I loved it when airliners banned smoking. Now there's NO SMOKING everywhere.
You say that like it's a bad thing. I'm pretty firm on the side of pro-Liberty... except when it comes to smokers. Hell, the government can oppress them as much as it wants. Put 'em in stocks for public ridicule, that's A-OK with me.:)
Bcasue overall sony has high quality for consumer devices. [...] Overall they still do.
They do? Seriously, what does Sony make that's 'high quality' (and not just "adequate") anymore? Their monitors are mediocre. I've had two sets of their headphones in the last year. The noise cancelling ones were a joke and I returned them. Another standard pair were OK, but disintegrated in like 4 months (and the carrying case was unbelievably stupidly designed and a PITA).
Maybe the PS3 has a few good games, but it's incredibly overpriced.
Sony used to be a good brand, but I don't touch anything by them anymore. They simply aren't the same company they once were.
So who did the translation for Microsoft? Did this native speaker get a "license" from the Tribal Elders to speak and write the language in the first place?
Seems to me that if one even buys into the idea of IP around a long-spoken language, any native speaker has just as much right to "license" it as these Tribal Elders.
Such people are as much Christians as are scientists who believe the world is flat. Please do not judge us Christians by the actions of these radicals.
What's the difference -- and I mean this seriously -- between your "radical" Christian and a "mainstream" Christian, presumably such as yourself? Just the noise level? You both believe in supernaturalism. You both believe in theology over sicence. Sure, there might be differences between your opinions on your theology, but both of you use the bible as your first reference, rather than science as your first reference.
Being "moderately" Christian is like being "moderately pregnant". The issue is the supernaturalism, not the mere details.
A double linked list implies reverse pointers allowing forward and backward traversal of a list. The patent in question is more broad than that. It is talking about multiple links allowing different orderings at the same time for the same elements. So you could have a list of, say, files with links giving alphabetical order, and links giving size order, and thirdly links giving file types without having to resort the list. You might use this in a file-list screen.
The patent is still absurd, but the summary is (as usual) inaccurate.
With socialized medicine you would get the SAME quality care for a LOT less money.
Heck, by that logic, why don't we socialize every service in the economy and get the "same" quality for a "lot" less money? Maybe, just maybe, because government ALWAYS does a worse job than the private sector? Take a look at VA hospitals some time. That's the government at work. I have a feeling you don't live in one of these socialist utopias where it takes months, if not years, to get a knee surgery, if you get one at all (joint surgeries are often considered "elective").
Which president in the last 30 years managed to get a budget surplus?
That would be Clinton, who inherited a robust economy from his predecessor sending in lots of money, combined with a Republican congress that didn't spend like idiots (contrary to recent Republican congresses). In any case, perhaps you've forgotten that congress spends the money, not the President.
Which president gave a huge tax break to the upper class while lanching an incredibly expensive war?
Bush gave tax breaks to EVERYONE. And what is with the jealousy and envy of the rich (who, by the way, create the jobs in the economy)? I've never understood it. The top earners pay so far in excess of their "fair share" that it's ridiculous. Yet, the Democrats lie year after year that the "fat cats" don't pay taxes. Yes, they LIE LIE LIE. That's one of the reasons I despise the Democrats. Republicans lie about things too, but not bald-faced ones like the Democrats. And by the way, I don't love the Republicans. I only hate them less than the Democrats.
I suppose I could see it that way, if I were completely insane.
That's because you have zero understanding of economics, and think the economy is some static thing. Tax cuts always means less revenue, and tax increases always mean more revenue. That's how Democrats think, which is another reason I hate the party. They are STUPID when it comes to understanding economics.
I don't get it? Are you suggesting that 'fear of people carrying guns' = manners?
It was a joke. But yes, a gun-carrying society is going to be a more polite society.
Or just that your annecdotes = the true reality?
