Next you'll be telling me that poor people having telephones at all is a criminal mismanagement of funds. I can't imagine why poor people would waste their cash on something as frivolous as a mobile phone. Certainly not to check their messages during the day and try to get a more lucrative job. How absurd! And God forbid a mother should want her children to be able to reach her when they need her, even if she's on the bus.
Cell phones were once exclusively for the very rich. Now they're not. Deal with it.
I don't know what you mean by "originals", but Pac Man, Ms. Pac Man, Donkey Kong, DK Jr., Mario Bros., and other games of the era were quite excellently translated to the C64. Hell, I was playing a great version of Smash TV on my SX-64 in the early 90s.
And of course, the SX-64 did boot into BASIC.
I do think it's a shame, though, that he gutted a working SX, since there are hundreds out there that are no longer working, but what the hell -- it's his box to do with as he pleases. I'd prefer he used a dead one in the first place, but nostalgia does not prevent me from acknowledging that this is a pretty sweet hack.
I like when he goes to the LAN party:
"i couldn't play pac-man for more than five minutes before someone was asking me why i'd bother bringing a commodore to a LAN party. every time i simply minimized my emulator and watched their jaws drop:) 'you put Windows XP on a C64? WTF?'"
Did Brian McWilliams, author of the article, do the actual hacking? Or was he just informed of it by some skript kiddie? The article is mysteriously vague about who did the deed.
Assuming they did do the hacking, this is ethical... how? Does this mean they figure it's all right to hack into anyone's e-mail and publicize the results? What if it were your e-mail?
It may have been a nifty trick that someone happened to guess the right password, but as journalism, this is beyond the pale. I'd like to see someone from WIRED News comment a little more specifically on who the hacker was, why his or her name wasn't disclosed, and how WIRED justifies reporting on the hacked contents of an e-mail account, and where they draw the lines.
...when computers are so smart, cheap, and ubiquitous that they do many ordinary chores to help ordinary people. When things talk to things, human beings are set free to do work they find more appealing.
This is the same old nonsense that's been touted ever since the age of the washing machine. Considering the thousands of labor-saving devices we've acquired throughout the 20th century, by this logic we ought to be living lives of perfect leisure now. But this isn't what happens. In industrial societies, "labor-saving" devices don't. Work expands to fill the time available. When things think, I'm sure you and I will be freed from the tedious chores of cooking, driving, cleaning, and living. We can become machines ourselves, consumed with work until we burn out or die.
(More at Talbot's Netfuture, if you're interested.)
I think what you're missing here is the notion of efficiency. Ostensibly, the ElectroStomach is producing usable energy from what would otherwise be trash. So the cost isn't a factor, since you'd already purchased the fuel to begin with, and were only going to throw it away.
If you imagine how much food goes down garbage disposals or gets dumped into landfills, there's conceivably millions of kilowatt-hours worth of power being lost. Reclaiming that power would be revolutionary.
IMHO, the greatest feature of Lindows is Click-N-Run.
I haven't used Lindows yet, but I wholeheartedly agree with you that the biggest barrier to Linux on the desktop is installing new software. Click-n-run sounds like a godsend.
The $99 - $130 yearly price tag, though, is going to kill any competitive advantage Lindows might have had. If you check out Walmart.com, you'll find that the difference between a Microtel PC with Lindows and a Microtel PC with XP is $100.
If Joe and Jane User buy the XP box, they pay $100 one time and can easily install and use the most popular software out there. If they buy the Lindows box, they have to pay $130 *every* year, and they still won't be able to do everything a Windows user can do. (They won't get to view Quicktime or Windows Media unless they purchase the Crossover Plugin, for instance.)
All of this conspires to make Lindows a worse value than XP, which is a shame, since it seems like it's the first Linux distro with a chance of really breaking into the mainstream desktop.
I know there are some who would say Joe and Jane User just need to wise up, learn a little about their system, and download all the free software goodness that's out there. There's a lot of merit to this idea, but unfortunately, it's idealistic precisely where we need to be practical.
Most people don't want to futz around with their computer. They want to download, click a button or two on their GUI, and be running software. Until we can offer this functionality without a subscription, Linux isn't going make the strides into the desktop market that we all know it can.
"I am VOTAR. The future of televsion announcing." Ah yes. I remember that one.
