Have you ever considered the alternate effects of a P2P network on independent music vs. RIAA music? I find it highly amusing that when a record is released by the mega-marketing firms (EMI, Sony, etc.), they ensure that you will hear the song by paying radio stations and advertising and spending millions of dollars, but thereby also ensure that there will be a copy floating around on a P2P network because millions of people are listening to it at the same time. In fact, they are ensuring that there will be several hundred copies floating around, making the song even easier to find on a P2P network. It is there own mass marketing that makes finding mainstream music on P2P networks possible.
Consider the alternative (no pun intended). A local band, touring in a few states has a growing fanbase. They make most of their money from shows and their shows create word-of-mouth marketing that might allow people to find their music on P2P, but more likely, fans (*not* just listeners) will want to get the music for themselves since its easier than trying to find the one copy of the song on Gnutella. Even if the band has enough popularity to have multiple songs floating around, they have a FAN base not just a LISTENING base.
RIAA's music companies business is obsolete and completely so. They should realize that the easiest way to keep themselves in business is to create more markets, not try to retain control over the mega-market. More bands, more choices, more music and more FANS, not just listeners. The one thing I know about people who only listen to top 40 bands is that they don't give a shit about music -- it's pleasant noise -- and they don't care about taking it for themselves (it is free on the radio after all). The music companies could provide an incredible service to people by acting as a conniseur (sp?) and directing people to music that they might like rather than acting as a filter and keeping thousands of musicians from their potential fans.
The RIAA says this argument is about artist's rights, and yet they do not believe that every artist has the right to be heard (or more importantly, marketed). This argument is about the status quo and because the record companies don't realize that, they will continue to try to retain control of the mega-market while other information networks crop up around them to feed the small markets. Think about it, does Sony release innovative ambient, electronica or alt country? The mere existence of these small genres bares the point out. These markets are getting fed in innovative ways -- I have never spoken to an electronica artist or a DJ who has a problem with being listed on a P2P.
MTV and the RIAA created the mega-market and the video star. Internet killed the video star. ____________
Filtering measures don't stop email from eating up bandwidth though. This isn't mentioned in the article either, but the Internet does have upper limits on how much traffic it can handle. As VOIP and other media content come online, this burden is really going to matter more than anyone's individual convenience.
<disclaimer>I do not pretend to understand IP, however</disclaimer> -- In a metaphorical sense, what the Internet needs is an immune system. How feasible would it be to use every mail server (or those that volunteer or sign up) on the internet as a monitoring node that tells all the other monitoring nodes where it is receiving mail from currently. If multiple nodes notice large waves of email concurrently then they could work together to hold that traffic and check against more nodes or a spamnet database or other blacklist to see if the email is legit (opt-in) or spam. Is this pie-in-the-sky thinking or is this feasible? It seems to me that this is not very different from a distributed computing problem like what Seti@home does. _____________
Where did you get this interesting "fact" that the Xprize is at $5m? I work for Xprize and Peter Diamandis, the guy who runs the show and I happen to know that the prize is $10 million and accounted for. __________
I actually believe that overall, space will have a very significant net positive environmental impact.
Yeah, and principally by ridding the Earth of the disease known as humanity. Hopefully, the Earth will eventually be an international park. ______________
Re:$5 to anyone who proves this statement wrong-
on
The Economics of Spam
·
· Score: 1
To call the internet a private system makes a very complex system very black and white. It is a mixed system at best. You may pay your ISP for connectivity, but what do you pay to access sites? You pay to access some and not others. You certainly don't pay for packets that come to your computer, which means that the cost of the traffic is distributed among everyone who pays for it -- sort of like how taxes pay for sidewalks. Granted what you pay is not a tax, but it is money distributed among a large number of institutions -- not all of which make money of off your contribution.
Re:$5 to anyone who proves this statement wrong-
on
The Economics of Spam
·
· Score: 1
"If you have 30 million to 60 million [addresses], you're going to get a certain percentage of [recipients] who think your stuff is cool," she says. "It's a numbers game."
What these people consistently fail to realize is that it is a numbers game PAID FOR by SOMEONE ELSE. It is interesting that the economics of the internet makes spam possible. If she had to pay for the use of the mail servers and network time or pay per packet, she wouldn't make money. I don't want the internet to be anything but a public good (and a mostly free one at that), but it never fails to disappoint me how people will abuse a public good.
