I don't think anyone who is intelligent and reflective will be uncomfortable with eating meat. While I do agree that there is a part of humanity who is not really reflective, I do think that somebody intelligent can reach the conclusion that: while we should work towards reducing suffering on other animals (regardless of animal), and preferably skip the animal (as a being) part altogether (and thus grow the muscle tissue directly, as long as it keeps a good taste, of course), the benefits (it tastes good, it feeds you [how well it feeds you]) outweighs the disadvantages (knowing the pain the animal suffered, what kind of animal was) and decide that there is no point on concerning themselves with it afterwards. Thus, they won't be uncomfortable although they might have a preference for other sources of food.
Or to put it another way, despite me knowing how animals are treated (or have an idea, not really my area of interest) and that some animals are more intelligent than others, I'd try the meat anyway, and will continue to consume meat. I don't concern myself with these thoughts when I sit down to eat (nor when buying). I would eat what a hunter would bring if I knew one. I like meat. However, if somebody tells me that they found a way to grow meat and have it taste the same (or very damn close) that doesn't involve growing a full animal, I'll give it a try and probably tend to consume that one.
Humans have limited resources. Some decide that, after reflection, they are okay with the current status and that there are other areas that they would rather invest their resources.
Or I can just be a psychopath and am fooling myself into thinking other normal people might be like me. Who knows? We live in a world of madmen, after all.
I'm sure that if you ask anybody who uses torrents and downloads (or uploads), they would be more than happy to do it during night time, since it also affects their own bandwidth (so chances are either they'll be doing nothing during that time, or they will download later). At least, I know that I would if asked. It's rather trivial to configure the torrent application to only transfer during a certain time.
My problem with metered plans is that most of the time they don't separate data caps from speed. I can live with 10mbps, but please I'd like a higher data-cap than the 25GB you give me. It's not enough. Otherwise, I think I could live with metered.
I wonder how open Steam would be to improvement on that front. Steam could certainly improve (for a certain measure of improving, anyway) when it comes to DRM-free games. Something as simple as allowing you to browse the store for DRM-free games would be an improvement. Providing an installer or perhaps making the backup feature not requiring an internet connection when dealing with DRM-free games would be nice too (like GOG.com's installer!). OTOH I also understand what kind of service Steam is offering vs GOG.com (you are right, they did change their name to GOG.com), with one wanting to be more of a platform where you can have a social experience as an integral part, while the later just wants to sell you a game and let you enjoy it (you can socialize in the forums/other parts, but that's not part of what they are really selling, is it?) and that's it.
The "nooo" didn't give it away? I need to work on writing better. Yes, exactly. Anybody who thought like that would probably be an ass. In my (and your) view, at least. Which is why I find it completely okay. A minor... inconvenience, if you may, for access to the rest of the services each provide.
I wonder... How can you agree with a new TOS if you never open the steam client. The way I see it is: if you don't accept the TOS, you lose access to their services (store and distribution, login servers, etc) which results in games with DRM failing to load since they wouldn't verify since you are not logged in (if you are, then you accepted the TOS, right?). Thus, in the case of a game without DRM, they would provide Store and Distribution services. I doubt (IANAL, should check with one) they had the (legal) power to stop you from using games that don't rely on their services beyond store/distribution. AFAIK, when you buy the game you accept the EULA, which is basically a contract between you and the IP holder for that game (which isn't steam/valve, unless Valve games). When you accept TOS of Valve, what you get access is to the Store and Distribution. I don't think (but again, IANAL) that they can break the second contract you made with the company (which allows you to use the game). Thus, you lose access to their services but not DRM-free games. At least the way they interpret it.
If it is the way you say... (which may not be. Posting AC + no proof + internet? Can I have the salt, please?), then it is not good.
Valve could probably improve Steam in that way... I don't think, however, most Steam users are the type to care much about that. And those that DO care probably will enjoy the experience from other stores like GOG and Humble bundle (I don't think they are selling games with DRM in their store, although the occasional bundles does have DRM, and they are clearly labeled as such). Of course, there is the matter that some people may not care because they don't know, and it'd be nice if Steam mentioned/allowed filtering of DRM-free games to at least catch the eye, but I don't blame for not having it.