I can't remember the dog, but I do remember Eddie the Flying Gimp, who floated outside kids' windows, beckoning them to join him in the sky. The kids would always try to fly and end up plummeting several stories to the ground, landing with a sickening crash or thump, while Eddie spun around in the sky and looked down at them and laughed. Then the Mom and Dad would come out and shake their fists and yell at Eddie, "You get out of here, you flying gimp!"
And wasn't there something about God's Mighty Anvil?
Just wanted to say that I really don't think your idea is stupid. Palladium offers some tempting opportunities, and I'm intellectually honest enough to admit that. The deciding question to me is whether or not we want to start down this slippery slope or not. And I don't. The drawbacks far outweigh the benefits, IMO.
TCPA / Palladium do not add any restrictions. They allow new types of things to be done that cannot currently be done (sending an email that cannot be forwarded, distributing an image that cannot be edited, etc)
Well, first of all, those *are* restrictions.
But I think I understand your point.
You mean that everything I do now, I'll still be able to do if I choose not to use any Palladium-aware apps. I think this point of view is too superficial, since it ignores the way a widely adopted Palladium/TCPA architecture will change the marketplace in the long term.
Thanks for the info. You sound like you know more than I do about TCPA/Palladium, and that's a good thing.
From what I understand, it seems that with a with a minor change to the underlying firmware, a Palladium/TCPA system could be configured to allow only certified OS's to boot, period. Is this wrong, or possible?
we all know that palladium will be released regardless of what happens...
Yup, TCPA and Palladium are coming. But our goal isn't to stop their debut, it's to make TCPA chips a spectacular and expensive failure. We need to make the entire Trusted Computing architecture an albatross around the necks of AMD and Intel, one that they want to jettison as soon as possible.
if we make enough impact for it to boot into the "insecure mode" (without too much bitching and whining) by default, we can have a good chance of killing it.
I don't think so, and I think this is actually a damaging idea. You're focusing on software first, and that's bad. It assumes that we've already let TCPA get a foothold.
We need to prevent the adoption of TCPA chips by the general populace. This is the primary battleground. If enough people upgrade to chips capable of supporting the "Trusted Computing" model, Trusted Computing applications will gain momentum. It's those applications that will ultimately force users into booting into restricted mode (and staying there) in order to access content they need.
Palladium and other DRM/TrustedComputing code is a secondary fight.We want to encourage people to reject code that uses the Trusted Computing architecture, whether that's OS code or application code. But if we've prevented them from upgrading to TCPA chips in the first place, we don't need to worry about Palladium.
And I prefer the phrase "restriction-free" mode to "insecure" mode.:)
Seriously, though, the notion that Palladium is okay because you're not forced into booting into it is a joke. Microsoft built a billion-dollar industry by understanding that there are many kinds of forces, and some of the most powerful are market forces.
Once a large installed TCPA compliant processor base exists, you're going to find yourself forced into booting into Palladium mode because you won't be able to access the content you need without it. Your boss will send you e-mail, for instance, which will only be able to be read in Palladium mode. So you'll have to boot into it. Microsoft knows this. Microsoft is counting on it.
That's why it's so important that we refuse to upgrade to TCPA chips. We know from the DivX debacle that consumers have the ability to reject bad choices. We need to draw the same kind of line in the sand with TCPA chips. If AMD and Intel take a massive economic hit on the Trusted Computing architecture, they'll reject it. My fear is that a shallow understanding of the Palladium future by consumers + naive, buzzword-driven purchasing by PHBs will enable Trusted Computing to establish a market foothold. The battle lines are being drawn and I think we have a lot of work to do.
There's a great article in this month's WIRED about why AOL should re-envision itself as a broadband provider. (The argument largely being that AOL is 95% dialup, and dialup is slowly but surely going the way of the dinosaur.)
An AOL brand of Linux could really complement this strategy. AOL could offer even lower cost computers with a broadband commitment, the same way cellphone service providers offer discounted cellphones when you sign up for a service plan.
For all the grandmas, moms, dads, and technophobes out there, an 800 Mhz box for $100 with a broadband connection could really drive some upgrades, if AOL did it right.
I don't have anything against the concept of IP laws, but I do have something against Palladium, the same way I'd have something against a new clothing technology which would make me physically unable to break certain laws while wearing a specific shirt.