Corporate graffiti on sidewalks is no different. I would rather see Congress pass a law banning abuse of public goods than something specific to spam. In New York City, you have to have a license to sell things on the sidewalk. How is this any different? We could get rid of a whole slew of societal leeches by simply banning the use of public goods for commercial purposes. ___________
I'm always surprised to hear programmers asking where to go when each and every one of us is not only walking storehouse of ideas, but a production factory of software. Look around the world of software, look to what your friends and family do with computers and use those problem-solving brains of yours to make something new. Make it and put it out there and as you perfect it, sell it. Maybe someone should write a self-help book for programmers off the dole, but I really believe that if you are on the internet, you are connected to the world and there are 4.5 billion people in that world. If 1% of 1% of 1% of the world wants something you make, you have 45,000 customers.
The general trends of the last two decades have been personalization and decentralization. Get out of the mentality that you need to be part of corporation or a business to get anything done. Think small, keep it simple and make something insanely great. If the mantra of the hacker is "figure out how it works" then the mantra of the hacker entrepreneur should be "figure out how to make it better". We are all of us hacker entrepreneurs if that's where we put our minds.
In the tech industry there are too many examples to site of people who just did something they just thought was neat (Mosaic, the web itself, Napster, Lotus 123, the Apple I, Linux, and on and on) and ended up pretty well off. The only difference between a famous programmer and a talented programmer is that one of them is famous. If you're unemplyed anyway, what have you got to lose? ___________
"As a result, Army leaders estimate the total cost for U.S. Department of Defense corrosion-related problems at $10 billion per year -- $2 billion of which is related to painting and paint-scraping operations. "
Thankfully, the research, development, and manufacturing of nanotech robots for the first deployment will only cost $40 billion, thus saving the DOD... uh, well, nevermind. ______________
When the Comcast guys came over to my place to install the cable, there happened to be two of them -- one of them in training. The guy saw my TiBook and turning to the trainee said, "These are nice. With these kind, you just have to plug the modem in and plug it into the computer." Trainee: "That's it?" Cable Guy: "Yup. That's it." Macs are not only great for the install, but they're obscure enough that there isn't any crappy marketroid software written for them! </typical macintosh rant> _________________
When the Comcast guys came over to my place to install the cable, there happened to be two of them -- one of them in training. The guy saw my TiBook and turning to the trainee said, "These are nice. With these kind, you just have to plug the modem in and plug it into the computer." Trainee: "That's it?" Cable Guy: "Yup. That's it." Macs are not only great for the install, but they're obscure enough that there isn't any crappy marketroid software written for them! </typical macintosh rant> _____________
I cannot believe that this issue is even up for discussion. This is a clear cut case of someone trespassing on my property without permission. I'm not talking about anything as fancy as cyberspace, either. I'm talking about the fact that the computer, which they are using, which is using my electricity is in my house. It is trespassing without a doubt.
The police don't have this kind of power and I certainly don't want any old corporation to have this kind of power. The precedent this law would set for someone like Microsoft is ridiculous.
My computer belongs to me. If you suspect that there is something on my computer that shouldn't be there, take it up with the authorities and bring evidence so you can get a warrant. Anything short of warrant is going to guaruntee nothing short of a retaliation. I don't let theives into my house and the RIAA isn't invited either. This is a clear violation of my 4th amendment rights against search and seizure.
For those of you who might want a refresher: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
As the rednecks in my part of the country like to say, "Get the hell offa my property!" _________________
They must have run a Japanese headline through the Babelfish. It's rare you find better Japlish than "Currently, They were sold by $1million." _________________
An iPhone is not just a big move for Apple -- it's a HUGE move. Something like the iPad would make a lot more sense.
Apple can create a web pad device that has mobility built in (thanks to Airport aka 802.11b) and because of the Unix OS features the device could just be a terminal extension to a large nearby desktop. You can take it into the living room and surf while you watch TV, or even talk on the phone using Apple's new iPhone program (with voice recognition no doubt!). They also have handwriting recognition built-in to 10.2 which is great for filling out forms while surfing.
The iPad makes more sense since it replaces the iBook as the low-end laptop and can be sold to Apple fans and new users alike. It's just less of a stretch than a phone and closer to Apple's roots of inventing new computing devices. _________________
Whatever. It uses a frikkin keyboard -- how innovative is that? What's worse, it uses a QWERTY keyboard. C'mon! When are these manufacturers going to define something really useful. The Wall Street Personal Journal has a review as well and they point out that Danger Inc. (great name) is staffed by people from Apple and General Magic. Obviously, Danger Inc. got stuck with the lame-os who were unwilling to persue handwriting recognition. (or voice recognition, or a b.a.t. keypad, or even DVORAK keyboard.)