I fail to see how I'm perpetuating "the confusion". Please enlighten me how explaining that Steam is a distribution platform that offers both games with and without DRM causes confusion. Furthermore, explain to me how are you tied to Valve any more than you are tied to say your CD or that CD-Key you mustn't lose if you want to reinstall your game (in the case of games with DRM), or GOG for re-download (in the case of DRM-free games), which you don't need at all unless you failed to back up the installer?
Furthermore, tell me how you lose any power to run the software you've purchased if you only buy DRM-free games (even if it is from steam, since it is, after all, just a store and distribution service)? Because you will obviously lose power if you buy games with DRM, no matter where you buy them... or how, for that matter.
Once people get it right that steamworks is the part that is DRM and steam is a distribution service and a store... I mean. There are some games that have no DRM at all and after you download them you can use them for whatever. But nooo, a distribution service requiring you to log in is DRM (never mind that GOG also requires you to log in for first download, and they get praised as DRM-free)./rant
You'd be surprised how many have "gamer rage" in sports. It isn't just for video games. It is simply them not managing their emotions (or deciding to let them run free).
It's not wikipedia, but wikimedia, which is much more than an encyclopedia. Wikimedia is closer to a library than to an encyclopedia. Wikimedia contains wikipedia, though, if I were to insist on that comparison.
Yes. Tablets, smartphones are taking over a lot of the task we used to do on the PC. It's shrinking. Nowadays you don't need a PC unless you plan to play games in it, or do some sort of work that the current mobile (and no, I don't mean laptops) computing platforms can't do. I plan on keeping my PC upgraded. I'd leap to having a server in my house if money wasn't an issue. But that's me. I am an exception to the rule. I feel more at home sitting in front of my PC than inside my room (a recent acquisition too, since before I used to share a room in which I basically just slept). I can't see myself using a smartphone to see videos (who'd want to see anything in that tiny screen?!). To me, all my devices should be an extension of the PC I'd have at home, keeping all the information and providing services to myself and those I care about.
Most people nowadays can make do with a smartphone and a tablet. Maybe add a stand and a keyboard if anything more demanding needs to be done (assuming they can just do it with the on-screen keyboard). So yes. You are right. the microcomputer market is dying. Personal Computers will now mean your tablet or your smartphone, or perhaps even your thin client, not your microcomputer at home. Not the microcomputer I'm writing this from. At least not to many people.
And yes, the switch from PC to microcomputers is intentional.
Money would be an easy solution. Information (since that's ever so valuable) would be a good choice too. Territory could be another one (although I'm not entirely sure I'd be in favor of this one). Percentage of production. Rights to exploit minerals. Things like that.
On the other hand it's probably better than to be the one who has to hope that however is writing the algorithms is good enough. At least you have some sort of knowledge about how well it was written.
... Or, you know, instead of being in a shitty situation either way, we could look for other ways, such as strong legislation against the use of these weapons in any other kind of scenario but an internationally recognized war.
I think people tend to forget that the/. tends to be rather... not the common folk. For example, I wouldn't trust my phone to do some video rendering of some 3D scene, not in any reasonable timeframe nor without burning itself. I'd also wouldn't trust my phone with having enough space for the files usually needed in that kind of thing. I could probably trust my phone with compiling some kind of project, but battery life would be too short (unless it's plugged in... but...). I certainly wouldn't expect my phone to handle complex editing of large images (or high resolution images, I guess). Nor would I probably want it to play the latest benchmark game (it used to be crysis, I don't know what it is now. I think crysis 3? BF3/4? I forget) at the highest quality settings at who knows what resolution.
However, I can certainly replace a lot of the computational devices for those who don't need/want/use the extra power a desktop generally gives when compared to smartphones. And that's alright. People just seem to forget that their use case is usually not of... can I say the masses and not sound elitist? Anyway, I think I made my point.
