You know, I'm having a hard time reconciling what I know of Christians with the way you "speak". You seem to actually accept that others can have different opinions to your own. This is not a trait that is common among Christians, and those that do possess that trait are quickly 'removed' from the church and marked as heathens (as the person you are having this discussion with is doing to you).
While I'm sure you (in your own mind) are a Christian, you do not strike me as such. You seem more like a real person, that just happens to have Christian beliefs as part of his system of morality.:).
One thing that the 'hardcore' christians have problems with is the idea that the Bible, while supposedly the 'Word Of God' is still interpreted through humans. It was written by humans as their interpretation of the 'Word Of God', and each person that reads it sees a slightly different interpretation of the 'Word Of God' as a matter of their own perspective and their own slant on the meaning of the words themselves. Through generations of translations, many different 'versions' of the Bible, and many different languages of each 'version' it is possible that the words we see are not at all what was originally intended by the authors of the Bible, let alone the "Word Of God" before it was interpreted by those authors.
As is plain to see by what I have written here, I was quickly pushed out of 'the church' at a very young age for my questions of faith, and to this day do not believe that those considering themselves christians are any better than the rest of us. While you (the person I am responding to) seem to be the exception to the normal christian mentality, I do believe your own church shall remove you if you make these views known. It happened to me.
(Having said all of this I realize I have probably sacrificed a great amount of Karma for spouting my views. Sorry, but someone had to do it.)
I actually thought even the trollers and spammers would have enough respect for their fellow man (and I use the term loosely in connection with them) to leave this thread alone. But in actuallity it appears that the trolls and spammers like this thread more than most others.
I do wish to express my sadness at the loss of a Debian volunteer, especially at such a young age. But I also wish to ask, why must so many be so rude? Is it really too much to ask for just a little respect (as the poster I am responding to has). One thread trolls. That is all we ask. Yet that is too much.
A man's life has ended. Someone put a dedication to that life in Debian (one of his pet projects). Someone else put a dedication to that dedication (and thus a dedication to him) on slashdot and opened the door for people to 'pay their respects' via the online community...
...and the trolls and spammers see a golden opportunity to bother and disrupt.
I must go wipe the tears from my eyes. I weep as much for the lost souls of the trolls as for the young man that is the subject.
And generally people only change when there is a good reason too; people aren't very apt to "experiment" with their own bodies unless they expect a good return on investment.
huhum, ah, ever hear of body peircing? Where's the return on investment in that?
People will do stupid crap, it's in our nature. I saw a group of ten people all wearing goth clothing and crap when I went to Valley Fair the other weekend. All of them had "cat" eyes (I'm assuming they were contacts with shading), and three of them had points on the top of their ears. I promise you that if the technology is available, someone will use it. And even if it's a small group, when that small group branches off of the rest of humanity (the base if you will), they will have altered the course of evolution for their new 'branch' far beyond what regular mutation would allow for.
In my opinion, too many sci-fi authors delved headlong into the "science" behind the story (in fact just making possible conjecture related to "what we know" and in no way enhancing the story at all) and forget about the "people" in the story, or the story itself. Why complain when an author attempts to make a story a little more real by attaching a personality to the characters? If you want a dry science read, go pick up a science book. But for a sci-fi story, you don't need to know every detail of every possible scientific explaination for each situation presented. You need a good story, and an explaination of that story from human perspective. Like it or not, a big part of human life is about human interaction: relationships.
For a prime example of solid sci-fi (sometimes called space opera) look at the Hyperion/Endymion books by Dan Simmons. He gave very few scientific details, but makes you just *beg* for more. The whole thing is based on how personal relationships affect the outcome of the entire fate of humanity. That's good sci-fi. That's a good story.
I'm sure there are plenty of people to disagree with this, but:
Isn't it possible that IBM sees this as a way to earn more money further down the road? Some smaller companies (and I suppose some larger ones too) tend to think in terms of how quickly they can get their money back. IBM has the luxury of knowing that they can sink some money into something that will provide them with money at some distant point and not worry about disappearing before those benefits appear. Also, the more support for Linux they can get, the more gear (Linux compatible gear) they can sell. That seems to be the motivation behind this.
I listened to Mac OS X be referred to as a Linux-based OS.
I thought that Jobs was going out of his way to say that MacOS X is going to be based on "a very Linux-like system". Of course, I'm sure some marketing idiot took that to mean it was Linux based. Fortunately marketing is one of the few degrees you can get without possessing even a single brain cell. And I should know, one of my old "friends" from school is taking a marketing course right now. If you can lie with a straight face, you can be in marketing!
... pinko liberal commies that want to have government protect their subjects from things they don't like.
I believe this actually comes from people not wanting to have to raise their children. So many people today don't want to have to actually pay attention to their children long enough to know what the are doing. The next best thing? Have the government regulate the piss out of things so that the children don't have access to it (supposedly). I think it's a stupid and alarming procedure that is happening all too often because parents want the government to raise their children for them.