"You can still break some laws while wearing that shirt," someone would say. As if that's good enough. The shirt enables a certain class of laws which are unbreakable. I doubt it will be long until all laws are in this class.
"So don't wear that shirt!" someone says. You can bet I won't, but it's not me I'm worried about. It's the state of the world once these kind of shirts are the only ones you can buy.
Palladium sucks. It's China on a chip. End of story.
(FWIW: Obviously, the kind of human rights violations that go on in China are much worse than the negative effects of Palladium. But the Palladium future is pretty bad, just the same.)
The problem is, too many people in this world are motivated by greed, and some of our best advancements to humanity are motivated by that same greed (or lust for power, or fame) above and beyond the pure humanitarian inspiration...
This is a really good point.
I think there's a lot of validity to the idea that we need to harness our own greed in order to solve some of humanity's problems, and that perhaps $85 million dollar paintings are a part of a bigger system that needs greed to function.
But it's hard to ignore the fact that I still think $20,000 is too much to spend on a motion simulator for a home theater.
I guess, ultimately, this conversation about greed and excess is really just a way of expressing some disappointment in humanity. There's that Hamlet quote that I always find inspiring:
What a piece of work is a man! How noble in reason! how infinite in faculty! in form, in moving, how express and admirable! in action how like an angel! in apprehension how like a god!
I feel that way, too. We have the capacity to do almost anything, solve any problem... and yet, we don't. Sometimes we prefer to buy things instead, even if it means others of us will suffer. Me included.
But I think we can change some of that by pointing it out. Not too many years ago, we were burning witches and practicing trial-by-ordeal. Now we accept that those sorts of things are both ludicrous and horrible. I think maybe by talking about the selfishness and absurdity of some forms of spending, we can get closer to the day when not solving problems like paralysis seems as ludicrous and horrible as witch-burning.
Anyway, didn't mean to get quite so heavy. Thanks for the thoughtful responses.
The point is that there is an entire culture of luxury garbage supported by rich people for their own egos. Rich people own the corporations that make the crap; rich people sell the crap to each other, rich people fawn over each other's crap. While other people starve, die, remain paralyzed, etc.
The article doesn't make any mention of DRM-enabling technologies like Palladium embedded on the Dragon chip. So if you value freedom, support China, I guess.
I dread the day when Chinese citizens talk amongst themselves about the funny things Americans can't do with their computers.
If you were to follow the logic that $20,000 for something that is purly for entertainment/status, then you'd have to chastise anyone with a luxery car knowing full well a cheap Honda gets you from point A to point B just fine.
I don't know that I'd say the same thing, since a car has some utility as well as entertainment value. But, yeah, the high end of luxury cars I do find a little troubling.
I've toyed with the idea that maybe some CEO somewhere needs a $100,000 Mercedes to keep up his status with other rich CEOs, so that his company flourishes, but I can't make myself buy it. You can justify anything if that's your standard.
But if that floats your boat and you've got the cash, by all means get one.
I just can't buy into that attitude, either. The $85,000,000 that the private collector paid for the Van Gogh painting is revolting to me. I can't see it as anything other than ethically wrong. That $85 mil could've made a real difference in people's lives, a real difference in stem cell research or cancer research. But some guy just wanted to own a picture instead. It floated his boat, so he got one.
I figure if I have some responsibility to spend $42.50 correctly, the guy who bought the Van Gogh has 2,000,000 times greater a responsibility. If all the wealthy people in the world put as much emphasis on other human beings as they do on jewel-encrusted cellphones, Christopher Reeve (and many others) might be walking by now.
Obviously, I'm only speaking for myself here. I don't have the magic formula for determining at what price frivolity becomes irresponsible.
But I don't think it's a matter of perspective, or at least that's too easy.
Just because you have a ton of money and give a bunch to charity doesn't mean that spending $20,000 on a home motion simulator isn't a shocking waste of the value that money could provide. I guess I just think the more disposable income you have, the greater a responsibility you have to make sure that it's used in the most beneficial ways.
Here's an analogy for you: The most expensive painting ever sold was a Van Gogh that went for $85.2 million to a private collector. You can buy a reproduction of this painting for $649.
What do you think? Is it moral to pay $85 mil for a painting for yourself, considering the enormous amount of good that money could do if spent wisely? I don't think so, even if you are Bill Gates. (Or Ghandi, for that matter.)
