Fine. Then do without the documentation and go thru ALL the trouble of figuring it all out for yourself.
No doubt you would be happy to make use of the information, once supplied, but you don't want to actually have to contribute ANYTHING to make it come about. The world is NOT free ($). EVERYTHING costs and EVERYONE should be paid for hard work that is valued. If you WANT to give your time and work away, knock yourself out. Tell your employer that you no longer need to be paid for your work. That is your decision. Live with it and be CONSISTENT.
This is a FACT. It was widely reported in the news about a year to year-and-a-half ago. Fresh trial run of a navy ship using NT and it craps out very quickly. The ship WAS disabled and had to be towed back to port. Fact.
Here's a link to start you on your educational journey:
http://slashdot.org/articles/980721/1049204.shtm l
I would say that if not for Maxwell, Newton, Einstein, von Neuman, etc, that we would STILL end up with where we are...at some point in the future. If not for Maxwell, the equations would still likely be devised, but by another GREAT MIND. The same goes for Einstein's work, etc. SOMEONE at some point would come up with the basically same ideas but it would have been later and it STILL would derive from a GREAT MIND.
The sun is NOT sentient. The Earth is not sentient. Blobs of gas in interstellar space are not sentient.
Intelligence requires organization. Cells are organized collections of lipid, carbohydrates, nucleic acids, protein, and trace minerals. They have a very ordered structure and maintain their order by utilizing energy fighting against entropy.
The sun (and planets) are only trivially ordered, and the order they DO have is purely gravity driven. There are no consistent, ordered structures on the sun. There are no storage media, nothing. It is hot gas. A planet is a mix of hot and cold rock (or just plain cold rock if it is old enough). Intelligence took about 500 million years to develop from simple multicellular organisms - with the ORGANIZATION of cells being an absolute requirement.
Don't rely on Star Trek for your "science". That show, like most science fiction, is more a social commentary of some kind rather than an exploration of real science.
I disagree with your analysis. It has taken so long for we humans to get where we are because we had to start from scratch, with NO technology, and build it up from there.
If we were to send colonists to Mars next year, they would BEGIN with the technology of today, NOT from scratch. It is irrelevant whether there is a biosphere or not. The Martian colonists MERELY need to build up a stable population (in protective structures), and have largescale mining and refining operations. That's all. With this raw material, they would then be capable of building rockets of their own, and along with Earth, continue sending out spacecraft into the solar system.
It is not reasonable to assume that it would take anywhere NEAR even 200 years for the proper mining and refining operations to be well enough established to allow for the building of further spacecraft. That is also PLENTY of time for the colony to expand and thrive (it took, essentially, 300 years for the US to get to where it is today...starting with LOW technology and a few colonists...our erstwhile Martian colonists are not starting out as technologically deprived).
A colony started at a planet at Alpha Centauri would arrive with technology equivalent to the time they launched, plus additions transmitted from home. They would also have communication with home with a time lag of, at least 4 years, at most 8 years. So, their technology, assuming they derived nothing new themselves, would be a handful of years behind that of the Earth.
In a few hundred years, the colony could easily thrive and be able to send out more probes. Most likely, they would explore local space for 50-100 years before they even thought of sending colonists onward again. They would also be acquiring more and more colonists from Earth (once a likely/good location is found, there would be a stronger drive by many to get there and join the colonization, particularly among scientists and the adventurous).
I would say that 400 years is more than enough time for a space colony to get to a point of sending out more colonists.
There is a BIG problem with the current SETI projects. The main one right now, the setiathome project (in which I am participating) is that it uses the arecebo telescope which can ONLY detect STRONG signals beamed AT US (so to speak, at least in our direction AND for a prolonged period of time).
If any project is going to find ET, it will need to be VERY sensitive and capable of detecting incidental emissions of radio/radar. In other words, it would have to be capable of detecting us from a sizable distance...as we do NOT broadcast in such a way to say "Here we are! Here we are!. As a matter of fact, as we get more technologically advanced, our emissions go down. We acquire narrow band, tight beam, laser transmission, low power-high efficiency transmission systems. None of these are conducive to detection from interstellar distances.
Setiathome REQUIRES (from an ET) a large, high-power, dedicated transmitter that happens to be pointing our direction at the right time in history. Hell, some culture, which must be rare in itself, could have been broadcasting in our direction throughout the dinosaur era, then after a few thousand, or even millions of years, given up and turned their transmitter in another direction or turned it off.
It seems odd to assume that ETs would be inclined to build such large dedicated transmitters merely as a beacon of their existence, and maintain them for hundreds of thousands of years or longer. This isn't what WE'RE doing. We are not even embarked on the eventual program of doing this. It seems odd that given our non-propensity to SPECIFICALLY broadcast our existence, that we should assume that others would. Speculation beyond our own species is PURELY speculation with no grounding in fact.
That all said, I would say that life is abundant, but that technologically advanced civilizations are extremely rare. If it weren't for a certain chance meteorite encounter some 65 mya, the dinosaurs would STILL be the likely dominant life form on earth. Even given the meteorite, if it were to be repeated, it is unlikely that humans would arise again. There is no evolutionary drive toward technological civilizations. If it weren't for a few chance events in the Far East, Middle East, and West in prehistory/early history, WE wouldn't be a technologically advanced civilization today. The native Americans, Aborigine Australians, the Celtic (and other) tribes of Europe, etc, would not have changed much from their past lifestyles and technology.
Chance events, unrepeatable on Earth, led to what we are today. I would doubt that such chance events happen all the time, certainly not to the point of leading to technological societies all over the galaxy. It is certainly possible that there are other advanced civs in our galaxy, but it could be only one or two other than our own....Or what if there is ONE technologically advanced civ (on average) in each galaxy at the same time? There would still be billions of such civs in the universe but they would be forever seperated by time and space, each living in their own galaxy filled with planets "peopled" by single-celled, or simple multi-celled organisms. Lots of places to colonize and study, given time, energy, and money (in whatever form they use). There may even be a host of stone-age civilizations all over each galaxy...but there is no reason to presuppose that each MUST develop into advanced technological societies - ever.
The setiathome project is a worthy test-of-concept project that just MIGHT (slim chance) find something. The projects more likely to find anything, however, haven't even been started yet. They require the best, most sensitive receivers that can detect an incidentally emitting civilization (detect their leakage) such as one like our own.
I know exactly what a dumb terminal is...or were you refering to the original poster?
I don't want to go back to the days of dumb terminals. I like the power of a real computer that can actually DO things regardless of network connectivity problems.
There can be a place for dumb(ass) terminals but it they are not THE answer or THE future.
I, for one, will NOT used web-based apps for my work. My work is MY WORK, it isn't top secret or illegal or anything else, but it is MINE. I will not do my wordprocessing, or any other work, on the web where it is (potentially) ANYONE'S work who can obtain access. It is simply about privacy and total control over my own work, and total control over what I release to other eyes or choose NOT to release.
As a matter of principal, my work is done, and ever shall be done, on MY personal computer without any potential prying eyes taking a gander before I decide (IF I decide) to publish/release the final product. I frickin' HATE web-based crap. I want MY work, MY software, MY time to be absolutely MINE. It is not a shared resource, it is not anyone else's business but my own, it belongs to me. Hence, I require a desktop-based, single client (though with web CAPABILITY) apps to do my graphics, writing, game-playing, whatever, work.
I do not want to HAVE to count on NEVER running into network outages, server crashes, etc, in order to get work done. The net is NOT so reliable that you (or anyone else) can count on it to always be able to get your work done when it relies upon the net.