The screen turns around. Yay. _______________________
I read about this inventor who created a wind up radio that is apparently pretty effecient. Worldlink has this story about him. And I believe that I read in Wired that he was now trying to create a pair of shoes that would generate enough electricity to power a cell phone. _______________
I would be shocked if companies like coca-cola, who are masters of manufacturing effeciency didn't see this coming the last time they had to change. Surely they're just going to have to do a software upgrade. If that's not true, they should be kicking themselves.
The fed said that they were going to do this every seven to ten years. Surely they broadcast that, and surely the manufacturers heard it (though probably not all). What I wonder is whether the fed has any system to deliver the new designs digitally for the manufacturers to then upgrade their software with.
Regardless, the whole thing is pointless because even if the fed were transferring the money digitally, and yet hadn't yet come up with a standard for digital currency, what the hell are they doing? That's the real question: is all of this upgrading to currency ever going to be an upgrade to digital currency? Where is the standard? ______________________
The point is, if you are in a position of greater knowledge, looking at a group of people with less knowledge and saying "stop being a bunch ignorant fools!" doesn't do a dang thing for anyone, doc, except maybe for your feeling of self-righteousness
You are correct! People will do as people will do -- not all of us are born with the same upbringing, culture, or brain capacity.
Hell, I went to public school in South Carolina -- I'm god damned lucky I can read, let alone operate a computer. That having been said though, there's one thing I learned about stupid people in South Carolina: there is nothing wrong with making fun of them. Most of the time, *they* even think it's funny. I once got out of a fight by telling a dumb redneck at my high school that he didn't have the cranial capacity of an australopithecus. He thought that was great. ________________________
It never ceases to amaze me that what is news to some in the computer industry is not news at all to Mac aficianados -- just goes to show what an innovative platform we work on
But seriously, I've been working with a pen interface for going on seven years now. Wacom has always made a brilliant pen interface for the macintosh. Not only are pen interfaces cool because you're so used to them (even if you're attached to your computer, you had to use pens in school) but it's only after a while that you learn all of the shortcuts that pens can use. My current Wacom tablet has a couple of buttons built into the pen -- this along with several hotspots that I've designated on the tablet, there are probably close to thirty commands I can execute (some of them scripts) just by doodling a shape. It's really intuitive.
In fact, Wacom's new tablet incorporates an LCD monitor so now you're not even seperated from the screen but working right on it! I ordered one and can't wait.
You can take a look at it here: http://www.wacom.com/lcdtablets/index.cfm The only thing about the article that I really thought was bunk was the fact that they said the pen interface would replace joysticks. Fat chance. I've played Quake with a tablet -- it's impossible. ____________________
I think, unfortunately, the answer to question will be: only what you keep private. It will never be illegal to purchase things with cash or barter. It will never be illegal to *not* have a driver's license. There will always be shady places to drink that don't check ID and don't care who you are. There's always a country in the world that doesn't play entirely by the rules or looks the other way. There's always a way to cover something up.
I guess for most people, it will just be too much of an effort. They will sacrifice privacy for security and convenience and why not? If you have nothing to hide and your life is comfy and cozy, you are well fed and have a nice house, probably your one goal in life is fame and barring that, what do you care if everyone knows everything about you?
I do think that's one point worth reiterating and most privacy advocates miss this entirely. In several recent studies, fame outweighs wealth as the average American's dream. That's right, Americans would rather have fame than wealth. Wealth can provide LOTS of privacy. Fame provides the opposite -- none. Most Americans simply do not care about privacy -- they would rather be talked and gossiped about. Privacy advocates should pay attention to this fact, if for no other reason than to realize that they *are* fighting the tide.
Personally, I intend to beome wealthy and live behind lots of very large walls. ___________________
Use what savings you can manage to scrape together and buy yourself a giant clue. Typical sheep? Buddy, fuck sheep, I've been to a *human* slaughterhouse and let me tell you what it looks like: There are disembodied arms lying around on the sidewalk. There is a woman running by you with half her face burned off. Maybe if you're lucky -- you too can get hit with a chunk of debris and get yourself a lobotomy!
