Just to round out some of the other characters: Kermit = Luke Miss Piggy = Leia (makes sense, but then a Kermit-Piggy romance... ICK!) Link Hogthrob = Han Solo Fozzie Bear = Chewbacca Gonzo = Darth Vader Camilla the Chicken = Stormtrooper Sam the American Eagle = Obi-Wan
Have you ever been to Disney World? The Disney-Star Wars fusion has been here for years. It's not just the Star Tours ride (I've ridden the new ride and it is really cool). There's tons of Disney-fied Star Wars merchandise. Mickey as Luke Skywalker. Goofy as Darth Vader. Stitch as the Emperor (AND as Yoda). Donald as a stormtrooper. There's also Muppet-Star Wars items like Dr. Bunsen Honeydew-R2D2 and Beaker-C3PO.
I'm cautiously optimistic with this. Yes, Disney is likely to market Star Wars like crazy, but then again, when has George Lucas *NOT* marketed it like crazy. He practically invented marketing movie characters.
Now, if they could just convince Pixar to take on a Star Wars project....
I agree completely. About the only 9-11 security measure that was taken that makes a difference is the locked/reinforced cockpit door. If the hijacker can't get to the cockpit, they can't take over the aircraft. Apart from that (and passenger vigilance/activism), we could roll back to pre-911 security measures with no real loss in security.
Don't even count on the coast guard. Two kayakers decided to go out on Long Island Sound without life vests on. They encountered trouble. ([sarcasm]Who would've thought that a hurricane coming could mean trouble on the water?!![/sarcasm]) One man was rescued, but the search for the other had to be called off.
I'll agree that the war in Afghanistan was a valid fight against terrorists (and groups that harbor them). I'd argue that Iraq was a distraction at best, though. I will also agree that the TSA isn't keeping people safe. What has prevented further hijackings are two simple things. 1) The cockpit doors are now locked. No more "terrorist bursts into the cockpit to take over." 2) Pre-911 a hijacking meant "behave and you just get flown off-course and are returned home safely." Post-911 a hijacking means "We're all gonna die unless we fight back (and even then we might die)." If you find yourself in a hijacking now, you suddenly have nothing to lose and you WILL fight back. The "hijacking equation" went from a hundred or so passive individuals vs a few terrorists to a hundred or so combatants vs a few terrorists. Yes, the TSA still has a role, but no more than they had prior to 9-11. If they keep out guns/explosives/etc, then they've done their job. (I mean actual bombs, not this 2oz of liquid garbage.) We could roll the TSA back to pre-911 security levels and still be just as safe as today.
Mental note: Read all comments to a post before making a post... someone might have already made the same reference I'm making. ("anti-terrorist rock")
When was the last time you heard of an airplane hijack after we pumped up security?
On 9/12/2001, I purchased an anti-terrorist rock. It wards off terrorists hijacking planes in the country that it's located in. And sure enough, there have been no more hijackings inside the US. You're all welcome.
That's what I was thinking of too. Load it up with family photos and give it to an older relative who otherwise would want printed photo albums. (Then, periodically, refresh the frame manually with new photos and/or teach your relative how to do this.)
Easy. First of all, the Moon is made of green cheese. What most people don't know, though, is that this is a highly stinky form of cheese. So the Earth keeps its distance from the smelly Moon. The Moon landings were all faked except for that one documentary about a man and his dog who went to the moon looking for a grand day out.
Are some of these sites people set up offensive? Sure. Are some of the people who set up these sites horrible people? Probably Should they be locked away for making a website? In most cases*, no.
* If the person is advocating violence then that should be an offense. You have the right to say "People in Group X are stupid." You don't have the right to say "Let's round up everyone in Group X and put bullets through their brains." In addition, some of the trolling goes beyond offensive comments and lands into scary. If you're tracking people down and posting Google Earth views of their houses, or publishing information about what school their kids go to, you've crossed the line and there should be some stalking/harassment penalties invoked. This would be above and beyond setting up a "So-And-So Is A Horrible Person" website.