I don't think it's right, but until parents start to realize that it is through actual attention (not regulation) that you raise a child, it's going to continue. These kids are then going to hit the "age of consent" and go hog wild with all of the things they were never allowed to even see while growing up. Since they won't have been taught about them at all (let alone how to deal with temptation and walk away from some of it), they will dive in head first. I don't know, maybe we'll luck out and by then the government will have decided it is better to regulate the adults too, then temptation shall be removed from them as well (yeah, right).
If this is the direction we continue to head, will there someday be a "war on video games" something like the current "war on drugs". I can definitely see a black market for video games, and other "undesirable" media if it is outlawed. The question is, how many generations must we let pass before we start to realize that people need to learn respect and responsibility. Not that they are too stupid to know how to act responsibly. Tell them that (they are too stupid to know how to act responsibly) and they will not know how to act responsibly. It's sad, but true.
To start with, this article wasn't about sending people to another planet.
Second, the reason that NASA is always begging for funds is because government doesn't want to invest money in something that won't give them a return immediately. Space has a lot to offer, but it won't present you with instant cash. On the other hand, government loves technology projects because it usually means a quick payoff.
You repeatedly say that "no one cares" about space. Yet there are plenty of people that care or NASA wouldn't exist at all. They are there for a reason, and although the government has lost its interest ("What, you can't give us a 4x return on our investment?!? But I don't want to wait") there are still many people that want to see space explored and get humanity off of this rock. I would hate to see one little mistake cause our entire planet to cease to exist and we are gone. Then humanity really would have amounted to the nothing we look like we are.
Until private industry gains an interest in space (again, back to the profit issue) we probably won't see any major advances. It's really too bad. Space is just full of scientific answers if we care to go looking for them. Why ignore them?
Kill quickly and painlessly (typically a bullet just off center in the brain). Then, hang and bleed before the blood or body has time to harden. In the cases where I have been involved in the slaugher of animals, we swooped in as soon as the gunshot was fired and the animal was on the ground. This makes for a painless (or as painless as possible) death, and still gives you really good meat.
I personally spent a great many years on a farm. Some of the cows were very much pets. They would "visit" you any time you were out amongst them and you could pet them, ride them, talk to them and pretty much treat them like any pet. Guess which cows the people on that farm had butchered for their own use? The pets of course. Some would say this is hypocritical. We (as farmers) knew that the animals were raised for a particular purpose, to be eaten. We therefore chose to eat the ones that we were most familiar with. We knew the animal, we knew from day one what that animal's purpose was, and we made sure that purpose was fullfilled. Also, we killed the ones we ate ourselves (each person took a turn) because the older generation believed it was important for everyone to understand that death is a part of life, and a part of eating meat. Looking your pet in the eye for the last time, patting his head, walking back ten paces, raising the gun, and pulling the trigger isn't easy. It hurts like hell if you are a softy like me. But it teaches you something that most city living people will never know. It teaches you that everything has a place. Even though you may not like that place, it exists for a reason.
I agree that some form of "kill your own meat" should be "taught" in school or some similar situation where the child/person has to face that eating meat means something dies. Putting them in a situation like I went through (raise the animal as a pet and then "kill your own meat") will just drive the idea home in a way that no other can. Perhaps some would say this makes me twisted. But it's a part of me. I know what happens to make that steak on my dinner table. And I still eat it gladly. The cows, steers, and other meat animals have served their purpose in life.
How does an article on violence in video games get turned into another lecture about the evils of eating meat?
I realize that this will be far enough down most people won't see it, but wtf? As for the constant insistance that all meat comes from "factory farms" it doesn't happen as often as you think. I worked on a farm for a large part of my life and cows had good lives. They were fed well, had plenty of water, could roam around the 120 acres of space they had (about an acre per cow) and in general stood around chewing their cud in the shade trees. Yeah, they were frickin' miserable all right! Damn cows lived one hell of a lot better than the poor idiots that took care of them (me included).
I'm not attacking the author for his views. He doesn't want to eath meat, that's fine by me. But I really get tired of hearing about the poor animals and how horribly they are treated. I also get damn sick of constantly being lectured about eating meat in the first place. We are omnivores. Some of us chose not to be, but does that mean that those of us that still eat both meat and veggies are stupid morons? Jesus, get a clue.
As for violence in video games, I think parents need to start spending some time with their kids again and actually paying attention to what they are doing. The government can only tell you so much about child rearing without taking your child away and raising it for you. If that's really what you want, don't have the kid to begin with. Letting the government control what is right and wrong for your kid is just silly. Each parent needs to decide what is right and wrong. And honestly, video game violence has no connection to being a meat-eater. Get over yourself.
Mod me down and watch me burn. I'm sure this will piss somebody off.
BTW, in the original attempt to post this the subject read: What?!?!?! and it was rejected by the lameness filter as ASCI ART. Clever.
Is anyone else bothered by the fact that they keep calling people that write un-complimentary postings perpetrators? Isn't that what they call criminals? Is it really a crime to post something uncomplimentary about a company? Even if the uncomplimentary thing is true?
