I did a similar thing in dorm, and it also doesn't translate well to office space but here it is: the guy next door had a similar stereo as mine, both Sonys I believe, so the remotes were mostly compatible. So I'd go outside and turn his volume up, or mute it, or change components... Took him a while to realize it was me, he thought he had faulty equipment. YMMV.;-)
If it's in your signature and you really want it to prevent lawsuits, then it would be best to spell it out:
I am not a lawyer.
Otherwise, you might have a hard time convincing the judge that someone dumb enough to take your legal advice is smart enough to know what the acronym stands for.
Also, I prefer the contraction-modified version of this acronym: "IMNAL" because it doesn't sound as much like "I take it up the ass."
I'll tie two of the stories together: I've recently downloaded a bunch of books by Orson Scott Card from Kazaa, and am reading them on my Palm. (I'm sure he would approve.;-)
However, many of them are not simply copied e-books; they appear to have been scanned then OCRed -- badly. So in many cases the words are grossly wrong (or sometimes are numbers, like "I'11" (eye-apostrophe-eleven)). I believe this has helped make me a better reader, because I have to question what I'm reading while I'm reading it and most of the time I win out.;-)
As the other posters are saying, your price was too high. In 1988 I bought an 80 MB drive for $650, and I was very pleased that I was able to break the $10/MB price point.
Sure, no one got physically hurt, so it must be OK, right?
I think if we were to apply that to most of our laws, the prisons would quickly clear out.
Responsibility is one thing; religion-inspired crimes are something completely different. Here in MA you can't buy beer on Sunday; prostitution and drug use is illegal; and you can't place bets (unless those bets are through government agents, i.e. the lottery). In none of these cases is anyone being physically hurt or made to do something against their will. So why should these activities be illegal?
Yes, The Italian Job is not a movie to get morals from -- they were stealing (as in, depriving someone else of their property), and although it was kinda nice that they got vengeance in the end (spoiler: Old Yeller dies), it still doesn't make what they were doing right.
I liken the current controversy over P2P and digital abundance to the printing press. Before its invention, only monks copied books, and so the Church could control who got to read, and what. After the printing press, the Church had a lot less control over thought distribution.
The RIAA and MPAA are restricting the free flow of thoughts as well, by fighting against P2P. Instead they should use it as an advertising medium, to lead people to purchase their wares instead of molesting 12-year-olds and making enemies.
So a regressive tax is bad for the poor, because it taxes them more (proportionally) than the rich?
And what's the definition of a progressive tax? It taxes the rich and poor "equally" in terms of percentage of income? I still like the FairTax better, because it penalizes waste instead of penalizing productivity.
Take a look at the FairTax -- it has provisions for the poor, as obviously there's going to be a lower bracket where paying taxes doesn't make sense, because as you said they need 100% of their income to pay the bills. In fact, they give money to the lowest bracket (it's been a while since I read it, but I believe that the lowest bracket basically gets a "handout," paid for by taxes from higher brackets). While I can't say "they've thought of everything" they do seem to have a great plan.
The other great part about it is eliminates the IRS from citizens' lives; it reduces the "collection points" to about 5% of their size (i.e., instead of having all citizens file income tax returns, only businesses that sell new goods and services need to). This also has beneficial privacy implications as well.
A real socialist should be against sales taxes all together anyway, they are inherantly regresive.
Could you expand on this a bit? I have been an advocate of the Fair Tax for several years now, precisely because it is a sales tax.
It taxes new goods and services at 23%. It eliminates the income tax. The part I like best about this is that it moves the "penalty" of taxation from income (creation, productivity) to consumption (destruction, waste) -- and by not taxing used goods, it promotes reuse and recycling.
I say make as much money as you want, and keep it. If you prefer to live in a condo instead of a million dollar house, your expenses will be lower, and therefore your taxes will be also. How is this not a good thing? (Seriously, I don't really understand "regressive" and "progressive". Thanks!)
I'd work for free for the right group of people. Y'know, those freedom loving people we used to read about in our history classes. Not democrates or republicans or capitalists, but real humanitarians.
Vegetarians eat vegetables.