One of the things keeping me from cutting cable is DVR access. Right now, I have a DVR that I use to record a bunch of shows for my kids, my wife, and me. We all then watch these shows at our leisure. If I were cutting the cord, I could get my local stations over the air, but then I'd be back in the "need to watch it when it is on" boat. I know I could build a MythTV or similar box, but I really don't have hundreds of dollars to drop on this. This also makes TiVo with a lifetime subscription less enticing. (Though buying a used TiVo with a lifetime subscription from eBay is an option.) I could justify a monthly fee (either Boxee or TiVo) as coming out of the savings I achieve if I cut cable. (Savings that would also go to services like Amazon VOD to get shows - such as Mythbusters - that I wouldn't get via OTA.)
Turns out he was even lying about his Binder Full Of Women: http://wilwheaton.tumblr.com/post/33756576903/mirror-of-mind-the-binder
The real story is that the binder was created by a bipartisan group of women BEFORE the Massachusetts governor election was decided. They planned to give it to whomever won. Mitt won so he got the binder. He didn't go searching for the women after decrying the lack of female candidates. It wasn't his recruiting effort at all. He's taking credit for someone else's work.
People these days are downloading their content with Netflix and stuff like that.
Oh, don't worry about that. They'll just cap their Internet access and then their customers won't be able to download content (even legally via Netflix or similar services). Then your choices will be OTA TV (which they'll work to marginalize as much as possible), Internet TV (only a few hours a month before you hit your cap), or cable TV (easy to use but expensive).
Ok, so these Muslim nations want the Internet to be free of anything that criticizes Islam. Does this mean they're willing to take down anything that criticizes Judaism or Christianity? Somehow, I doubt their radical groups will scrub their websites of calls for "driving the Jews into the sea."
There is no fundamental right to not be offended. When it comes to religion, I can guarantee that I completely disagree with probably about 95% of the people posting here (and this is just a self-selected group of geeks with similar interests). The difference is that 95% of the people here will discuss matters rationally. I'll give my viewpoint, they'll give theirs, and at some point we'll accept that we have differing opinions. At this point, we go our separate ways peacefully. Very rarely will someone respond to a differing opinion with a horrible insult. Those are easily ignored (and/or moderated down by the 95% that respect civil discussions of matters).
It is completely possible to calmly discuss issues with someone you disagree with without resorting to shouting, name-calling, or threats. Sadly, too many people (in politics or certain religious communities) see any differing opinion as a direct assault on their own opinion. The fact that someone disagrees with them seems to cast doubt on the "fact" that they are right and their response is to lash out and attempt to silence the dissenter.
If you don't agree with someone and don't want to engage them in debate, ignore them or organize some sort of counter-protest. Others have mentioned the Westboro Baptist Church. I'd love to silence them, but they do have freedom of speech. The best means of "shutting them up" that I've seen are the counter-protests. Things like the ComicCon counter-protest with people dressed in costume displaying humorous signs or the Hell's Angels who go to WBC protests at funerals and form a human wall blocking them from being seen. It drowns out their message in a peaceful manner with another message. (Right to protest doesn't mean Right to be heard.)
If someone offends your religious sensibilities, go protest peacefully. I'll support you in that. But calling for them to be yanked off the Internet because they're offensive is going too far.
Interestingly, one group who opposed the Nazis, and was persecuted for it, were the Jehovah's Witnesses. They were told to just keep quiet and they'd be left alone, but they couldn't. Whatever my feelings for Jehovah's Witnesses today, I have some respect for any group which is given a chance to turn a blind eye towards evil and instead puts themselves in harm's way trying to stop it.
On one hand, so long as they are peacefully protesting and not advocating violence against people until the video is removed, then they are well within their rights. No, you don't have a right to not be offended, but if you are offended you have the right to peacefully protest the offending material.
On the other hand, despite their protests being valid, they don't get to redefine the English language. If you offending someone, that doesn't make you a terrorist. If it did then we'd have to pretty much classify everyone as terrorists, since I'm sure everyone at least once in their lives says something that would offend at least one person. Terrorism is making people afraid to exercise their rights and/or stand up to the terrorists for fear of being harmed. Nobody is afraid of protesting against this video. Granted, I haven't watched the video, but from what I've heard it in no way makes threats against people who would disagree with it. It just makes a claim which offends some people. So they can go ahead and protest against it. That's their right. They can make websites decrying it and countering any points the video attempts to make. So long as they do it peacefully and not by threatening the lives of anyone involved, I'll support their right to protest whether or not I agree with their viewpoint.