Some child comment made me wonder: jail time and what? I mean, I have the idea that some crimes may result in you being forbidden from interacting with certain things/people. It might not have been jail time, but that the crime would be permanently recorded (which can be a stigma) and in his case being forbidden from interacting with computers (I assume there need to be exceptions for this, otherwise you might be unable to get a large part of the jobs simply because you wouldn't be able to use a computer). Perhaps the thought of life after prison under the conditions that he would have had to live in, added with the stress from the situation... Perhaps... perhaps it was everything and no specific thing?
I mean... imagine you were a painter (you know, one of those that feel the need to paint because that's how they express themselves, their thing?) and somebody told you that from now on you can't paint. Of course, I don't know what would have been his sentence anyway, so I'm just speculating.
That's an interesting idea. I think we forget that google (or any company willing to take these technologies right now) have the best(as in most capable) minds in their hands. And while it's true that we should never forget that there is a thing called stupidity, it wouldn't do any harm to go for a what-if. After all, this could certainly be the point where we define just how the technology is going to grow and how is it going to enter our lives, with small adjustments afterwards. Changing course afterwards will be an uphill battle, while people are still thinking and have only just begun to take sides on this issue.
So, if anybody wanted companies to move somewhere else, they would need, for example, cheaper house/office cost. They move there, and let's for a second assume it's a successful company and it's employees win above 100k/year at least (which isn't all that bad). All is good, a single company won't raise the prices too much and might be good for the local economy. BUT, other startups also see that living there is cheap. Plus, that other company is already there, so they could probably benefit. More set up there. Eventually, more successful companies will live in that area and it will probably be no longer as cheap, considering that there is now a "large" group with a lot of money. While a company or two settling there might have been good, eventually you have a cluster that causes the cost of living around it.
I'm only looking at a few variables, but it makes sense. The already established townsfolk could end up living worse because they prices increased (I'm assuming that local population is not enough to supply the demand for workers).
Now, if the company instead went to a un-populated area, and in a joint effort with... I don't know who, really, but... if it settled in an area with little to no population, provided housing, infrastructure and services to the workers and their family (who will move in, since there is no local population), population distribution could change. There is the issue, however, of the added cost to provide the infrastructure and services, which somebody would need to shoulder. There should be, however increased quality of life (less people -> less cars, etc). I seem to recall that in the past some companies did this very thing.
I think that there could be incentives to go to less populated places (improve infrastructure there, such as high-speed internet access) and perhaps some kind of tax to settle in a place where there already are a lot of companies that serve the same workforce (ie you wouldn't have google, facebook, yahoo and microsoft at the same place). Spread the population distribution. I'm not sure, however, just how far we can go with alleviating this issue.
or moving people (and, more to the point, their employers) elsewhere.
What would be the cost of moving these companies (or stopping them from settling there in the first place) somewhere else? And who should shoulder the cost? And why?
They way I see this is the result of different choices taken early in life. Sure, google could have built somewhere else (would they, considering economical factors?) and avoided driving the prices up. But the inequality wouldn't have gone away. And the inequality is, well, the result of different people taking different choices throughout life that results in different income which leads to: inequality.
I'm not saying I wouldn't like it if those people could retain their houses (and, oh, if possible I'd like it if everyone could live "well", with no homeless nor hungry people, but that's a dream so far). But all I see is a group of people being mad because the system worked correctly. Angered at the people inside the bus who are not at fault.
It's the difference between, say, notch (who had an idea a lot of people loved and executed it well enough) vs some other indie devs who never manage to make a living out of their games (despite the ideas being rather good and entertaining, but simply didn't reach their audience or don't appeal to many). Ideas, execution, exposure. Different ideas, different execution, different outcomes. Different lifestyles.
I thought that Google employees all payed for the rides, lunches and all with their work. After all, the money to pay all that has to come from somewhere, which is the result of their work (ie: the income produced by people using their products). And if they were not as successful, they would not have any of that.