Are you sure you want to work (for free even!) for humanitarians?
You have the coolest user number. I'm sure you've been told that before. But ever since I've started "the medications" I've seen a lot less "666" than before. So I just wanted to say, thanks.
If the goal is the distribution of information, this is the wrong tool for the job.
For a small distribution, perhaps. However, printing thousands or millions of pamphlets (and then distributing them) gets expensive.
If each town had, say, 10 of these computers, 10 printers, and a hell-of-a-lotta paper (and ink), then the printing and distribution costs would be reduced.
Further, these computers don't distribute information as a one-shot deal. Sure, the first pamphlet would "cost" a lot, but then you get economies of scale, such that the 10th or 100th pamphlet distributed would cost little more than the cost of electricity, bandwidth, and ink.
And as to the right tool for the job, I think the Internet is exactly the right tool for information distribution. I mean, just look at the popularity (right or wrong) of P2P networks; it is information distribution at its finest (except the porn you get when searching for Finding Nemo (to some it's a bonus, but not parents with small children)).
If you have flex hours, why do you have to clock in at 7:30 AM?
Good point. I would caution the initial inquirer that their job may be on the line, especially if this is not company-wide policy. I know someone who was a great asset but who disagreed with management one too many times on something small (choose your battles, people!), and was put on a rigidly-enforced 9 am to 6 pm work day. The individual was used to flex time, that being "be in by noon and get your work done" and could not understand why he was being singled out for this treatment.
He was fired shortly thereafter, and the employer had a "legal" defense, that being the employee didn't "follow the rules."
Rules are rules, and the employer is constantly covering their ass to keep them from being judged against. Keep that in mind when you try to determine why things are the way they are.
I've been saying all along that it's a good short. If I had shorted back when I started saying that (about $9), I'd have lost my shirt since it's at $19.62 today (up $0.45).
So I decided to do some analysis. For a short time I had a subscription to VectorVest which seemed like a good analysis program (I just didn't have the money, either to trade or to continue the subscription). They have a "free" analysis on their web site; it used to be fill in the ticker and they'd give you the info, but now you have to fill in the ticker and your email, and they email it to you (and you only get 3 per day, 50 per email account).
So in the interest of keeping everyone from having to waste their clicks, here's the analysis on SCO. Long story short: VectorVest thinks they're going to $30.
VectorVest Stock Analysis of S C O Grp Inc as of 9/12/2003
Thank you for requesting an analysis of S C O Grp Inc from VectorVest. The ticker symbol for S C O Grp Inc is SCOX. SCOX is traded on the NASDAQ - (O)
Analysis Summary
SCOX is undervalued compared to its Price of $17.75 per share, has about average safety, and is currently rated a Buy.
In-Depth Analysis
Business: SCO GROUP INC, (SCOX) Develops, deploys and manages Linux and UNIX operating systems and software products to meet the cost effective needs of small- to medium businesses, along with Web-based applications to power Internet connections.
Price: SCOX closed on 9/12/2003 at $17.75 per share
Value: Value is a measure of a stock's current worth. SCOX has a current Value of $29.26 per share. Therefore, it is undervalued compared to its Price of $17.75 per share. Value is computed from forecasted earnings per share, forecasted earnings growth, profitability, interest, and inflation rates. Value increases when earnings, earnings growth rate and profitably increase, and when interest and inflation rates decrease. VectorVest advocates the purchase of undervalued stocks. At some point in time, a stock's Price and Value always will converge.
RV (Relative Value): RV is an indicator of long-term price appreciation potential. SCOX has an RV of 1.50, which is excellent on a scale of 0.00 to 2.00. This indicator is far superior to a simple comparison of Price and Value because it is computed from an analysis of projected price appreciation three years out, AAA Corporate Bond Rates, and risk. RV solves the riddle of whether it is preferable to buy High growth, High P/E stocks, or Low growth, Low P/E stocks. VectorVest favors the purchase of stocks with RV ratings above 1.00.