There have been many times when the net has been unavailable to me at work, for a variety of reasons. Hence, that avenue of information collection is cutoff. There have been many times when the local network has gone down (maintenance, crashes) which prevents access to shared files, servers, etc. If I am relying on this crap to get my publishing work done... No. Thank. You. In EVERY case of the net being unavailable, my personal system has ALWAYS been available. I have ALWAYS been able to write up data, create graphs and graphics, read docs that I have LOCALLY downloaded. If I were relying on a web-based app to do all this, every time the net slowed down due to traffic or was otherwise unavialable, my perfectly serviceable PC/laptop would become merely a desktop heating system. I would get to twiddle my thumbs waiting for the system to come back so I could work on my documents.
There will always be a good use for client/desktop-based productivity apps (and games). The web is not reliable enough or private enough to count on it for everything; and why should one HAVE to cough up a lung to pay for access to the web, say, on an airliner or at an airport to do anything productive when you could do it perfectly fine if the app resides on your own disconnected system?
Web-based apps have a place but it isn't the end-all, be-all, universal fix.
So, Messiah, do you have a high opinion of yourself? Perhaps you are so important that the evil guv'mnt is tracking you everywhere you go? You do such important and interesting things that "they" would just keep you under a microscope, awaiting all the brilliant, deviant, perverted, or mundane things you say?
And now, our valiant servicemembers (like myself), after the wonders of the forced injection of
the Anthrax vaccine...
Quick question: Why complain about the Anthrax vaccine when you also receive flu, yellow fever, smallpox, and on and on and on. You get shots (just like my military self) up the ying yang, yet you complain about one of THE most well-known vaccines? Note: those in the sheep industry, meat packing, etc, have been receiving those scarey anthrax shots for decades. They are not dying, getting arthritis, or any other problem. People get more side effects from flu shots than any get in the DECADES of use of the anthrax vaccine.
Tell ya what. Taking the shot and MAYBE experiencing a little discomfort JUST like from the flu shot you get every year is a LOT better than actually sucking down an anthrax spore and getting sick that way, I assure you. In the field, if you inhale some nice anthrax spores (say from a terrorist or enemy weapon release) and haven't taken the shot, you are dead. That is certain.
This device could be used by astronauts, the military, giving everyone in a unit, squad, etc,
constant information as to the location of comrads. With a nice HUD on your helmet or display on a compact computer, every member, plus the commanders, of any military unit could be tracked during operations.
No voice radio transmission necessary. Just fire up your hud and you know where your comrad is, day or night, and his/her state (dead/alive).
Astronauts would welcome this little gizmo, vs the nice crap that gets stuck to their skin, up their butts, etc.
A version that cannot be turned off could be inserted into convicted felons/convicts when they are imprisoned. Any escape attempt will fail. When/if they earn their freedom, they could then be removed as approved by the courts and parole officers.
I do believe that MANY parents would welcome this sort of thing in their non-adult children. They would be easier to locate if kidnapped/snatched.
When the kid reaches the age of majority, then they could elect to have it removed or replaced with a self-controlled version (vs one they cannot control themselves).
People can't complain too much about this. They give up their privacy all the time anyway by bringing those GODDAMNED cell phones, pagers, etc with them EVERYWHERE THEY GO (including vacations, trips to the store, to the frickin' restaurant, movies, etc). They have no problem spilling their guts for everyone to hear (makes them feel "important").
Keep your older versions of gnumeric. As for StarOffice's spreadsheet...try this with gnumeric. Add data to your gnumeric spreadsheet. Now try to creat/insert a chart of some kind (pie chart, histogram, 3d histogram, linear plot, etc). What? You can't? Well, THERE is the reason to use StarOffice's spreadsheet. A spreadsheet app should be more than JUST a holding cell for numbers and characters. It should be able to present the otherwise useless information in some graphical format. When gnumeric can do this, THEN it can actually stand up and compete with the functionality of StarOffice's spreadsheet.
I can't publish a spreadsheet, I CAN publish histograms, etc.
Reasonable...though some information requires images to properly illustrate/present the information. You could also simply disable "load images" in the settings of Netscape or IE. This wont stop improper textual content. The only sure method is supervised usage - but since you are using supervised usage for the kids, there is no need to block the pictures preemptively.
Basically, when people of a certain age use the net, they should be supervised/watched over to prevent porn/child porn, etc, access. Perhaps have some boxen set aside purely for child use. Other boxen are for adults, who are able to access offensive material intentionally or accidentally. If it traumatizes them too much, then they aren't fit enough (in the Darwinian sense) to live in the real world anyway. They need merely leave the site. They're adults, they can handle THAT. If they can't handle running across cavorting nekkid bodies now and again without it destroying their world, they need their adulthood revoked.
Part of the entire problem is the ever-increasing "limited period of time" that keeps getting tacked on copyrighted/patented works. The letter AND spirit of this law is for TEMPORARY, SHORT-TERM protection. After this period, it loses its protections.
There should be no more protection to perpetuity (practically speaking) or protection beyond the grave. I think a reasonable time period for protective cover is 7 to 10 years. After that, it belongs to everyone and anyone. If you can't benefit from your creating in that period of time, then you are simply not going to. Move on, create something NEW, let go of the old.
Sorry to say you are wrong. Corporate research, if it goes against the company line or perceived corporate good can be, and IS suppressed. Publishing of results can be held back until a patent is submitted...or they can be witheld indefinitely.
Tobacco company "scientists" looooong knew of ALL the negative effects of smoking. Where are those results? Where were they published? No where. The corporation suppresses the negative results and puts forth "evidence" that there is no harm in smoking.
It is irrelevant what you think about tobacco company lawsuits and culpability vs personal responsibility. What IS relevant is that corporations suppress scientific results ALL THE TIME if it is perceived as being dangerous to their goals of profit. This. Is. Wrong. The results, like them or not, MUST be published and accepted and should NEVER be suppressed.
The only thing that would make corporate sponsorship of academic research even REMOTELY palatable is if, 1) there are rules that prevent the suppression of scientific data, PERIOD; and 2) basic research must NOT be halted. Perhaps a certain amount of corporate profits should be required to support simple, basic, non-profit-based research. There is NO way to predict what simple basic research may produce. Some of the ultimate fruits of basic research may end up saving lives, making some company rich, or generally making people's lives better. Simply supporting applied research and profit-motivated research is extremely short-sighted and even dangerous.
As much as I deplore this sort of thing, it IS being forced upon institutes of higher learning, primarily by the Republican Party. What do I mean? The Republican Party has long disliked spending public monies on education, let alone higher education. They are behind the push for university research to create ties to business for the sake of funding. The party also despises, for the most part, PURE basic research (ANYTHING for which they do not see an immediate or obvious business and money-making potential). They ONLY value directed, goal-based, potentially profitable research. Tied together, they cut funding for basic research, push for "cooperation" between business and academic researchers, with the result that in order to DO research, researchers now almost HAVE to get cozy with corporations.
Of course, MS can still make a killing using the usual game-titles-royalties model if they
come up with enough good titles in what will be a fairly well saturated market by that point (c.f.
PSX2, Dreamcast and Dolphin, amongst others). We'll have to wait and see on that one.
One word (name): Halo.
Microsnot bought out the maker (can't recall the company name right this moment), you KNOW, to specifically gain a killer title that will ONLY run on X-box initially. The way the developer is now equivocating on whether or not there will be a PC version (kiss ANY chance of a linux port ala Loki goodby, FOREVER - thank you asshole Gates) tells you that it will be an X-box exclusive title. The way people have been drooling for that game to now find that it needs an X-box to run... The desperate gamer will toss money to Gates just to get THAT game.