Just that it's interesting that two completely different generations and from two completely different points of view gave evidence for a similar reality. You have to understand how bizarre it was to see someone so brazenly cut in a line. I literally felt like I was watching some animal with no concept of manners.
OTOH, I frequently read here on Slashdot how terrible people behave in US cinemas. I've never experienced such bad behaviour in German cinemas.
Honestly, I never encounter it, either. I have a feeling the people here who complain about rude people in cinemas are the hypersensitive types who complain about ANYTHING (I once had someone turn around and complain that I was chewing my popcorn too loud -- that's the type I mean). Personally, I just never see it.
European societies tend to focus more on manners and personal responsibility, so this clearly wouldn't work in the US.;)
What??? You have to be joking. Two real-life stories for you:
My visit to Venice: I was waiting politely in line for a water-taxi ticket. Just before my turn, a local steps in front of me and buys a ticket. I'm so shocked and stunned, I can only stare. Another one steps in front of me! Finally, I'm jarred and figure out the "system". That behavior was so -- alien -- here in the US as to be beyond comprehension.
Another story. My German uncle comes over to visit from Germany and goes to the bank (this is about, oh, 1970 or so). He is absolutely amazed and astounded watching people politely stand in line, no pushing, no shoving. My uncle gets back home and is telling my father the story. My father's classic answer (in a very dry, serious voice), "Well, of course. We carry guns.":D
And I KNOW that you're making a fall-down-in-hysterics joke to talk about Europe and Personal Responsibility. If they cared about the latter, they wouldn't embrace Socialism. The US is sadly lacking compared to how it used to be, but we're still the home for people who want to make it on their own with a minimum of nannyism.
Fair point, though it's hard to understand why, since Quicken really sucks in a lot of ways. Just momentum, I suppose.
and after all these years Internet Explorer is playing catchup to an open source browser
Explorer is playing catch-up because they stopped developing on it. Note that IE absolutely destroyed the sucky-piece-of-crap known as Netscape. And now that MS is paying attention, IE7 has what Firefox has. What what happens when Vista comes out with IE7, and very few bother to download Firefox again.
Anyway, even if I grant Firefox, two products (one old, one free) don't make a trend compared to the piles of other examples.
Music fans rejoice. IOW, there's a small chance that, some day, you may be able to find a radio station with Music That Doesn't Suck.
I consistently find radio with Music That Doesn't Suck. But then, I listen to the Classical Music station and the Rock Station That Doesn't Play Anything Newer Than The Mid-80s.:)
What if the "Peak Oil Conspiracy" was actually right, and we're running low now, while the "Anti-Peak Oil Conspiracy" is succeeding in convincing people that there's centuries of oil to come in order to hold down prices?
Fortunately, economics doesn't care what either side screams and whines about. All that matters is supply and demand over the long haul. If the Peak Oilers are right, the price will climb. If it doesn't (which hasn't happened, despite four decades of predictions it will), we know that supplies are OK.
My main point is that there is no "doomsday" where prices suddenly spike out of control because OIL IS GONE (OMG!). It'll be a gradual raising of prices, necessitating a gradual switch to other things in various industries.
The fact that at some point we will run out of oil is obvious (after all, how many times the mass of the planet can we possibly burn in oil?) People are just really bad at guessing when.
The problem is that your "obvious" answer is dead wrong. As is stated again and again, we will NEVER EVER EVER EVER EVER run out of oil. NEVER. Let me repeat that, in case you missed it: NEVER.
Oil wells are not gas tanks that keep going until they're empty. It's simply the case that oil gets more and more expensive as supplies get smaller and smaller. As the price of oil passes certain thresholds, then other resources will be used that are cheaper.
This is the problem I have with environmentalism in general. It's based on very shallow reasoning with pretty much zero understanding of economics.
I built the same system as you. (Still works) Also the RCA 1802 was the main processor used on the Voyager and Viking space probes.