It's not just "comfortable in your religious convictions." If someone (e.g. Saudi Arabia) calls for censorship because something offends their religious sensibilities, then they should realize that their statements might offend someone else. Giving your religious explanation why women shouldn't drive, vote, or be seen in public? That offends me. By your own rules it should be stricken from the Internet. In fact, anything about Islam is bound to offend some Christians/Jews/Atheists so take that down. And Christian/Jewish posts might offend some Muslims so remove that. And Atheist posts should be taken down for offending the religious. Pretty soon you'll have nothing left on the Internet.
Oh wait, that's the plan. Never mind.
(As far as I'm concerned, I'm comfortable enough in my religious beliefs. People can criticize them all they want. I might ignore them but the only time I might ask for them to be taken down would be if they turn violent/threatening.)
Why would you store credit card information in WHOIS? I already get mail from registrars wanting me to "renew" my domains (read Transfer them to them) for a "reduced rate" of $30 (I pay $12 a year). If the credit card information was in there as well, what would stop shady organizations from using that information for other scams? WHOIS certainly doesn't keep my physical address safe from scammers.
I've got to jump onto the list of people pointing out the CID card flaw to this story. Right now, I have a Google Account. This account gives me access to files (Google Drive), e-mails (GMail), articles (Google Reader), and more. I can view items on my work laptop, home laptop, work desktop, phone, etc. There's no need to put a card into my computer/phone to access this account. Why would we need CID cards for this?
Here's a slightly modified - slightly more realistic version. You buy a new alarm clock and authorize it to have read/write access to your CID account. This lets it access your network, get the current time, get your alarm time preference, reset your alarm time preference, etc. From then on, you use it as an interface to aspects of your CID account. If you want to get rid of it, you deauthorize it first and then sell/junk it. The same way I authorized my phone to use my Google Account.
The technology to authorize/deauthorize is here now. See: Apps on phones or Twitter applications that use OAuth. It's not a big leap to envision an appliance (e.g. alarm clock) operating on the same principle. No cards required.
I'll second this but with one addon: The few things that are radically different will be from applications of technology that will seem completely obvious in hind-sight but which nobody will have predicted. (Except for possibly one speculative fiction writer who gets lucky with a vague prediction.)
Don't worry. The card has your social security number, date of birth, and other personal information on a mag-stripe to prevent misuse. It is encoded using a routine declared Hack Proof by the Federal Department of CID Development. (Ignore any news story about them being insecure. Those news organizations who report this have been declared to be terrorists.)
About the only thing that I could see technology creeping into on your list is hot/cold water controls for showers. I'd love to be able to preset shower temperatures for my family. I can have the so-hot-it-almost-scalds-your-skin shower preset and my boys/wife can have their own temperatures that are comfortable to them.
That said, however, I'd expect that this kind of shower would be a premium-priced unit. Something that only 5% of consumers would buy. Most people would get the basic "fiddle with the analog knobs and get your desired temperature" model.
A 7:30am alarm sounds wonderful to me. Right now, my alarm (also known as my oldest son) wakes up at 6am on the dot every morning. He then proceeds to wake me up to make sure it's ok for him to go to the couch and watch some TV. Just when I might be falling back asleep, my youngest son (roused, no doubt, by the noise his older brother is making) wakes up and comes over to hug and kiss us. Then, my wife and I try to ignore that the day is beginning for awhile longer (being so exhausted from the night before) before giving up and getting out of bed.
The life of a parent.
Of course, 15 years from now, my kids will be all grown up and (hopefully) out of the house so I'll be able to sleep until 10am on Saturdays if I want to.
Slashdot Mirror
Rizzo the rat plays Yoda.
Just to round out some of the other characters:
Kermit = Luke
Miss Piggy = Leia (makes sense, but then a Kermit-Piggy romance... ICK!)