Fine. I served (and continue to serve) in the military. If you do not think that there is personal sacrifice involved in that choice, you are sadly mistaken. I have served in Desert Storm - regardless of you personal opinion of that conflict, I served, placing my life directly on the line for others. I was shot at. I wasn't thrilled to go, was a bit scared, as a matter of fact. I nevertheless voluteered to go with the first group to go from my unit. When they needed volunteers to stay behind after it was over, I volunteered to stick around (ended up not having to afterall).
I am NOT wealthy. I now serve in the reserves, which helps, income-wise, but the bulk of my income is a graduate student stipend. It is possible for me to get called up at a moments noti ce, and I accept that. I do not expect to get rich with my resulting degree either, but I intend to serve science well and faithfully.
I am more than willing to give up personal comforts for the sake of others (to an extent, depending on the circumstances) and have: for strangers, for family members, for friends.
I take FULL responsibility for ALL my mistakes, regardless (another good thing taught by the military) of the cost to myself. I REFUSE to prevaricate, quibble, evade. If I did something, in good faith or by mistake, and it does harm in some way, I suck it up, admit to it, take my lumps, and wear them proudly.
What sacrifice have YOU made? How often have YOU FULLY accepted the consequences of your mistakes? How often have you tried to get out of trouble for a mistake you KNOW you made?
A data point of 1 for UT. I don't own even the Doze version of UT NOR Q3A. I don't want, nor do I desire a net-only game. I hate deathmatch games. They were novel for about a week but then, after you've played one deathmatch, you've played them all. They are monotonous.
I WOULD download a linux half-life binary (I already own the game and play it, thus far, under Wine). This and games like it are good as they have a GOOD single player option as well as the option for the same old run, kill, die, reappear randomly, run, kill, die, reappear, etc, ad infinitum net game deathmatch. I look forward to the new Doom and would LOVE a linux port. Since Carmack has mentioned that there will be a linux version (probably after the release of the Doze version, goddamnit), I will wait until the linux version is available and then get THAT one.
Loki's problem is that they are porting games that are already out and being used, usually for months or longer. MOST people who wanted the game ALREADY have it. Why go out and buy a linux version after you already paid for the Doze version, played it, and have since moved to the next game? Fortunately for Loki, I do not yet own Myth II so I can buy that one from them. Unfortunately for Loki, their linux ports are simply not widely available (or even KNOWN about) in stores - not even in those chain retailers mentioned on the Loki website! I looked for Myth II for linux at a local store, which is listed as one of the good stores on the Loki site. They didn't have ANY linux game from Loki and the clerks didn't even know of the linux port. So, I am STUCK buying online from Loki directly. I frickin' HATE using my credit card. Credit cards are EVIL. I don't like waiting for mail delivery either. When I buy a game in a store, I usually go home, immediately install it, and play. Can't do that with online purchases. Bad. Bad. Bad. GET THE STORES TO ACTUALLY STOCK THE FRICKIN' GAMES or take them off the website list. It doesn't count if a store in LA stocks it. It's the only one in the country. Bad.
Until Loki produces their own game (hopefully it will be good), all they can do is rely on late purchases of games that have already been out for about a year or so. It would be REAL nice if they would sign an agreement with some company to do a linux port of a game BEFORE it is released so that a linux version can be available simultaneously with the Doze version. This is REALLY important. Loki presently has to rely on the rich gamer who loves linux and doesn't mind paying for a game twice (they already bought the Doze version, had NO idea that Loki would produce a linux version until it was too late, give Loki money for almost altruistic purposes), or depends on those slower buyers who go out and buy older games now and again.
Halo is expected to be a BIG hit game that really takes the market when it comes available. People, linux users and Doze-heads, will buy it the moment it is released (unless M$ f*cks everyone and only permits an X-box release to improve sales of their new X-box). There is no reason to assume that Loki will be able to produce a port of it to linux, certainly not soon after its debut (and M$ would likely not permit the licensing to Loki to produce a port to a competitive OS anyway...damn M$, have to f*ck up everything they look at). What a disappointing suprize if a year later, Loki produces a linux port of Halo. MOST people who were interested in that game already bought it, linux and doze users. They are not likely to want to pay again. By that time, another big game will be available (Doze version) so Loki will be trolling for the Johny-come-lately buyers. This business model is precarious and certain to be low margin.
I, like many others, am often guilty of impatience. When I go to a store because I want to buy a good game to occupy myself with, I go in, look at the titles, find the coolest one at the moment, and buy it. I don't even really look for a linux version because I have NEVER seen a linux version of ANY game in software/game stores. NEVER. Not even in the chains that LokiSoft lists as appropriate retailers. I asked a clerk at one such store about the linux version of Myth II...he didn't even know there WAS a linux version. This store was among the chains mentioned on Loki's webpage.
Given a choice, if I entered a store to buy a game and there was a linux version alongside the windoze version, in EVERY case I WOULD buy the linux version. I'm there to toss my money away anyway and I will go for the native version over the requires-reboot version EVERY TIME. I'm not given that option. Better yet, I would like to see CDs with "For Windoze or Linux" on the box for all such games where this is possible (some RPGs and adventure games require many CDs, which may make this unrealistic - requiring separate boxes).
If a really must-have game has been released and I am really interested in it. I do NOT want to wait for some indefinite period for Loki to get around to licensing the rights to port it OR wait for a linux version to be released...and THEN only on the net. I PREFER to buy my games in a store. I buy it, take it home, install it then and there, and fire it up. I do not WANT to go thru the credit card online crap, wait for delivery, etc. I HATE USING MY CREDIT CARD AND I BEGRUDGE BEING REQUIRED TO.
Gaming companies should UNDERSTAND that if they do not want "disappointing" linux game sales, they need to release the linux version SIMULTANEOUSLY and the games actually MUST appear in the stores right next to the Doze version. It is bad marketing to do otherwise. It is BOUND to fail, expecting the impatient gamer to wait some unknown period of time for a port to appear and THEN have it ONLY appear on the web. Bad! It isn't as critical for Mac users (sure it is IRRITATING as all hell to have to wait for the port) since nothing is really going to get them to drop their Macs and just buy a Windoze PC. The story is different with linux. Linux almost always being used on an x86 that either has a copy of Doze on it OR is capable of easily accepting a Doze install -- JUST TO PLAY A FREAKIN' GAME.
I HATE rebooting for anything. I hate shutting down my setiathome, going thru the reboot process to windoze, playing the game for a while and then having to reboot again. It is plainly better to not have to. I would bet that any and all linux users would do as I state...given a choice between the windoze or linux version of a game at the time the game is actually WANTED, they would go with the linux version every time. Every. Time. That would definitely improve "disappointing" linux sales.
Nowadays, literary works are protected for something like 50 years beyond the
DEATH OF THE AUTHOR. What the hell is that all about? Go ahead, tell me
*that* doesn't need to be justified.
Now on this I agree. I am all for IP protection within reason. I am all for copyrights, within reason. The Constitution specifically adds this protection and I see no reason to change that. What needs to be changed is how long the protection lasts. Protection for 50 years beyond author death is absurd. Protection of Windows source code copyright for as long as it is protected is absurd. It shouldn't cover the lifetime of the creator, let alone continue after his/her death. The children of the creator should produce their own work rather than live off the fat of their father's/mother's success and talent.
Actually, I wouldn't argue against many of your points, except in taking them to the extreme. First off, using the (dying) Amish as an example isn't really useful. Small communities are not the future, they are fading as more and more people move in to "get away" from the crowded cities...then merely making what was once a small, simple town into the very thing they are fleeing.
There are many things wrong with the Amish so as to NOT use them as a model (though, yes, there is much to admire). They suffer all the diseases and problems associated with heavy inbreeding. They are losing more young to the larger world, with few(er) coming back.