Christopher Reeve is trying to raise money for research that could help people walk and breathe on their own again. (If you go to the link, you can send a e-card to Chris Reeve and an anonymous donor will donate a dollar to in your name to Reeve's Foundation, which will, in turn, give that money out as research grants. It's Snopes approved.)
My point isn't to be simplistic and say that every dollar you own should be given away to charitable causes -- obviously, it takes a saint to live that way. But $20 grand for a motion simulator for your HOME theater? Seems like distorted priorities to me.
If I saw a giant vision of Thor or Osiris in the sky, I'd be more likely to think someone was trying to trick people into believing in Norse or Egyptian mythology than I would be to fall down in worship. And Revelations, I think, is too vague to be proven by coming to pass. There are too many possible interpretations. (What does it mean, for example, to say "the moon became as blood"? It turned red? I saw one of those last weekend, at moonrise.)
If the Rapture happened, I'd find that worth investigating, but it would depend on the evidence. Do we have people on camera disappearing? How many? Did they know each other? Hoaxes aren't anything new.
Ultimately, I think events just aren't strong enough for me. They can almost always be faked. Even if astronomers saw John 3:16 spelled out in clouds on Jupiter, I'd still need something that couldn't be faked, even by people smarter than we are. I'd need that message in one of the fundamental constants of the universe. Maybe not everyone would, but I would.
No, the reason evolution is such a hot-button issue is because it conflicts with the Christian explanation of human origin. (Or, to be more specific, it conflicts with a literal interpretation of that origin.)
It's not science that's on trial here. Most Christians believe in and even support the scientific method in areas where it does not actively conflict with their doctrine.
I sympathize with Christians who feel that they must make a choice between their religion and science, but I wish they'd find the strength of character to admit to themselves and to others what they're doing: denying the most workable, parsimonious scientific theory we have for explaining our origins because they're afraid it's true.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh, please.
Next you'll be telling me that poor people having telephones at all is a criminal mismanagement of funds. I can't imagine why poor people would waste their cash on something as frivolous as a mobile phone. Certainly not to check their messages during the day and try to get a more lucrative job. How absurd! And God forbid a mother should want her children to be able to reach her when they need her, even if she's on the bus.
Cell phones were once exclusively for the very rich. Now they're not. Deal with it.
Those graphics ARE good. I like the clapping at the end.
I don't know what you mean by "originals", but Pac Man, Ms. Pac Man, Donkey Kong, DK Jr., Mario Bros., and other games of the era were quite excellently translated to the C64. Hell, I was playing a great version of Smash TV on my SX-64 in the early 90s.
:) 'you put Windows XP on a C64? WTF?'"
And of course, the SX-64 did boot into BASIC.
I do think it's a shame, though, that he gutted a working SX, since there are hundreds out there that are no longer working, but what the hell -- it's his box to do with as he pleases. I'd prefer he used a dead one in the first place, but nostalgia does not prevent me from acknowledging that this is a pretty sweet hack.
I like when he goes to the LAN party:
"i couldn't play pac-man for more than five minutes before someone was asking me why i'd bother bringing a commodore to a LAN party. every time i simply minimized my emulator and watched their jaws drop
That reaction shot has gotta be priceless.
Did Brian McWilliams, author of the article, do the actual hacking? Or was he just informed of it by some skript kiddie? The article is mysteriously vague about who did the deed.
Assuming they did do the hacking, this is ethical... how? Does this mean they figure it's all right to hack into anyone's e-mail and publicize the results? What if it were your e-mail?
It may have been a nifty trick that someone happened to guess the right password, but as journalism, this is beyond the pale. I'd like to see someone from WIRED News comment a little more specifically on who the hacker was, why his or her name wasn't disclosed, and how WIRED justifies reporting on the hacked contents of an e-mail account, and where they draw the lines.
...when computers are so smart, cheap, and ubiquitous that they do many ordinary chores to help ordinary people. When things talk to things, human beings are set free to do work they find more appealing.
This is the same old nonsense that's been touted ever since the age of the washing machine. Considering the thousands of labor-saving devices we've acquired throughout the 20th century, by this logic we ought to be living lives of perfect leisure now. But this isn't what happens. In industrial societies, "labor-saving" devices don't. Work expands to fill the time available. When things think, I'm sure you and I will be freed from the tedious chores of cooking, driving, cleaning, and living. We can become machines ourselves, consumed with work until we burn out or die.
