This is a great trend, but I've been predicting it for years. This growth in specialized software and hardware is making entertainment better and better. Eventually, computer gaming will extend into the physical world, and the user will be able to actively participate. In these "holosuites," you'll be able to virtually live out any fantasy, whether it be a battle, sex, mountain climbing, exploring strange new worlds, historical adventure, you name it.
Someday, the more advanced ones will be room-sized and appear in businesses. Then my long-predicted plan will come into fruition. I'll open a bar-casino with these "holosuites,"and rent them out by the hour, specializing in the more salacious variety of "holoprogram." I'm not sure of a name for my bar-casino yet, but I am thinking something modern and cutting edge, maybe named after a sub-atomic particle.
The difference is of course, that Apple and MS are not people.
Corporations are investment vehicles for people. They represent the interests of people. These people are called "stockholders." This is how the average Joe (70% of US equities are held by the small investor) can pool his resources with other people and get part of the Dream. Like my parents. My dad is a former middle class salesman who was "retired" early due to an on-the-job disability. Thankfully, my parents got into Apple at a good price, and the stock has been a stellar performer for their golden years.
Although personally, I'm not particularly statist about Apple and Microsoft. I just wish they would stop being cunts.
Now, if only other people like yourself would understand that corporations are not, in fact, entities in and of themselves, but represent the interests of stockholders. Not employees, not customers, not Slashdotters who don't believe in patent or copyright, but the interests of those who entrusted their money to the corporation. So keep your hands and laws and regulations off of other peoples' money, if you please. If you don't like the iTunes DRM, don't buy an iPod.
You are entitled to your opinion, but at least understand why Apple does the things it does - to increase shareholder value. And they do it well. So please don't tell other people how their business should be run. Go invest your money with Red Hat or something, or buy an open-source media player. But disparaging Apple because it doesn't do what you want is like being mad at your neighbor's wife because she doesn't make you dinner at night. It's not her job. And if she makes your neighbor great dinners that you have to smell every night, don't be a hater; congratulate your neighbor on finding a great wife. Then go find one that meets your needs. Because the relationship between your neighbor and his wife is none of your goddamned business!
Nice name-calling. If a Republican tried that kind of country-bashing, it would be modded flamebait by indignant liberals (much like my grandparent post has been for daring to dissent from liberal nanny state orthodoxy).
But the United States didn't become the world's lone economic superpower in a mere two hundred years through Marxism. It was through rugged individualism, self-reliance, initiative, innovation, and plain hard work. Never before has so much capital been amassed in such a short time. You see, in America, many of us believe that making yourself better by yourself is a much more equitable system than making everyone the same, regardless of their talents or industriousness. As Winnie said,
The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent vice of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries.
But at least with capitalism, you have a choice.
No, we Americans are not extinct, oh self-righteous one. Yes, the US economy has hit a speed bump, but even on our worst day, we still have better growth and lower unemployment than any of your holier-than-thou Western European social democracies, most of which have been around at least five times as long as the US. And as I have argued before, it was through government tinkering with the economy - setting artificially low interest rates, creating government-sponsored ATMs like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, Congress leaning on banks to make poor people with bad credit homeowners, etc. - that caused this, government control of markets, not capitalism.
It is funny though, how socialism has failed over and over, yet the left just won't quit trying to force it on people. But (government-tainted) capitalism has a bad year, and suddenly it's a failure.
Yes, there is unnecessary government spending but to say that the money spent scientific research is the reason the country is in debt is laughable
This is exactly my point. It's only a million here, a million there. Somehow, we get to $3 Trillion. 60 percent of which is spent on entitlements ($1.8T). As grandparent poster, my point is that this kind of thinking, "it's only XX million," and "not my program" is how we get there.
You see, when spending other peoples' money, "it's only XX million" doesn't sound so bad. Because those voting all these appropriations will be long dead once the real bills come due.
Yes, this war was unnecessary in that we were not attacked by Iraq and it costs money. But put away your emotion and knee-jerk ideology and Bush Derangement Syndrome and note some important facts:
1) Compared to the chief role of the US government today - redistribution of wealth - The Iraq War is a mere drop in the bucket;
2) Compared to other wars, this one is rather cheap, and we are spending about 38% on the military today compared to what we did in 1960;
3) The war won't last forever. Government programs will.
I am not ignoring the costs of the war. It all adds up. But for God's sake people, we are spending 60% of our budget on entitlements (not called for by the Constitution) while we spend 17% on the military (called for in the Constitution). Get some perspective.