What works for a small, simple community doesn't work for larger, more cosmopolitan communities. For them, it is relatively simple. They are ALL from the same basic background, share the same beliefs and religion, and they DO have an authority structure (elders). The main point is that their model works for their very simple situation, with a small, VERY homogenous makeup. It doesn't transfer well to an L.A. or New York. It also doesn't go much for modern techno society.
My grandparents were farmers. I grew up in the country. Their way was focused on farming, with little interest in the larger, overreaching consequences of their actions. True, they lacked information on pesticide dangers, etc, but there are basic principles that are quite obvious (preventing soil loss via no-till, proper crop rotation, etc) that they did little or none of because it wasn't in their short-term interests.
In any case, protecting land strictly for use as a farm is a far cry from ensuring that there is adequate habitat for species...ALONG with being able to farm. Being a good shepard of your land's productivity is not the same as being sure not to pollute the local streams with runnoff (you don't see the affects of that pollution locally, it flows and builds up downstream). The consequences are separate from you in time and space. You can take great care of your farmland, making it productive for corn and wheat, but that doesn't mean that it is allowing for some other species, etc.
This doesn't just apply to farmers. It, perhaps, applies MORE to developers who never see an openspace that they don't think would be better with a crackerbox housing project stuck on it...or apartments or a minimall. Unless there are some regulations to control those who would do whatever, then it is all up for grabs based on shortterm greed and self-interest rather than longterm concern for your (or your neighbor's) grandchildren, or overall quality of life, or healthy ecology.
You aren't free, and shouldn't be free, to do whatever you want to your own land anyway. If you own a home with a little lot of land around it, you are not allowed to do whatever you want to it. There are zoning laws and health laws. They exist for many reasons, like preventing some rogue property owner from destroying the value of neighbor properties or endangering the health of their neighbor's. What you do to your land can affect, directly, your neighbors, thus they deserve a say (dependent on the situation). This sort of thing affects your immediate neighbors but environmental problems and damage affects people (and animals) far removed from your immediate world. There have to be some rules and guidlines or not only are your neighbors and fellow citizens screwed, but so are you. This sort of thing can directly bite you too.
First off, I did not say a FARMER or FARMERS altered the Mississippi. I used it as an example of doing things for the short-sighted, narrow economic benefit of a relative few. It was an illustration of the point that you cannot simply do what you want to land or water and have no far-reaching consequences that affect more than just you. Incidently, farmers are now against trying to bring back some of the natural wetlands to the flood plains of the Mississippi and removal of many of the dikes (which would go a long way to cleaning up the water AND reducing flood damage, besides simply increasing wildlife habitat) since it would affect their immediate lives. "Damn the greater good, it hurts me and I'm all that matters."
So you believe every farmer (or any industrialist or developer or mere individual) is a singular creature that entirely acts alone? So, farmer "A" clears this patch of trees for another field for more corn (which is mostly wasted, sitting in silos or feeding cattle which will feed FAR fewer people than would be fed if it were used to feed people directly, but that is another problem). By himself, his action may be taken as small and insignificant.
You fail to grasp the larger picture, however, given your philosophy. Farmer "A" is not acting alone. Farmer "B", "C", "D", "E", etc, each acting "alone", each performing their little "insignificant" actions pretty quickly add up to significant consequences. They do not have to act together or in knowledge of each other, their cummulative actions are doing extreme damage overall, when if it were merely one it would be practically harmless. Now, I do not mean to bash farmers here, I am merely using them as an illustration...besides you brought it up as if farmers know everything while a scientist that specializes in the study of biology, or toxicology, or ecology would somehow not have more expertise in the overreaching consequences of some farmer's actions (or industy's or individual's). A farmer knows farming. He does NOT know toxicology. He does not know biology. He does not know ecology. He knows FARMING, a very targeted, narrow, activity. The bigger picture is not in his sight, just the next month's bills.
Each person (not simply farmers, they are just an illustration) acting in their own, insular self-interest, for THEIR own good and happiness, each doing LITTLE damage here and there, seemingly harmless and insignificant, isn't insignificant since there would, of necessity, be hundreds, even thousands and hundreds of thousands, doing the exact same damage. Only to them, they don't see it as damage and don't suffer the consequences until it is too late.
Other people, who had nothing to do with your actions, suddenly are finding themselves suffering consequences for actions they had no part of and had no power to affect. Now, all you can do is react, which is often too late.
There IS need of some modicum of regulation and control, and ONLY the government is capable of enacting those, or putting power behind them. Without such regulations, pollution is permitted, wholesale devastation of forests, open space, water, etc, unfair collusion and exploitation is rampant, etc. If you want a structured, coherent society, you HAVE to give up some liberties. It is IMPOSSIBLE to have an organized society without rules which, of necessity, limit liberty.
A certain extent of libertarianism is fine. A person's personal life should be their personal life. Actions that affect others, directly or indirectly, are in need of rules and limitations. Actions that do harm to the society as a whole must also be under some control to prevent unilateral actions that affect people that don't want to be affected thusly.
You prove the point I make wonderfully. If it impacts on YOU directly, then it is bad, no matter what the overall good is. Perfect libertarianism. Biodiversity is a REQUIREMENT for life on this planet. EVERYTHING is interconnected directly or indirectly. You wipe out this species, it causes this species to overgrow, with totally unknown, usually damaging consequences, which impacts those species, which unbalances this whole system, etc. By controlling the Mississippi with dikes, by draining wetlands around it, it has made flooding worse, when it was all done orignally for the sake of makeing the river more easily navigatable and to "help" the farmers bordering it. It made it worse.
You wipe out hawks and/or owls and your mouse/rodent population increases, bringing with them such niceties as Hantaa virus, plague, etc. You wipe out rodents and you nicely wipeout a whole host of plants that depend on them for seed dispersal, as well as various insects being able to go nuts now that one of their predators has vanished.
You cut down that forest and you eliminate a very important and efficient carbon sink, as well as increasing the rate of desertification. With that forest, you take out a slew of species that use it as habitat and which directly or indirectly helps YOU.
You pick and choose what species to "allow" to exist because they MAY impact on your desire to farm this or that land (wipe out wolves, coyotes, foxes, etc), you cause another problem (deer population, rodent population explosion, insects, etc, etc).
Your actions affect more than just YOU and they affect more than just your little area of land. They affect a wide circle of land around you, and a lot of people who you didn't permit to have a say in the actions that led to the consequences they now get to "enjoy".
If your actions impact on others, they get to have a say, period.
Farmers are good at preserving their patch of land for farming, disregarding larger concerns that are just as real and just as important to the greater good. They are good at preserving their yields, disregarding the affects (like pollution of water and indiscriminant poisoning of species that have nothing to do with what the pest problem they were trying to resolve). DDT is a nice example of that. It doesn't matter one iota if normal use doesn't itself produce a toxic affect...it is the cumulative affect, with DDT building up in tissues of those that ingest it or are unknowningly exposed to it and the runnoff.
All it takes is a change in practice, not elimination of a way of life. If you can't deal with change, go away. Things change, knowledge changes, what was OK a few years ago is found to be detrimental overall. You use knowledge to do thing right, not just the quick and easy way, damn the consequences. Farm all you want, but do it SMARTLY and without thinking that you have to wipe out everything around you to do it. It is not acceptable to wipe out a species for the sake of convenience.
Yeah right. Chemical company crap. But then, even if true, who cares that it almost single-handedly wiped out hawks during the heyday of its use, eh? As long as you get your money for a crop, who cares if it wipes out a whole slew of other species.