(More at Talbot's Netfuture, if you're interested.)
I think what you're missing here is the notion of efficiency. Ostensibly, the ElectroStomach is producing usable energy from what would otherwise be trash. So the cost isn't a factor, since you'd already purchased the fuel to begin with, and were only going to throw it away.
If you imagine how much food goes down garbage disposals or gets dumped into landfills, there's conceivably millions of kilowatt-hours worth of power being lost. Reclaiming that power would be revolutionary.
IMHO, the greatest feature of Lindows is Click-N-Run.
I haven't used Lindows yet, but I wholeheartedly agree with you that the biggest barrier to Linux on the desktop is installing new software. Click-n-run sounds like a godsend.
The $99 - $130 yearly price tag, though, is going to kill any competitive advantage Lindows might have had. If you check out Walmart.com, you'll find that the difference between a Microtel PC with Lindows and a Microtel PC with XP is $100.
If Joe and Jane User buy the XP box, they pay $100 one time and can easily install and use the most popular software out there. If they buy the Lindows box, they have to pay $130 *every* year, and they still won't be able to do everything a Windows user can do. (They won't get to view Quicktime or Windows Media unless they purchase the Crossover Plugin, for instance.)
All of this conspires to make Lindows a worse value than XP, which is a shame, since it seems like it's the first Linux distro with a chance of really breaking into the mainstream desktop.
I know there are some who would say Joe and Jane User just need to wise up, learn a little about their system, and download all the free software goodness that's out there. There's a lot of merit to this idea, but unfortunately, it's idealistic precisely where we need to be practical.
Most people don't want to futz around with their computer. They want to download, click a button or two on their GUI, and be running software. Until we can offer this functionality without a subscription, Linux isn't going make the strides into the desktop market that we all know it can.
"I am VOTAR. The future of televsion announcing." Ah yes. I remember that one.
I can't remember the dog, but I do remember Eddie the Flying Gimp, who floated outside kids' windows, beckoning them to join him in the sky. The kids would always try to fly and end up plummeting several stories to the ground, landing with a sickening crash or thump, while Eddie spun around in the sky and looked down at them and laughed. Then the Mom and Dad would come out and shake their fists and yell at Eddie, "You get out of here, you flying gimp!"
And wasn't there something about God's Mighty Anvil?
I remember the Idiot Box. That was a funny little show. On right before Liquid Television. MTV was almost cool once.
you think this is stupid, and maybe it is...
Just wanted to say that I really don't think your idea is stupid. Palladium offers some tempting opportunities, and I'm intellectually honest enough to admit that. The deciding question to me is whether or not we want to start down this slippery slope or not. And I don't. The drawbacks far outweigh the benefits, IMO.
TCPA / Palladium do not add any restrictions. They allow new types of things to be done that cannot currently be done (sending an email that cannot be forwarded, distributing an image that cannot be edited, etc)
Well, first of all, those *are* restrictions.
But I think I understand your point.
You mean that everything I do now, I'll still be able to do if I choose not to use any Palladium-aware apps. I think this point of view is too superficial, since it ignores the way a widely adopted Palladium/TCPA architecture will change the marketplace in the long term.
Thanks for the info. You sound like you know more than I do about TCPA/Palladium, and that's a good thing.
From what I understand, it seems that with a with a minor change to the underlying firmware, a Palladium/TCPA system could be configured to allow only certified OS's to boot, period. Is this wrong, or possible?
we all know that palladium will be released regardless of what happens ...
:)
Yup, TCPA and Palladium are coming. But our goal isn't to stop their debut, it's to make TCPA chips a spectacular and expensive failure. We need to make the entire Trusted Computing architecture an albatross around the necks of AMD and Intel, one that they want to jettison as soon as possible.
if we make enough impact for it to boot into the "insecure mode" (without too much bitching and whining) by default, we can have a good chance of killing it.
I don't think so, and I think this is actually a damaging idea. You're focusing on software first, and that's bad. It assumes that we've already let TCPA get a foothold.