God, I'm gonna start digging my cave now. It'll be easier than facing the world ten years from now and risking saying something that offends those with money. After all, money=power=control.
As long as yer not planning some crime against one of these companies, this could actually be a good thing. It might mean that the companies will actually pay attention to what their customers are saying.
If this is what was actually going to happen, then it probably wouldn't create any debate at all. But, as the article itself repeatedly states, this is to be used to "silence" and "re-educate" people that have disagreements with companies. It will be used to have negative postings removed and further harrass those that already have a problem with the company. See, the thing that kills me about this is that people are saying this will make people more responsible for what they say online and that isn't a problem. Well, what about making the companies in question more responsible for their actions?
It is really depressing when you think about it. You used to be able to at least vent on the Internet when a company ripped you off. But now, thanks to this "great product for big business" you will be able to vent, but only if you don't want to be heard, and want to be sure that you will be harrassed constantly by a company that has already pissed you off. They will not use this to gain customer feedback. They will use it to gain power over those that disagree with them. As it will cost a virtual fortune to do so, only big business need apply. Perfect. One more way to make sure those with the money have the right to talk, while those in the middle and lower classes have to sit on their hands and say nothing.
I'm not a doomsayer, I just think we need to be realistic about what companies are going to do with this. Companies take the path of least resistance. Whatever earns them money now. They are not going to fix a problem, because that fix will cost them money. But it won't cost nearly as much (for big businesses) to silence the person stating the problem openly. Great, I suppose that my previous posts about Gateway leave me in for a few problems if Gateway decides to use this....
My guess is the person is an Apple whorshiper that follows blindly.
It's really too bad that the guy made reference to Mac so early in his paper. It didn't take long and everyone was barking that he was a Mac addict that was pissed off because Mac didn't make it bigger.
I think he was talking about something much bigger. If you really read most of the article you would see that he is talking about a fundamental shift in computing on the whole. He doesn't care whether it comes from Apple or anybody else, computing needs to change to grow, and I agree.
Why do we insist that the common graphical interface of today is the extent that computers will climb to? I see that there should always be a place for such systems, but that computing on the whole has a lot more to offer. He's talking about hooking into the information more directly and not thinking of the "nodes" of computers, but more in terms of the entire "web" of information. I get images of the Hyperion books by Dan Simmons.
For those that don't know, in his (Dan Simmon's) vision there will be a "TechoCore" made up of AI based computers that are in charge of keeping the "WorldWeb" of information intact. People will then be able to use basically any number of devices (even direct brain implants) to access any information in the "WorldWeb" without sitting down at a computer and typing/clicking/pointing. I think that this is an incredibly exciting idea. Of course, we are a long way away from that exact vision, but it isn't that far removed from the possibility of existance. Look at some of the attempts to create AI and ALife type systems right now. If one of these manages to actually create a solid implementation of life on a computing platform (or muliple platforms) this could create the infrastructure necissary to move computing into a real shift. You no longer would use computers by typing and pointing and clicking, but would sit down, say what you want done, and it would be done. Ask for information and you recieve it. Speak, and it would create your document for you.
Of course, in Simmon's vision the TechnoCore seperated itself as a political entity and began doing "very bad things", but I don't think we have to fear that as much as we have to fear the current stagnation in computing. When will something truly exciting and revolutionary occur in computing? My head is full of ideas, but I'm not a good enough coder to complete them. Maybe someone else out there is? I hope so anyway, we need a change.
I've often wondered about taking a poll to find out how many "computer geeks" actually are rockers in disguise. Myself, my home office (the room with eight computers) also hosts my four guitars and guitar amp (at 600 watts). I'm not into the rocker image crap (I don't smoke, drink, do drugs, etc.), but I love to crank it up and rock. Heavy metal all the way!
You know, I wonder if it's the creative process. Most of what I play is my own stuff (I do some covers too). I wonder if coding and cranking a guitar are basically two different faces on the same coin so to speak. Gotta love the creative process.
That's your opinion and that's fine. Each person believes a little differently when it comes to projects like WINE. That's the nice thing about the Linux community. While a few people act like idiots about every situation, there are still a lot of people willing to discus differences of opinions in an honest and non-degrading approach.
I don't agree one hundred percent with you. Quite honestly, I say let the Windows trash stay with Windows (and I mean apps and APIs, not users). At this point I don't see emulation (OK, I know it's not really emulation) as a good alternative, but I've been wrong about other things too.
While I completely agree with most of what you say, that doesn't change the fact that this hasn't been confirmed. Over and over I see people saying OS X will run on x86 and it has been confirmed. It hasn't. I just wish people would be honest about it. It might be simple for Apple to do later on, but for now they are completely denying that it will happen. All I'm asking is that people stop spreading the lie that it has been confirmed as being in the works.
Of course, this could be the result of the un-informed hearing about Darwin and supposing that means OS X is included in Darwin. Maybe.
