that saves or improves the quality of life for countless people, and then pays to subsidize the basics of life for the unambitious person who prefers not to work for himself or anybody else. Yah, that's great!
Yeah, you know that argument is bullshit. Not just bullshit, but aggressively wrong.
* A person being ambitious does not mean they will succeed. * A person not succeeding does not mean that they are unambitious, and may or may not have anything to do with their own merits in the first place. * That a person doesn't make enough money to live on doesn't mean that they aren't ambitious, or even that they have failed to live up to their ambitions (See also: artists) * A person being unambitious does not mean that they prefer not to work. * That a person would prefer not to work does not make them the kind of slimeball who would demand other people pay their way through life; it says nothing about their sense of honor or what decisions they will make. * Unemployment stipends and other socialist programs are not the only source for funds for slimeballs.
Most college-level kids don't have experience coding a secure, distributed social networking site from scratch, and wouldn't be aware of all the potential snafus and pitfalls. In fact it's likely that they haven't written ANY software that is going to have enough traffic that security becomes a critical issue, and I doubt any college courses would focus on that in particular.
I don't see how that could possibly be considered a jab at anyone.
Indeed. It's also not quite as secure; usually, when you drop packets, you don't have to worry about someone else picking them up. Talk about "man in the middle"...
The problem is, as governments the world over have shown, the repulsive force of bureaucrats can be transmitted through power lines, so if your containment isn't tight enough, the whole world goes to hell.
The answer isn't to keep cracking these "protection" schemes, it's to stop buying into them at all until the companies behind them realize that customers are tired of paying for hardware that actively works against their interests.
I'd put it another way. There are reasons why a person might want HDCP-style secure video playback: for example, classified / company secret videos, or in general, in order to make sure that nobody has snuck a copy line into your video playback. Sounds like a niche market? Bet your ass it is. It's of almost no value to anyone else. Were they thinking we wouldn't notice?
I've said it a couple times before. RIAA/MPAA and member companies: You are ENTERTAINMENT. You do not have the authority necessary to force consumers to jump through hoops to get content. Movies and music may be pretty cool, and some people go nuts for them, but it's discretionary spending. You are who we turn to when we're bored. This does not give you the leverage to completely screw over our lives, no matter how much money you're making.
Seriously, do you know how absolutely fucktarded the whole thing looks from the outside? Does it never strike you, even when you're telling the fucking FBI that they have nothing better to do and should be chasing movie "pirates"? You are lost inside a fantasy world (ironically) in which money means more than paying employees and partners, keeping the business afloat, and investing in the future. Anyone who doesn't understand that shouldn't be managing at all, let alone managing billions of dollars.
Huh? Anyone who isn't a bigot or an islamophobe wouldn't have hurt feelings in the first place.
...
Really? Because I have yet to see a *reason* for objecting to this mosque/community center, save to protect the feelings of a few bigots. And that's no reason at all.
I guess that's the big disconnect. I would call you exceedingly naieve, though, for suggesting that everyone is in such impeccable control of their emotions that they don't feel uncomfortable at all in such a situation.
It really doesn't take bigotry (vis a vis intolerance); a certain amount of ignorance can do, or some misinformation, and they can grow to fear or worry about a people.
This is the point: the difference between intolerance and fear/worry/discomfort. You can tolerate something, willingly or not, and also be afraid of it. If you do that, though, especially unwillingly, it can eat away at you your entire life. You can look at a friend who lost someone everyday, and be perfectly willing to forgive the people involved, but you are reminded every day that you don't know enough to tell bad people from good, because their culture is foreign. You can acknowledge in your head and in your heart that everyone, or virtually everyone you meet will be a good person, but you can still fear that one in a million.
None of which is to say that the people that think that way don't need to be dealt with. However, the problems that cause the condition are everywhere--poor education, limited life experience, a depressive worldview, fear mongering in the media, etc. Until the causes are dealt with--and I do believe they should be--dealing harshly with the people involved, especially if they're not doing anything, is cruel.
I say cruel--but even if it's necessary, or the right thing to do, it's still cruel. Necessary and cruel do hold hands sometimes. That's why the intentions of the people making the mosque are important; if they're going to return that fear (which is understandable) with more fear or hatred (which is also understandable, frankly), they shouldn't put it somewhere knowing it could happen. If they're going to be very open and kind, and try to slowly dispel those shadows in peoples' hearts, that's different.