In the interest of full disclosure (and it's kind of funny), I have to admit that my construction from that article was a failure. I was 13 years old, and it was a tad beyond my not-so-m@d skilz. I saved up my allowance and bought each part as I could afford it, then when I had all the parts, I made the bright move to solder wires directly onto the chips, rather than using sockets.:D
I recall being very shocked when I turned it on for the first time and it didn't work. I then really looked at my creation, which was a rat's nest of wires snaking across the back of the prototyping board, and realizing that maybe, just maybe, I might've made a mistake in the wiring (it hadn't occurred to me up to that point that there was any possibility that debugging would be required). Faced with an utter, hopeless mess, I gave up, and bought the kit that had come out since then with a nice motherboard I could solder to. That one worked a lot better.:)
When I got my 48k Atari 400 back in early 1981, I couldn't get my head around how vast 48k was so I typed in 48k of rem statements then hit 'list' to watch it scroll by. Took quite a long time. I remember thinking 'Wow, so much space! I could do anything with that amount of data/program' It also hurt my fingertips due to the 400's touch sensitive keyboard.
I had a TRS-80 with 48K around that same time (1980), and I remember thinking it was IMPOSSIBLE to fill it up with enough program and just DIMing "big ass" arrays of 24,000 short elements (Kazowee!). I also remember a few years later sitting in front of an Alpha Micro computer that had a 68K processor and a gargantuan 1 megabyte of RAM. I was shaking my head at the whole concept (cue Dr. Evil, "One MIIIIIILLION bytes!").:)
Ah, back in the good old days when 640K _was_ enough for anyone...
Dude, my first computer had 256 Bytes (not K -- *BYTES*) of memory (Built form the September 1976 issue of Popular Electronics -- Build Your Own Microcomputer, based on the COSMAC 1802 processor). 640K was beyond freaking imagination.
What if I happened to have knowledge that UNDER the surface of Mars there is plenty of natural resources for me and my small team of settlers to survive on?
That's great -- and exactly how are you going to get all the digging equipment, refineries, and a million other products of civilization that you don't think about over to the planet? Unless you think there is some great supply of food growing underneath the rock, you're not going to have much time to build an industrial civilization before the next supply ship has to get there.
There is no Earth bound government that has ANY right to say that I can't go to Mars and settle there, claim ownership of it, and proclaim that I am the leader of the entire planet.
Actually, they have the right to do anything they want. If you don't agree, feel free to raise your planetary army to defend your view that you own Mars.
And LEGALLY, with the exception of the FAA in the US not allowing me to fly my rocket (I could just put it on a boat and launch from international waters) There is NOTHING that ANYONE can do about it.
What is "legal" in space is whatever the Earth governments say is legal (you might do research into space treaties). Given the choice between respecting the "rights" of some fool claiming to own Mars, and preserving it from being contaminated forever, I suspect the Earth governments are going to err on the side of a "moratorium" on space settlements that gets renewed forever.
If I happened to have the technology in my backyard, right now, to go to and survive on mars, who is stopping me from settling there or even claiming ownership of part or whole planet?
What, do you think your going to just load up your ark spaceship with a pair of every animal and supplies that will last forever? Any sort of settlement is going to need Earth support for centuries before it could be self sustaining, if it EVER could be self-sustaining. And it's not like an undertaking like that is going to be some big secret.
If we get to the technological point where anyone is remotely acting to do it, it will get shut down long before launch. Governments won't want idiots confusing the ownership issue, scientists won't want you screwing up the science, and environmentalists will want preservation. Ain't gonna happen.
I'm sure there's *someone* how would enjoy living on a cold, dead rock, just like there are people who choose to live in Antarctica... wait, does anyone choose and/or desire to live in Antarctica? Sure, it's a nice place to visit...
The beauty you speak of is the romance of living on another planet. After the romance is dead, we'll see how many people really want to live there.
A plus for most Americans - instantly lose 5/6 of your weight just by relocating
Yeah, crippling bone density loss would be a huge plus.