RS (Relative Safety): RS is an indicator of risk. SCOX has an RS rating of 0.97, which is fair on a scale of 0.00 to 2.00. RS is computed from an analysis of the consistency and predictability of a company's financial performance, debt to equity ratio, sales volume, business longevity, price volatility and other factors. A stock with an RS rating greater than 1.00 is safer and more predictable than the average stock in the VectorVest database. VectorVest favors the purchase of stocks of companies with consistent, predictable financial performance.
RT (Relative Timing): RT is a fast, smart, accurate indicator of a stock's price trend. SCOX has a Relative Timing rating of 1.88, which is excellent on a scale of 0.00 to 2.00. RT is computed from an analysis of the direction, magnitude, and dynamics of a stock's price movements over one day, one week, one quarter and one year time periods. Once a stock's price has established a strong trend, it is expected to continue in that trend for the short-term. If a trend dissipates, RT will gravitate toward 1.00. RT will explode from bottoms, dive from tops, and reflect changes in price momentum. VectorVest favors the purchase of stocks with RT ratings above 1.00.
VST (VST-Vector): VST is the master indicator for ranking every stock in the VectorVest database. SCOX has a VST rating of 1.52, which is excellent on a scale of 0.00 to 2.00. VST
Well I think what you have to say is interesting, and I certainly agree with you on a majority of points. What party do you see yourself running under? It looks closely aligned with the Libertarian party, but you might want to consider running as an independent since Libertarians only get into office in Vermont. 1/2;-)
I think overusing the "50 million people die every year because we have not perfected nanotechnology" quote is a good approach; it pulls at people's heartstrings and is, in fact, the truth. Someone on Nanodot.org has been using this approach and gaining karma.
However, why do you believe it's 100 years off? All signs I can see point to it being at most a generation (20 years) away. And with each advance in technology, nanotech gets that much closer. We're about to start producing 32 nanometer interconnects on processors (the grid processor article recently posted on/. mentions this), and we've already created nanotubes strong enough for the space elevator, we just need to now make them long enough. Have you read Nanosystems? It's a bit much to get through (I haven't read it all), but it sets out a plan to get there from here (here being 1992) and was Eric Drexler's thesis so it was accepted by his numerous professors.
Personally I think the development of full-blown nanotech and the Singularity will happen at almost the same time -- within a year or two of each other. Why do you put the Singularity 500-1000 years off? (I would agree that perhaps it might take us that long to create a Matrioshka Brain, simply in moving the parts of the solar system around.)
I agree with community and family. The dot-com bust hit me hard and I'm now getting support from family (as opposed to welfare, which I suppose I could look into but... well, not yet). So I'm not completely unbiased when I raise this topic -- what happened to me and many others will undoubtedly happen to close to 100% of the workforce, once machines and robots start becoming competitive. Perhaps we could allow people to buy (or rent? or have the right to own at least one?) robots that could go to work for them, and that might solve the welfare issue. (Not completely, but... it's an area that needs thought.)
As far as virtual prisons, I was going a bit overboard there. We most likely won't have the technology for that for a few decades, so as you rightly said it's not something that should be on the platform for a 2008/2012 race. And as to the last sentence, prisoners could be given a choice whether to live in the traditional prison or to live in a virtual one. And if it does end up being something like the Matrix, then prisoners could learn much faster in a virtual prison and (as I mentioned) be better prepared to re-enter society. In fact, they might even be given the choice as to whether they even want to re-enter society; choosing the Matrix might be preferable, especially if they could "work" from within it as they so chose, in order to pay the costs of supporting their imprisonment.
But like you said, that's an issue to drop for the coming race.
There are some other issues we haven't discussed. Health care, especially eliminating patents on existing formulations (i.e., put a plant from the Amazon in pill form and suddenly you can mark it up 5000%? No, a patent should not be granted for existing biology). Universal health care? It sounds scary, especially giving everyone the same treatment regardless of how much they can afford to pay. If you can afford better care, you should be able to buy it; but the government should set a "floor" to the quality and quantity of health care you can receive. So yes, Bill Gates would get better care than you or me, but people with no income would still be able to see a doctor (I basically don't these days, as COBRA would have been like $800 a month -- impossible).