Slashdot Mirror
Fine. Then do without the documentation and go thru ALL the trouble of figuring it all out for yourself.
No doubt you would be happy to make use of the information, once supplied, but you don't want to actually have to contribute ANYTHING to make it come about. The world is NOT free ($). EVERYTHING costs and EVERYONE should be paid for hard work that is valued. If you WANT to give your time and work away, knock yourself out. Tell your employer that you no longer need to be paid for your work. That is your decision. Live with it and be CONSISTENT.
This is a FACT. It was widely reported in the news about a year to year-and-a-half ago. Fresh trial run of a navy ship using NT and it craps out very quickly. The ship WAS disabled and had to be towed back to port. Fact.
Here's a link to start you on your educational journey:
I would say that if not for Maxwell, Newton, Einstein, von Neuman, etc, that we would STILL end up with where we are...at some point in the future. If not for Maxwell, the equations would still likely be devised, but by another GREAT MIND. The same goes for Einstein's work, etc. SOMEONE at some point would come up with the basically same ideas but it would have been later and it STILL would derive from a GREAT MIND.
The sun is NOT sentient. The Earth is not sentient. Blobs of gas in interstellar space are not sentient.
Intelligence requires organization. Cells are organized collections of lipid, carbohydrates, nucleic acids, protein, and trace minerals. They have a very ordered structure and maintain their order by utilizing energy fighting against entropy.
The sun (and planets) are only trivially ordered, and the order they DO have is purely gravity driven. There are no consistent, ordered structures on the sun. There are no storage media, nothing. It is hot gas. A planet is a mix of hot and cold rock (or just plain cold rock if it is old enough). Intelligence took about 500 million years to develop from simple multicellular organisms - with the ORGANIZATION of cells being an absolute requirement.
Don't rely on Star Trek for your "science". That show, like most science fiction, is more a social commentary of some kind rather than an exploration of real science.
I disagree with your analysis. It has taken so long for we humans to get where we are because we had to start from scratch, with NO technology, and build it up from there.
If we were to send colonists to Mars next year, they would BEGIN with the technology of today, NOT from scratch. It is irrelevant whether there is a biosphere or not. The Martian colonists MERELY need to build up a stable population (in protective structures), and have largescale mining and refining operations. That's all. With this raw material, they would then be capable of building rockets of their own, and along with Earth, continue sending out spacecraft into the solar system.
It is not reasonable to assume that it would take anywhere NEAR even 200 years for the proper mining and refining operations to be well enough established to allow for the building of further spacecraft. That is also PLENTY of time for the colony to expand and thrive (it took, essentially, 300 years for the US to get to where it is today...starting with LOW technology and a few colonists...our erstwhile Martian colonists are not starting out as technologically deprived).
A colony started at a planet at Alpha Centauri would arrive with technology equivalent to the time they launched, plus additions transmitted from home. They would also have communication with home with a time lag of, at least 4 years, at most 8 years. So, their technology, assuming they derived nothing new themselves, would be a handful of years behind that of the Earth.
In a few hundred years, the colony could easily thrive and be able to send out more probes. Most likely, they would explore local space for 50-100 years before they even thought of sending colonists onward again. They would also be acquiring more and more colonists from Earth (once a likely/good location is found, there would be a stronger drive by many to get there and join the colonization, particularly among scientists and the adventurous).
I would say that 400 years is more than enough time for a space colony to get to a point of sending out more colonists.
There is a BIG problem with the current SETI projects. The main one right now, the setiathome project (in which I am participating) is that it uses the arecebo telescope which can ONLY detect STRONG signals beamed AT US (so to speak, at least in our direction AND for a prolonged period of time).
If any project is going to find ET, it will need to be VERY sensitive and capable of detecting incidental emissions of radio/radar. In other words, it would have to be capable of detecting us from a sizable distance...as we do NOT broadcast in such a way to say "Here we are! Here we are!. As a matter of fact, as we get more technologically advanced, our emissions go down. We acquire narrow band, tight beam, laser transmission, low power-high efficiency transmission systems. None of these are conducive to detection from interstellar distances.
Setiathome REQUIRES (from an ET) a large, high-power, dedicated transmitter that happens to be pointing our direction at the right time in history. Hell, some culture, which must be rare in itself, could have been broadcasting in our direction throughout the dinosaur era, then after a few thousand, or even millions of years, given up and turned their transmitter in another direction or turned it off.
It seems odd to assume that ETs would be inclined to build such large dedicated transmitters merely as a beacon of their existence, and maintain them for hundreds of thousands of years or longer. This isn't what WE'RE doing. We are not even embarked on the eventual program of doing this. It seems odd that given our non-propensity to SPECIFICALLY broadcast our existence, that we should assume that others would. Speculation beyond our own species is PURELY speculation with no grounding in fact.
That all said, I would say that life is abundant, but that technologically advanced civilizations are extremely rare. If it weren't for a certain chance meteorite encounter some 65 mya, the dinosaurs would STILL be the likely dominant life form on earth. Even given the meteorite, if it were to be repeated, it is unlikely that humans would arise again. There is no evolutionary drive toward technological civilizations. If it weren't for a few chance events in the Far East, Middle East, and West in prehistory/early history, WE wouldn't be a technologically advanced civilization today. The native Americans, Aborigine Australians, the Celtic (and other) tribes of Europe, etc, would not have changed much from their past lifestyles and technology.
Chance events, unrepeatable on Earth, led to what we are today. I would doubt that such chance events happen all the time, certainly not to the point of leading to technological societies all over the galaxy. It is certainly possible that there are other advanced civs in our galaxy, but it could be only one or two other than our own. ...Or what if there is ONE technologically advanced civ (on average) in each galaxy at the same time? There would still be billions of such civs in the universe but they would be forever seperated by time and space, each living in their own galaxy filled with planets "peopled" by single-celled, or simple multi-celled organisms. Lots of places to colonize and study, given time, energy, and money (in whatever form they use). There may even be a host of stone-age civilizations all over each galaxy...but there is no reason to presuppose that each MUST develop into advanced technological societies - ever.
The setiathome project is a worthy test-of-concept project that just MIGHT (slim chance) find something. The projects more likely to find anything, however, haven't even been started yet. They require the best, most sensitive receivers that can detect an incidentally emitting civilization (detect their leakage) such as one like our own.
I know exactly what a dumb terminal is...or were you refering to the original poster?
I don't want to go back to the days of dumb terminals. I like the power of a real computer that can actually DO things regardless of network connectivity problems.
There can be a place for dumb(ass) terminals but it they are not THE answer or THE future.
I, for one, will NOT used web-based apps for my work. My work is MY WORK, it isn't top secret or illegal or anything else, but it is MINE. I will not do my wordprocessing, or any other work, on the web where it is (potentially) ANYONE'S work who can obtain access. It is simply about privacy and total control over my own work, and total control over what I release to other eyes or choose NOT to release.
As a matter of principal, my work is done, and ever shall be done, on MY personal computer without any potential prying eyes taking a gander before I decide (IF I decide) to publish/release the final product. I frickin' HATE web-based crap. I want MY work, MY software, MY time to be absolutely MINE. It is not a shared resource, it is not anyone else's business but my own, it belongs to me. Hence, I require a desktop-based, single client (though with web CAPABILITY) apps to do my graphics, writing, game-playing, whatever, work.
I do not want to HAVE to count on NEVER running into network outages, server crashes, etc, in order to get work done. The net is NOT so reliable that you (or anyone else) can count on it to always be able to get your work done when it relies upon the net.