It takes some serious balls and a bad attitude to make a decision like that when you know damn well THAT people are going to be upset and WHY
Only if you assume people are bigoted assholes who can't differentiate between a religion and a bunch of extremist terrorists.
Do you really think so little of people? If so, maybe that highlights the *real* problem, don't you think?
...?
No, even if you assume people can tell the difference, you're still trampling on their feelings. If you depend on them to yield, when you could just as easily move it a few blocks (and maybe it's not just as easy to move--depending on the real estate market nearby), then you're being an asshole, and there's nothing else to say about the matter.
Who would move into a place like that knowing its location?
Uh, maybe the many muslims who've lived, worked, and worshipped in the area for decades?
All of whom are presumably going to go to your church/mosque even if you move it slightly.
I'm not saying to disenfranchise them, and I don't know why you're treating me like I am.
If a Christian church was set up in a place a Christian had deliberately attacked, I would expect as a sign of decency that they would have some obvious, public way for attendees to offer prayers to those hurt, which would hopefully be permanent.
People can pray for whatever the fuck they want to pray for. Why the fuck should any such facility be obligated to continuously apologize for the acts of a bunch of assholes, save that people are too stupid to understand that said assholes don't represent the entirety of said religion?
They aren't obligated. If they were, you couldn't say anything about their motives when they actually do those things. However, they bear witness every day to the world that those assholes changed. They don't need to be full of hate for the assholes to want to offer prayers to those who had to or still have to deal with the aftermath.
I can understand if you don't get it, but when you start any new franchise, you are provided a clean slate to do with as you please. Religious institutions, in particular, are social places, and they give you an opportunity to make a social statement.
If they're moving into a place that's that politically charged and not making any statement at all, they're allowed, but I'm a little disappointed. Because, they ARE starting fresh. They could say, "Hey guys, let's do a show of support for our neighbors and head off any political controversy by making a public showing of our humanity, our empathy, and our culture." It would be just as easy as doing nothing, but it would be an opportunity that likely they won't have again.
But it doesn't matter, because all of this is missing the entire fucking point:
These people bought and paid for a piece of *private property*. They are now building a *legal facility* on those grounds. Protest it all you want, but that is their right, and neither the people nor the government have any right to interfere. Don't like it? Change the constitution.
Who said I was protesting it? I'm pointing out that not everyone who's upset is being unreasonable. Heck of a strawman you've got there, though.
And yes I would oppose converting a building damaged by a christian anti-abortion bomber to a church, or the opening of an irish Catholic centre at the site of the Baltic exchange.
Why? Religion didn't cause those acts. People did.
That's a stupid question. The bad act those people committed has already been done, and the person trying to build a church knows that. It takes some serious balls and a bad attitude to make a decision like that when you know damn well THAT people are going to be upset and WHY, especially when what you're building is something that, in theory, is protected and reverential and an "it would be an insult to our religion if you asked us to leave or tore it down" sort of thing--which basically says "I know you're going to be upset, and perhaps I'm even doing it BECAUSE it will upset you, or perhaps not; however, you're powerless unless you want to start a war with us".
Because seriously? This isn't about defending the people who actually did the thing. You learn a lot about the people who are building the church (although not necessarily their whole religion) by how they handle delicate things like that. The above examples? Pretty nasty people. And even if you say that once it's built it's just a house of worship that people use normally--who would move into a place like that knowing its location? How do the patrons handle the controversy--do they even care? If a Christian church was set up in a place a Christian had deliberately attacked, I would expect as a sign of decency that they would have some obvious, public way for attendees to offer prayers to those hurt, which would hopefully be permanent. If it's only up for a couple weeks or months, that says something too.
In the case of the mosque, a couple blocks may or may not be enough--I don't know, I don't live in NYC, that's up to them. If they show a halfway decent attitude, I say let them, but I don't know anything about the decision except some third-hand information from comments.
"Oh yeah, the rest of the world, I've heard of them. Were they the ones that gives you quarters if you put teeth under your pillow? Or do you just stake them in the heart to make sure they don't suck your blood and make you one of them?"