You want to know what people in New York are sitting around waiting for? We're waiting for someone to set off a nuclear device. You think terrorists are only going to hit this town once? You are sadly mistaken. They are going to hit it again and again like a nerve center until the United States looks and feels like Isarael. That is there goal.
And as long as there are maniancs in the world who would kill several thousand people at a pop, you are going to shut your fucking mouth and answer a few questions for the authorities before you get on the same plane as me. Don't like it? Don't fly.
I don't complain about answering questions. I don't complain about having my luggage searched because these guys are out to kill me. If you'd think about it for a second you'd also realize that they are out to kill *you*. That's right. They want anyone who is an American Citizen dead.
The only reason you would mouth off about what you just did is because you have *no idea* what a life without safety is like. Speed limits exist to stop maniacs on the road, laws exist to punish murderers. You can look at all the pr0n you want in the comfort of your home, but when your activities endanger my life, liberty and pursuit of happiness, the law steps in. No one has the right to take my life and I will do what is necessary to ensure that those that would will be caught and incarcerated. If you want me dead, bring it on, but I'm going to do everything I can to make sure you get caught before you do it. This country is going to have a little more security and if you don't like it, you can move to London. I'm sure they'd be happy to deal with your opinions.
But I understand, it's your world -- i just live in it. __________________
This story should point to the glaring holes in all security stations and methods. Steve Mann is not going to be the last person to want to get on a plane with cybernetic implants. But what happens when it's not a nice professor or a lunatic with a lot of official looking paperwork (i.e. Dr. Kozinsky).
What they did to Dr. Mann was totally unjustified, but more to the point, was probably done out of ignorance. This will be a nasty civil suit, but I seriously doubt that airport security around the world will react to it by looking into cybernetic implants and how to tell the difference between an artificial ticker and an artificial bomb ticker.
The most recent bomber in Israel had munitiions strapped to his chest. It won't be long before they'll have them concealed inside their chests. We need to have methods of protection from that sort of thing in place now. __________________
Slashdot Mirror
Have you ever considered the alternate effects of a P2P network on independent music vs. RIAA music? I find it highly amusing that when a record is released by the mega-marketing firms (EMI, Sony, etc.), they ensure that you will hear the song by paying radio stations and advertising and spending millions of dollars, but thereby also ensure that there will be a copy floating around on a P2P network because millions of people are listening to it at the same time. In fact, they are ensuring that there will be several hundred copies floating around, making the song even easier to find on a P2P network. It is there own mass marketing that makes finding mainstream music on P2P networks possible.
Consider the alternative (no pun intended). A local band, touring in a few states has a growing fanbase. They make most of their money from shows and their shows create word-of-mouth marketing that might allow people to find their music on P2P, but more likely, fans (*not* just listeners) will want to get the music for themselves since its easier than trying to find the one copy of the song on Gnutella. Even if the band has enough popularity to have multiple songs floating around, they have a FAN base not just a LISTENING base.
RIAA's music companies business is obsolete and completely so. They should realize that the easiest way to keep themselves in business is to create more markets, not try to retain control over the mega-market. More bands, more choices, more music and more FANS, not just listeners. The one thing I know about people who only listen to top 40 bands is that they don't give a shit about music -- it's pleasant noise -- and they don't care about taking it for themselves (it is free on the radio after all). The music companies could provide an incredible service to people by acting as a conniseur (sp?) and directing people to music that they might like rather than acting as a filter and keeping thousands of musicians from their potential fans.
The RIAA says this argument is about artist's rights, and yet they do not believe that every artist has the right to be heard (or more importantly, marketed). This argument is about the status quo and because the record companies don't realize that, they will continue to try to retain control of the mega-market while other information networks crop up around them to feed the small markets. Think about it, does Sony release innovative ambient, electronica or alt country? The mere existence of these small genres bares the point out. These markets are getting fed in innovative ways -- I have never spoken to an electronica artist or a DJ who has a problem with being listed on a P2P.
MTV and the RIAA created the mega-market and the video star. Internet killed the video star.
____________
Filtering measures don't stop email from eating up bandwidth though. This isn't mentioned in the article either, but the Internet does have upper limits on how much traffic it can handle. As VOIP and other media content come online, this burden is really going to matter more than anyone's individual convenience.