There have been many times when the net has been unavailable to me at work, for a variety of reasons. Hence, that avenue of information collection is cutoff. There have been many times when the local network has gone down (maintenance, crashes) which prevents access to shared files, servers, etc. If I am relying on this crap to get my publishing work done... No. Thank. You. In EVERY case of the net being unavailable, my personal system has ALWAYS been available. I have ALWAYS been able to write up data, create graphs and graphics, read docs that I have LOCALLY downloaded. If I were relying on a web-based app to do all this, every time the net slowed down due to traffic or was otherwise unavialable, my perfectly serviceable PC/laptop would become merely a desktop heating system. I would get to twiddle my thumbs waiting for the system to come back so I could work on my documents.
There will always be a good use for client/desktop-based productivity apps (and games). The web is not reliable enough or private enough to count on it for everything; and why should one HAVE to cough up a lung to pay for access to the web, say, on an airliner or at an airport to do anything productive when you could do it perfectly fine if the app resides on your own disconnected system?
Web-based apps have a place but it isn't the end-all, be-all, universal fix.
So, Messiah, do you have a high opinion of yourself? Perhaps you are so important that the evil guv'mnt is tracking you everywhere you go? You do such important and interesting things that "they" would just keep you under a microscope, awaiting all the brilliant, deviant, perverted, or mundane things you say?
Get over yourself, dude.
And now, our valiant servicemembers (like myself), after the wonders of the forced injection of the Anthrax vaccine...
Quick question: Why complain about the Anthrax vaccine when you also receive flu, yellow fever, smallpox, and on and on and on. You get shots (just like my military self) up the ying yang, yet you complain about one of THE most well-known vaccines? Note: those in the sheep industry, meat packing, etc, have been receiving those scarey anthrax shots for decades. They are not dying, getting arthritis, or any other problem. People get more side effects from flu shots than any get in the DECADES of use of the anthrax vaccine.
Tell ya what. Taking the shot and MAYBE experiencing a little discomfort JUST like from the flu shot you get every year is a LOT better than actually sucking down an anthrax spore and getting sick that way, I assure you. In the field, if you inhale some nice anthrax spores (say from a terrorist or enemy weapon release) and haven't taken the shot, you are dead. That is certain.
Yes good.
This device could be used by astronauts, the military, giving everyone in a unit, squad, etc, constant information as to the location of comrads. With a nice HUD on your helmet or display on a compact computer, every member, plus the commanders, of any military unit could be tracked during operations.
No voice radio transmission necessary. Just fire up your hud and you know where your comrad is, day or night, and his/her state (dead/alive).
Astronauts would welcome this little gizmo, vs the nice crap that gets stuck to their skin, up their butts, etc.
A version that cannot be turned off could be inserted into convicted felons/convicts when they are imprisoned. Any escape attempt will fail. When/if they earn their freedom, they could then be removed as approved by the courts and parole officers.
I do believe that MANY parents would welcome this sort of thing in their non-adult children. They would be easier to locate if kidnapped/snatched.
When the kid reaches the age of majority, then they could elect to have it removed or replaced with a self-controlled version (vs one they cannot control themselves).
People can't complain too much about this. They give up their privacy all the time anyway by bringing those GODDAMNED cell phones, pagers, etc with them EVERYWHERE THEY GO (including vacations, trips to the store, to the frickin' restaurant, movies, etc). They have no problem spilling their guts for everyone to hear (makes them feel "important").
Keep your older versions of gnumeric. As for StarOffice's spreadsheet...try this with gnumeric. Add data to your gnumeric spreadsheet. Now try to creat/insert a chart of some kind (pie chart, histogram, 3d histogram, linear plot, etc). What? You can't? Well, THERE is the reason to use StarOffice's spreadsheet. A spreadsheet app should be more than JUST a holding cell for numbers and characters. It should be able to present the otherwise useless information in some graphical format. When gnumeric can do this, THEN it can actually stand up and compete with the functionality of StarOffice's spreadsheet.
I can't publish a spreadsheet, I CAN publish histograms, etc.
Reasonable...though some information requires images to properly illustrate/present the information. You could also simply disable "load images" in the settings of Netscape or IE. This wont stop improper textual content. The only sure method is supervised usage - but since you are using supervised usage for the kids, there is no need to block the pictures preemptively.
Basically, when people of a certain age use the net, they should be supervised/watched over to prevent porn/child porn, etc, access. Perhaps have some boxen set aside purely for child use. Other boxen are for adults, who are able to access offensive material intentionally or accidentally. If it traumatizes them too much, then they aren't fit enough (in the Darwinian sense) to live in the real world anyway. They need merely leave the site. They're adults, they can handle THAT. If they can't handle running across cavorting nekkid bodies now and again without it destroying their world, they need their adulthood revoked.
Part of the entire problem is the ever-increasing "limited period of time" that keeps getting tacked on copyrighted/patented works. The letter AND spirit of this law is for TEMPORARY, SHORT-TERM protection. After this period, it loses its protections.
There should be no more protection to perpetuity (practically speaking) or protection beyond the grave. I think a reasonable time period for protective cover is 7 to 10 years. After that, it belongs to everyone and anyone. If you can't benefit from your creating in that period of time, then you are simply not going to. Move on, create something NEW, let go of the old.
Sorry to say you are wrong. Corporate research, if it goes against the company line or perceived corporate good can be, and IS suppressed. Publishing of results can be held back until a patent is submitted...or they can be witheld indefinitely.
Tobacco company "scientists" looooong knew of ALL the negative effects of smoking. Where are those results? Where were they published? No where. The corporation suppresses the negative results and puts forth "evidence" that there is no harm in smoking.
It is irrelevant what you think about tobacco company lawsuits and culpability vs personal responsibility. What IS relevant is that corporations suppress scientific results ALL THE TIME if it is perceived as being dangerous to their goals of profit. This. Is. Wrong. The results, like them or not, MUST be published and accepted and should NEVER be suppressed.
The only thing that would make corporate sponsorship of academic research even REMOTELY palatable is if, 1) there are rules that prevent the suppression of scientific data, PERIOD; and 2) basic research must NOT be halted. Perhaps a certain amount of corporate profits should be required to support simple, basic, non-profit-based research. There is NO way to predict what simple basic research may produce. Some of the ultimate fruits of basic research may end up saving lives, making some company rich, or generally making people's lives better. Simply supporting applied research and profit-motivated research is extremely short-sighted and even dangerous.
As much as I deplore this sort of thing, it IS being forced upon institutes of higher learning, primarily by the Republican Party. What do I mean? The Republican Party has long disliked spending public monies on education, let alone higher education. They are behind the push for university research to create ties to business for the sake of funding. The party also despises, for the most part, PURE basic research (ANYTHING for which they do not see an immediate or obvious business and money-making potential). They ONLY value directed, goal-based, potentially profitable research. Tied together, they cut funding for basic research, push for "cooperation" between business and academic researchers, with the result that in order to DO research, researchers now almost HAVE to get cozy with corporations.
Of course, MS can still make a killing using the usual game-titles-royalties model if they come up with enough good titles in what will be a fairly well saturated market by that point (c.f. PSX2, Dreamcast and Dolphin, amongst others). We'll have to wait and see on that one.
One word (name): Halo.
Microsnot bought out the maker (can't recall the company name right this moment), you KNOW, to specifically gain a killer title that will ONLY run on X-box initially. The way the developer is now equivocating on whether or not there will be a PC version (kiss ANY chance of a linux port ala Loki goodby, FOREVER - thank you asshole Gates) tells you that it will be an X-box exclusive title. The way people have been drooling for that game to now find that it needs an X-box to run... The desperate gamer will toss money to Gates just to get THAT game.
