Whereas we don't have cars that drive themselves, we're coming closer and closer.
The big stopping block--so far as I can see--is having the private sector tackle big time computer vision research problems (watch out for that moose!), when the market is so questionable (people wanna drive themselves) and heavy government regulation seems certain.
Many people have mentioned the self parking car.
I saw a video about three years ago of a car that researchers tweaked that can follow lines on a curvy road and stay in a lane by itself.
I think some Mercedes have a special kind of cruise control that maintains the distance between your car and the car in front of you.
Lastly, more and more, cars are going the way of aircraft. You don't really control the car through mechanical linkages, but rather your inputs (steering wheel, brakes, etc.) are all translated into electronic signals. These signals are then interpreted by other systems that actually control the car. This isn't quite automatic, but it surely makes the car more automated.
If you add it up, it doesn't seem that the self-driving car is really far-fetched or far-off at all.
I think that the old rule of thumb says that if you are not already 25 lbs overweight, simply consuming 10 times your body weight (lbs) in Calories will make you lose small amounts of weight each week. Example: A 6 ft male weighing 180 lbs would lose weight by simply consuming 1800 Calories a day.
If that doesn't work, or if it leaves you too hungry, you're going to have to exercise as well.
If that doesn't work, a good heroin habit always seems to help celebrities lose weight.
nahdude,
I appreciate your perspective, but have a few issues with it.
From long before P2P networks/file sharing/stealing had been available, I have long had a problem with the record industry and how it treats artists and little people in the industry. I just don't think artists make all that much money out of CD sales. Yes, artists at the top like Madonna and Metallica do (and guys like Dr. Dre who own their own labels), but even the hugely popular TLC managed to all go broke through seemingly little fault of their own. By the way, insert joke here about how Mariah Carey got paid $37 million or so for nothing at all by her former record label. And we're supposed to feel sorry for these guys? Time and time again, the only defenders of the record companies from within the industry are those that own them, and the one percent that gets paid fairly for what they do for them.
The real money in the music business for artists seems to be from touring and doing things like selling your music to companies for commercials, merchandising, appearing in commercials, and using your celebrity in other such manners. For bands that refuse to "sell out," this pretty much makes touring their bread and butter. They put out CDs in essence because that's what bands always do, and they need people to be interested in seeing them live. Phish does very well I hear. Their albums don't quite chart like Dark Side of the Moon. Also see recent Rolling Stones releases, Frank Zappa, the Grateful Dead's career, or any real punk/metal/alternative band.
So maybe my position isn't ethically justifiable, but the bottom line is that I don't care whether I'm stealing the music or not. I don't feel I'm bringing down, or even doing significant damage to the very system from which I'm deriving pleasure. I feel I support the artists I enjoy. I see them live. I have some T-shirts. I even get friends into them (the bands not the T-shirts).
Albums are cheap to record. (Note: it's interesting to realize on the other hand that with movies, the studios are HUGELY important to creation. Movies cost a lot.) Most albums that cost a lot to make seem to be due to inefficiency in the studio (taking months to record, having a full orchestra employed for 7 weeks, etc.) and paying outrageous sums to producers. I'm not saying producers are unimportant, I'm just saying that the system should treat them more like artists (they share in the succes of the album) rather than the way things currently work. After all, their work is artistic in nature.
Yes, I'm annoyed by people who burn entire CDs (I mostly download songs that I either wanna preview or would never buy). They only solidify the RIAA's case, and they give the record company no feedback on which groups people enjoy. I've noticed, though, that these are very rarely serious music fans. Serious music fans seem to still be enthralled with getting a new CD, checking out lyrics and artwork, throwing it into their stereos and reliving this experience that they first started having years and years ago.
Yes, I am one to make the tired argument that mp3s have caused me to buy more CDs (albeit a lot of them used, so the record company never saw my money. $19 for a CD? Not unless John and George came back from the dead and it's the new Beatles), but I do so with the hope that it will help the artists somehow. Deep down I know it really won't. And, of course, I like to open an album, see the artwork and lyrics, blah blah blah. I actually buy a lot of non-major label stuff new because: usually it's the only way to get it, and I often feel indie labels help the music industry ina way major labels don't. Indie labels look for talent, majors look for profits.
So everytime these discussions between theft and sharing on slashdot come up, I think the real issues are ignored: How are profits distributed in the music industry? What can the movie industry (which really needs help with P2P) do?Why are CDs so expensive now? (My guess is largely because of
It also directs the Justice Department to develop programs to educate the American public on why copyright violation is bad.