Link Hogthrob = Han Solo
Fozzie Bear = Chewbacca
Gonzo = Darth Vader
Camilla the Chicken = Stormtrooper
Sam the American Eagle = Obi-Wan
Have you ever been to Disney World? The Disney-Star Wars fusion has been here for years. It's not just the Star Tours ride (I've ridden the new ride and it is really cool). There's tons of Disney-fied Star Wars merchandise. Mickey as Luke Skywalker. Goofy as Darth Vader. Stitch as the Emperor (AND as Yoda). Donald as a stormtrooper. There's also Muppet-Star Wars items like Dr. Bunsen Honeydew-R2D2 and Beaker-C3PO.
I'm cautiously optimistic with this. Yes, Disney is likely to market Star Wars like crazy, but then again, when has George Lucas *NOT* marketed it like crazy. He practically invented marketing movie characters.
Now, if they could just convince Pixar to take on a Star Wars project....
I agree completely. About the only 9-11 security measure that was taken that makes a difference is the locked/reinforced cockpit door. If the hijacker can't get to the cockpit, they can't take over the aircraft. Apart from that (and passenger vigilance/activism), we could roll back to pre-911 security measures with no real loss in security.
Don't even count on the coast guard. Two kayakers decided to go out on Long Island Sound without life vests on. They encountered trouble. ([sarcasm]Who would've thought that a hurricane coming could mean trouble on the water?!![/sarcasm]) One man was rescued, but the search for the other had to be called off.
http://www.ctpost.com/policereports/article/One-kayaker-rescued-another-still-missing-in-3988519.php
If someone is stupid enough to go windsurfing during Sandy, I hope they enjoy the ride. It'll probably be the last thing they ever enjoy.
I'll agree that the war in Afghanistan was a valid fight against terrorists (and groups that harbor them). I'd argue that Iraq was a distraction at best, though. I will also agree that the TSA isn't keeping people safe. What has prevented further hijackings are two simple things. 1) The cockpit doors are now locked. No more "terrorist bursts into the cockpit to take over." 2) Pre-911 a hijacking meant "behave and you just get flown off-course and are returned home safely." Post-911 a hijacking means "We're all gonna die unless we fight back (and even then we might die)." If you find yourself in a hijacking now, you suddenly have nothing to lose and you WILL fight back. The "hijacking equation" went from a hundred or so passive individuals vs a few terrorists to a hundred or so combatants vs a few terrorists. Yes, the TSA still has a role, but no more than they had prior to 9-11. If they keep out guns/explosives/etc, then they've done their job. (I mean actual bombs, not this 2oz of liquid garbage.) We could roll the TSA back to pre-911 security levels and still be just as safe as today.
Mental note: Read all comments to a post before making a post... someone might have already made the same reference I'm making. ("anti-terrorist rock")
On 9/12/2001, I purchased an anti-terrorist rock. It wards off terrorists hijacking planes in the country that it's located in. And sure enough, there have been no more hijackings inside the US. You're all welcome.
That's what I was thinking of too. Load it up with family photos and give it to an older relative who otherwise would want printed photo albums. (Then, periodically, refresh the frame manually with new photos and/or teach your relative how to do this.)
It's where the ran falls manly on the plan.
Easy. First of all, the Moon is made of green cheese. What most people don't know, though, is that this is a highly stinky form of cheese. So the Earth keeps its distance from the smelly Moon. The Moon landings were all faked except for that one documentary about a man and his dog who went to the moon looking for a grand day out.
Are some of these sites people set up offensive? Sure.
Are some of the people who set up these sites horrible people? Probably
Should they be locked away for making a website? In most cases*, no.
* If the person is advocating violence then that should be an offense. You have the right to say "People in Group X are stupid." You don't have the right to say "Let's round up everyone in Group X and put bullets through their brains." In addition, some of the trolling goes beyond offensive comments and lands into scary. If you're tracking people down and posting Google Earth views of their houses, or publishing information about what school their kids go to, you've crossed the line and there should be some stalking/harassment penalties invoked. This would be above and beyond setting up a "So-And-So Is A Horrible Person" website.