I can't believe the number of people that have themselves convinced that OS X is going to be running on x86's.
I've been keeping up with the development of OS X (as I will probably at least consider buying a Mac when it has matured a bit) and everywhere I see the same statement from Apple. They say that while Darwin (the open source underbelly, so to speak, of OS X) will run on x86 (already runs on ?), the Aqua interface and APIs will not run on x86. Apple wants to sell Macs, making OS X on x86 just doesn't make sense to them (well, at least not to Jobs, maybe to marketing). They don't want to support all of the hardware in the x86 world, and they don't see the point in porting Aqua to x86.
While speculating about x86 MacOS X is all well and good, let's not jump the gun and say that they have confirmed it. They haven't confirmed it, in fact, they have flat out denied it. While it would probably be trivial for them to compile Aqua on Darwin once it is reasonable stable on x86 (a distinct possibility later on), I don't think they are going to do so immediately. They probably want to see Darwin bring in the hardware support first, then see if porting the commercial parts of OS X is worthwhile. For a business, this only makes sense.
Don't let the occasional "OS X on x86 would rock!" comment throw you off. It isn't confirmed, and as of this moment, it isn't even publicly acknowledged as an idea (from Apple).
No, in my humble opinion, re-implementing a broken API on Linux is not a noble cause. But I've been shouted down every time I've tried to point out how stupid it is to try and impress people with WINE.
rant: My point is that the Linux community (myself included) has tried for years to claim that Linux is not a cheap imitation of Windows. Now, to prove that: we are using a broken and buggy emulation layer to implement an already broken and buggy API, to poorly run broken and buggy software that was meant for Windows. Um, Linux isn't a cheap imitation of Windows? /rant
I see WINE as being just one more thing that people are doing to make Linux look bad. I know this isn't a popular opinion, but in the long run WINE encourages people to "port" Windows software to Linux through WINE (Look at WordPerfect Office) instead of writing solid native apps. I don't see this as a good thing.
Wow, I must have one of those rare kind of girls... smart, beautiful, and loves this particular geek. =)
One year ago I would have told you you were full of shit.
Now I sit here, married to a beatiful, smart, funny gal that happens to think I'm just the coolest dude. And she is fully aware that I'm a geek. She met me when I worked on her computer for her (at work) and spends a lot of time avoiding my "home office" (a room with 8 computers in it). I think girls don't like geeks when they are young and idiotic (just like guys go through that young and idiotic stage), but once they mature they realize that those guys that were such geeks in school are pulling in some serious cash, and actually are quite responsible.
Food for thought for any teen-age girls in the audience.
Anyone else worried about the survivial of human kind beyond the life of our little solar system?
I have thought long and hard on this on many occassions. Do we want to get out and populate some other planets? Of course we want to. Should we? Depends on what our reasons are, and how we go about it. I don't really want to see humanity disappear (one commet, asteroid, high speed space collision of any kind and bye, bye), but if we continue to be a bunch of selfish, sniveling, whiny and spiteful infighting freaks, then let it happen.
Don't get me wrong. I don't think that humanity is incapable of great things. Look at all the positive things that have happened in the last couple of centuries. There have been countless advances in science and mathmatics, literature has grown as it is easily copied and distributed (as have literacy rates), and in general the quality of life has improved by allowing us more free time. But what do we do with that free time? We certainly don't use it to accomplish much. Instead we use it to sit on our dead asses, watch TV, complain about how terrible the world really is, and whine about how much better it would be if everyone agreed with "me".
Now, I realize this seems off-topic. But, seriously, before we consider moving out into the "great beyond", shouldn't we as a species ask ourselves what we plan on doing with it? Are we going to use our knowledge, and the knowledge we could potentially gain to better ourselves, or are we going to be the equivalent to space-insects? Are we going to slowly migrate into environments, carefully checking what we are stepping on along the way, making sure not to destroy something just because it isn't immediately useful "to us"? Or are we going to just infect every planet we can get ahold of and change it for our benefit, never caring what it was on its own or what it was capable of becoming?
Yeah, I know, I sound like a doomsayer. I'm not really, I just think humanity on the whole needs to take a collective breath, sit back with a cup of tea and actually think about what they are doing. Don't we all need to do that from time to time?
Don't know if I should give this out, hehe. No, I live in Sioux Falls, SD at the moment. Have lived in Fairmont, MN; Mt. Pleasant, IA; Burlington, IA; and Harrisburg, SD (not in that order).
The thing that really kills me is Linux is looked at as the ass end of the tech industry. In the midwest, we are also viewed as the ass end of . . . well, everything. God forbid you live in the midwest and use Linux....
That said, I think it's pretty idiotic to suggest (try it at work sometime; see what reaction you receive) that the businesses on the coast should only try to sell to the people on the coast.