How exactly can "small government" conservatives be in favor of something like this? Is it really the government's role to educate its citizens about why this is illegal? It seems to me like it's a problem of, by, and for the record industry.
It just goes to show that for all the throwing around of phrases about "small government" the political right really isn't interested in cutting spending, they just like to cut the spending on programs they don't like. Tax cuts are phenomenally stupid and myopic if the government can't spend less money.
I got the chance about a year ago to ride a Segway when one of the lead designers talked to a class I was in.
Interestingly enough, he said Kamen came up with the idea when one day he slipped in the shower, and started thinking about stability.
He also pointed out that the Segway is a great example of technology push, as everyone who's ever ridden one (and I'll include myself here) comments that there should be more of them.
"They bought their tickets. They knew what they were getting into...I say let 'em crash!" --Airplane
Just because there's a known risk of danger doesn't make one dumb for still proceeding, especially in the case of civil disobediance.
Would the US be better off if instead of sympathizing with Civil Rights activists being sprayed with fire hoses, we took a "they should've seen it coming" stance? I think not.
Hollywood still makes quite a bit of money from video and DVD sales (tapes sold to rental stores top $100), and that's why they're concerned. Many movies don't break even in theatres and then end up doing fine after video. Movies like Austin Powers got much bigger on video then it had ever been in the theatres.
Combine that with the prospects of more universal higher speed data transfer, it's got quite a few people upset. I don't know what the answer is, but I think that the big music and movie studios are in for quite a shakedown as technology rolls along.
These studios don't seem to fit in so well in a system where free distribution is so convenient. Maybe they'll be the middlemen that get cut out as technology evolves.
Anyways, it's all about killing in our society, and how it effects us. Everything from our removal from seeing the animals we eat murdered, to the violence we see in entertainment today is discussed.
The focus is on the military and soldiers, but Grossman shows how some things we see in the movies and video games disturbingly resemble military methods aimed to overcome the unwillingness to kill. A very scientific approach is taken on the whole, and some of the results are fascinating (i.e. 85% of soldiers more or less intentionally misfiring guns, so as not to kill the enemy even when their own lives are at stake)
The author, Lt. Col. David Grossman, makes the comparison that at one time there were many books about love, but none about sex. Amongst scores of books on war, this one deals with the singular act of killing.
I suppose this was off topic a bit, but the book is fantastic, and I couldn't see anyone who was in this discussion (excluding our friends first and second:) ) not enjoying it.
Face it...We choose to be geeks. I have no problem with this and really wouldn't have it any other way. Being a geek means choosing not to play the "popularity game." I feel perfectly in control of my life, and I'd feel pathetic if I thought that I was how I was merely because of how other people have labeled me. People do stereotype us, but these aren't the kind of people I choose to be around, and when I have to be around them I'll just use the fact that I know what they think of me to my advantage.
This being said, your analogy falls short for three reasons:
Blacks do not choose to be black.
Jews do not choose to be Jewish (at least not in an ethnic sense, religion is another matter)
And homosexuals do not choose to be homosexual. If you can't believe that's true, tell everyone you know that you're gay, and see how they react. Every time you meet a member of the opposite sex that you're attracted to, imagine what it would be like if the first thing that comes to mind is whether they are attracted to your gender at all. Then think about whether or not you would choose such a lifestyle.
As far as what you don't see in newspapers and magazines, here's some things you do see:
a former KKK member running for president
A popular black religious leader referring to all Jews as "bloodsuckers"
Nazi Skinheads at concerts
A relief pitcher calling a black member of his own team a "fat monkey," and making passing references to "queers with AIDS"
The leader of the largest religious group in the world denouncing homosexuality
That's more than enough proof for me. For these true minorities, their footing still isn't equal. To put ourselves, as geeks, in the same boat is nothing short of ignorance.
You start your post by mocking those who would dare to talk about the "Microsoft hegemony" and "bullying" practices, but then seem to conclude your message by describing the de facto way these practices exist between Microsoft and developers.
I agree that it's convenient that Windows is as close as there is to a standard, and that they can use this to their and their developers' advantage. At the same time I'm not about to say that this is anything but what it is, monopolistic practice. This is exactly what the DoJ is griping about. Microsoft is using it's rank in the industry to perpetuate its products and launch new ones. How can smaller firms compete? And yes, Microsoft has worked very hard and intelligently to achieve their current status, but that doesn't justify what currently exists. Rewarding business saavy is not as important as a competitive marketplace.
It's too bad that under the current system you seem to benefit from what in the long run will only stifle innovation and create larger problems. The thing about a monopoly is that it IS convenient, but convenience isn't necessarily efficient or even, more importantly, desirable in the long term.