One of the things keeping me from cutting cable is DVR access. Right now, I have a DVR that I use to record a bunch of shows for my kids, my wife, and me. We all then watch these shows at our leisure. If I were cutting the cord, I could get my local stations over the air, but then I'd be back in the "need to watch it when it is on" boat. I know I could build a MythTV or similar box, but I really don't have hundreds of dollars to drop on this. This also makes TiVo with a lifetime subscription less enticing. (Though buying a used TiVo with a lifetime subscription from eBay is an option.) I could justify a monthly fee (either Boxee or TiVo) as coming out of the savings I achieve if I cut cable. (Savings that would also go to services like Amazon VOD to get shows - such as Mythbusters - that I wouldn't get via OTA.)
Turns out he was even lying about his Binder Full Of Women: http://wilwheaton.tumblr.com/post/33756576903/mirror-of-mind-the-binder
The real story is that the binder was created by a bipartisan group of women BEFORE the Massachusetts governor election was decided. They planned to give it to whomever won. Mitt won so he got the binder. He didn't go searching for the women after decrying the lack of female candidates. It wasn't his recruiting effort at all. He's taking credit for someone else's work.
People these days are downloading their content with Netflix and stuff like that.
Oh, don't worry about that. They'll just cap their Internet access and then their customers won't be able to download content (even legally via Netflix or similar services). Then your choices will be OTA TV (which they'll work to marginalize as much as possible), Internet TV (only a few hours a month before you hit your cap), or cable TV (easy to use but expensive).
Ok, so these Muslim nations want the Internet to be free of anything that criticizes Islam. Does this mean they're willing to take down anything that criticizes Judaism or Christianity? Somehow, I doubt their radical groups will scrub their websites of calls for "driving the Jews into the sea."
There is no fundamental right to not be offended. When it comes to religion, I can guarantee that I completely disagree with probably about 95% of the people posting here (and this is just a self-selected group of geeks with similar interests). The difference is that 95% of the people here will discuss matters rationally. I'll give my viewpoint, they'll give theirs, and at some point we'll accept that we have differing opinions. At this point, we go our separate ways peacefully. Very rarely will someone respond to a differing opinion with a horrible insult. Those are easily ignored (and/or moderated down by the 95% that respect civil discussions of matters).
It is completely possible to calmly discuss issues with someone you disagree with without resorting to shouting, name-calling, or threats. Sadly, too many people (in politics or certain religious communities) see any differing opinion as a direct assault on their own opinion. The fact that someone disagrees with them seems to cast doubt on the "fact" that they are right and their response is to lash out and attempt to silence the dissenter.
If you don't agree with someone and don't want to engage them in debate, ignore them or organize some sort of counter-protest. Others have mentioned the Westboro Baptist Church. I'd love to silence them, but they do have freedom of speech. The best means of "shutting them up" that I've seen are the counter-protests. Things like the ComicCon counter-protest with people dressed in costume displaying humorous signs or the Hell's Angels who go to WBC protests at funerals and form a human wall blocking them from being seen. It drowns out their message in a peaceful manner with another message. (Right to protest doesn't mean Right to be heard.)
If someone offends your religious sensibilities, go protest peacefully. I'll support you in that. But calling for them to be yanked off the Internet because they're offensive is going too far.
Interestingly, one group who opposed the Nazis, and was persecuted for it, were the Jehovah's Witnesses. They were told to just keep quiet and they'd be left alone, but they couldn't. Whatever my feelings for Jehovah's Witnesses today, I have some respect for any group which is given a chance to turn a blind eye towards evil and instead puts themselves in harm's way trying to stop it.
On one hand, so long as they are peacefully protesting and not advocating violence against people until the video is removed, then they are well within their rights. No, you don't have a right to not be offended, but if you are offended you have the right to peacefully protest the offending material.