No, you can't throw money at it, but at the same time, that's not necessarily what the GP is talking about.
Invest is a transitive verb--it's usually used to refer to money, but you also invest time and effort. In particular, investing in education and infrastructure is as much about allowing or encouraging people to invest their efforts as it is about the money--when you are investing in a non-established company, you are giving them money yes, but you are giving them an opportunity to try new things that might not work, and refine their technique over a period of months or years until they find a solution.
Investing in new technology in order to see if the students, or the teachers, can do more with them is investing money in their potential. It may be smart, or foolish, depending on what the students and teachers are like, but that's mostly to say "we haven't figured out how to do it yet."
Governments breed waste, inefficiency and tyranny and can never lead to a net gain for society when compared to a private institution.
Government, in my mind, has a singular purpose: to do with economies of scale what would be either impossible for a single entity (social security, medicare, disaster relief), or which it would be unreasonable to assume someone would do (charity, police/military, waste management).
I'm not saying it isn't very often a bad thing, or that it doesn't open up lots of bad opportunities for people, but go find somewhere on this planet where trash, septics, fresh water, etc are not even touched by government of any level, then compare it to the first world, and tell me government has nothing to offer.
I wouldn't call it a moral issue, but rather one of policy.
If it is your policy as a country to let people die, or suffer, or go bankrupt, merely because they have not been paid enough--irrespective of whether they deserve it or not; many people are underpaid, many are over-paid--then you will hemorrhage people whose talents are not profitable.
If it is your policy as a country to provide services for free to anyone, then certain segments of the population will take advantage of that while producing as little of value as possible. That doesn't imply that they would produce more of value otherwise; it would take a social experiment to find out. It does, however, necessarily require that a lot of resources are consumed with the bill being passed off to the government.
However, IMO, that is what the government is for. In much the same was as a group insurance policy, it is supposed to use minimal per capita loss to distribute the cost of services nobody actually wants to pay for, or that the people who would want it CAN'T pay for. For instance, if it weren't for government, there would be few, if any, paved roads outside of those necessary for intercity trade, even though ubiquitous paved roads have made suburbs possible (for better or worse).
Not mathematically, but linguistically. In the time before time, 2 was actually known by its true name, potato. It's only lately we humans who have screwed that up.
Which would put us back where we were before ad-based revenue existed on the internet. I don't mean that "in theory" it would put us back there; I mean there would be no revenue stream for any website that didn't have a paywall, a store, or a registration that includes a very, very slimy terms of service. Would you sign up for Twitter, Foursquare, or Facebook if they explicitly required you to opt-in to a third party ad service or a paywall so that they could stay afloat? (Well, Facebook isn't much better as-is, but you get the point)
If you're already getting tracked, "we'll share our meager data mining with advertisers" isn't that big of a deal, unless you're doing something really weird on the service you don't want known. However, if you see your web experience as "pure", every service that impinges on that will get the axe.
Remember that hosting costs are bandwidth-dependent. If you are getting a lot of users, you need to pay more. Luckily, however, advertisers also want more users, so at the VERY least, ad revenue will rise along with costs and potentially offset if not prevent your site from dying due to lack of bandwidth. Nobody but nobody is going to click a check box to keep a site alive that they don't know is worthwhile when they register. They have to use the site and like it before they might consider "Hey, you know, I'd look at ads just to keep this site afloat."
And okay, so maybe sites like that probably won't have their own separate opt-in, and instead will have it in their TOS, plus they'll get google ads. However, if it defaults off, lots of services like twitter which are full of non-techies will have their revenue (not profits, revenue) slashed because they serve non-techies, and non-techies won't turn on advertising just to support a site, if they even understand the concept.
No, FFS, no. Maybe in 20-30 years when another generation has grown up tech-literate, and the average user might be expected to actually make an intelligent decision as to whether, and how, to support a site. Maybe just in 10 years, if someone like the newspaper industry finds a model that makes sense while desperately flailing in the dark. However, as is, no site that gets a lot of traffic could support themselves without ads or a paywall of some kind, and most people won't gamble on new sites that come with a paywall. I know I don't.