I'll be reasonable and say the war costs money. OK, that's bad. Now it's your turn to be reasonable and say that spending $1.8 trillion of our $3 trillion budget with a $10T debt - and the $75T off-budget Social Security and Medicare liability looming - is a larger problem than any temporary war, and is not only bad, but really really bad.
refuting a recent statement by a political candidate that fruit fly research has 'little or nothing to do with the public good.'
It might be fashionable to make fun of Palin on Slashdot, where people pretend to be constitutional purists and libertarians. But this type of thinking, "don't cut my program" is why America is $10T in debt, not counting the 79 million baby boomers about to retire and demand their Social Security and Medicare.
The question isn't whether government programs are well intentioned or often lead to good results (although maybe more often lead to bad results). The question is, can we afford every Utopian goal? Every time an executive, state or federal, tries to "cut" the budget (more likely, slightly reduce the increase in the budget), we invariably hear cries of "but the children," "the homeless will freeze to death!" or "but medical research funding!" Not one single recipient of government funding ever says, "yeah, we'll take on for the team." It's always a good idea to fund programs, and not one of them can ever be cut back or cut altogether, even though few if any of them are mentioned in the Constitution and our country got along fine without them for 150 years. Even the slightest paring back of government programs and living within our means would lead to an apocalyptic unraveling of the social fabric of the country.
Just tell your grandkids, as you exhale yur last breaths on your deathbed, who paying all of this off with exorbitant tax rates, "I did it for you."
Quick question: are Republicans for or against market regulation?
Against. But once government tinkers with the market by creating mortgage ATMs, Republicans would like a little oversight. Again, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are artificial government creations. Thus Republican calls to "regulate" or reign them in isn't exactly increasing "market regulation." The market has already been messed with. Asking that the FM's follow the rules private corporations already have to follow is hardly being inconsistent.
When Kerry would flip flop on the same day, like when he told one group of greenies that he didn't own SUVs, then on the same day told UAW group that he owned several.
Or on a larger level, in 1974, when it was popular to call Vietnam vets baby killers, Kerry besmirched their reputation for political purposes, calling them "Ghengis Khans" in senate hearings. 30 years later, when the country felt differently about Vietnam service, Kerry ran on his military record. His first words at the Dem convention: "John Kerry reporting for duty!"
And there were a lot more, like the famous, "I voted for it before I voted against it," which was emblematic of a spineless legislator with no real core values other than ambition, and it rightfully stuck.
So yeah, flip-flopper was an apt term for a guy who repeatedly switched positions not due to enlightenment, but for raw, cynical political purposes. And calling Kerry on it didn't make us any dumber.
Which are about as "capitalist' as the post office. Government-created monstrosities exempt from the law, which were leaned on by Barney Frank (see also, Barney's Rubble) and Chris Dodd to lend to poor people with bad credit.
The great irony is that you had an essentially government-forced-lending program created and protected by Democrats, while calls by Republicans to regulate it were opposed and called "ideological". And now the free marketers are being blamed! That's like blaming Slashdotters if voting machines failed to work right.
I really disagree with beer snobs who look down at Bud. It is a quality pale lager, and it is very hard to produce that volume of beer the same way batch after batch, year after year.
Americans (and the Irish) like pale lagers. And if you like pale lagers, Bud is a decent beer. It's not usually my first choice of commercial beer (that would be Sierra Nevada Pale Ale), but I've never been one to tell people what they should like. Some people like chocolate, some vanilla, some blondes, some redheads. Different strokes for different folks. If someone likes Bud, good for them - they are satisfied with a relatively cheap beer.
The fact is, I am not a beer snob; I just don't like beer snobs who think Guinness is the only good beer in the world and sneer at those who don't feel beer should be opaque.
Pale lagers sell well in the US because that's what Americans (and lots of people in other countries) really like. And if I am in the mood for a pale, non pils lager, I'll drink Bud.
I drink Guinness now and again, too, but realize there are better stouts out there, both commercial and homebrew. It's just the supercilious Guiness drinker I don't like.
We've already done geo-engineering by putting the greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere in the first place. It requires less creative engineering to stop putting them up there, and we know that greenhouse gasses from (whatever) source raise ambient temperature. Therefore, not putting greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere is a generally plausible solution, even if it means we have to change our lifestyle.