This is a big part of what I've been saying. However, I think expecting the high population areas to understand what it's like to live in the midwest is just stupid. And I apologize for ever giving the impression that the midwest should count on the technological radar. Now, can people quit emailing me about what a worthless pile of dogshit I am? I have more to do with my time than erasing fifty emails a day saying I don't deserve the space on slashdot (yet I deserve the time it takes to write those emails). Beautiful.
Slashdot Mirror
You know, I'm having a hard time reconciling what I know of Christians with the way you "speak". You seem to actually accept that others can have different opinions to your own. This is not a trait that is common among Christians, and those that do possess that trait are quickly 'removed' from the church and marked as heathens (as the person you are having this discussion with is doing to you).
:).
While I'm sure you (in your own mind) are a Christian, you do not strike me as such. You seem more like a real person, that just happens to have Christian beliefs as part of his system of morality.
One thing that the 'hardcore' christians have problems with is the idea that the Bible, while supposedly the 'Word Of God' is still interpreted through humans. It was written by humans as their interpretation of the 'Word Of God', and each person that reads it sees a slightly different interpretation of the 'Word Of God' as a matter of their own perspective and their own slant on the meaning of the words themselves. Through generations of translations, many different 'versions' of the Bible, and many different languages of each 'version' it is possible that the words we see are not at all what was originally intended by the authors of the Bible, let alone the "Word Of God" before it was interpreted by those authors.
As is plain to see by what I have written here, I was quickly pushed out of 'the church' at a very young age for my questions of faith, and to this day do not believe that those considering themselves christians are any better than the rest of us. While you (the person I am responding to) seem to be the exception to the normal christian mentality, I do believe your own church shall remove you if you make these views known. It happened to me.
(Having said all of this I realize I have probably sacrificed a great amount of Karma for spouting my views. Sorry, but someone had to do it.)
I actually thought even the trollers and spammers would have enough respect for their fellow man (and I use the term loosely in connection with them) to leave this thread alone. But in actuallity it appears that the trolls and spammers like this thread more than most others.
...and the trolls and spammers see a golden opportunity to bother and disrupt.
I do wish to express my sadness at the loss of a Debian volunteer, especially at such a young age. But I also wish to ask, why must so many be so rude? Is it really too much to ask for just a little respect (as the poster I am responding to has). One thread trolls. That is all we ask. Yet that is too much.
A man's life has ended. Someone put a dedication to that life in Debian (one of his pet projects). Someone else put a dedication to that dedication (and thus a dedication to him) on slashdot and opened the door for people to 'pay their respects' via the online community...
I must go wipe the tears from my eyes. I weep as much for the lost souls of the trolls as for the young man that is the subject.
huhum, ah, ever hear of body peircing? Where's the return on investment in that?
People will do stupid crap, it's in our nature. I saw a group of ten people all wearing goth clothing and crap when I went to Valley Fair the other weekend. All of them had "cat" eyes (I'm assuming they were contacts with shading), and three of them had points on the top of their ears. I promise you that if the technology is available, someone will use it. And even if it's a small group, when that small group branches off of the rest of humanity (the base if you will), they will have altered the course of evolution for their new 'branch' far beyond what regular mutation would allow for.
Thank you.
I wanted to post something along these lines too.
In my opinion, too many sci-fi authors delved headlong into the "science" behind the story (in fact just making possible conjecture related to "what we know" and in no way enhancing the story at all) and forget about the "people" in the story, or the story itself. Why complain when an author attempts to make a story a little more real by attaching a personality to the characters? If you want a dry science read, go pick up a science book. But for a sci-fi story, you don't need to know every detail of every possible scientific explaination for each situation presented. You need a good story, and an explaination of that story from human perspective. Like it or not, a big part of human life is about human interaction: relationships.
For a prime example of solid sci-fi (sometimes called space opera) look at the Hyperion/Endymion books by Dan Simmons. He gave very few scientific details, but makes you just *beg* for more. The whole thing is based on how personal relationships affect the outcome of the entire fate of humanity. That's good sci-fi. That's a good story.
I'm sure there are plenty of people to disagree with this, but:
Isn't it possible that IBM sees this as a way to earn more money further down the road? Some smaller companies (and I suppose some larger ones too) tend to think in terms of how quickly they can get their money back. IBM has the luxury of knowing that they can sink some money into something that will provide them with money at some distant point and not worry about disappearing before those benefits appear. Also, the more support for Linux they can get, the more gear (Linux compatible gear) they can sell. That seems to be the motivation behind this.
I thought that Jobs was going out of his way to say that MacOS X is going to be based on "a very Linux-like system". Of course, I'm sure some marketing idiot took that to mean it was Linux based. Fortunately marketing is one of the few degrees you can get without possessing even a single brain cell. And I should know, one of my old "friends" from school is taking a marketing course right now. If you can lie with a straight face, you can be in marketing!
I believe this actually comes from people not wanting to have to raise their children. So many people today don't want to have to actually pay attention to their children long enough to know what the are doing. The next best thing? Have the government regulate the piss out of things so that the children don't have access to it (supposedly). I think it's a stupid and alarming procedure that is happening all too often because parents want the government to raise their children for them.