The RIAA is now equating P2P with kiddy porn and therefore the reactionary dumbasses in Congress will jump on this now.
We (and by this I mean the EFF/ACLU/etc.) should aggressively fight back and point out how the RIAA member companies are promoting sexual activity among minors through their provocative album covers and music videos.
I appreciate the bash, but no, I don't really care about Star Trek. A decent show, but not a lifestyle.
If you're really interested in what's coming soon, read up on it at The Foresight Institute and a Slashdot-styled discussion site, NanoDot.
Eric Drexler and his wife Christine Peterson started the Foresight Institute after Eric wrote the book Engines of Creation which he has now made available on-line. It was written in 1986 but is surprising still relevant. Eric and Chris also wrote Unbounding the Future which is also available on-line. His doctorate was turned into the book Nanosystems, which is a struggle to get through but has solid science in it (after all, it passed the review of his professors).
This is very relevant to the subject matter. Digital computers have created untold wealth for consumers, who can download any digital creation (music, movies, books, software) for zero cost (apart from the cost of the computer, electricity, and an Internet connection).
This is highly disruptive to the RIAA and MPAA (less so to the book publishers and SPA; people prefer books on paper, and software more often "phones home" with activation codes, preventing piracy -- except people then trade the codes). Disruptive enough that they have gotten laws passed to support their failing business models, similar to how the buggy whip manufacturers tried to pass laws stating that "carriages on roads must have horses in front of them."
My addition to this discussion is to extrapolate technological advances, and see how they will affect future industries. The truth of the matter is, no industry is safe from nanotechnology -- it will make all products duplicatable at zero cost. Like the Linux distributors, other industries will see their business model turn into one of service. And the fact that money won't matter (since you can make whatever you want) won't really hurt these companies, because they too will have replicator boxes[1] and will be able to create whatever they need in order to run their companies.
[1] -- (I understand your attack now: you singled out the word "replicator" and figured that it could only mean one thing. Sorry to give you that impression; I'm talking about reality, not a fictional TV show.)
I wouldn't even bother burning it on a cd because I have enough hd space (and half the time the filesize is about 50mb too big)
90 and 99 minute CDs are available. I couldn't find anyone on-line with 99 minutes CDs in the states (UK had a bunch), but I recently ordered 90 minute CDs and the over-size VCDs burned successfully (and played in my DVD player).
Even cooler is that my CD burner (Lite-On LTR-12101B) was not on their burner list but it worked anyway. I burned with Adaptec Easy CD Creator 4, but it only would copy CDs (using DAEMount you can "mount" an ISO file and it appears to Windows as if it were another drive; then AECC4 just copies "M:" to the blank disc). When I tried to burn a CD of files which were greater than 700 MB, it complained.
I've tried a couple other burning tools from download.com(.com) but haven't yet found one that'll burn larger CDs consisting of files. If you know of one, please let me know.
[...] so what we really need is for a company to manufacture fake BMWs and sell them for $10,000. That way, everybody wins.
You will soon get your wish. Nanotechnology is coming, and you will have a "replicator box" that will be able to create any physical item; put dirt or trash in, and it pulls the atoms apart and rearranges them into the thing that you want.
Instead of trading songs and movies on Kazaa, we'll be trading blueprints. You will be able to "download" a BMW. You won't have to pay $10,000 for it either, nor will you have to pay for the replicator box -- because all we need is the first box, and then it can make additional boxes.
The economy is in for some uproar. We're already feeling the effects of unlimited wealth; currently it's just digital goods, but soon it will be all goods.
to say "it blew up but we didnt' see it yet" is actually inaccurate... it didn't blow up as far as we are concerned until we saw it.
Actually, since portions of the flare were moving slower than the speed of light, it is possible that we could have detected the disturbance in advance and prepared for it.
Only problem is, we've had detection capabilities for, what, like 60 years or so now? The initial portion (moving at the speed of light) probably hit us centuries ago.
On my x86 machines, I choose not to install Flash at all.
My default browser is Mozilla (on W2K). I do not install Flash on it.
If I come across a site that I absolutely have to see, and it uses Flash, then I cut-and-paste the URL into IE.