I wonder, however, if Buddy Rich could... (let's call it) sequence one of his solos. I don't think the synth can't reproduce his solos, but that nobody who uses a synth knows how to ever get close to it, and whoever would know how just does it in the drums because they like it better.
That is not to say that so far an electronic may not be able to just go and play an unscripted solo that sounds good, of course. We are not there, yet.
Even with fast internet access that seems like a sensible thing to do. Sure, if I have nothing to do I might be okay with waiting for that download, but otherwise just let it run in the background. Preferably without disturbing everything else (such as video streaming, voip calls, gaming, timely communication with remote server, etc).
It seems something that could be dealt with through healthcare. I recall there being this thing called anger management that is supposed to help you not go ballistic. Probably related with the whole "learn how to deal with your emotions" and "learn how to work under stress" which you will probably need later in your life but nobody bothers to teach until you already showed a few cracks here and there (went ballistic at school/somewhere else public, or have bad health due to stress caused by work).
I do know that guns are pretty much "grab and use" vs a bomb. But I don't worry about the impulsive ones. There are tools at our disposal to we can use today to reduce those situations. Since parents can't be bothered to raise their children anymore*, we could have a time at school exactly geared towards teaching kids this kind of thing as part of the obligatory curriculum. Right now you only get attention if you show signs that you need attention and, again, those are the easy ones. Because we can see them and help them.
I worry about those that think about it, those that don't show it. Because those are the ones that wouldn't get attention even if all the other cases were, in fact, helped.
By now you can probably tell my issue isn't with a few restrictions on guns (requiring a license is good, along with a psychological evaluation so we don't just give them to serial killers happily. I also agree with a seven day period between buying/ordering a firearm and getting it). My issue is that people thinking about banning guns seem to forget that we could be doing something else entirely that would not only be useful to reduce these events, but improve the lives of many children out there who could probably use a hand but would never fire a gun towards others.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't think anyone who is intelligent and reflective will be uncomfortable with eating meat. While I do agree that there is a part of humanity who is not really reflective, I do think that somebody intelligent can reach the conclusion that: while we should work towards reducing suffering on other animals (regardless of animal), and preferably skip the animal (as a being) part altogether (and thus grow the muscle tissue directly, as long as it keeps a good taste, of course), the benefits (it tastes good, it feeds you [how well it feeds you]) outweighs the disadvantages (knowing the pain the animal suffered, what kind of animal was) and decide that there is no point on concerning themselves with it afterwards. Thus, they won't be uncomfortable although they might have a preference for other sources of food.
Or to put it another way, despite me knowing how animals are treated (or have an idea, not really my area of interest) and that some animals are more intelligent than others, I'd try the meat anyway, and will continue to consume meat. I don't concern myself with these thoughts when I sit down to eat (nor when buying). I would eat what a hunter would bring if I knew one. I like meat. However, if somebody tells me that they found a way to grow meat and have it taste the same (or very damn close) that doesn't involve growing a full animal, I'll give it a try and probably tend to consume that one.
Humans have limited resources. Some decide that, after reflection, they are okay with the current status and that there are other areas that they would rather invest their resources.
Or I can just be a psychopath and am fooling myself into thinking other normal people might be like me. Who knows? We live in a world of madmen, after all.
I'm sure that if you ask anybody who uses torrents and downloads (or uploads), they would be more than happy to do it during night time, since it also affects their own bandwidth (so chances are either they'll be doing nothing during that time, or they will download later). At least, I know that I would if asked. It's rather trivial to configure the torrent application to only transfer during a certain time.
My problem with metered plans is that most of the time they don't separate data caps from speed. I can live with 10mbps, but please I'd like a higher data-cap than the 25GB you give me. It's not enough. Otherwise, I think I could live with metered.