I don't think it's right, but until parents start to realize that it is through actual attention (not regulation) that you raise a child, it's going to continue. These kids are then going to hit the "age of consent" and go hog wild with all of the things they were never allowed to even see while growing up. Since they won't have been taught about them at all (let alone how to deal with temptation and walk away from some of it), they will dive in head first. I don't know, maybe we'll luck out and by then the government will have decided it is better to regulate the adults too, then temptation shall be removed from them as well (yeah, right).
If this is the direction we continue to head, will there someday be a "war on video games" something like the current "war on drugs". I can definitely see a black market for video games, and other "undesirable" media if it is outlawed. The question is, how many generations must we let pass before we start to realize that people need to learn respect and responsibility. Not that they are too stupid to know how to act responsibly. Tell them that (they are too stupid to know how to act responsibly) and they will not know how to act responsibly. It's sad, but true.
To start with, this article wasn't about sending people to another planet.
Second, the reason that NASA is always begging for funds is because government doesn't want to invest money in something that won't give them a return immediately. Space has a lot to offer, but it won't present you with instant cash. On the other hand, government loves technology projects because it usually means a quick payoff.
You repeatedly say that "no one cares" about space. Yet there are plenty of people that care or NASA wouldn't exist at all. They are there for a reason, and although the government has lost its interest ("What, you can't give us a 4x return on our investment?!? But I don't want to wait") there are still many people that want to see space explored and get humanity off of this rock. I would hate to see one little mistake cause our entire planet to cease to exist and we are gone. Then humanity really would have amounted to the nothing we look like we are.
Until private industry gains an interest in space (again, back to the profit issue) we probably won't see any major advances. It's really too bad. Space is just full of scientific answers if we care to go looking for them. Why ignore them?
Commonly the case with slaughtering is:
Kill quickly and painlessly (typically a bullet just off center in the brain). Then, hang and bleed before the blood or body has time to harden. In the cases where I have been involved in the slaugher of animals, we swooped in as soon as the gunshot was fired and the animal was on the ground. This makes for a painless (or as painless as possible) death, and still gives you really good meat.
Just my $.02 as an ex-farmer.
Well said.
I personally spent a great many years on a farm. Some of the cows were very much pets. They would "visit" you any time you were out amongst them and you could pet them, ride them, talk to them and pretty much treat them like any pet. Guess which cows the people on that farm had butchered for their own use? The pets of course. Some would say this is hypocritical. We (as farmers) knew that the animals were raised for a particular purpose, to be eaten. We therefore chose to eat the ones that we were most familiar with. We knew the animal, we knew from day one what that animal's purpose was, and we made sure that purpose was fullfilled. Also, we killed the ones we ate ourselves (each person took a turn) because the older generation believed it was important for everyone to understand that death is a part of life, and a part of eating meat. Looking your pet in the eye for the last time, patting his head, walking back ten paces, raising the gun, and pulling the trigger isn't easy. It hurts like hell if you are a softy like me. But it teaches you something that most city living people will never know. It teaches you that everything has a place. Even though you may not like that place, it exists for a reason.
I agree that some form of "kill your own meat" should be "taught" in school or some similar situation where the child/person has to face that eating meat means something dies. Putting them in a situation like I went through (raise the animal as a pet and then "kill your own meat") will just drive the idea home in a way that no other can. Perhaps some would say this makes me twisted. But it's a part of me. I know what happens to make that steak on my dinner table. And I still eat it gladly. The cows, steers, and other meat animals have served their purpose in life.
How does an article on violence in video games get turned into another lecture about the evils of eating meat?
I realize that this will be far enough down most people won't see it, but wtf? As for the constant insistance that all meat comes from "factory farms" it doesn't happen as often as you think. I worked on a farm for a large part of my life and cows had good lives. They were fed well, had plenty of water, could roam around the 120 acres of space they had (about an acre per cow) and in general stood around chewing their cud in the shade trees. Yeah, they were frickin' miserable all right! Damn cows lived one hell of a lot better than the poor idiots that took care of them (me included).
I'm not attacking the author for his views. He doesn't want to eath meat, that's fine by me. But I really get tired of hearing about the poor animals and how horribly they are treated. I also get damn sick of constantly being lectured about eating meat in the first place. We are omnivores. Some of us chose not to be, but does that mean that those of us that still eat both meat and veggies are stupid morons? Jesus, get a clue.
As for violence in video games, I think parents need to start spending some time with their kids again and actually paying attention to what they are doing. The government can only tell you so much about child rearing without taking your child away and raising it for you. If that's really what you want, don't have the kid to begin with. Letting the government control what is right and wrong for your kid is just silly. Each parent needs to decide what is right and wrong. And honestly, video game violence has no connection to being a meat-eater. Get over yourself.
Mod me down and watch me burn. I'm sure this will piss somebody off.
BTW, in the original attempt to post this the subject read:
What?!?!?!
and it was rejected by the lameness filter as ASCI ART. Clever.