Can't study it properly if we don't go there. Studying Mars will likely be the justification for any first settlement.
A carefully constructed station designed for study with absolutely no contamination is not a settlement. A true settlement will NEVER happen. It simply won't be allowed. Mark my words.
We might as well face it... settlements on planets is never going to happen. Couple of reasons:
1) The moon is too ugly and the gravity too light.
2) Mars is ugly too, but even beyond that, it won't be allowed because we won't want to screw up the natural environment for study.
The future of space settlements is space stations floating in space. We can have any environment we want (including green), we can simulate natural gravity via spinning, and we can engineer shielding. Settling other planets is romantic, but impractical, and arguably very few people would want to live on a dead rock anyway.
That a generation or two from now, the entire English language is going to primarily be reduced to textspeak and leetspeak or something.
Nah, every generation has their own version of slang. Textspeak and l33tspeak are just a written version of slang so that teenagers can feel unique from their parents (along with wacky fashions, wacky hair color, etc). When people grow up, they typically abandon it, feel embarrassed, and grow annoyed at the new generation.:)
The good thing about these abbreviations is that it makes an easy way to identify potential employees to reject, heh.
If you believe that, then I suspect you weren't around when the Democrats had power. Hell, look at Hillary Clinton's health plan from way back when. It was an absolute travesty of power-grab horror. And I highly doubt that the Democrats have suddenly found fiscal responsibility and no longer want to spend money on their pet projects. That's the premise of their whole party: spend money and grow government to take care of people.
At least the Republicans held the line on taxes. I'll give them that small sliver of success. And to me, financial freedom is the most important freedom, so they automatically win over Democrats.
Slashdot Mirror
I loved it when airliners banned smoking. Now there's NO SMOKING everywhere.
You say that like it's a bad thing. I'm pretty firm on the side of pro-Liberty... except when it comes to smokers. Hell, the government can oppress them as much as it wants. Put 'em in stocks for public ridicule, that's A-OK with me. :)
Bcasue overall sony has high quality for consumer devices. [...] Overall they still do.
They do? Seriously, what does Sony make that's 'high quality' (and not just "adequate") anymore? Their monitors are mediocre. I've had two sets of their headphones in the last year. The noise cancelling ones were a joke and I returned them. Another standard pair were OK, but disintegrated in like 4 months (and the carrying case was unbelievably stupidly designed and a PITA).
Maybe the PS3 has a few good games, but it's incredibly overpriced.
Sony used to be a good brand, but I don't touch anything by them anymore. They simply aren't the same company they once were.
So who did the translation for Microsoft? Did this native speaker get a "license" from the Tribal Elders to speak and write the language in the first place?
Seems to me that if one even buys into the idea of IP around a long-spoken language, any native speaker has just as much right to "license" it as these Tribal Elders.
Such people are as much Christians as are scientists who believe the world is flat. Please do not judge us Christians by the actions of these radicals.
What's the difference -- and I mean this seriously -- between your "radical" Christian and a "mainstream" Christian, presumably such as yourself? Just the noise level? You both believe in supernaturalism. You both believe in theology over sicence. Sure, there might be differences between your opinions on your theology, but both of you use the bible as your first reference, rather than science as your first reference.
Being "moderately" Christian is like being "moderately pregnant". The issue is the supernaturalism, not the mere details.
A double linked list implies reverse pointers allowing forward and backward traversal of a list. The patent in question is more broad than that. It is talking about multiple links allowing different orderings at the same time for the same elements. So you could have a list of, say, files with links giving alphabetical order, and links giving size order, and thirdly links giving file types without having to resort the list. You might use this in a file-list screen.
The patent is still absurd, but the summary is (as usual) inaccurate.
With socialized medicine you would get the SAME quality care for a LOT less money.