I wonder how open Steam would be to improvement on that front. Steam could certainly improve (for a certain measure of improving, anyway) when it comes to DRM-free games. Something as simple as allowing you to browse the store for DRM-free games would be an improvement. Providing an installer or perhaps making the backup feature not requiring an internet connection when dealing with DRM-free games would be nice too (like GOG.com's installer!). OTOH I also understand what kind of service Steam is offering vs GOG.com (you are right, they did change their name to GOG.com), with one wanting to be more of a platform where you can have a social experience as an integral part, while the later just wants to sell you a game and let you enjoy it (you can socialize in the forums/other parts, but that's not part of what they are really selling, is it?) and that's it.
The "nooo" didn't give it away? I need to work on writing better. Yes, exactly. Anybody who thought like that would probably be an ass. In my (and your) view, at least. Which is why I find it completely okay. A minor... inconvenience, if you may, for access to the rest of the services each provide.
I wonder... How can you agree with a new TOS if you never open the steam client. The way I see it is: if you don't accept the TOS, you lose access to their services (store and distribution, login servers, etc) which results in games with DRM failing to load since they wouldn't verify since you are not logged in (if you are, then you accepted the TOS, right?). Thus, in the case of a game without DRM, they would provide Store and Distribution services. I doubt (IANAL, should check with one) they had the (legal) power to stop you from using games that don't rely on their services beyond store/distribution. AFAIK, when you buy the game you accept the EULA, which is basically a contract between you and the IP holder for that game (which isn't steam/valve, unless Valve games). When you accept TOS of Valve, what you get access is to the Store and Distribution. I don't think (but again, IANAL) that they can break the second contract you made with the company (which allows you to use the game). Thus, you lose access to their services but not DRM-free games. At least the way they interpret it.
If it is the way you say... (which may not be. Posting AC + no proof + internet? Can I have the salt, please?), then it is not good.
Valve could probably improve Steam in that way... I don't think, however, most Steam users are the type to care much about that. And those that DO care probably will enjoy the experience from other stores like GOG and Humble bundle (I don't think they are selling games with DRM in their store, although the occasional bundles does have DRM, and they are clearly labeled as such). Of course, there is the matter that some people may not care because they don't know, and it'd be nice if Steam mentioned/allowed filtering of DRM-free games to at least catch the eye, but I don't blame for not having it.
I fail to see how I'm perpetuating "the confusion". Please enlighten me how explaining that Steam is a distribution platform that offers both games with and without DRM causes confusion. Furthermore, explain to me how are you tied to Valve any more than you are tied to say your CD or that CD-Key you mustn't lose if you want to reinstall your game (in the case of games with DRM), or GOG for re-download (in the case of DRM-free games), which you don't need at all unless you failed to back up the installer?
Furthermore, tell me how you lose any power to run the software you've purchased if you only buy DRM-free games (even if it is from steam, since it is, after all, just a store and distribution service)? Because you will obviously lose power if you buy games with DRM, no matter where you buy them... or how, for that matter.
Once people get it right that steamworks is the part that is DRM and steam is a distribution service and a store... I mean. There are some games that have no DRM at all and after you download them you can use them for whatever. But nooo, a distribution service requiring you to log in is DRM (never mind that GOG also requires you to log in for first download, and they get praised as DRM-free). /rant
You'd be surprised how many have "gamer rage" in sports. It isn't just for video games. It is simply them not managing their emotions (or deciding to let them run free).
It's not wikipedia, but wikimedia, which is much more than an encyclopedia. Wikimedia is closer to a library than to an encyclopedia. Wikimedia contains wikipedia, though, if I were to insist on that comparison.
Yes. Tablets, smartphones are taking over a lot of the task we used to do on the PC. It's shrinking. Nowadays you don't need a PC unless you plan to play games in it, or do some sort of work that the current mobile (and no, I don't mean laptops) computing platforms can't do. I plan on keeping my PC upgraded. I'd leap to having a server in my house if money wasn't an issue. But that's me. I am an exception to the rule. I feel more at home sitting in front of my PC than inside my room (a recent acquisition too, since before I used to share a room in which I basically just slept). I can't see myself using a smartphone to see videos (who'd want to see anything in that tiny screen?!). To me, all my devices should be an extension of the PC I'd have at home, keeping all the information and providing services to myself and those I care about.