Two examples: The Homestarrunner.com site, with the initial FHQWHGADS (fuh-who-goo-gads) email and the song they created as a riff on it. It's hilarious -- watch them both, in order.
They consume more fuel than any other kind of vehicle except supercars and exotics (and many exotics are actually quite efficient) which is bad for everyone.
At one point in the dot-com craze I had a Corvette and a Montero. We took a trip in both cars, and when we stopped to fill them up the Montero always took more gas than the Corvette.
The Corvette is a V-8 with 350 horsepower; the Montero is a V-6 with only 200 horsepower. It's crazy that a Corvette is more efficient! After the first couple stops, we did some calculations and found that the Vette gets about 25 MPG, and the Montero only 14.
If I had known that I would have just bought two Vettes.;-)
Slashdot Mirror
I did a similar thing in dorm, and it also doesn't translate well to office space but here it is: the guy next door had a similar stereo as mine, both Sonys I believe, so the remotes were mostly compatible. So I'd go outside and turn his volume up, or mute it, or change components... Took him a while to realize it was me, he thought he had faulty equipment. YMMV. ;-)
Otherwise, you might have a hard time convincing the judge that someone dumb enough to take your legal advice is smart enough to know what the acronym stands for.
Also, I prefer the contraction-modified version of this acronym: "IMNAL" because it doesn't sound as much like "I take it up the ass."
However, many of them are not simply copied e-books; they appear to have been scanned then OCRed -- badly. So in many cases the words are grossly wrong (or sometimes are numbers, like "I'11" (eye-apostrophe-eleven)). I believe this has helped make me a better reader, because I have to question what I'm reading while I'm reading it and most of the time I win out. ;-)
These are op-codes that, when rearranged, make pretty pictures?
Umm... Remote Logins != Remote Access.
More specifically, Remote Access < Remote Logins.
Allowing Remote Access is fine. Allowing Remote Logins is a no-no.
As the other posters are saying, your price was too high. In 1988 I bought an 80 MB drive for $650, and I was very pleased that I was able to break the $10/MB price point.
I think if we were to apply that to most of our laws, the prisons would quickly clear out.
Responsibility is one thing; religion-inspired crimes are something completely different. Here in MA you can't buy beer on Sunday; prostitution and drug use is illegal; and you can't place bets (unless those bets are through government agents, i.e. the lottery). In none of these cases is anyone being physically hurt or made to do something against their will. So why should these activities be illegal?
Yes, The Italian Job is not a movie to get morals from -- they were stealing (as in, depriving someone else of their property), and although it was kinda nice that they got vengeance in the end (spoiler: Old Yeller dies), it still doesn't make what they were doing right.
I liken the current controversy over P2P and digital abundance to the printing press. Before its invention, only monks copied books, and so the Church could control who got to read, and what. After the printing press, the Church had a lot less control over thought distribution.
The RIAA and MPAA are restricting the free flow of thoughts as well, by fighting against P2P. Instead they should use it as an advertising medium, to lead people to purchase their wares instead of molesting 12-year-olds and making enemies.
What are those, like marketing biscuits?
And what's the definition of a progressive tax? It taxes the rich and poor "equally" in terms of percentage of income? I still like the FairTax better, because it penalizes waste instead of penalizing productivity.
Take a look at the FairTax -- it has provisions for the poor, as obviously there's going to be a lower bracket where paying taxes doesn't make sense, because as you said they need 100% of their income to pay the bills. In fact, they give money to the lowest bracket (it's been a while since I read it, but I believe that the lowest bracket basically gets a "handout," paid for by taxes from higher brackets). While I can't say "they've thought of everything" they do seem to have a great plan.
The other great part about it is eliminates the IRS from citizens' lives; it reduces the "collection points" to about 5% of their size (i.e., instead of having all citizens file income tax returns, only businesses that sell new goods and services need to). This also has beneficial privacy implications as well.
Could you expand on this a bit? I have been an advocate of the Fair Tax for several years now, precisely because it is a sales tax.