Is anyone else bothered by the fact that they keep calling people that write un-complimentary postings perpetrators? Isn't that what they call criminals? Is it really a crime to post something uncomplimentary about a company? Even if the uncomplimentary thing is true?
God, I'm gonna start digging my cave now. It'll be easier than facing the world ten years from now and risking saying something that offends those with money. After all, money=power=control.
If this is what was actually going to happen, then it probably wouldn't create any debate at all. But, as the article itself repeatedly states, this is to be used to "silence" and "re-educate" people that have disagreements with companies. It will be used to have negative postings removed and further harrass those that already have a problem with the company. See, the thing that kills me about this is that people are saying this will make people more responsible for what they say online and that isn't a problem. Well, what about making the companies in question more responsible for their actions?
It is really depressing when you think about it. You used to be able to at least vent on the Internet when a company ripped you off. But now, thanks to this "great product for big business" you will be able to vent, but only if you don't want to be heard, and want to be sure that you will be harrassed constantly by a company that has already pissed you off. They will not use this to gain customer feedback. They will use it to gain power over those that disagree with them. As it will cost a virtual fortune to do so, only big business need apply. Perfect. One more way to make sure those with the money have the right to talk, while those in the middle and lower classes have to sit on their hands and say nothing.
I'm not a doomsayer, I just think we need to be realistic about what companies are going to do with this. Companies take the path of least resistance. Whatever earns them money now. They are not going to fix a problem, because that fix will cost them money. But it won't cost nearly as much (for big businesses) to silence the person stating the problem openly. Great, I suppose that my previous posts about Gateway leave me in for a few problems if Gateway decides to use this....
It's really too bad that the guy made reference to Mac so early in his paper. It didn't take long and everyone was barking that he was a Mac addict that was pissed off because Mac didn't make it bigger.
I think he was talking about something much bigger. If you really read most of the article you would see that he is talking about a fundamental shift in computing on the whole. He doesn't care whether it comes from Apple or anybody else, computing needs to change to grow, and I agree.
Why do we insist that the common graphical interface of today is the extent that computers will climb to? I see that there should always be a place for such systems, but that computing on the whole has a lot more to offer. He's talking about hooking into the information more directly and not thinking of the "nodes" of computers, but more in terms of the entire "web" of information. I get images of the Hyperion books by Dan Simmons.
For those that don't know, in his (Dan Simmon's) vision there will be a "TechoCore" made up of AI based computers that are in charge of keeping the "WorldWeb" of information intact. People will then be able to use basically any number of devices (even direct brain implants) to access any information in the "WorldWeb" without sitting down at a computer and typing/clicking/pointing. I think that this is an incredibly exciting idea. Of course, we are a long way away from that exact vision, but it isn't that far removed from the possibility of existance. Look at some of the attempts to create AI and ALife type systems right now. If one of these manages to actually create a solid implementation of life on a computing platform (or muliple platforms) this could create the infrastructure necissary to move computing into a real shift. You no longer would use computers by typing and pointing and clicking, but would sit down, say what you want done, and it would be done. Ask for information and you recieve it. Speak, and it would create your document for you.
Of course, in Simmon's vision the TechnoCore seperated itself as a political entity and began doing "very bad things", but I don't think we have to fear that as much as we have to fear the current stagnation in computing. When will something truly exciting and revolutionary occur in computing? My head is full of ideas, but I'm not a good enough coder to complete them. Maybe someone else out there is? I hope so anyway, we need a change.
I've often wondered about taking a poll to find out how many "computer geeks" actually are rockers in disguise. Myself, my home office (the room with eight computers) also hosts my four guitars and guitar amp (at 600 watts). I'm not into the rocker image crap (I don't smoke, drink, do drugs, etc.), but I love to crank it up and rock. Heavy metal all the way!
You know, I wonder if it's the creative process. Most of what I play is my own stuff (I do some covers too). I wonder if coding and cranking a guitar are basically two different faces on the same coin so to speak. Gotta love the creative process.
That's your opinion and that's fine. Each person believes a little differently when it comes to projects like WINE. That's the nice thing about the Linux community. While a few people act like idiots about every situation, there are still a lot of people willing to discus differences of opinions in an honest and non-degrading approach.
I don't agree one hundred percent with you. Quite honestly, I say let the Windows trash stay with Windows (and I mean apps and APIs, not users). At this point I don't see emulation (OK, I know it's not really emulation) as a good alternative, but I've been wrong about other things too.
To each his own.
While I completely agree with most of what you say, that doesn't change the fact that this hasn't been confirmed. Over and over I see people saying OS X will run on x86 and it has been confirmed. It hasn't. I just wish people would be honest about it. It might be simple for Apple to do later on, but for now they are completely denying that it will happen. All I'm asking is that people stop spreading the lie that it has been confirmed as being in the works.
Of course, this could be the result of the un-informed hearing about Darwin and supposing that means OS X is included in Darwin. Maybe.