<disclaimer>I do not pretend to understand IP, however</disclaimer> -- In a metaphorical sense, what the Internet needs is an immune system. How feasible would it be to use every mail server (or those that volunteer or sign up) on the internet as a monitoring node that tells all the other monitoring nodes where it is receiving mail from currently. If multiple nodes notice large waves of email concurrently then they could work together to hold that traffic and check against more nodes or a spamnet database or other blacklist to see if the email is legit (opt-in) or spam. Is this pie-in-the-sky thinking or is this feasible? It seems to me that this is not very different from a distributed computing problem like what Seti@home does.
_____________
Where did you get this interesting "fact" that the Xprize is at $5m? I work for Xprize and Peter Diamandis, the guy who runs the show and I happen to know that the prize is $10 million and accounted for.
__________
I actually believe that overall, space will have a very significant net positive environmental impact.
Yeah, and principally by ridding the Earth of the disease known as humanity. Hopefully, the Earth will eventually be an international park.
______________
To call the internet a private system makes a very complex system very black and white. It is a mixed system at best. You may pay your ISP for connectivity, but what do you pay to access sites? You pay to access some and not others. You certainly don't pay for packets that come to your computer, which means that the cost of the traffic is distributed among everyone who pays for it -- sort of like how taxes pay for sidewalks. Granted what you pay is not a tax, but it is money distributed among a large number of institutions -- not all of which make money of off your contribution.
"If you have 30 million to 60 million [addresses], you're going to get a certain percentage of [recipients] who think your stuff is cool," she says. "It's a numbers game."
What these people consistently fail to realize is that it is a numbers game PAID FOR by SOMEONE ELSE. It is interesting that the economics of the internet makes spam possible. If she had to pay for the use of the mail servers and network time or pay per packet, she wouldn't make money. I don't want the internet to be anything but a public good (and a mostly free one at that), but it never fails to disappoint me how people will abuse a public good.
Corporate graffiti on sidewalks is no different. I would rather see Congress pass a law banning abuse of public goods than something specific to spam. In New York City, you have to have a license to sell things on the sidewalk. How is this any different? We could get rid of a whole slew of societal leeches by simply banning the use of public goods for commercial purposes.
___________
I'm always surprised to hear programmers asking where to go when each and every one of us is not only walking storehouse of ideas, but a production factory of software. Look around the world of software, look to what your friends and family do with computers and use those problem-solving brains of yours to make something new. Make it and put it out there and as you perfect it, sell it. Maybe someone should write a self-help book for programmers off the dole, but I really believe that if you are on the internet, you are connected to the world and there are 4.5 billion people in that world. If 1% of 1% of 1% of the world wants something you make, you have 45,000 customers.
The general trends of the last two decades have been personalization and decentralization. Get out of the mentality that you need to be part of corporation or a business to get anything done. Think small, keep it simple and make something insanely great. If the mantra of the hacker is "figure out how it works" then the mantra of the hacker entrepreneur should be "figure out how to make it better". We are all of us hacker entrepreneurs if that's where we put our minds.
In the tech industry there are too many examples to site of people who just did something they just thought was neat (Mosaic, the web itself, Napster, Lotus 123, the Apple I, Linux, and on and on) and ended up pretty well off. The only difference between a famous programmer and a talented programmer is that one of them is famous. If you're unemplyed anyway, what have you got to lose?
___________
"As a result, Army leaders estimate the total cost for U.S. Department of Defense corrosion-related problems at $10 billion per year -- $2 billion of which is related to painting and paint-scraping operations. "
Thankfully, the research, development, and manufacturing of nanotech robots for the first deployment will only cost $40 billion, thus saving the DOD... uh, well, nevermind.
______________
When the Comcast guys came over to my place to install the cable, there happened to be two of them -- one of them in training. The guy saw my TiBook and turning to the trainee said, "These are nice. With these kind, you just have to plug the modem in and plug it into the computer."
Trainee: "That's it?"
Cable Guy: "Yup. That's it."
Macs are not only great for the install, but they're obscure enough that there isn't any crappy marketroid software written for them!
</typical macintosh rant>
_________________
When the Comcast guys came over to my place to install the cable, there happened to be two of them -- one of them in training. The guy saw my TiBook and turning to the trainee said, "These are nice. With these kind, you just have to plug the modem in and plug it into the computer."
Trainee: "That's it?"
Cable Guy: "Yup. That's it."
Macs are not only great for the install, but they're obscure enough that there isn't any crappy marketroid software written for them!