I have the perfect design--not that I could make it, as I'm just some shlub, but it's something I've been working on the theory for for a while. In sum, "modular computing", or basically, a whole bunch of components that share a standardized, high speed protocol for message passing across module boundaries rather than being on the same board.
With that system, you have something like a ultra-thin hypervisor that the physical computer runs on, and guest OSes that converse with virtual devices via the backbone as though it was all the same computer. Memristors or other NVRAM would allow guest OSes to not only shut off to save power, but that instant-off capability could be used to make a portable OS that can be slotted into, say, your phone, your laptop, and your desktop at different times, all with the same CPU and the same data, but different physical interfaces.
I have whole gobs of ideas that all fit together into a single framework centered on the idea, but there's no point in talking about it all now, as I'm just another unemployed, depressed wastrel until further notice, so it's not like it'll get done anytime soon.
Dangit, I'm going to get my mod points back. I hate having mod points.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't have their catalog anymore, but looking over my archived installers, they had at least Descent I & II, Fallout 1 & 2, Ghost Master, Master of Magic, Psychonauts, and many others. If I'd had more money, or if I'd known they were closing, I'm sure I'd have bought more, especially given how cheap they were.
I know they used Dosbox for some of the oldest games; those might actually be the old binaries, but I don't know for certain.
I've used them a couple times in the past; its' a nice site. I forget where I heard about them, but it was either an indie games site, or while I was searching for abandonware. I might even possibly have seen a banner ad, but yeah, I haven't seen much that really shouted that they were there.
On the plus side, the games I bought from them probably won't die, unlike some others.
Meanwhile, in the real world, people actually want the source of all their information to be fast.
Not really. People generally want the source of information to be fast enough.
Once upon a time, a 486 was "fast enough". If an operation was going to take a few minutes, take a walk, grab a notebook and paper, do something else interesting or constructive. It'll be done "soon enough".
I mean, I get your point. However, for me and lots of others, render time is obliterated by slow connections. Until every page fully fetches AND renders faster than you can perceive, "fast enough" doesn't mean much more than "what we're used to" plus or minus for innovation.
One person is ambitious, starts a software company, hires many people, makes software that saves or improves the quality of life for countless people, and then pays to subsidize the basics of life for the unambitious person who prefers not to work for himself or anybody else. Yah, that's great!
Yeah, you know that argument is bullshit. Not just bullshit, but aggressively wrong.
* A person being ambitious does not mean they will succeed.
* A person not succeeding does not mean that they are unambitious, and may or may not have anything to do with their own merits in the first place.
* That a person doesn't make enough money to live on doesn't mean that they aren't ambitious, or even that they have failed to live up to their ambitions (See also: artists)
* A person being unambitious does not mean that they prefer not to work.
* That a person would prefer not to work does not make them the kind of slimeball who would demand other people pay their way through life; it says nothing about their sense of honor or what decisions they will make.
* Unemployment stipends and other socialist programs are not the only source for funds for slimeballs.
Most college-level kids don't have experience coding a secure, distributed social networking site from scratch, and wouldn't be aware of all the potential snafus and pitfalls. In fact it's likely that they haven't written ANY software that is going to have enough traffic that security becomes a critical issue, and I doubt any college courses would focus on that in particular.
I don't see how that could possibly be considered a jab at anyone.
"Why are you open sourcing your code? Are you incompetent or something?"
"Oh no, it's just very comfortable. I think we'll all be open sourcing code in the future."
No, but now you get a free memory card out of it!
This new "node-sized" device consumes 1mW when transmitting and the home wiring is used as a receiving antenna.
So it's not, as the summary implies, two-way communication?
If not, that's a letdown. Milliwatt wireless commo would be amazing for device battery life.
Indeed. It's also not quite as secure; usually, when you drop packets, you don't have to worry about someone else picking them up. Talk about "man in the middle"...
The problem is, as governments the world over have shown, the repulsive force of bureaucrats can be transmitted through power lines, so if your containment isn't tight enough, the whole world goes to hell.
The answer isn't to keep cracking these "protection" schemes, it's to stop buying into them at all until the companies behind them realize that customers are tired of paying for hardware that actively works against their interests.