I can't believe the number of people that have themselves convinced that OS X is going to be running on x86's.
I've been keeping up with the development of OS X (as I will probably at least consider buying a Mac when it has matured a bit) and everywhere I see the same statement from Apple. They say that while Darwin (the open source underbelly, so to speak, of OS X) will run on x86 (already runs on ?), the Aqua interface and APIs will not run on x86. Apple wants to sell Macs, making OS X on x86 just doesn't make sense to them (well, at least not to Jobs, maybe to marketing). They don't want to support all of the hardware in the x86 world, and they don't see the point in porting Aqua to x86.
While speculating about x86 MacOS X is all well and good, let's not jump the gun and say that they have confirmed it. They haven't confirmed it, in fact, they have flat out denied it. While it would probably be trivial for them to compile Aqua on Darwin once it is reasonable stable on x86 (a distinct possibility later on), I don't think they are going to do so immediately. They probably want to see Darwin bring in the hardware support first, then see if porting the commercial parts of OS X is worthwhile. For a business, this only makes sense.
Don't let the occasional "OS X on x86 would rock!" comment throw you off. It isn't confirmed, and as of this moment, it isn't even publicly acknowledged as an idea (from Apple).
While it is frightening, it is also extremely funny. I fear for the person's sanity, but isn't laughing at crazy people always fun?
No, in my humble opinion, re-implementing a broken API on Linux is not a noble cause. But I've been shouted down every time I've tried to point out how stupid it is to try and impress people with WINE.
/rant
rant:
My point is that the Linux community (myself included) has tried for years to claim that Linux is not a cheap imitation of Windows. Now, to prove that: we are using a broken and buggy emulation layer to implement an already broken and buggy API, to poorly run broken and buggy software that was meant for Windows. Um, Linux isn't a cheap imitation of Windows?
I see WINE as being just one more thing that people are doing to make Linux look bad. I know this isn't a popular opinion, but in the long run WINE encourages people to "port" Windows software to Linux through WINE (Look at WordPerfect Office) instead of writing solid native apps. I don't see this as a good thing.
Now, flame away....
One year ago I would have told you you were full of shit.
Now I sit here, married to a beatiful, smart, funny gal that happens to think I'm just the coolest dude. And she is fully aware that I'm a geek. She met me when I worked on her computer for her (at work) and spends a lot of time avoiding my "home office" (a room with 8 computers in it). I think girls don't like geeks when they are young and idiotic (just like guys go through that young and idiotic stage), but once they mature they realize that those guys that were such geeks in school are pulling in some serious cash, and actually are quite responsible.
Food for thought for any teen-age girls in the audience.
I have thought long and hard on this on many occassions. Do we want to get out and populate some other planets? Of course we want to. Should we? Depends on what our reasons are, and how we go about it. I don't really want to see humanity disappear (one commet, asteroid, high speed space collision of any kind and bye, bye), but if we continue to be a bunch of selfish, sniveling, whiny and spiteful infighting freaks, then let it happen.
Don't get me wrong. I don't think that humanity is incapable of great things. Look at all the positive things that have happened in the last couple of centuries. There have been countless advances in science and mathmatics, literature has grown as it is easily copied and distributed (as have literacy rates), and in general the quality of life has improved by allowing us more free time. But what do we do with that free time? We certainly don't use it to accomplish much. Instead we use it to sit on our dead asses, watch TV, complain about how terrible the world really is, and whine about how much better it would be if everyone agreed with "me".
Now, I realize this seems off-topic. But, seriously, before we consider moving out into the "great beyond", shouldn't we as a species ask ourselves what we plan on doing with it? Are we going to use our knowledge, and the knowledge we could potentially gain to better ourselves, or are we going to be the equivalent to space-insects? Are we going to slowly migrate into environments, carefully checking what we are stepping on along the way, making sure not to destroy something just because it isn't immediately useful "to us"? Or are we going to just infect every planet we can get ahold of and change it for our benefit, never caring what it was on its own or what it was capable of becoming?
Yeah, I know, I sound like a doomsayer. I'm not really, I just think humanity on the whole needs to take a collective breath, sit back with a cup of tea and actually think about what they are doing. Don't we all need to do that from time to time?
Don't know if I should give this out, hehe. No, I live in Sioux Falls, SD at the moment. Have lived in Fairmont, MN; Mt. Pleasant, IA; Burlington, IA; and Harrisburg, SD (not in that order).
The thing that really kills me is Linux is looked at as the ass end of the tech industry. In the midwest, we are also viewed as the ass end of . . . well, everything. God forbid you live in the midwest and use Linux....
This is a big part of what I've been saying. However, I think expecting the high population areas to understand what it's like to live in the midwest is just stupid. And I apologize for ever giving the impression that the midwest should count on the technological radar. Now, can people quit emailing me about what a worthless pile of dogshit I am? I have more to do with my time than erasing fifty emails a day saying I don't deserve the space on slashdot (yet I deserve the time it takes to write those emails). Beautiful.