We need to prevent the adoption of TCPA chips by the general populace. This is the primary battleground. If enough people upgrade to chips capable of supporting the "Trusted Computing" model, Trusted Computing applications will gain momentum. It's those applications that will ultimately force users into booting into restricted mode (and staying there) in order to access content they need.
Palladium and other DRM/TrustedComputing code is a secondary fight.We want to encourage people to reject code that uses the Trusted Computing architecture, whether that's OS code or application code. But if we've prevented them from upgrading to TCPA chips in the first place, we don't need to worry about Palladium.
And I prefer the phrase "restriction-free" mode to "insecure" mode.
Yay Microsoft.
Seriously, though, the notion that Palladium is okay because you're not forced into booting into it is a joke. Microsoft built a billion-dollar industry by understanding that there are many kinds of forces, and some of the most powerful are market forces.
Once a large installed TCPA compliant processor base exists, you're going to find yourself forced into booting into Palladium mode because you won't be able to access the content you need without it. Your boss will send you e-mail, for instance, which will only be able to be read in Palladium mode. So you'll have to boot into it. Microsoft knows this. Microsoft is counting on it.
That's why it's so important that we refuse to upgrade to TCPA chips. We know from the DivX debacle that consumers have the ability to reject bad choices. We need to draw the same kind of line in the sand with TCPA chips. If AMD and Intel take a massive economic hit on the Trusted Computing architecture, they'll reject it. My fear is that a shallow understanding of the Palladium future by consumers + naive, buzzword-driven purchasing by PHBs will enable Trusted Computing to establish a market foothold. The battle lines are being drawn and I think we have a lot of work to do.
There's a great article in this month's WIRED about why AOL should re-envision itself as a broadband provider. (The argument largely being that AOL is 95% dialup, and dialup is slowly but surely going the way of the dinosaur.)
An AOL brand of Linux could really complement this strategy. AOL could offer even lower cost computers with a broadband commitment, the same way cellphone service providers offer discounted cellphones when you sign up for a service plan.
For all the grandmas, moms, dads, and technophobes out there, an 800 Mhz box for $100 with a broadband connection could really drive some upgrades, if AOL did it right.
This is true. But the irony was too good to resist pointing out.
I don't have anything against the concept of IP laws, but I do have something against Palladium, the same way I'd have something against a new clothing technology which would make me physically unable to break certain laws while wearing a specific shirt.
"You can still break some laws while wearing that shirt," someone would say. As if that's good enough. The shirt enables a certain class of laws which are unbreakable. I doubt it will be long until all laws are in this class.
"So don't wear that shirt!" someone says. You can bet I won't, but it's not me I'm worried about. It's the state of the world once these kind of shirts are the only ones you can buy.
Palladium sucks. It's China on a chip. End of story.
(FWIW: Obviously, the kind of human rights violations that go on in China are much worse than the negative effects of Palladium. But the Palladium future is pretty bad, just the same.)
The problem is, too many people in this world are motivated by greed, and some of our best advancements to humanity are motivated by that same greed (or lust for power, or fame) above and beyond the pure humanitarian inspiration...
This is a really good point.
I think there's a lot of validity to the idea that we need to harness our own greed in order to solve some of humanity's problems, and that perhaps $85 million dollar paintings are a part of a bigger system that needs greed to function.
But it's hard to ignore the fact that I still think $20,000 is too much to spend on a motion simulator for a home theater.
I guess, ultimately, this conversation about greed and excess is really just a way of expressing some disappointment in humanity. There's that Hamlet quote that I always find inspiring:
What a piece of work is a man! How noble in reason! how infinite in faculty! in form, in moving, how express and admirable! in action how like an angel! in apprehension how like a god!
I feel that way, too. We have the capacity to do almost anything, solve any problem... and yet, we don't. Sometimes we prefer to buy things instead, even if it means others of us will suffer. Me included.
But I think we can change some of that by pointing it out. Not too many years ago, we were burning witches and practicing trial-by-ordeal. Now we accept that those sorts of things are both ludicrous and horrible. I think maybe by talking about the selfishness and absurdity of some forms of spending, we can get closer to the day when not solving problems like paralysis seems as ludicrous and horrible as witch-burning.
Anyway, didn't mean to get quite so heavy. Thanks for the thoughtful responses.
The point is that there is an entire culture of luxury garbage supported by rich people for their own egos. Rich people own the corporations that make the crap; rich people sell the crap to each other, rich people fawn over each other's crap. While other people starve, die, remain paralyzed, etc.