It taxes new goods and services at 23%. It eliminates the income tax. The part I like best about this is that it moves the "penalty" of taxation from income (creation, productivity) to consumption (destruction, waste) -- and by not taxing used goods, it promotes reuse and recycling.
I say make as much money as you want, and keep it. If you prefer to live in a condo instead of a million dollar house, your expenses will be lower, and therefore your taxes will be also. How is this not a good thing? (Seriously, I don't really understand "regressive" and "progressive". Thanks!)
Vegetarians eat vegetables.
Are you sure you want to work (for free even!) for humanitarians?
Mmmmmmmmmmmm, donutos....
You have the coolest user number. I'm sure you've been told that before. But ever since I've started "the medications" I've seen a lot less "666" than before. So I just wanted to say, thanks.
Heh, I would imagine if you attempted to connect to that particular site that you'd get an ad.
For a small distribution, perhaps. However, printing thousands or millions of pamphlets (and then distributing them) gets expensive.
If each town had, say, 10 of these computers, 10 printers, and a hell-of-a-lotta paper (and ink), then the printing and distribution costs would be reduced.
Further, these computers don't distribute information as a one-shot deal. Sure, the first pamphlet would "cost" a lot, but then you get economies of scale, such that the 10th or 100th pamphlet distributed would cost little more than the cost of electricity, bandwidth, and ink.
And as to the right tool for the job, I think the Internet is exactly the right tool for information distribution. I mean, just look at the popularity (right or wrong) of P2P networks; it is information distribution at its finest (except the porn you get when searching for Finding Nemo (to some it's a bonus, but not parents with small children)).
Good point. I would caution the initial inquirer that their job may be on the line, especially if this is not company-wide policy. I know someone who was a great asset but who disagreed with management one too many times on something small (choose your battles, people!), and was put on a rigidly-enforced 9 am to 6 pm work day. The individual was used to flex time, that being "be in by noon and get your work done" and could not understand why he was being singled out for this treatment.
He was fired shortly thereafter, and the employer had a "legal" defense, that being the employee didn't "follow the rules."
Rules are rules, and the employer is constantly covering their ass to keep them from being judged against. Keep that in mind when you try to determine why things are the way they are.
So I decided to do some analysis. For a short time I had a subscription to VectorVest which seemed like a good analysis program (I just didn't have the money, either to trade or to continue the subscription). They have a "free" analysis on their web site; it used to be fill in the ticker and they'd give you the info, but now you have to fill in the ticker and your email, and they email it to you (and you only get 3 per day, 50 per email account).
So in the interest of keeping everyone from having to waste their clicks, here's the analysis on SCO. Long story short: VectorVest thinks they're going to $30.
VectorVest Stock Analysis of S C O Grp Inc as of 9/12/2003
Thank you for requesting an analysis of S C O Grp Inc from VectorVest. The ticker symbol for S C O Grp Inc is SCOX. SCOX is traded on the NASDAQ - (O)
Analysis Summary
SCOX is undervalued compared to its Price of $17.75 per share, has about average safety, and is currently rated a Buy.
In-Depth Analysis
Business: SCO GROUP INC, (SCOX) Develops, deploys and manages Linux and UNIX operating systems and software products to meet the cost effective needs of small- to medium businesses, along with Web-based applications to power Internet connections.
Price: SCOX closed on 9/12/2003 at $17.75 per share
Value: Value is a measure of a stock's current worth. SCOX has a current Value of $29.26 per share. Therefore, it is undervalued compared to its Price of $17.75 per share. Value is computed from forecasted earnings per share, forecasted earnings growth, profitability, interest, and inflation rates. Value increases when earnings, earnings growth rate and profitably increase, and when interest and inflation rates decrease. VectorVest advocates the purchase of undervalued stocks. At some point in time, a stock's Price and Value always will converge.
RV (Relative Value): RV is an indicator of long-term price appreciation potential. SCOX has an RV of 1.50, which is excellent on a scale of 0.00 to 2.00. This indicator is far superior to a simple comparison of Price and Value because it is computed from an analysis of projected price appreciation three years out, AAA Corporate Bond Rates, and risk. RV solves the riddle of whether it is preferable to buy High growth, High P/E stocks, or Low growth, Low P/E stocks. VectorVest favors the purchase of stocks with RV ratings above 1.00.