Greenhouse gases? But it is already getting colder, despite the fact that there is more CO2 than ever in our atmosphere:
I am amazed how ill-informed this entire thread is. This case is STILL IN COURT. It never left court. This is a non-binding process to help move the case along. This is not some secret maneuver by Apple to pull the wool over all of your eyes. It is not settlement. Non-binding arbitration merely gives parties an idea about the merits of their cases by a neutral arbitrator. His opinion is advisory. They will report the findings to the trial judge in court. Then the case moves forward, unless there is settlement, but settlement can happen in any case.
It's amazing how colossally wrong an entire news story, submission, and long list of threads can be on an issue. Remember this when you criticize some judge for not knowing Linux or the Internet as well as you guys do, because said judge would look at this thread and say, WTF are you all talking about?
This means that, in a matter of days, researchers can grow yeast colonies that glow in response to a variety of chemicals, or even to combinations of chemical
As a homebrewer, there are lots of chemicals that show up in beer, some good, some bad. It would be great to modify a strain of yeast that would glow when diacetyl or some other chemical was present.
Nonsense. China's "growth" is subsidized by government loans to government-owned companies, an enormous amount of which are under-performing or non-performing. It's a ponzi scheme, and sooner or later it collapses. It will make the subprime crisis look like a deck chair on the Titanic. One of the few things that keeps China afloat is the influx of cash and credit from the US. To suggest they don't need us is ludicrous.
And of course China doesn't have to dump them in the ocean, they can sell them to their own people - who will be much richer than Americans once their currency stops being artificially surpressed.
Are you crazy? 70% of China's population are pre-industrial agrarian people who live in poverty by any measure.
I learned that Sarah Palin was illegally using personal email accounts for business email
No, you learned what anti-people were claiming without any evidence. This claim has been debunked. She was not using her personal e-mail for work. Does the truth even matter on Slashdot anymore? Or "we all hate Palin, so don't let the facts get in the way of a good story?"
Slashdot Mirror
This is a great trend, but I've been predicting it for years. This growth in specialized software and hardware is making entertainment better and better. Eventually, computer gaming will extend into the physical world, and the user will be able to actively participate. In these "holosuites," you'll be able to virtually live out any fantasy, whether it be a battle, sex, mountain climbing, exploring strange new worlds, historical adventure, you name it.
Someday, the more advanced ones will be room-sized and appear in businesses. Then my long-predicted plan will come into fruition. I'll open a bar-casino with these "holosuites,"and rent them out by the hour, specializing in the more salacious variety of "holoprogram." I'm not sure of a name for my bar-casino yet, but I am thinking something modern and cutting edge, maybe named after a sub-atomic particle.
The difference is of course, that Apple and MS are not people.
Corporations are investment vehicles for people. They represent the interests of people. These people are called "stockholders." This is how the average Joe (70% of US equities are held by the small investor) can pool his resources with other people and get part of the Dream. Like my parents. My dad is a former middle class salesman who was "retired" early due to an on-the-job disability. Thankfully, my parents got into Apple at a good price, and the stock has been a stellar performer for their golden years.
Although personally, I'm not particularly statist about Apple and Microsoft. I just wish they would stop being cunts.
Now, if only other people like yourself would understand that corporations are not, in fact, entities in and of themselves, but represent the interests of stockholders. Not employees, not customers, not Slashdotters who don't believe in patent or copyright, but the interests of those who entrusted their money to the corporation. So keep your hands and laws and regulations off of other peoples' money, if you please. If you don't like the iTunes DRM, don't buy an iPod.
You are entitled to your opinion, but at least understand why Apple does the things it does - to increase shareholder value. And they do it well. So please don't tell other people how their business should be run. Go invest your money with Red Hat or something, or buy an open-source media player. But disparaging Apple because it doesn't do what you want is like being mad at your neighbor's wife because she doesn't make you dinner at night. It's not her job. And if she makes your neighbor great dinners that you have to smell every night, don't be a hater; congratulate your neighbor on finding a great wife. Then go find one that meets your needs. Because the relationship between your neighbor and his wife is none of your goddamned business!
Does anyone care about this mod abuse?
The sumbitch spends most of his time in a dark cave.
And what the hell would he measure anyway? Not like he has any windows for drapes, my precious.
Nice name-calling. If a Republican tried that kind of country-bashing, it would be modded flamebait by indignant liberals (much like my grandparent post has been for daring to dissent from liberal nanny state orthodoxy).
But the United States didn't become the world's lone economic superpower in a mere two hundred years through Marxism. It was through rugged individualism, self-reliance, initiative, innovation, and plain hard work. Never before has so much capital been amassed in such a short time. You see, in America, many of us believe that making yourself better by yourself is a much more equitable system than making everyone the same, regardless of their talents or industriousness. As Winnie said,
The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent vice of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries.