I'd put it another way. There are reasons why a person might want HDCP-style secure video playback: for example, classified / company secret videos, or in general, in order to make sure that nobody has snuck a copy line into your video playback. Sounds like a niche market? Bet your ass it is. It's of almost no value to anyone else. Were they thinking we wouldn't notice?
I've said it a couple times before. RIAA/MPAA and member companies: You are ENTERTAINMENT. You do not have the authority necessary to force consumers to jump through hoops to get content. Movies and music may be pretty cool, and some people go nuts for them, but it's discretionary spending. You are who we turn to when we're bored. This does not give you the leverage to completely screw over our lives, no matter how much money you're making.
Seriously, do you know how absolutely fucktarded the whole thing looks from the outside? Does it never strike you, even when you're telling the fucking FBI that they have nothing better to do and should be chasing movie "pirates"? You are lost inside a fantasy world (ironically) in which money means more than paying employees and partners, keeping the business afloat, and investing in the future. Anyone who doesn't understand that shouldn't be managing at all, let alone managing billions of dollars.
So kids, make sure you always use MAC with your ciphers.
Yes, I've always been a big proponent of MAC and c.
Huh? Anyone who isn't a bigot or an islamophobe wouldn't have hurt feelings in the first place.
Really? Because I have yet to see a *reason* for objecting to this mosque/community center, save to protect the feelings of a few bigots. And that's no reason at all.
I guess that's the big disconnect. I would call you exceedingly naieve, though, for suggesting that everyone is in such impeccable control of their emotions that they don't feel uncomfortable at all in such a situation.
It really doesn't take bigotry (vis a vis intolerance); a certain amount of ignorance can do, or some misinformation, and they can grow to fear or worry about a people.
This is the point: the difference between intolerance and fear/worry/discomfort. You can tolerate something, willingly or not, and also be afraid of it. If you do that, though, especially unwillingly, it can eat away at you your entire life. You can look at a friend who lost someone everyday, and be perfectly willing to forgive the people involved, but you are reminded every day that you don't know enough to tell bad people from good, because their culture is foreign. You can acknowledge in your head and in your heart that everyone, or virtually everyone you meet will be a good person, but you can still fear that one in a million.
None of which is to say that the people that think that way don't need to be dealt with. However, the problems that cause the condition are everywhere--poor education, limited life experience, a depressive worldview, fear mongering in the media, etc. Until the causes are dealt with--and I do believe they should be--dealing harshly with the people involved, especially if they're not doing anything, is cruel.
I say cruel--but even if it's necessary, or the right thing to do, it's still cruel. Necessary and cruel do hold hands sometimes. That's why the intentions of the people making the mosque are important; if they're going to return that fear (which is understandable) with more fear or hatred (which is also understandable, frankly), they shouldn't put it somewhere knowing it could happen. If they're going to be very open and kind, and try to slowly dispel those shadows in peoples' hearts, that's different.
It takes some serious balls and a bad attitude to make a decision like that when you know damn well THAT people are going to be upset and WHY
Only if you assume people are bigoted assholes who can't differentiate between a religion and a bunch of extremist terrorists.
Do you really think so little of people? If so, maybe that highlights the *real* problem, don't you think?
...?
No, even if you assume people can tell the difference, you're still trampling on their feelings. If you depend on them to yield, when you could just as easily move it a few blocks (and maybe it's not just as easy to move--depending on the real estate market nearby), then you're being an asshole, and there's nothing else to say about the matter.
Who would move into a place like that knowing its location?
Uh, maybe the many muslims who've lived, worked, and worshipped in the area for decades?
All of whom are presumably going to go to your church/mosque even if you move it slightly.
I'm not saying to disenfranchise them, and I don't know why you're treating me like I am.
If a Christian church was set up in a place a Christian had deliberately attacked, I would expect as a sign of decency that they would have some obvious, public way for attendees to offer prayers to those hurt, which would hopefully be permanent.
People can pray for whatever the fuck they want to pray for. Why the fuck should any such facility be obligated to continuously apologize for the acts of a bunch of assholes, save that people are too stupid to understand that said assholes don't represent the entirety of said religion?