Fine. I served (and continue to serve) in the military. If you do not think that there is personal sacrifice involved in that choice, you are sadly mistaken. I have served in Desert Storm - regardless of you personal opinion of that conflict, I served, placing my life directly on the line for others. I was shot at. I wasn't thrilled to go, was a bit scared, as a matter of fact. I nevertheless voluteered to go with the first group to go from my unit. When they needed volunteers to stay behind after it was over, I volunteered to stick around (ended up not having to afterall).
I am NOT wealthy. I now serve in the reserves, which helps, income-wise, but the bulk of my income is a graduate student stipend. It is possible for me to get called up at a moments noti ce, and I accept that. I do not expect to get rich with my resulting degree either, but I intend to serve science well and faithfully.
I am more than willing to give up personal comforts for the sake of others (to an extent, depending on the circumstances) and have: for strangers, for family members, for friends.
I take FULL responsibility for ALL my mistakes, regardless (another good thing taught by the military) of the cost to myself. I REFUSE to prevaricate, quibble, evade. If I did something, in good faith or by mistake, and it does harm in some way, I suck it up, admit to it, take my lumps, and wear them proudly.
What sacrifice have YOU made? How often have YOU FULLY accepted the consequences of your mistakes? How often have you tried to get out of trouble for a mistake you KNOW you made?
A data point of 1 for UT. I don't own even the Doze version of UT NOR Q3A. I don't want, nor do I desire a net-only game. I hate deathmatch games. They were novel for about a week but then, after you've played one deathmatch, you've played them all. They are monotonous.
I WOULD download a linux half-life binary (I already own the game and play it, thus far, under Wine). This and games like it are good as they have a GOOD single player option as well as the option for the same old run, kill, die, reappear randomly, run, kill, die, reappear, etc, ad infinitum net game deathmatch. I look forward to the new Doom and would LOVE a linux port. Since Carmack has mentioned that there will be a linux version (probably after the release of the Doze version, goddamnit), I will wait until the linux version is available and then get THAT one.
Loki's problem is that they are porting games that are already out and being used, usually for months or longer. MOST people who wanted the game ALREADY have it. Why go out and buy a linux version after you already paid for the Doze version, played it, and have since moved to the next game? Fortunately for Loki, I do not yet own Myth II so I can buy that one from them. Unfortunately for Loki, their linux ports are simply not widely available (or even KNOWN about) in stores - not even in those chain retailers mentioned on the Loki website! I looked for Myth II for linux at a local store, which is listed as one of the good stores on the Loki site. They didn't have ANY linux game from Loki and the clerks didn't even know of the linux port. So, I am STUCK buying online from Loki directly. I frickin' HATE using my credit card. Credit cards are EVIL. I don't like waiting for mail delivery either. When I buy a game in a store, I usually go home, immediately install it, and play. Can't do that with online purchases. Bad. Bad. Bad. GET THE STORES TO ACTUALLY STOCK THE FRICKIN' GAMES or take them off the website list. It doesn't count if a store in LA stocks it. It's the only one in the country. Bad.
Until Loki produces their own game (hopefully it will be good), all they can do is rely on late purchases of games that have already been out for about a year or so. It would be REAL nice if they would sign an agreement with some company to do a linux port of a game BEFORE it is released so that a linux version can be available simultaneously with the Doze version. This is REALLY important. Loki presently has to rely on the rich gamer who loves linux and doesn't mind paying for a game twice (they already bought the Doze version, had NO idea that Loki would produce a linux version until it was too late, give Loki money for almost altruistic purposes), or depends on those slower buyers who go out and buy older games now and again.
Halo is expected to be a BIG hit game that really takes the market when it comes available. People, linux users and Doze-heads, will buy it the moment it is released (unless M$ f*cks everyone and only permits an X-box release to improve sales of their new X-box). There is no reason to assume that Loki will be able to produce a port of it to linux, certainly not soon after its debut (and M$ would likely not permit the licensing to Loki to produce a port to a competitive OS anyway...damn M$, have to f*ck up everything they look at). What a disappointing suprize if a year later, Loki produces a linux port of Halo. MOST people who were interested in that game already bought it, linux and doze users. They are not likely to want to pay again. By that time, another big game will be available (Doze version) so Loki will be trolling for the Johny-come-lately buyers. This business model is precarious and certain to be low margin.
I, like many others, am often guilty of impatience. When I go to a store because I want to buy a good game to occupy myself with, I go in, look at the titles, find the coolest one at the moment, and buy it. I don't even really look for a linux version because I have NEVER seen a linux version of ANY game in software/game stores. NEVER. Not even in the chains that LokiSoft lists as appropriate retailers. I asked a clerk at one such store about the linux version of Myth II...he didn't even know there WAS a linux version. This store was among the chains mentioned on Loki's webpage.
Given a choice, if I entered a store to buy a game and there was a linux version alongside the windoze version, in EVERY case I WOULD buy the linux version. I'm there to toss my money away anyway and I will go for the native version over the requires-reboot version EVERY TIME. I'm not given that option. Better yet, I would like to see CDs with "For Windoze or Linux" on the box for all such games where this is possible (some RPGs and adventure games require many CDs, which may make this unrealistic - requiring separate boxes).
If a really must-have game has been released and I am really interested in it. I do NOT want to wait for some indefinite period for Loki to get around to licensing the rights to port it OR wait for a linux version to be released...and THEN only on the net. I PREFER to buy my games in a store. I buy it, take it home, install it then and there, and fire it up. I do not WANT to go thru the credit card online crap, wait for delivery, etc. I HATE USING MY CREDIT CARD AND I BEGRUDGE BEING REQUIRED TO.
Gaming companies should UNDERSTAND that if they do not want "disappointing" linux game sales, they need to release the linux version SIMULTANEOUSLY and the games actually MUST appear in the stores right next to the Doze version. It is bad marketing to do otherwise. It is BOUND to fail, expecting the impatient gamer to wait some unknown period of time for a port to appear and THEN have it ONLY appear on the web. Bad! It isn't as critical for Mac users (sure it is IRRITATING as all hell to have to wait for the port) since nothing is really going to get them to drop their Macs and just buy a Windoze PC. The story is different with linux. Linux almost always being used on an x86 that either has a copy of Doze on it OR is capable of easily accepting a Doze install -- JUST TO PLAY A FREAKIN' GAME.
I HATE rebooting for anything. I hate shutting down my setiathome, going thru the reboot process to windoze, playing the game for a while and then having to reboot again. It is plainly better to not have to. I would bet that any and all linux users would do as I state...given a choice between the windoze or linux version of a game at the time the game is actually WANTED, they would go with the linux version every time. Every. Time. That would definitely improve "disappointing" linux sales.
Nowadays, literary works are protected for something like 50 years beyond the DEATH OF THE AUTHOR. What the hell is that all about? Go ahead, tell me *that* doesn't need to be justified.
Now on this I agree. I am all for IP protection within reason. I am all for copyrights, within reason. The Constitution specifically adds this protection and I see no reason to change that. What needs to be changed is how long the protection lasts. Protection for 50 years beyond author death is absurd. Protection of Windows source code copyright for as long as it is protected is absurd. It shouldn't cover the lifetime of the creator, let alone continue after his/her death. The children of the creator should produce their own work rather than live off the fat of their father's/mother's success and talent.
Actually, I wouldn't argue against many of your points, except in taking them to the extreme. First off, using the (dying) Amish as an example isn't really useful. Small communities are not the future, they are fading as more and more people move in to "get away" from the crowded cities...then merely making what was once a small, simple town into the very thing they are fleeing.
There are many things wrong with the Amish so as to NOT use them as a model (though, yes, there is much to admire). They suffer all the diseases and problems associated with heavy inbreeding. They are losing more young to the larger world, with few(er) coming back.