</typical macintosh rant>
_____________
It's coming, and maybe in the next 12 months.
The Moller Skycar
I cannot believe that this issue is even up for discussion. This is a clear cut case of someone trespassing on my property without permission. I'm not talking about anything as fancy as cyberspace, either. I'm talking about the fact that the computer, which they are using, which is using my electricity is in my house. It is trespassing without a doubt.
The police don't have this kind of power and I certainly don't want any old corporation to have this kind of power. The precedent this law would set for someone like Microsoft is ridiculous.
My computer belongs to me. If you suspect that there is something on my computer that shouldn't be there, take it up with the authorities and bring evidence so you can get a warrant. Anything short of warrant is going to guaruntee nothing short of a retaliation. I don't let theives into my house and the RIAA isn't invited either. This is a clear violation of my 4th amendment rights against search and seizure.
For those of you who might want a refresher: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
As the rednecks in my part of the country like to say, "Get the hell offa my property!"
_________________
Correct. Woz is respectfully removed from the lame-os list.
_________________
They must have run a Japanese headline through the Babelfish. It's rare you find better Japlish than "Currently, They were sold by $1million."
_________________
Nah.
An iPhone is not just a big move for Apple -- it's a HUGE move. Something like the iPad would make a lot more sense.
Apple can create a web pad device that has mobility built in (thanks to Airport aka 802.11b) and because of the Unix OS features the device could just be a terminal extension to a large nearby desktop. You can take it into the living room and surf while you watch TV, or even talk on the phone using Apple's new iPhone program (with voice recognition no doubt!). They also have handwriting recognition built-in to 10.2 which is great for filling out forms while surfing.
The iPad makes more sense since it replaces the iBook as the low-end laptop and can be sold to Apple fans and new users alike. It's just less of a stretch than a phone and closer to Apple's roots of inventing new computing devices.
_________________
Whatever. It uses a frikkin keyboard -- how innovative is that? What's worse, it uses a QWERTY keyboard. C'mon! When are these manufacturers going to define something really useful. The Wall Street Personal Journal has a review as well and they point out that Danger Inc. (great name) is staffed by people from Apple and General Magic. Obviously, Danger Inc. got stuck with the lame-os who were unwilling to persue handwriting recognition. (or voice recognition, or a b.a.t. keypad, or even DVORAK keyboard.)
The screen turns around. Yay.
_______________________
That's a wonderful attitude to take towards your fellow man. As if fame has anything to do with intelligence or ability.
The only difference between a famous writer and one who writes in a blog is that one of them is famous.
______________
I read about this inventor who created a wind up radio that is apparently pretty effecient. Worldlink has this story about him. And I believe that I read in Wired that he was now trying to create a pair of shoes that would generate enough electricity to power a cell phone.
_______________
I just wanted to applaud your tagline: Nuke Gay Whales. But don't you think you should add *for Jesus*. It expands on the original a little bit:
Nuke Gay Whales for Jesus!
I would be shocked if companies like coca-cola, who are masters of manufacturing effeciency didn't see this coming the last time they had to change. Surely they're just going to have to do a software upgrade. If that's not true, they should be kicking themselves.
The fed said that they were going to do this every seven to ten years. Surely they broadcast that, and surely the manufacturers heard it (though probably not all). What I wonder is whether the fed has any system to deliver the new designs digitally for the manufacturers to then upgrade their software with.
Regardless, the whole thing is pointless because even if the fed were transferring the money digitally, and yet hadn't yet come up with a standard for digital currency, what the hell are they doing? That's the real question: is all of this upgrading to currency ever going to be an upgrade to digital currency? Where is the standard?
______________________
The point is, if you are in a position of greater knowledge, looking at a group of people with less knowledge and saying "stop being a bunch ignorant fools!" doesn't do a dang thing for anyone, doc, except maybe for your feeling of self-righteousness
You are correct! People will do as people will do -- not all of us are born with the same upbringing, culture, or brain capacity.
Hell, I went to public school in South Carolina -- I'm god damned lucky I can read, let alone operate a computer. That having been said though, there's one thing I learned about stupid people in South Carolina: there is nothing wrong with making fun of them. Most of the time, *they* even think it's funny. I once got out of a fight by telling a dumb redneck at my high school that he didn't have the cranial capacity of an australopithecus. He thought that was great.