Slashdot Mirror
Was putting up this post right after the post where Jobs said the above quote some kind of Freudian slip?
Whereas we don't have cars that drive themselves, we're coming closer and closer.
The big stopping block--so far as I can see--is having the private sector tackle big time computer vision research problems (watch out for that moose!), when the market is so questionable (people wanna drive themselves) and heavy government regulation seems certain.
Many people have mentioned the self parking car.
I saw a video about three years ago of a car that researchers tweaked that can follow lines on a curvy road and stay in a lane by itself.
I think some Mercedes have a special kind of cruise control that maintains the distance between your car and the car in front of you.
Lastly, more and more, cars are going the way of aircraft. You don't really control the car through mechanical linkages, but rather your inputs (steering wheel, brakes, etc.) are all translated into electronic signals. These signals are then interpreted by other systems that actually control the car. This isn't quite automatic, but it surely makes the car more automated.
If you add it up, it doesn't seem that the self-driving car is really far-fetched or far-off at all.
If that doesn't work, or if it leaves you too hungry, you're going to have to exercise as well.
If that doesn't work, a good heroin habit always seems to help celebrities lose weight.
From long before P2P networks/file sharing/stealing had been available, I have long had a problem with the record industry and how it treats artists and little people in the industry. I just don't think artists make all that much money out of CD sales. Yes, artists at the top like Madonna and Metallica do (and guys like Dr. Dre who own their own labels), but even the hugely popular TLC managed to all go broke through seemingly little fault of their own. By the way, insert joke here about how Mariah Carey got paid $37 million or so for nothing at all by her former record label. And we're supposed to feel sorry for these guys? Time and time again, the only defenders of the record companies from within the industry are those that own them, and the one percent that gets paid fairly for what they do for them.
The real money in the music business for artists seems to be from touring and doing things like selling your music to companies for commercials, merchandising, appearing in commercials, and using your celebrity in other such manners. For bands that refuse to "sell out," this pretty much makes touring their bread and butter. They put out CDs in essence because that's what bands always do, and they need people to be interested in seeing them live. Phish does very well I hear. Their albums don't quite chart like Dark Side of the Moon. Also see recent Rolling Stones releases, Frank Zappa, the Grateful Dead's career, or any real punk/metal/alternative band.
So maybe my position isn't ethically justifiable, but the bottom line is that I don't care whether I'm stealing the music or not. I don't feel I'm bringing down, or even doing significant damage to the very system from which I'm deriving pleasure. I feel I support the artists I enjoy. I see them live. I have some T-shirts. I even get friends into them (the bands not the T-shirts).
Albums are cheap to record. (Note: it's interesting to realize on the other hand that with movies, the studios are HUGELY important to creation. Movies cost a lot.) Most albums that cost a lot to make seem to be due to inefficiency in the studio (taking months to record, having a full orchestra employed for 7 weeks, etc.) and paying outrageous sums to producers. I'm not saying producers are unimportant, I'm just saying that the system should treat them more like artists (they share in the succes of the album) rather than the way things currently work. After all, their work is artistic in nature.
Yes, I'm annoyed by people who burn entire CDs (I mostly download songs that I either wanna preview or would never buy). They only solidify the RIAA's case, and they give the record company no feedback on which groups people enjoy. I've noticed, though, that these are very rarely serious music fans. Serious music fans seem to still be enthralled with getting a new CD, checking out lyrics and artwork, throwing it into their stereos and reliving this experience that they first started having years and years ago.
Yes, I am one to make the tired argument that mp3s have caused me to buy more CDs (albeit a lot of them used, so the record company never saw my money. $19 for a CD? Not unless John and George came back from the dead and it's the new Beatles), but I do so with the hope that it will help the artists somehow. Deep down I know it really won't. And, of course, I like to open an album, see the artwork and lyrics, blah blah blah. I actually buy a lot of non-major label stuff new because: usually it's the only way to get it, and I often feel indie labels help the music industry ina way major labels don't. Indie labels look for talent, majors look for profits.
So everytime these discussions between theft and sharing on slashdot come up, I think the real issues are ignored: How are profits distributed in the music industry? What can the movie industry (which really needs help with P2P) do?Why are CDs so expensive now? (My guess is largely because of
How exactly can "small government" conservatives be in favor of something like this? Is it really the government's role to educate its citizens about why this is illegal? It seems to me like it's a problem of, by, and for the record industry.
It just goes to show that for all the throwing around of phrases about "small government" the political right really isn't interested in cutting spending, they just like to cut the spending on programs they don't like. Tax cuts are phenomenally stupid and myopic if the government can't spend less money.