What works for a small, simple community doesn't work for larger, more cosmopolitan communities. For them, it is relatively simple. They are ALL from the same basic background, share the same beliefs and religion, and they DO have an authority structure (elders). The main point is that their model works for their very simple situation, with a small, VERY homogenous makeup. It doesn't transfer well to an L.A. or New York. It also doesn't go much for modern techno society.
My grandparents were farmers. I grew up in the country. Their way was focused on farming, with little interest in the larger, overreaching consequences of their actions. True, they lacked information on pesticide dangers, etc, but there are basic principles that are quite obvious (preventing soil loss via no-till, proper crop rotation, etc) that they did little or none of because it wasn't in their short-term interests.
In any case, protecting land strictly for use as a farm is a far cry from ensuring that there is adequate habitat for species...ALONG with being able to farm. Being a good shepard of your land's productivity is not the same as being sure not to pollute the local streams with runnoff (you don't see the affects of that pollution locally, it flows and builds up downstream). The consequences are separate from you in time and space. You can take great care of your farmland, making it productive for corn and wheat, but that doesn't mean that it is allowing for some other species, etc.
This doesn't just apply to farmers. It, perhaps, applies MORE to developers who never see an openspace that they don't think would be better with a crackerbox housing project stuck on it...or apartments or a minimall. Unless there are some regulations to control those who would do whatever, then it is all up for grabs based on shortterm greed and self-interest rather than longterm concern for your (or your neighbor's) grandchildren, or overall quality of life, or healthy ecology.
You aren't free, and shouldn't be free, to do whatever you want to your own land anyway. If you own a home with a little lot of land around it, you are not allowed to do whatever you want to it. There are zoning laws and health laws. They exist for many reasons, like preventing some rogue property owner from destroying the value of neighbor properties or endangering the health of their neighbor's. What you do to your land can affect, directly, your neighbors, thus they deserve a say (dependent on the situation). This sort of thing affects your immediate neighbors but environmental problems and damage affects people (and animals) far removed from your immediate world. There have to be some rules and guidlines or not only are your neighbors and fellow citizens screwed, but so are you. This sort of thing can directly bite you too.
First off, I did not say a FARMER or FARMERS altered the Mississippi. I used it as an example of doing things for the short-sighted, narrow economic benefit of a relative few. It was an illustration of the point that you cannot simply do what you want to land or water and have no far-reaching consequences that affect more than just you. Incidently, farmers are now against trying to bring back some of the natural wetlands to the flood plains of the Mississippi and removal of many of the dikes (which would go a long way to cleaning up the water AND reducing flood damage, besides simply increasing wildlife habitat) since it would affect their immediate lives. "Damn the greater good, it hurts me and I'm all that matters."
So you believe every farmer (or any industrialist or developer or mere individual) is a singular creature that entirely acts alone? So, farmer "A" clears this patch of trees for another field for more corn (which is mostly wasted, sitting in silos or feeding cattle which will feed FAR fewer people than would be fed if it were used to feed people directly, but that is another problem). By himself, his action may be taken as small and insignificant.
You fail to grasp the larger picture, however, given your philosophy. Farmer "A" is not acting alone. Farmer "B", "C", "D", "E", etc, each acting "alone", each performing their little "insignificant" actions pretty quickly add up to significant consequences. They do not have to act together or in knowledge of each other, their cummulative actions are doing extreme damage overall, when if it were merely one it would be practically harmless. Now, I do not mean to bash farmers here, I am merely using them as an illustration...besides you brought it up as if farmers know everything while a scientist that specializes in the study of biology, or toxicology, or ecology would somehow not have more expertise in the overreaching consequences of some farmer's actions (or industy's or individual's). A farmer knows farming. He does NOT know toxicology. He does not know biology. He does not know ecology. He knows FARMING, a very targeted, narrow, activity. The bigger picture is not in his sight, just the next month's bills.
Each person (not simply farmers, they are just an illustration) acting in their own, insular self-interest, for THEIR own good and happiness, each doing LITTLE damage here and there, seemingly harmless and insignificant, isn't insignificant since there would, of necessity, be hundreds, even thousands and hundreds of thousands, doing the exact same damage. Only to them, they don't see it as damage and don't suffer the consequences until it is too late.
Other people, who had nothing to do with your actions, suddenly are finding themselves suffering consequences for actions they had no part of and had no power to affect. Now, all you can do is react, which is often too late.
There IS need of some modicum of regulation and control, and ONLY the government is capable of enacting those, or putting power behind them. Without such regulations, pollution is permitted, wholesale devastation of forests, open space, water, etc, unfair collusion and exploitation is rampant, etc. If you want a structured, coherent society, you HAVE to give up some liberties. It is IMPOSSIBLE to have an organized society without rules which, of necessity, limit liberty.
A certain extent of libertarianism is fine. A person's personal life should be their personal life. Actions that affect others, directly or indirectly, are in need of rules and limitations. Actions that do harm to the society as a whole must also be under some control to prevent unilateral actions that affect people that don't want to be affected thusly.
You prove the point I make wonderfully. If it impacts on YOU directly, then it is bad, no matter what the overall good is. Perfect libertarianism. Biodiversity is a REQUIREMENT for life on this planet. EVERYTHING is interconnected directly or indirectly. You wipe out this species, it causes this species to overgrow, with totally unknown, usually damaging consequences, which impacts those species, which unbalances this whole system, etc. By controlling the Mississippi with dikes, by draining wetlands around it, it has made flooding worse, when it was all done orignally for the sake of makeing the river more easily navigatable and to "help" the farmers bordering it. It made it worse.
You wipe out hawks and/or owls and your mouse/rodent population increases, bringing with them such niceties as Hantaa virus, plague, etc. You wipe out rodents and you nicely wipeout a whole host of plants that depend on them for seed dispersal, as well as various insects being able to go nuts now that one of their predators has vanished.
You cut down that forest and you eliminate a very important and efficient carbon sink, as well as increasing the rate of desertification. With that forest, you take out a slew of species that use it as habitat and which directly or indirectly helps YOU.
You pick and choose what species to "allow" to exist because they MAY impact on your desire to farm this or that land (wipe out wolves, coyotes, foxes, etc), you cause another problem (deer population, rodent population explosion, insects, etc, etc).
Your actions affect more than just YOU and they affect more than just your little area of land. They affect a wide circle of land around you, and a lot of people who you didn't permit to have a say in the actions that led to the consequences they now get to "enjoy".
If your actions impact on others, they get to have a say, period.
Farmers are good at preserving their patch of land for farming, disregarding larger concerns that are just as real and just as important to the greater good. They are good at preserving their yields, disregarding the affects (like pollution of water and indiscriminant poisoning of species that have nothing to do with what the pest problem they were trying to resolve). DDT is a nice example of that. It doesn't matter one iota if normal use doesn't itself produce a toxic affect...it is the cumulative affect, with DDT building up in tissues of those that ingest it or are unknowningly exposed to it and the runnoff.
All it takes is a change in practice, not elimination of a way of life. If you can't deal with change, go away. Things change, knowledge changes, what was OK a few years ago is found to be detrimental overall. You use knowledge to do thing right, not just the quick and easy way, damn the consequences. Farm all you want, but do it SMARTLY and without thinking that you have to wipe out everything around you to do it. It is not acceptable to wipe out a species for the sake of convenience.
Yeah right. Chemical company crap. But then, even if true, who cares that it almost single-handedly wiped out hawks during the heyday of its use, eh? As long as you get your money for a crop, who cares if it wipes out a whole slew of other species.