But at least with capitalism, you have a choice.
No, we Americans are not extinct, oh self-righteous one. Yes, the US economy has hit a speed bump, but even on our worst day, we still have better growth and lower unemployment than any of your holier-than-thou Western European social democracies, most of which have been around at least five times as long as the US. And as I have argued before, it was through government tinkering with the economy - setting artificially low interest rates, creating government-sponsored ATMs like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, Congress leaning on banks to make poor people with bad credit homeowners, etc. - that caused this, government control of markets, not capitalism.
It is funny though, how socialism has failed over and over, yet the left just won't quit trying to force it on people. But (government-tainted) capitalism has a bad year, and suddenly it's a failure.
Yes, there is unnecessary government spending but to say that the money spent scientific research is the reason the country is in debt is laughable
This is exactly my point. It's only a million here, a million there. Somehow, we get to $3 Trillion. 60 percent of which is spent on entitlements ($1.8T). As grandparent poster, my point is that this kind of thinking, "it's only XX million," and "not my program" is how we get there.
You see, when spending other peoples' money, "it's only XX million" doesn't sound so bad. Because those voting all these appropriations will be long dead once the real bills come due.
Yes, this war was unnecessary in that we were not attacked by Iraq and it costs money. But put away your emotion and knee-jerk ideology and Bush Derangement Syndrome and note some important facts:
1) Compared to the chief role of the US government today - redistribution of wealth - The Iraq War is a mere drop in the bucket;
2) Compared to other wars, this one is rather cheap, and we are spending about 38% on the military today compared to what we did in 1960;
3) The war won't last forever. Government programs will.
I am not ignoring the costs of the war. It all adds up. But for God's sake people, we are spending 60% of our budget on entitlements (not called for by the Constitution) while we spend 17% on the military (called for in the Constitution). Get some perspective.
I'll be reasonable and say the war costs money. OK, that's bad. Now it's your turn to be reasonable and say that spending $1.8 trillion of our $3 trillion budget with a $10T debt - and the $75T off-budget Social Security and Medicare liability looming - is a larger problem than any temporary war, and is not only bad, but really really bad.
refuting a recent statement by a political candidate that fruit fly research has 'little or nothing to do with the public good.'
It might be fashionable to make fun of Palin on Slashdot, where people pretend to be constitutional purists and libertarians. But this type of thinking, "don't cut my program" is why America is $10T in debt, not counting the 79 million baby boomers about to retire and demand their Social Security and Medicare.
The question isn't whether government programs are well intentioned or often lead to good results (although maybe more often lead to bad results). The question is, can we afford every Utopian goal? Every time an executive, state or federal, tries to "cut" the budget (more likely, slightly reduce the increase in the budget), we invariably hear cries of "but the children," "the homeless will freeze to death!" or "but medical research funding!" Not one single recipient of government funding ever says, "yeah, we'll take on for the team." It's always a good idea to fund programs, and not one of them can ever be cut back or cut altogether, even though few if any of them are mentioned in the Constitution and our country got along fine without them for 150 years. Even the slightest paring back of government programs and living within our means would lead to an apocalyptic unraveling of the social fabric of the country.
Just tell your grandkids, as you exhale yur last breaths on your deathbed, who paying all of this off with exorbitant tax rates, "I did it for you."
It sounded like there was going to be some government investigation into missing anti-matter, as if someone embezzled it.
I guess I've got Quark on the brain from watching too much DSP DVDs.
Quick question: are Republicans for or against market regulation?
Against. But once government tinkers with the market by creating mortgage ATMs, Republicans would like a little oversight. Again, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are artificial government creations. Thus Republican calls to "regulate" or reign them in isn't exactly increasing "market regulation." The market has already been messed with. Asking that the FM's follow the rules private corporations already have to follow is hardly being inconsistent.
When Kerry would flip flop on the same day, like when he told one group of greenies that he didn't own SUVs, then on the same day told UAW group that he owned several.
Or on a larger level, in 1974, when it was popular to call Vietnam vets baby killers, Kerry besmirched their reputation for political purposes, calling them "Ghengis Khans" in senate hearings. 30 years later, when the country felt differently about Vietnam service, Kerry ran on his military record. His first words at the Dem convention: "John Kerry reporting for duty!"
And there were a lot more, like the famous, "I voted for it before I voted against it," which was emblematic of a spineless legislator with no real core values other than ambition, and it rightfully stuck.