They aren't obligated. If they were, you couldn't say anything about their motives when they actually do those things. However, they bear witness every day to the world that those assholes changed. They don't need to be full of hate for the assholes to want to offer prayers to those who had to or still have to deal with the aftermath.
I can understand if you don't get it, but when you start any new franchise, you are provided a clean slate to do with as you please. Religious institutions, in particular, are social places, and they give you an opportunity to make a social statement.
If they're moving into a place that's that politically charged and not making any statement at all, they're allowed, but I'm a little disappointed. Because, they ARE starting fresh. They could say, "Hey guys, let's do a show of support for our neighbors and head off any political controversy by making a public showing of our humanity, our empathy, and our culture." It would be just as easy as doing nothing, but it would be an opportunity that likely they won't have again.
But it doesn't matter, because all of this is missing the entire fucking point:
These people bought and paid for a piece of *private property*. They are now building a *legal facility* on those grounds. Protest it all you want, but that is their right, and neither the people nor the government have any right to interfere. Don't like it? Change the constitution.
Who said I was protesting it? I'm pointing out that not everyone who's upset is being unreasonable. Heck of a strawman you've got there, though.
And yes I would oppose converting a building damaged by a christian anti-abortion bomber to a church, or the opening of an irish Catholic centre at the site of the Baltic exchange.
Why? Religion didn't cause those acts. People did.
That's a stupid question. The bad act those people committed has already been done, and the person trying to build a church knows that. It takes some serious balls and a bad attitude to make a decision like that when you know damn well THAT people are going to be upset and WHY, especially when what you're building is something that, in theory, is protected and reverential and an "it would be an insult to our religion if you asked us to leave or tore it down" sort of thing--which basically says "I know you're going to be upset, and perhaps I'm even doing it BECAUSE it will upset you, or perhaps not; however, you're powerless unless you want to start a war with us".
Because seriously? This isn't about defending the people who actually did the thing. You learn a lot about the people who are building the church (although not necessarily their whole religion) by how they handle delicate things like that. The above examples? Pretty nasty people. And even if you say that once it's built it's just a house of worship that people use normally--who would move into a place like that knowing its location? How do the patrons handle the controversy--do they even care? If a Christian church was set up in a place a Christian had deliberately attacked, I would expect as a sign of decency that they would have some obvious, public way for attendees to offer prayers to those hurt, which would hopefully be permanent. If it's only up for a couple weeks or months, that says something too.
In the case of the mosque, a couple blocks may or may not be enough--I don't know, I don't live in NYC, that's up to them. If they show a halfway decent attitude, I say let them, but I don't know anything about the decision except some third-hand information from comments.
"Oh yeah, the rest of the world, I've heard of them. Were they the ones that gives you quarters if you put teeth under your pillow? Or do you just stake them in the heart to make sure they don't suck your blood and make you one of them?"
No, you can't throw money at it, but at the same time, that's not necessarily what the GP is talking about.
Invest is a transitive verb--it's usually used to refer to money, but you also invest time and effort. In particular, investing in education and infrastructure is as much about allowing or encouraging people to invest their efforts as it is about the money--when you are investing in a non-established company, you are giving them money yes, but you are giving them an opportunity to try new things that might not work, and refine their technique over a period of months or years until they find a solution.
Investing in new technology in order to see if the students, or the teachers, can do more with them is investing money in their potential. It may be smart, or foolish, depending on what the students and teachers are like, but that's mostly to say "we haven't figured out how to do it yet."
Governments breed waste, inefficiency and tyranny and can never lead to a net gain for society when compared to a private institution.
Government, in my mind, has a singular purpose: to do with economies of scale what would be either impossible for a single entity (social security, medicare, disaster relief), or which it would be unreasonable to assume someone would do (charity, police/military, waste management).
I'm not saying it isn't very often a bad thing, or that it doesn't open up lots of bad opportunities for people, but go find somewhere on this planet where trash, septics, fresh water, etc are not even touched by government of any level, then compare it to the first world, and tell me government has nothing to offer.
I wouldn't call it a moral issue, but rather one of policy.
If it is your policy as a country to let people die, or suffer, or go bankrupt, merely because they have not been paid enough--irrespective of whether they deserve it or not; many people are underpaid, many are over-paid--then you will hemorrhage people whose talents are not profitable.