Most people nowadays can make do with a smartphone and a tablet. Maybe add a stand and a keyboard if anything more demanding needs to be done (assuming they can just do it with the on-screen keyboard). So yes. You are right. the microcomputer market is dying. Personal Computers will now mean your tablet or your smartphone, or perhaps even your thin client, not your microcomputer at home. Not the microcomputer I'm writing this from. At least not to many people.
And yes, the switch from PC to microcomputers is intentional.
Money would be an easy solution. Information (since that's ever so valuable) would be a good choice too. Territory could be another one (although I'm not entirely sure I'd be in favor of this one). Percentage of production. Rights to exploit minerals. Things like that.
On the other hand it's probably better than to be the one who has to hope that however is writing the algorithms is good enough. At least you have some sort of knowledge about how well it was written.
... Or, you know, instead of being in a shitty situation either way, we could look for other ways, such as strong legislation against the use of these weapons in any other kind of scenario but an internationally recognized war.
I think people tend to forget that the /. tends to be rather... not the common folk. For example, I wouldn't trust my phone to do some video rendering of some 3D scene, not in any reasonable timeframe nor without burning itself. I'd also wouldn't trust my phone with having enough space for the files usually needed in that kind of thing. I could probably trust my phone with compiling some kind of project, but battery life would be too short (unless it's plugged in... but...). I certainly wouldn't expect my phone to handle complex editing of large images (or high resolution images, I guess). Nor would I probably want it to play the latest benchmark game (it used to be crysis, I don't know what it is now. I think crysis 3? BF3/4? I forget) at the highest quality settings at who knows what resolution.
However, I can certainly replace a lot of the computational devices for those who don't need/want/use the extra power a desktop generally gives when compared to smartphones. And that's alright. People just seem to forget that their use case is usually not of... can I say the masses and not sound elitist? Anyway, I think I made my point.
Some child comment made me wonder: jail time and what? I mean, I have the idea that some crimes may result in you being forbidden from interacting with certain things/people. It might not have been jail time, but that the crime would be permanently recorded (which can be a stigma) and in his case being forbidden from interacting with computers (I assume there need to be exceptions for this, otherwise you might be unable to get a large part of the jobs simply because you wouldn't be able to use a computer). Perhaps the thought of life after prison under the conditions that he would have had to live in, added with the stress from the situation... Perhaps... perhaps it was everything and no specific thing?
I mean... imagine you were a painter (you know, one of those that feel the need to paint because that's how they express themselves, their thing?) and somebody told you that from now on you can't paint. Of course, I don't know what would have been his sentence anyway, so I'm just speculating.
That's an interesting idea. I think we forget that google (or any company willing to take these technologies right now) have the best(as in most capable) minds in their hands. And while it's true that we should never forget that there is a thing called stupidity, it wouldn't do any harm to go for a what-if. After all, this could certainly be the point where we define just how the technology is going to grow and how is it going to enter our lives, with small adjustments afterwards. Changing course afterwards will be an uphill battle, while people are still thinking and have only just begun to take sides on this issue.
So, if anybody wanted companies to move somewhere else, they would need, for example, cheaper house/office cost. They move there, and let's for a second assume it's a successful company and it's employees win above 100k/year at least (which isn't all that bad). All is good, a single company won't raise the prices too much and might be good for the local economy. BUT, other startups also see that living there is cheap. Plus, that other company is already there, so they could probably benefit. More set up there. Eventually, more successful companies will live in that area and it will probably be no longer as cheap, considering that there is now a "large" group with a lot of money. While a company or two settling there might have been good, eventually you have a cluster that causes the cost of living around it.
I'm only looking at a few variables, but it makes sense. The already established townsfolk could end up living worse because they prices increased (I'm assuming that local population is not enough to supply the demand for workers).