The article doesn't make any mention of DRM-enabling technologies like Palladium embedded on the Dragon chip. So if you value freedom, support China, I guess.
I dread the day when Chinese citizens talk amongst themselves about the funny things Americans can't do with their computers.
If you were to follow the logic that $20,000 for something that is purly for entertainment/status, then you'd have to chastise anyone with a luxery car knowing full well a cheap Honda gets you from point A to point B just fine.
I don't know that I'd say the same thing, since a car has some utility as well as entertainment value. But, yeah, the high end of luxury cars I do find a little troubling.
I've toyed with the idea that maybe some CEO somewhere needs a $100,000 Mercedes to keep up his status with other rich CEOs, so that his company flourishes, but I can't make myself buy it. You can justify anything if that's your standard.
But if that floats your boat and you've got the cash, by all means get one.
I just can't buy into that attitude, either. The $85,000,000 that the private collector paid for the Van Gogh painting is revolting to me. I can't see it as anything other than ethically wrong. That $85 mil could've made a real difference in people's lives, a real difference in stem cell research or cancer research. But some guy just wanted to own a picture instead. It floated his boat, so he got one.
I figure if I have some responsibility to spend $42.50 correctly, the guy who bought the Van Gogh has 2,000,000 times greater a responsibility. If all the wealthy people in the world put as much emphasis on other human beings as they do on jewel-encrusted cellphones, Christopher Reeve (and many others) might be walking by now.
Obviously, I'm only speaking for myself here. I don't have the magic formula for determining at what price frivolity becomes irresponsible.
But I don't think it's a matter of perspective, or at least that's too easy.
Just because you have a ton of money and give a bunch to charity doesn't mean that spending $20,000 on a home motion simulator isn't a shocking waste of the value that money could provide. I guess I just think the more disposable income you have, the greater a responsibility you have to make sure that it's used in the most beneficial ways.
Here's an analogy for you: The most expensive painting ever sold was a Van Gogh that went for $85.2 million to a private collector. You can buy a reproduction of this painting for $649.
What do you think? Is it moral to pay $85 mil for a painting for yourself, considering the enormous amount of good that money could do if spent wisely? I don't think so, even if you are Bill Gates. (Or Ghandi, for that matter.)
Christopher Reeve is trying to raise money for research that could help people walk and breathe on their own again. (If you go to the link, you can send a e-card to Chris Reeve and an anonymous donor will donate a dollar to in your name to Reeve's Foundation, which will, in turn, give that money out as research grants. It's Snopes approved.)
My point isn't to be simplistic and say that every dollar you own should be given away to charitable causes -- obviously, it takes a saint to live that way. But $20 grand for a motion simulator for your HOME theater? Seems like distorted priorities to me.
If I saw a giant vision of Thor or Osiris in the sky, I'd be more likely to think someone was trying to trick people into believing in Norse or Egyptian mythology than I would be to fall down in worship. And Revelations, I think, is too vague to be proven by coming to pass. There are too many possible interpretations. (What does it mean, for example, to say "the moon became as blood"? It turned red? I saw one of those last weekend, at moonrise.)
If the Rapture happened, I'd find that worth investigating, but it would depend on the evidence. Do we have people on camera disappearing? How many? Did they know each other? Hoaxes aren't anything new.
Ultimately, I think events just aren't strong enough for me. They can almost always be faked. Even if astronomers saw John 3:16 spelled out in clouds on Jupiter, I'd still need something that couldn't be faked, even by people smarter than we are. I'd need that message in one of the fundamental constants of the universe. Maybe not everyone would, but I would.
I can show you many data which completely cross evolution as an idea IF you don't start with materialist assumptions
If you have to discard materialism, it's not science.
No, the reason evolution is such a hot-button issue is because it conflicts with the Christian explanation of human origin. (Or, to be more specific, it conflicts with a literal interpretation of that origin.)
It's not science that's on trial here. Most Christians believe in and even support the scientific method in areas where it does not actively conflict with their doctrine.
I sympathize with Christians who feel that they must make a choice between their religion and science, but I wish they'd find the strength of character to admit to themselves and to others what they're doing: denying the most workable, parsimonious scientific theory we have for explaining our origins because they're afraid it's true.