I got the chance about a year ago to ride a Segway when one of the lead designers talked to a class I was in.
Interestingly enough, he said Kamen came up with the idea when one day he slipped in the shower, and started thinking about stability.
He also pointed out that the Segway is a great example of technology push, as everyone who's ever ridden one (and I'll include myself here) comments that there should be more of them.
Just because there's a known risk of danger doesn't make one dumb for still proceeding, especially in the case of civil disobediance. Would the US be better off if instead of sympathizing with Civil Rights activists being sprayed with fire hoses, we took a "they should've seen it coming" stance? I think not.
Hollywood still makes quite a bit of money from video and DVD sales (tapes sold to rental stores top $100), and that's why they're concerned. Many movies don't break even in theatres and then end up doing fine after video. Movies like Austin Powers got much bigger on video then it had ever been in the theatres.
Combine that with the prospects of more universal higher speed data transfer, it's got quite a few people upset. I don't know what the answer is, but I think that the big music and movie studios are in for quite a shakedown as technology rolls along.
These studios don't seem to fit in so well in a system where free distribution is so convenient. Maybe they'll be the middlemen that get cut out as technology evolves.
If this kind of stuff really interests you, the whole situation reminds me of a book I read about a year ago called On Killing : The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and Society Yes, this is a link to the Amazon page where it is sold, but there are some pretty interesting reviews there.
Anyways, it's all about killing in our society, and how it effects us. Everything from our removal from seeing the animals we eat murdered, to the violence we see in entertainment today is discussed.
The focus is on the military and soldiers, but Grossman shows how some things we see in the movies and video games disturbingly resemble military methods aimed to overcome the unwillingness to kill. A very scientific approach is taken on the whole, and some of the results are fascinating (i.e. 85% of soldiers more or less intentionally misfiring guns, so as not to kill the enemy even when their own lives are at stake)
The author, Lt. Col. David Grossman, makes the comparison that at one time there were many books about love, but none about sex. Amongst scores of books on war, this one deals with the singular act of killing.
I suppose this was off topic a bit, but the book is fantastic, and I couldn't see anyone who was in this discussion (excluding our friends first and second :) ) not enjoying it.
Patrick Bateman is editor for the Training and Services Web site.
Patrick Bateman is also Brett Easton Ellis' American Psycho. Great book. OK movie.
Face it...We choose to be geeks. I have no problem with this and really wouldn't have it any other way. Being a geek means choosing not to play the "popularity game." I feel perfectly in control of my life, and I'd feel pathetic if I thought that I was how I was merely because of how other people have labeled me. People do stereotype us, but these aren't the kind of people I choose to be around, and when I have to be around them I'll just use the fact that I know what they think of me to my advantage.
This being said, your analogy falls short for three reasons:
Blacks do not choose to be black.
Jews do not choose to be Jewish (at least not in an ethnic sense, religion is another matter)
And homosexuals do not choose to be homosexual. If you can't believe that's true, tell everyone you know that you're gay, and see how they react. Every time you meet a member of the opposite sex that you're attracted to, imagine what it would be like if the first thing that comes to mind is whether they are attracted to your gender at all. Then think about whether or not you would choose such a lifestyle.
As far as what you don't see in newspapers and magazines, here's some things you do see:
a former KKK member running for president
A popular black religious leader referring to all Jews as "bloodsuckers"
Nazi Skinheads at concerts
A relief pitcher calling a black member of his own team a "fat monkey," and making passing references to "queers with AIDS"
The leader of the largest religious group in the world denouncing homosexuality
That's more than enough proof for me. For these true minorities, their footing still isn't equal. To put ourselves, as geeks, in the same boat is nothing short of ignorance.
You start your post by mocking those who would dare to talk about the "Microsoft hegemony" and "bullying" practices, but then seem to conclude your message by describing the de facto way these practices exist between Microsoft and developers.
I agree that it's convenient that Windows is as close as there is to a standard, and that they can use this to their and their developers' advantage. At the same time I'm not about to say that this is anything but what it is, monopolistic practice. This is exactly what the DoJ is griping about. Microsoft is using it's rank in the industry to perpetuate its products and launch new ones. How can smaller firms compete? And yes, Microsoft has worked very hard and intelligently to achieve their current status, but that doesn't justify what currently exists. Rewarding business saavy is not as important as a competitive marketplace.
It's too bad that under the current system you seem to benefit from what in the long run will only stifle innovation and create larger problems. The thing about a monopoly is that it IS convenient, but convenience isn't necessarily efficient or even, more importantly, desirable in the long term.