On the other hand, despite their protests being valid, they don't get to redefine the English language. If you offending someone, that doesn't make you a terrorist. If it did then we'd have to pretty much classify everyone as terrorists, since I'm sure everyone at least once in their lives says something that would offend at least one person. Terrorism is making people afraid to exercise their rights and/or stand up to the terrorists for fear of being harmed. Nobody is afraid of protesting against this video. Granted, I haven't watched the video, but from what I've heard it in no way makes threats against people who would disagree with it. It just makes a claim which offends some people. So they can go ahead and protest against it. That's their right. They can make websites decrying it and countering any points the video attempts to make. So long as they do it peacefully and not by threatening the lives of anyone involved, I'll support their right to protest whether or not I agree with their viewpoint.
It's not just "comfortable in your religious convictions." If someone (e.g. Saudi Arabia) calls for censorship because something offends their religious sensibilities, then they should realize that their statements might offend someone else. Giving your religious explanation why women shouldn't drive, vote, or be seen in public? That offends me. By your own rules it should be stricken from the Internet. In fact, anything about Islam is bound to offend some Christians/Jews/Atheists so take that down. And Christian/Jewish posts might offend some Muslims so remove that. And Atheist posts should be taken down for offending the religious. Pretty soon you'll have nothing left on the Internet.
Oh wait, that's the plan. Never mind.
(As far as I'm concerned, I'm comfortable enough in my religious beliefs. People can criticize them all they want. I might ignore them but the only time I might ask for them to be taken down would be if they turn violent/threatening.)
Why would you store credit card information in WHOIS? I already get mail from registrars wanting me to "renew" my domains (read Transfer them to them) for a "reduced rate" of $30 (I pay $12 a year). If the credit card information was in there as well, what would stop shady organizations from using that information for other scams? WHOIS certainly doesn't keep my physical address safe from scammers.
I've got to jump onto the list of people pointing out the CID card flaw to this story. Right now, I have a Google Account. This account gives me access to files (Google Drive), e-mails (GMail), articles (Google Reader), and more. I can view items on my work laptop, home laptop, work desktop, phone, etc. There's no need to put a card into my computer/phone to access this account. Why would we need CID cards for this?
Here's a slightly modified - slightly more realistic version. You buy a new alarm clock and authorize it to have read/write access to your CID account. This lets it access your network, get the current time, get your alarm time preference, reset your alarm time preference, etc. From then on, you use it as an interface to aspects of your CID account. If you want to get rid of it, you deauthorize it first and then sell/junk it. The same way I authorized my phone to use my Google Account.
The technology to authorize/deauthorize is here now. See: Apps on phones or Twitter applications that use OAuth. It's not a big leap to envision an appliance (e.g. alarm clock) operating on the same principle. No cards required.
I'll second this but with one addon: The few things that are radically different will be from applications of technology that will seem completely obvious in hind-sight but which nobody will have predicted. (Except for possibly one speculative fiction writer who gets lucky with a vague prediction.)
Don't worry. The card has your social security number, date of birth, and other personal information on a mag-stripe to prevent misuse. It is encoded using a routine declared Hack Proof by the Federal Department of CID Development. (Ignore any news story about them being insecure. Those news organizations who report this have been declared to be terrorists.)
About the only thing that I could see technology creeping into on your list is hot/cold water controls for showers. I'd love to be able to preset shower temperatures for my family. I can have the so-hot-it-almost-scalds-your-skin shower preset and my boys/wife can have their own temperatures that are comfortable to them.
That said, however, I'd expect that this kind of shower would be a premium-priced unit. Something that only 5% of consumers would buy. Most people would get the basic "fiddle with the analog knobs and get your desired temperature" model.
I've heard of bleak, post-apocalyptic versions of the future, but one where everyone works in advertising is just too scary to envision!
A 7:30am alarm sounds wonderful to me. Right now, my alarm (also known as my oldest son) wakes up at 6am on the dot every morning. He then proceeds to wake me up to make sure it's ok for him to go to the couch and watch some TV. Just when I might be falling back asleep, my youngest son (roused, no doubt, by the noise his older brother is making) wakes up and comes over to hug and kiss us. Then, my wife and I try to ignore that the day is beginning for awhile longer (being so exhausted from the night before) before giving up and getting out of bed.
The life of a parent.
Of course, 15 years from now, my kids will be all grown up and (hopefully) out of the house so I'll be able to sleep until 10am on Saturdays if I want to.