Heck, by that logic, why don't we socialize every service in the economy and get the "same" quality for a "lot" less money? Maybe, just maybe, because government ALWAYS does a worse job than the private sector? Take a look at VA hospitals some time. That's the government at work. I have a feeling you don't live in one of these socialist utopias where it takes months, if not years, to get a knee surgery, if you get one at all (joint surgeries are often considered "elective").
Which president in the last 30 years managed to get a budget surplus?
That would be Clinton, who inherited a robust economy from his predecessor sending in lots of money, combined with a Republican congress that didn't spend like idiots (contrary to recent Republican congresses). In any case, perhaps you've forgotten that congress spends the money, not the President.
Which president gave a huge tax break to the upper class while lanching an incredibly expensive war?
Bush gave tax breaks to EVERYONE. And what is with the jealousy and envy of the rich (who, by the way, create the jobs in the economy)? I've never understood it. The top earners pay so far in excess of their "fair share" that it's ridiculous. Yet, the Democrats lie year after year that the "fat cats" don't pay taxes. Yes, they LIE LIE LIE. That's one of the reasons I despise the Democrats. Republicans lie about things too, but not bald-faced ones like the Democrats. And by the way, I don't love the Republicans. I only hate them less than the Democrats.
I suppose I could see it that way, if I were completely insane.
That's because you have zero understanding of economics, and think the economy is some static thing. Tax cuts always means less revenue, and tax increases always mean more revenue. That's how Democrats think, which is another reason I hate the party. They are STUPID when it comes to understanding economics.
I don't get it? Are you suggesting that 'fear of people carrying guns' = manners?
It was a joke. But yes, a gun-carrying society is going to be a more polite society.
Or just that your annecdotes = the true reality?
Just that it's interesting that two completely different generations and from two completely different points of view gave evidence for a similar reality. You have to understand how bizarre it was to see someone so brazenly cut in a line. I literally felt like I was watching some animal with no concept of manners.
OTOH, I frequently read here on Slashdot how terrible people behave in US cinemas. I've never experienced such bad behaviour in German cinemas.
Honestly, I never encounter it, either. I have a feeling the people here who complain about rude people in cinemas are the hypersensitive types who complain about ANYTHING (I once had someone turn around and complain that I was chewing my popcorn too loud -- that's the type I mean). Personally, I just never see it.
European societies tend to focus more on manners and personal responsibility, so this clearly wouldn't work in the US. ;)
What??? You have to be joking. Two real-life stories for you:
My visit to Venice: I was waiting politely in line for a water-taxi ticket. Just before my turn, a local steps in front of me and buys a ticket. I'm so shocked and stunned, I can only stare. Another one steps in front of me! Finally, I'm jarred and figure out the "system". That behavior was so -- alien -- here in the US as to be beyond comprehension.
Another story. My German uncle comes over to visit from Germany and goes to the bank (this is about, oh, 1970 or so). He is absolutely amazed and astounded watching people politely stand in line, no pushing, no shoving. My uncle gets back home and is telling my father the story. My father's classic answer (in a very dry, serious voice), "Well, of course. We carry guns." :D
And I KNOW that you're making a fall-down-in-hysterics joke to talk about Europe and Personal Responsibility. If they cared about the latter, they wouldn't embrace Socialism. The US is sadly lacking compared to how it used to be, but we're still the home for people who want to make it on their own with a minimum of nannyism.
Microsoft Money never crushed Quicken
Fair point, though it's hard to understand why, since Quicken really sucks in a lot of ways. Just momentum, I suppose.
and after all these years Internet Explorer is playing catchup to an open source browser
Explorer is playing catch-up because they stopped developing on it. Note that IE absolutely destroyed the sucky-piece-of-crap known as Netscape. And now that MS is paying attention, IE7 has what Firefox has. What what happens when Vista comes out with IE7, and very few bother to download Firefox again.
Anyway, even if I grant Firefox, two products (one old, one free) don't make a trend compared to the piles of other examples.