So yeah, flip-flopper was an apt term for a guy who repeatedly switched positions not due to enlightenment, but for raw, cynical political purposes. And calling Kerry on it didn't make us any dumber.
Now, If only the media would vet Obama a little.
Which are about as "capitalist' as the post office. Government-created monstrosities exempt from the law, which were leaned on by Barney Frank (see also, Barney's Rubble) and Chris Dodd to lend to poor people with bad credit.
The great irony is that you had an essentially government-forced-lending program created and protected by Democrats, while calls by Republicans to regulate it were opposed and called "ideological". And now the free marketers are being blamed! That's like blaming Slashdotters if voting machines failed to work right.
Blame Noonien Soong.
I really disagree with beer snobs who look down at Bud. It is a quality pale lager, and it is very hard to produce that volume of beer the same way batch after batch, year after year.
Americans (and the Irish) like pale lagers. And if you like pale lagers, Bud is a decent beer. It's not usually my first choice of commercial beer (that would be Sierra Nevada Pale Ale), but I've never been one to tell people what they should like. Some people like chocolate, some vanilla, some blondes, some redheads. Different strokes for different folks. If someone likes Bud, good for them - they are satisfied with a relatively cheap beer.
When you see guys drinking Bud at your local pub.
The fact is, I am not a beer snob; I just don't like beer snobs who think Guinness is the only good beer in the world and sneer at those who don't feel beer should be opaque.
Pale lagers sell well in the US because that's what Americans (and lots of people in other countries) really like. And if I am in the mood for a pale, non pils lager, I'll drink Bud.
I drink Guinness now and again, too, but realize there are better stouts out there, both commercial and homebrew. It's just the supercilious Guiness drinker I don't like.
Budweiser
Homebrewers laugh at Guinness, as like with most commercial beers, it tastes like water after you taste a well-bodied homebrew.
Have 20-inch necks, and a proportional waistline, which creates its own health problems.
As a homebrewer, I'd pay for that. Add in the glowing yeast, and I'd (and a lot of homebrewers) would be pretty happy.
We've already done geo-engineering by putting the greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere in the first place. It requires less creative engineering to stop putting them up there, and we know that greenhouse gasses from (whatever) source raise ambient temperature. Therefore, not putting greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere is a generally plausible solution, even if it means we have to change our lifestyle.
Greenhouse gases? But it is already getting colder, despite the fact that there is more CO2 than ever in our atmosphere:
Thirty years of warmer temperatures go poof.
I love how some Slashdotters are libertarian until it's time to tell me how to live my life in accord with the Global Warming Spaghetti Monster.
But technically, so is everything else I download.
I am amazed how ill-informed this entire thread is. This case is STILL IN COURT. It never left court. This is a non-binding process to help move the case along. This is not some secret maneuver by Apple to pull the wool over all of your eyes. It is not settlement. Non-binding arbitration merely gives parties an idea about the merits of their cases by a neutral arbitrator. His opinion is advisory. They will report the findings to the trial judge in court. Then the case moves forward, unless there is settlement, but settlement can happen in any case.
It's amazing how colossally wrong an entire news story, submission, and long list of threads can be on an issue. Remember this when you criticize some judge for not knowing Linux or the Internet as well as you guys do, because said judge would look at this thread and say, WTF are you all talking about?
This means that, in a matter of days, researchers can grow yeast colonies that glow in response to a variety of chemicals, or even to combinations of chemical
As a homebrewer, there are lots of chemicals that show up in beer, some good, some bad. It would be great to modify a strain of yeast that would glow when diacetyl or some other chemical was present.
Which is why the Chinese economy is stronger.
Nonsense. China's "growth" is subsidized by government loans to government-owned companies, an enormous amount of which are under-performing or non-performing. It's a ponzi scheme, and sooner or later it collapses. It will make the subprime crisis look like a deck chair on the Titanic. One of the few things that keeps China afloat is the influx of cash and credit from the US. To suggest they don't need us is ludicrous.
And of course China doesn't have to dump them in the ocean, they can sell them to their own people - who will be much richer than Americans once their currency stops being artificially surpressed.
Are you crazy? 70% of China's population are pre-industrial agrarian people who live in poverty by any measure.
I learned that Sarah Palin was illegally using personal email accounts for business email
No, you learned what anti-people were claiming without any evidence. This claim has been debunked. She was not using her personal e-mail for work. Does the truth even matter on Slashdot anymore? Or "we all hate Palin, so don't let the facts get in the way of a good story?"