________________________
It never ceases to amaze me that what is news to some in the computer industry is not news at all to Mac aficianados -- just goes to show what an innovative platform we work on
But seriously, I've been working with a pen interface for going on seven years now. Wacom has always made a brilliant pen interface for the macintosh. Not only are pen interfaces cool because you're so used to them (even if you're attached to your computer, you had to use pens in school) but it's only after a while that you learn all of the shortcuts that pens can use. My current Wacom tablet has a couple of buttons built into the pen -- this along with several hotspots that I've designated on the tablet, there are probably close to thirty commands I can execute (some of them scripts) just by doodling a shape. It's really intuitive.
In fact, Wacom's new tablet incorporates an LCD monitor so now you're not even seperated from the screen but working right on it! I ordered one and can't wait.
You can take a look at it here:
http://www.wacom.com/lcdtablets/index.cfm
The only thing about the article that I really thought was bunk was the fact that they said the pen interface would replace joysticks. Fat chance. I've played Quake with a tablet -- it's impossible.
____________________
I think, unfortunately, the answer to question will be: only what you keep private. It will never be illegal to purchase things with cash or barter. It will never be illegal to *not* have a driver's license. There will always be shady places to drink that don't check ID and don't care who you are. There's always a country in the world that doesn't play entirely by the rules or looks the other way. There's always a way to cover something up.
I guess for most people, it will just be too much of an effort. They will sacrifice privacy for security and convenience and why not? If you have nothing to hide and your life is comfy and cozy, you are well fed and have a nice house, probably your one goal in life is fame and barring that, what do you care if everyone knows everything about you?
I do think that's one point worth reiterating and most privacy advocates miss this entirely. In several recent studies, fame outweighs wealth as the average American's dream. That's right, Americans would rather have fame than wealth. Wealth can provide LOTS of privacy. Fame provides the opposite -- none. Most Americans simply do not care about privacy -- they would rather be talked and gossiped about. Privacy advocates should pay attention to this fact, if for no other reason than to realize that they *are* fighting the tide.
Personally, I intend to beome wealthy and live behind lots of very large walls.
___________________
Use what savings you can manage to scrape together and buy yourself a giant clue. Typical sheep? Buddy, fuck sheep, I've been to a *human* slaughterhouse and let me tell you what it looks like: There are disembodied arms lying around on the sidewalk. There is a woman running by you with half her face burned off. Maybe if you're lucky -- you too can get hit with a chunk of debris and get yourself a lobotomy!
You want to know what people in New York are sitting around waiting for? We're waiting for someone to set off a nuclear device. You think terrorists are only going to hit this town once? You are sadly mistaken. They are going to hit it again and again like a nerve center until the United States looks and feels like Isarael. That is there goal.
And as long as there are maniancs in the world who would kill several thousand people at a pop, you are going to shut your fucking mouth and answer a few questions for the authorities before you get on the same plane as me. Don't like it? Don't fly.
I don't complain about answering questions. I don't complain about having my luggage searched because these guys are out to kill me. If you'd think about it for a second you'd also realize that they are out to kill *you*. That's right. They want anyone who is an American Citizen dead.
The only reason you would mouth off about what you just did is because you have *no idea* what a life without safety is like. Speed limits exist to stop maniacs on the road, laws exist to punish murderers. You can look at all the pr0n you want in the comfort of your home, but when your activities endanger my life, liberty and pursuit of happiness, the law steps in. No one has the right to take my life and I will do what is necessary to ensure that those that would will be caught and incarcerated. If you want me dead, bring it on, but I'm going to do everything I can to make sure you get caught before you do it. This country is going to have a little more security and if you don't like it, you can move to London. I'm sure they'd be happy to deal with your opinions.
But I understand, it's your world -- i just live in it.
__________________
This story should point to the glaring holes in all security stations and methods. Steve Mann is not going to be the last person to want to get on a plane with cybernetic implants. But what happens when it's not a nice professor or a lunatic with a lot of official looking paperwork (i.e. Dr. Kozinsky).
What they did to Dr. Mann was totally unjustified, but more to the point, was probably done out of ignorance. This will be a nasty civil suit, but I seriously doubt that airport security around the world will react to it by looking into cybernetic implants and how to tell the difference between an artificial ticker and an artificial bomb ticker.
The most recent bomber in Israel had munitiions strapped to his chest. It won't be long before they'll have them concealed inside their chests. We need to have methods of protection from that sort of thing in place now.
__________________