Music fans rejoice. IOW, there's a small chance that, some day, you may be able to find a radio station with Music That Doesn't Suck.
I consistently find radio with Music That Doesn't Suck. But then, I listen to the Classical Music station and the Rock Station That Doesn't Play Anything Newer Than The Mid-80s. :)
What if the "Peak Oil Conspiracy" was actually right, and we're running low now, while the "Anti-Peak Oil Conspiracy" is succeeding in convincing people that there's centuries of oil to come in order to hold down prices?
Fortunately, economics doesn't care what either side screams and whines about. All that matters is supply and demand over the long haul. If the Peak Oilers are right, the price will climb. If it doesn't (which hasn't happened, despite four decades of predictions it will), we know that supplies are OK.
My main point is that there is no "doomsday" where prices suddenly spike out of control because OIL IS GONE (OMG!). It'll be a gradual raising of prices, necessitating a gradual switch to other things in various industries.
The fact that at some point we will run out of oil is obvious (after all, how many times the mass of the planet can we possibly burn in oil?) People are just really bad at guessing when.
The problem is that your "obvious" answer is dead wrong. As is stated again and again, we will NEVER EVER EVER EVER EVER run out of oil. NEVER. Let me repeat that, in case you missed it: NEVER.
Oil wells are not gas tanks that keep going until they're empty. It's simply the case that oil gets more and more expensive as supplies get smaller and smaller. As the price of oil passes certain thresholds, then other resources will be used that are cheaper.
This is the problem I have with environmentalism in general. It's based on very shallow reasoning with pretty much zero understanding of economics.
I built the same system as you. (Still works) Also the RCA 1802 was the main processor used on the Voyager and Viking space probes.
In the interest of full disclosure (and it's kind of funny), I have to admit that my construction from that article was a failure. I was 13 years old, and it was a tad beyond my not-so-m@d skilz. I saved up my allowance and bought each part as I could afford it, then when I had all the parts, I made the bright move to solder wires directly onto the chips, rather than using sockets. :D
I recall being very shocked when I turned it on for the first time and it didn't work. I then really looked at my creation, which was a rat's nest of wires snaking across the back of the prototyping board, and realizing that maybe, just maybe, I might've made a mistake in the wiring (it hadn't occurred to me up to that point that there was any possibility that debugging would be required). Faced with an utter, hopeless mess, I gave up, and bought the kit that had come out since then with a nice motherboard I could solder to. That one worked a lot better. :)
When I got my 48k Atari 400 back in early 1981, I couldn't get my head around how vast 48k was so I typed in 48k of rem statements then hit 'list' to watch it scroll by. Took quite a long time. I remember thinking 'Wow, so much space! I could do anything with that amount of data/program' It also hurt my fingertips due to the 400's touch sensitive keyboard.
I had a TRS-80 with 48K around that same time (1980), and I remember thinking it was IMPOSSIBLE to fill it up with enough program and just DIMing "big ass" arrays of 24,000 short elements (Kazowee!). I also remember a few years later sitting in front of an Alpha Micro computer that had a 68K processor and a gargantuan 1 megabyte of RAM. I was shaking my head at the whole concept (cue Dr. Evil, "One MIIIIIILLION bytes!"). :)
Ah, back in the good old days when 640K _was_ enough for anyone...
Dude, my first computer had 256 Bytes (not K -- *BYTES*) of memory (Built form the September 1976 issue of Popular Electronics -- Build Your Own Microcomputer, based on the COSMAC 1802 processor). 640K was beyond freaking imagination.
Er, why do you think it matters what you personally do, when what you personally do is different than 99% of everyone else?
What if I happened to have knowledge that UNDER the surface of Mars there is plenty of natural resources for me and my small team of settlers to survive on?