RS (Relative Safety): RS is an indicator of risk. SCOX has an RS rating of 0.97, which is fair on a scale of 0.00 to 2.00. RS is computed from an analysis of the consistency and predictability of a company's financial performance, debt to equity ratio, sales volume, business longevity, price volatility and other factors. A stock with an RS rating greater than 1.00 is safer and more predictable than the average stock in the VectorVest database. VectorVest favors the purchase of stocks of companies with consistent, predictable financial performance.
RT (Relative Timing): RT is a fast, smart, accurate indicator of a stock's price trend. SCOX has a Relative Timing rating of 1.88, which is excellent on a scale of 0.00 to 2.00. RT is computed from an analysis of the direction, magnitude, and dynamics of a stock's price movements over one day, one week, one quarter and one year time periods. Once a stock's price has established a strong trend, it is expected to continue in that trend for the short-term. If a trend dissipates, RT will gravitate toward 1.00. RT will explode from bottoms, dive from tops, and reflect changes in price momentum. VectorVest favors the purchase of stocks with RT ratings above 1.00.
VST (VST-Vector): VST is the master indicator for ranking every stock in the VectorVest database. SCOX has a VST rating of 1.52, which is excellent on a scale of 0.00 to 2.00. VST
I think overusing the "50 million people die every year because we have not perfected nanotechnology" quote is a good approach; it pulls at people's heartstrings and is, in fact, the truth. Someone on Nanodot.org has been using this approach and gaining karma.
However, why do you believe it's 100 years off? All signs I can see point to it being at most a generation (20 years) away. And with each advance in technology, nanotech gets that much closer. We're about to start producing 32 nanometer interconnects on processors (the grid processor article recently posted on /. mentions this), and we've already created nanotubes strong enough for the space elevator, we just need to now make them long enough. Have you read Nanosystems? It's a bit much to get through (I haven't read it all), but it sets out a plan to get there from here (here being 1992) and was Eric Drexler's thesis so it was accepted by his numerous professors.
Personally I think the development of full-blown nanotech and the Singularity will happen at almost the same time -- within a year or two of each other. Why do you put the Singularity 500-1000 years off? (I would agree that perhaps it might take us that long to create a Matrioshka Brain, simply in moving the parts of the solar system around.)
I agree with community and family. The dot-com bust hit me hard and I'm now getting support from family (as opposed to welfare, which I suppose I could look into but ... well, not yet). So I'm not completely unbiased when I raise this topic -- what happened to me and many others will undoubtedly happen to close to 100% of the workforce, once machines and robots start becoming competitive. Perhaps we could allow people to buy (or rent? or have the right to own at least one?) robots that could go to work for them, and that might solve the welfare issue. (Not completely, but ... it's an area that needs thought.)
As far as virtual prisons, I was going a bit overboard there. We most likely won't have the technology for that for a few decades, so as you rightly said it's not something that should be on the platform for a 2008/2012 race. And as to the last sentence, prisoners could be given a choice whether to live in the traditional prison or to live in a virtual one. And if it does end up being something like the Matrix, then prisoners could learn much faster in a virtual prison and (as I mentioned) be better prepared to re-enter society. In fact, they might even be given the choice as to whether they even want to re-enter society; choosing the Matrix might be preferable, especially if they could "work" from within it as they so chose, in order to pay the costs of supporting their imprisonment.
But like you said, that's an issue to drop for the coming race.
There are some other issues we haven't discussed. Health care, especially eliminating patents on existing formulations (i.e., put a plant from the Amazon in pill form and suddenly you can mark it up 5000%? No, a patent should not be granted for existing biology). Universal health care? It sounds scary, especially giving everyone the same treatment regardless of how much they can afford to pay. If you can afford better care, you should be able to buy it; but the government should set a "floor" to the quality and quantity of health care you can receive. So yes, Bill Gates would get better care than you or me, but people with no income would still be able to see a doctor (I basically don't these days, as COBRA would have been like $800 a month -- impossible).