Now, if the company instead went to a un-populated area, and in a joint effort with... I don't know who, really, but... if it settled in an area with little to no population, provided housing, infrastructure and services to the workers and their family (who will move in, since there is no local population), population distribution could change. There is the issue, however, of the added cost to provide the infrastructure and services, which somebody would need to shoulder. There should be, however increased quality of life (less people -> less cars, etc). I seem to recall that in the past some companies did this very thing.
I think that there could be incentives to go to less populated places (improve infrastructure there, such as high-speed internet access) and perhaps some kind of tax to settle in a place where there already are a lot of companies that serve the same workforce (ie you wouldn't have google, facebook, yahoo and microsoft at the same place). Spread the population distribution. I'm not sure, however, just how far we can go with alleviating this issue.
or moving people (and, more to the point, their employers) elsewhere.
What would be the cost of moving these companies (or stopping them from settling there in the first place) somewhere else? And who should shoulder the cost? And why?
I might have missed your point.
They way I see this is the result of different choices taken early in life. Sure, google could have built somewhere else (would they, considering economical factors?) and avoided driving the prices up. But the inequality wouldn't have gone away. And the inequality is, well, the result of different people taking different choices throughout life that results in different income which leads to: inequality.
I'm not saying I wouldn't like it if those people could retain their houses (and, oh, if possible I'd like it if everyone could live "well", with no homeless nor hungry people, but that's a dream so far). But all I see is a group of people being mad because the system worked correctly. Angered at the people inside the bus who are not at fault.
It's the difference between, say, notch (who had an idea a lot of people loved and executed it well enough) vs some other indie devs who never manage to make a living out of their games (despite the ideas being rather good and entertaining, but simply didn't reach their audience or don't appeal to many). Ideas, execution, exposure. Different ideas, different execution, different outcomes. Different lifestyles.
I thought that Google employees all payed for the rides, lunches and all with their work. After all, the money to pay all that has to come from somewhere, which is the result of their work (ie: the income produced by people using their products). And if they were not as successful, they would not have any of that.
Another issue with perfect drums is that it may get annoying. Just like listening to the same sound over and over again.
I wonder, however, if Buddy Rich could ... (let's call it) sequence one of his solos. I don't think the synth can't reproduce his solos, but that nobody who uses a synth knows how to ever get close to it, and whoever would know how just does it in the drums because they like it better.
That is not to say that so far an electronic may not be able to just go and play an unscripted solo that sounds good, of course. We are not there, yet.
Even with fast internet access that seems like a sensible thing to do. Sure, if I have nothing to do I might be okay with waiting for that download, but otherwise just let it run in the background. Preferably without disturbing everything else (such as video streaming, voip calls, gaming, timely communication with remote server, etc).
It seems something that could be dealt with through healthcare. I recall there being this thing called anger management that is supposed to help you not go ballistic. Probably related with the whole "learn how to deal with your emotions" and "learn how to work under stress" which you will probably need later in your life but nobody bothers to teach until you already showed a few cracks here and there (went ballistic at school/somewhere else public, or have bad health due to stress caused by work).
I do know that guns are pretty much "grab and use" vs a bomb. But I don't worry about the impulsive ones. There are tools at our disposal to we can use today to reduce those situations. Since parents can't be bothered to raise their children anymore*, we could have a time at school exactly geared towards teaching kids this kind of thing as part of the obligatory curriculum. Right now you only get attention if you show signs that you need attention and, again, those are the easy ones. Because we can see them and help them.
I worry about those that think about it, those that don't show it. Because those are the ones that wouldn't get attention even if all the other cases were, in fact, helped.
By now you can probably tell my issue isn't with a few restrictions on guns (requiring a license is good, along with a psychological evaluation so we don't just give them to serial killers happily. I also agree with a seven day period between buying/ordering a firearm and getting it). My issue is that people thinking about banning guns seem to forget that we could be doing something else entirely that would not only be useful to reduce these events, but improve the lives of many children out there who could probably use a hand but would never fire a gun towards others.