If it is your policy as a country to provide services for free to anyone, then certain segments of the population will take advantage of that while producing as little of value as possible. That doesn't imply that they would produce more of value otherwise; it would take a social experiment to find out. It does, however, necessarily require that a lot of resources are consumed with the bill being passed off to the government.
However, IMO, that is what the government is for. In much the same was as a group insurance policy, it is supposed to use minimal per capita loss to distribute the cost of services nobody actually wants to pay for, or that the people who would want it CAN'T pay for. For instance, if it weren't for government, there would be few, if any, paved roads outside of those necessary for intercity trade, even though ubiquitous paved roads have made suburbs possible (for better or worse).
But yeah, this is all off-topic.
Or maybe the "2" is changing?
Not mathematically, but (...)
Not mathematically, but linguistically. In the time before time, 2 was actually known by its true name, potato. It's only lately we humans who have screwed that up.
Which would put us back where we were before ad-based revenue existed on the internet. I don't mean that "in theory" it would put us back there; I mean there would be no revenue stream for any website that didn't have a paywall, a store, or a registration that includes a very, very slimy terms of service. Would you sign up for Twitter, Foursquare, or Facebook if they explicitly required you to opt-in to a third party ad service or a paywall so that they could stay afloat? (Well, Facebook isn't much better as-is, but you get the point)
If you're already getting tracked, "we'll share our meager data mining with advertisers" isn't that big of a deal, unless you're doing something really weird on the service you don't want known. However, if you see your web experience as "pure", every service that impinges on that will get the axe.
Remember that hosting costs are bandwidth-dependent. If you are getting a lot of users, you need to pay more. Luckily, however, advertisers also want more users, so at the VERY least, ad revenue will rise along with costs and potentially offset if not prevent your site from dying due to lack of bandwidth. Nobody but nobody is going to click a check box to keep a site alive that they don't know is worthwhile when they register. They have to use the site and like it before they might consider "Hey, you know, I'd look at ads just to keep this site afloat."
And okay, so maybe sites like that probably won't have their own separate opt-in, and instead will have it in their TOS, plus they'll get google ads. However, if it defaults off, lots of services like twitter which are full of non-techies will have their revenue (not profits, revenue) slashed because they serve non-techies, and non-techies won't turn on advertising just to support a site, if they even understand the concept.
No, FFS, no. Maybe in 20-30 years when another generation has grown up tech-literate, and the average user might be expected to actually make an intelligent decision as to whether, and how, to support a site. Maybe just in 10 years, if someone like the newspaper industry finds a model that makes sense while desperately flailing in the dark. However, as is, no site that gets a lot of traffic could support themselves without ads or a paywall of some kind, and most people won't gamble on new sites that come with a paywall. I know I don't.
I have the perfect design--not that I could make it, as I'm just some shlub, but it's something I've been working on the theory for for a while. In sum, "modular computing", or basically, a whole bunch of components that share a standardized, high speed protocol for message passing across module boundaries rather than being on the same board.
With that system, you have something like a ultra-thin hypervisor that the physical computer runs on, and guest OSes that converse with virtual devices via the backbone as though it was all the same computer. Memristors or other NVRAM would allow guest OSes to not only shut off to save power, but that instant-off capability could be used to make a portable OS that can be slotted into, say, your phone, your laptop, and your desktop at different times, all with the same CPU and the same data, but different physical interfaces.
I have whole gobs of ideas that all fit together into a single framework centered on the idea, but there's no point in talking about it all now, as I'm just another unemployed, depressed wastrel until further notice, so it's not like it'll get done anytime soon.
Dangit, I'm going to get my mod points back. I hate having mod points.
Hell, there are so many sensors and so strict procedures in place that alarms go off like mad if there is even a tiny leak somewhere...
Only if they're not required to fix every one of them.
If the system is that sensitive, they're probably supposed to be, or they may actually be, fixing something every time an alarm goes off.
You know, in order to prevent explosions.
Just sayin'.
If all terrorism disappeared tomorrow never to reappear in any form whatsoever, governments everywhere would mourn its passing.
If a government is mourning its passing, not all terrorism has disappeared.
Yup, sure seems like they've got us by the balls, doesn't it?