The environment -- this on
We (and by this I mean the EFF/ACLU/etc.) should aggressively fight back and point out how the RIAA member companies are promoting sexual activity among minors through their provocative album covers and music videos.
Child porn, indeed.
If you're really interested in what's coming soon, read up on it at The Foresight Institute and a Slashdot-styled discussion site, NanoDot.
Eric Drexler and his wife Christine Peterson started the Foresight Institute after Eric wrote the book Engines of Creation which he has now made available on-line. It was written in 1986 but is surprising still relevant. Eric and Chris also wrote Unbounding the Future which is also available on-line. His doctorate was turned into the book Nanosystems, which is a struggle to get through but has solid science in it (after all, it passed the review of his professors).
This is very relevant to the subject matter. Digital computers have created untold wealth for consumers, who can download any digital creation (music, movies, books, software) for zero cost (apart from the cost of the computer, electricity, and an Internet connection).
This is highly disruptive to the RIAA and MPAA (less so to the book publishers and SPA; people prefer books on paper, and software more often "phones home" with activation codes, preventing piracy -- except people then trade the codes). Disruptive enough that they have gotten laws passed to support their failing business models, similar to how the buggy whip manufacturers tried to pass laws stating that "carriages on roads must have horses in front of them."
My addition to this discussion is to extrapolate technological advances, and see how they will affect future industries. The truth of the matter is, no industry is safe from nanotechnology -- it will make all products duplicatable at zero cost. Like the Linux distributors, other industries will see their business model turn into one of service. And the fact that money won't matter (since you can make whatever you want) won't really hurt these companies, because they too will have replicator boxes[1] and will be able to create whatever they need in order to run their companies.
[1] -- (I understand your attack now: you singled out the word "replicator" and figured that it could only mean one thing. Sorry to give you that impression; I'm talking about reality, not a fictional TV show.)
90 and 99 minute CDs are available. I couldn't find anyone on-line with 99 minutes CDs in the states (UK had a bunch), but I recently ordered 90 minute CDs and the over-size VCDs burned successfully (and played in my DVD player).
Even cooler is that my CD burner (Lite-On LTR-12101B) was not on their burner list but it worked anyway. I burned with Adaptec Easy CD Creator 4, but it only would copy CDs (using DAEMount you can "mount" an ISO file and it appears to Windows as if it were another drive; then AECC4 just copies "M:" to the blank disc). When I tried to burn a CD of files which were greater than 700 MB, it complained.
I've tried a couple other burning tools from download.com(.com) but haven't yet found one that'll burn larger CDs consisting of files. If you know of one, please let me know.
You will soon get your wish. Nanotechnology is coming, and you will have a "replicator box" that will be able to create any physical item; put dirt or trash in, and it pulls the atoms apart and rearranges them into the thing that you want.
Instead of trading songs and movies on Kazaa, we'll be trading blueprints. You will be able to "download" a BMW. You won't have to pay $10,000 for it either, nor will you have to pay for the replicator box -- because all we need is the first box, and then it can make additional boxes.
The economy is in for some uproar. We're already feeling the effects of unlimited wealth; currently it's just digital goods, but soon it will be all goods.
Actually, since portions of the flare were moving slower than the speed of light, it is possible that we could have detected the disturbance in advance and prepared for it.
Only problem is, we've had detection capabilities for, what, like 60 years or so now? The initial portion (moving at the speed of light) probably hit us centuries ago.
My default browser is Mozilla (on W2K). I do not install Flash on it.
If I come across a site that I absolutely have to see, and it uses Flash, then I cut-and-paste the URL into IE.
Two examples: The Homestarrunner.com site, with the initial FHQWHGADS (fuh-who-goo-gads) email and the song they created as a riff on it. It's hilarious -- watch them both, in order.
"I'm buying you a pizza."
The Corvette is a V-8 with 350 horsepower; the Montero is a V-6 with only 200 horsepower. It's crazy that a Corvette is more efficient! After the first couple stops, we did some calculations and found that the Vette gets about 25 MPG, and the Montero only 14.
If I had known that I would have just bought two Vettes. ;-)