That's great -- and exactly how are you going to get all the digging equipment, refineries, and a million other products of civilization that you don't think about over to the planet? Unless you think there is some great supply of food growing underneath the rock, you're not going to have much time to build an industrial civilization before the next supply ship has to get there.
There is no Earth bound government that has ANY right to say that I can't go to Mars and settle there, claim ownership of it, and proclaim that I am the leader of the entire planet.
Actually, they have the right to do anything they want. If you don't agree, feel free to raise your planetary army to defend your view that you own Mars.
And LEGALLY, with the exception of the FAA in the US not allowing me to fly my rocket (I could just put it on a boat and launch from international waters) There is NOTHING that ANYONE can do about it.
What is "legal" in space is whatever the Earth governments say is legal (you might do research into space treaties). Given the choice between respecting the "rights" of some fool claiming to own Mars, and preserving it from being contaminated forever, I suspect the Earth governments are going to err on the side of a "moratorium" on space settlements that gets renewed forever.
They're just using RFID to prevent shoplifting.
If you had bothered to RTFA instead of jerking your knee, you'd have read that they're using it for inventory control.
If I happened to have the technology in my backyard, right now, to go to and survive on mars, who is stopping me from settling there or even claiming ownership of part or whole planet?
What, do you think your going to just load up your ark spaceship with a pair of every animal and supplies that will last forever? Any sort of settlement is going to need Earth support for centuries before it could be self sustaining, if it EVER could be self-sustaining. And it's not like an undertaking like that is going to be some big secret.
If we get to the technological point where anyone is remotely acting to do it, it will get shut down long before launch. Governments won't want idiots confusing the ownership issue, scientists won't want you screwing up the science, and environmentalists will want preservation. Ain't gonna happen.
I guess one man's ugly is another man's beautiful
I'm sure there's *someone* how would enjoy living on a cold, dead rock, just like there are people who choose to live in Antarctica... wait, does anyone choose and/or desire to live in Antarctica? Sure, it's a nice place to visit...
The beauty you speak of is the romance of living on another planet. After the romance is dead, we'll see how many people really want to live there.
A plus for most Americans - instantly lose 5/6 of your weight just by relocating
Yeah, crippling bone density loss would be a huge plus.
Can't study it properly if we don't go there. Studying Mars will likely be the justification for any first settlement.
A carefully constructed station designed for study with absolutely no contamination is not a settlement. A true settlement will NEVER happen. It simply won't be allowed. Mark my words.
We might as well face it... settlements on planets is never going to happen. Couple of reasons:
1) The moon is too ugly and the gravity too light.
2) Mars is ugly too, but even beyond that, it won't be allowed because we won't want to screw up the natural environment for study.
The future of space settlements is space stations floating in space. We can have any environment we want (including green), we can simulate natural gravity via spinning, and we can engineer shielding. Settling other planets is romantic, but impractical, and arguably very few people would want to live on a dead rock anyway.
Firefox, Thunderbird, Firebird... I'm confused
I think it's a song by Lynyrd Skynyrd.
That a generation or two from now, the entire English language is going to primarily be reduced to textspeak and leetspeak or something.
Nah, every generation has their own version of slang. Textspeak and l33tspeak are just a written version of slang so that teenagers can feel unique from their parents (along with wacky fashions, wacky hair color, etc). When people grow up, they typically abandon it, feel embarrassed, and grow annoyed at the new generation. :)
The good thing about these abbreviations is that it makes an easy way to identify potential employees to reject, heh.
We already have one: they're called Democrats.
If you believe that, then I suspect you weren't around when the Democrats had power. Hell, look at Hillary Clinton's health plan from way back when. It was an absolute travesty of power-grab horror. And I highly doubt that the Democrats have suddenly found fiscal responsibility and no longer want to spend money on their pet projects. That's the premise of their whole party: spend money and grow government to take care of people.
At least the Republicans held the line on taxes. I'll give them that small sliver of success. And to me, financial freedom is the most important freedom, so they automatically win over Democrats.